Activities Supporting Recreational Boating in Washington Final Report

Activities SupportingRecreational Boating

in WashingtonNational Association of State Boating Law

Administrators Spring WorkshopMarch 3, 2011Fara Daun, JD

Joint Legislative Audit & Review Committee

March 3, 2011

Presentation Overview

• Background about JLARC, this study, and Washington

• The 50-State Survey• New information about state recreational

boating in Washington with comparisons among 33 states−Activities−Revenues & Expenditures−Structure of State Recreational Boating Activities

State Activities Supporting Recreational Boating in WA 2

March 3, 2011

Washington is Rich in Both Marine and Inland Waters


With more than 264,000 registered recreational vessels, Washington ranks 19th in the US

Report Page 1

March 3, 2011

Who Is JLARC?

• The Joint Legislative Audit & Review Committee (JLARC) is a joint (bicameral), bi-partisan committee of 16 legislators.− Joint Committee equally divided between House and

Senate Legislators− Bi-partisan—There is no majority on the committee− Governed by statute and an Executive Committee

• Staffed by the Legislative Auditor and a professional nonpartisan staff


March 3, 2011

What Does JLARC Do?

• Fundamentally, we answer questions for the Legislature

• The reports we issue may have many different titles − E.g., assessments, evaluations, sunset reviews, analyses,

studies, audits

• However, ALL assignments are conducted using a performance auditing process− The most important thing about performance auditing is

the process used to answer questions and make conclusions about those answers


March 3, 2011

Why Is That Important?

• JLARC must adhere to Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS)− Work must be objective and independent − Findings must be based on evidence − Conclusions must be tied to criteria

• Agencies do a confidential “technical review” • Agencies also submit a formal written response

that is included in final report• Report is confidential until presented to JLARC• Legislators cannot change the report results

outcomeState Activities Supporting Recreational Boating in WA 6

March 3, 2011

Why This Study?

• Advocates asked the Legislature for a very large study and the fiscal note was too high

• JLARC was asked to cover what Legislators saw as the main issues within our regular budget

• Advocates raised two main issues with JLARC− Wanted the “Oregon model” (but had misunderstandings

about what that meant)− Believed that all boating-related revenue should be used

for boating and did not believe they were receiving any benefits from dollars deposited to the state general fund.


March 3, 2011State Activities Supporting Recreational Boating in WA 8

Study Examines the 2007-09 Biennium and Answers 4 Questions

1. What state activities support recreational boating?

2. What are the revenue sources and expenditures for state recreational boating activities?

3. What is the organizational structure of state recreational boating activities in Washington?

4. How does Washington’s approach to funding and organizational structure compare to the approaches other states have taken?

March 3, 2011

National Survey Provided Basis for Comparing Washington and Other States


Activities

Organization

Registration

Funding

Report Page 17

March 3, 2011

JLARC Received Survey Responses from 33 States


WA

OR

CA

MT

NV

IDWY

AZ

UT

OK

KSCO

NE

SDMN

ND

LA

AR

MO

IA

TX

NM

WVKY

INOH

IL

MIWI

NC

SC

FL

GAALMS

TN

VA

PA

NYRI

MA

NHVT ME

DE

CT

MD

AK

HI

Source: JLARC survey of state boating administrators.

Response receivedNo response received

Report Page 17

What Are State Recreational Boating Activities?

March 3, 2011

What Is a State Recreational Boating Activity?

• In Washington:−No definition in statute−No definition in administrative rule−Bigger than the US Coast Guard contract

• How would you approach developing a comprehensive list of state recreational boating activities in your state?

State Activities Supporting Recreational Boating in WA 12Report Pages 3-4

March 3, 2011

JLARC Developed a 2-Part Test

1.Is the activity a STATE Activity?• Is the activity administered or operated by at

least one state agency?• Is it funded with state funds?• Do non-state dollars have to pass through a

state agency?• Does federal law require state oversight or

other state involvement?2.Is the activity PRIMARILY concerned with

RECREATIONAL boating?


