Division officials presented a detailed fiscal review of the state’s Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) restricted account at the Nov. 24 meeting of the Utah Division of Outdoor Recreation Off Highway Vehicle Advisory Council, showing roughly $12 million in receipts across FY2023–2025 and highlighting both appropriated and uncommitted balances.

Jason Curry, division director, said the presentation was intended to clarify how money flows into and out of the account and explained the working distinction between “dedicated” funds—legislatively appropriated line items such as specific trail-crew or position funding—and “nondedicated” funds that can cover shared personnel, DTS fees and discretionary purchases. “The state budgeting state finance process can be just confusing,” Curry said