March 3, 2011

Boating Activities Fall into Four Categories


Boater Safety & Education

Marine Law Enforcement

Infrastructure & Access

Environmental Boating

State owned or operated:• Marine or aquatic parks• Marinas• Boat launches, moorage floats,

docks, and buoys

Grants for:• Water access for motorized and

hand-launch boats• Buoys, floats, docks, and marinas


• Boating safety activities PLUS • Marine law enforcement emphasis

patrols for:─ Boating under the influence─ Life-jacket or personal flotation

device compliance• Accident investigation• Search and rescue


• Aquatic invasive species prevention• Aquatic invasive species enforcement• Sewage and bilge pump-outs, floating

restrooms, or other sanitary facilities• Clean Vessel Act programs• Clean Marina programs• Derelict vessel removal programs• Derelict gear removal programs• Oil and fuel spill

prevention/education programs• Marine fire prevention programs

Environmental Boating

• Vessel registration system• Recreational boating accident

reporting• Boater safety education courses• Navigation aids• Vessel safety inspections• Other boating safety or boater

education programs


Report Pages 4-6

March 3, 2011

States Averaged 18 State Recreational Boating Activities


WA

OR

CA

MT

NV

IDWY

AZ

UT

OK

KSCO

NE

SD

MN

ND

LA

AR

MO

IA

TX

NM

WVKY

INOH

IL

MIWI

NC

SC

FL

GAALMS

TN

VA

PA

NYRI

MA

NHVT ME

DE

CT

MD

AK

HI

NJ

9 - 1516 - 2021 - 30

March 3, 2011

Percentage of Boating Activities for Which the BLA is Responsible


WA

OR

CA

MT

NV

IDWY

AZ

UT

OK

KSCO

NE

SD

MN

ND

LA

AR

MO

IA

TX

NM

WVKY

INOH

IL

MIWI

NC

SC

FL

GAALMS

TN

VA

PA

NYRI

MA

NHVT ME

DE

CT

MD

AK

HI

NJ

5% - 42%43% - 62%63% - 100%

What are Boating-Related Revenues?

March 3, 2011

What Are Boating-Related Revenues?

• In Washington:−No definition in statute−No definition in administrative rule−Immediately apparent that there were many

sources of revenue being used for boating

• How would you approach identifying boating-related revenues in your state?


March 3, 2011

JLARC Developed Criteria Tied to the Boat and the Boater

• JLARC identified revenue as “boating-related” if it was related to a recreational vessel’s

−Ownership−Sale−Transfer−Use

• Excluded “generally-applicable” revenues from calculations

−Sales & Use Tax−Business & Occupations Tax

State Activities Supporting Recreational Boating in WA 19Report Page 7

March 3, 2011

States Averaged 12.6 Sources of Boating-Related Revenue


WA

OR

CA

MT

NV

IDWY

AZ

UT

OK

KSCO

NE

SD

MN

ND

LA

AR

MO

IA

TX

NM

WVKY

INOH

IL

MIWI

NC

SC

FL

GAALMS

TN

VA

PA

NYRI

MA

NHVT ME

DE

CT

MD

AK

HI

NJ

WA

4 - 1011 - 1415 - 2130

Report Page 19-21

March 3, 2011

14 States Receive General Fund $Boating $ Go to General Fund in 25 States


WA

OR

CA

MT

NV

IDWY

AZ

UT

OK

KSCO

NE

SD

MN

ND

LA

AR

MO

IA

TX

NM

WVKY

INOH

IL

MIWI

NC

SC

FL

GAALMS

TN

VA

PA

NYRI

MA

NHVT ME

DE

CT

MD

AK

HI

NJ

$ from GF - yes$ from GF - noRev to GF

Report Page 21

March 3, 2011

Revenues and Expenditures Go To and Come from Different “Funds”


Revenue Source #1Revenue Source #2



Revenue Source #6

General Fund

General Expense #1General Expense #2

General Expense #3General Expense #4

Restricted Expense #1Restricted Expense #2

Restricted Expense #3

Dedicated Expense #1

Restricted Fund #1

Dedicated Fund #2

March 3, 2011

$70.9 Million of Boating Revenue from 30 Sources Was Deposited to 14 Funds


$5,366 General Fund-Federal$4,607 Derelict Vessel Removal Acct

$2,067 Parks Recreation & Stewardship Acct (PRSA)$1,403 Freshwater Aquatic Weeds Acct$1,227 Aquatic Lands Enhancement Acct (ALEA)$1,004 Resource Management Cost Acct

$550 Freshwater Aquatic Algae Control Acct$300 Boater Safety Certification Fee Acct

$275 Aquatic Invasive Species Enforcement Acct

$826 Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention Acct

$286 Wildlife Acct-State

($13)Marine Fuel Tax Refund Acct

General Fund-State $41,632 Recreation Resources Acct $11,351

Washington2007-09 Total: $70.9 M

($ in Thousands)Report Pages 8-9

March 3, 2011

WA

States With More Activities Are Likely to Have More Boating-Related Revenue Sources


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

OK

MT

ND IN NB VT ME

NH RI AK VA SD WI IA NJ NC NY UT M

D ID AR KS KT MO CT TX FL AL OR

NM OH CA WA

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

OK

MT

ND IN NB VT ME

NH RI AK VA SD WI IA NJ

NC NY

UT

MD ID AR KS KT MO CT TX FL AL OR

NM OH CA WA

Recreational Boating Activities

Num

ber o

f Act

iviti

es a

nd S

ourc

es

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

OK

MT

ND IN NB VT ME

NH RI AK VA SD WI IA NJ NC NY UT M

D ID AR KS KT MO CT TX FL AL OR

NM OH CA WA

Boating-Related Revenue Sources

Report Page 22

In 2007-09, Washington Spent $54 Million on State Recreational Boating Activities

March 3, 2011

Boating-Related Revenues Support Most Recreational Boating Expenditures


Source: JLARC analysis of LEAP and agency financial data.

Report Pages 10-12

March 3, 2011

Most Recreational Boating Expenditures Are for Infrastructure and Access


($ in Millions)


$2.9 M5%


$9.5 M

18%


$30.0 M

56%

Environment$11.6 M

21%

Total: $54.0 MSource: JLARC analysis of LEAP and agency financial data.

Report Page 11

Challenges in Looking at the Fiscal Data


Challenging to Make Meaningful Funding Comparisons Between States

• States using the same revenue sources to support boating may look very different

• 17 of 33 responding states receive no General Fund dollars

• Same revenue sources may be deposited to different kinds of accounts in different states−State’s General Fund−Funds dedicated to boating

• Some boating-related revenues may be distributed directly to local government

Report Page 21


There Are Limitations on the Fiscal Data

• We could not collect accurate, comprehensive expenditure data across states

• As expected, survey respondents appeared to know more about the sources of revenue than the types of funds into which they were deposited−Terminology is not the same from state to state−BLA is usually not a fiscal analyst position

Report Page 21

How Are State Recreational Boating Programs Structured and Organized?

March 3, 2011

Survey Examined Agency Type and Centralization

• JLARC asked each state to identify the lead agency for recreational boating

• Each state identified the agency that housed their State Boating Law Administrator as the Lead Agency

• Some Lead Agencies were “multi-type” agencies−Authority in a multi-type agency covered at least

3 areas

State Activities Supporting Recreational Boating in WA 32Report Page 23, Appendix 9

March 3, 2011

Single Agency States Identified Only 1 Agency with Boating Responsibilities


WA

OR

CA

MT

NV

IDWY

AZ

UT

OK

KSCO

NE

SD

MN

ND

LA

AR

MO

IA

TX

NM

WVKY

INOH

IL

MIWI

NC

SC

FL

GAALMS

TN

VA

PA

NYRI

MA

NHVT ME

DE

CT

MD

AK

HI

NJ

Multi-Type Agencies

Report Page 24, Appendix 9

March 3, 2011

Moderately Centralized StatesIdentified 2 – 4 Agencies


WA

OR

CA

MT

NV

IDWY

AZ

UT

OK

KSCO

NE

SD

MN

ND

LA

AR

MO

IA

TX

NM

WVKY

INOH

IL

MIWI

NC

SC

FL

GAALMS

TN

VA

PA

NYRI

MA

NHVT ME

DE

CT

MD

AK

HI

NJ

Multi-Type Agencies


March 3, 2011

Decentralized StatesIdentified 5 or More Agencies


WA

OR

CA

MT

NV

IDWY

AZ

UT

OK

KSCO

NE

SD

MN

ND

LA

AR

MO

IA

TX

NM

WVKY

INOH

IL

MIWI

NC

SC

FL

GAALMS

TN

VA

PA

NYRI

MA

NHVT ME

DE

CT

MD

AK

HI

NJ


March 3, 2011

No Correlation Between Organization Style and Activities or Revenue Sources• JLARC analyzed whether there was a

relationship between how centralized a program was and:−How many activities it engaged in−How many revenue sources it reported

• JLARC found no relationship


March 3, 2011

What Kind of Office Houses the Boating Law Administrator?


WA

OR

CA

MT

NV

IDWY

AZ

UT

OK

KSCO

NE

SD

MN

ND

LA

AR

MO

IA

TX

NM

WVKY

INOH

IL

MIWI

NC

SC

FL

GAALMS

TN

VA

PA

NYRI

MA

NHVT ME

DE

CT

MD

AK

HI

NJ

Parks & RecreationLaw EnforcementBoatingOther


March 3, 2011

Boating Programs with Law Enforcement BLAs Differ From Other Programs

States where the Boating Law Administrator is housed in a law enforcement unit are less likely to engage in environmental or infrastructure and access activities. Consequently they may have a narrower scope of activities than other states


How Do StatesCoordinate on Cross-AgencyIssues?

March 3, 2011

Interagency Working Groups


WA

OR

CA

MT

NV

IDWY

AZ

UT

OK

KSCO

NE

SD

MN

ND

LA

AR

MO

IA

TX

NM

WVKY

INOH

IL

MIWI

NC

SC

FL

GAALMS

TN

VA

PA

NYRI

MA

NHVT ME

DE

CT

MD

AK

HI

NJ

1 group2 groups3 groups5 groups

Interagency Boating safety

Aquatic Invasive Species

Oil/Fuel Spill Sanitation

Report Page 25

Washington Is Less Centralized but Has More Interagency Coordination Than Most Other States

March 3, 2011

Seven State Agencies Are Involved in State Recreational Boating Activities


Note: Difference between sum and total due to rounding.

$956

$3

Parks & RecreationTotal: $26,289

Recreat. & Conserv. Total: $9,160

Fish & WildlifeTotal: $8,727

Natural ResourcesTotal: $6,540

EcologyTotal: $2,313

LicensingTotal: $956State Patrol

Total: $3

$788 $5,752

$2,845

$1,969

$6,606

$50

$15,434

$9,110

$4,659 $1,223

$2,313

Environment $11,571

Access & Infrastructure $29,991Marine Law Enforcement $ 9,501

Boater Safety & Education $ 2,925

Category Total

Grand Total $53,989

Source: JLARC analysis of LEAP and agency financial data.

$2,280

($ in Thousands)

Report Pages 13-14, Appendix 5

March 3, 2011

Washington’s Organizational Structure Includes Local Governments

Over $15 million in grants to local governments and organizations


Source: JLARC analysis of LEAP and agency financial data. 2007-09 Biennial Total: $15,011


$5,843

($ in Thousands)


$21

Infrastructure & Access$6,240

Environmental Boating$2,907

Report Pages 14-15, Appendix 3

March 3, 2011

State Agencies Collaborate on a Range of Boating Activities

• Agency Boating Committee (ABC)• Boating Safety Council• Invasive Species Council• Boating Programs Advisory Committee• Oil Spill Advisory Council (repealed 2010)• Pacific Oil Spill Prevention & Education Team• Clean Vessel Environmental Advisory

Committee

State Activities Supporting Recreational Boating in WA 44Report Pages 15-16, Appendix 8

March 3, 2011

ABC Committee Coordinates Across Four Agencies

• Staff-level committee created in response to the “Ross Report”−Recreation & Conservation Office−Parks & Recreation Commission−Department of Fish & Wildlife−Department of Natural Resources

• Focus is on statewide and cross-agency issues. Two examples are:−Currently developing Overwater Structures

Standards−boat.wa.gov website

State Activities Supporting Recreational Boating in WA 45Report Page 15, Appendix 8

http://www.boat.wa.gov/

March 3, 2011

Boat.wa.gov Provides Washington Boating Information in One Place


March 3, 2011

Final Thoughts

• In a decentralized structure, boating program gains experts, especially in highly technical areas, that it might not otherwise have because boating represents only a tiny piece of what they do

• Because boating is tied to all kinds of other, non-recreational, issues with complex requirements, revenues and expenditure tracking is always likely to be complex



Thank You

Contact:

Fara DaunJoint Legislative Audit & Review [email protected]

www.jlarc.leg.wa.gov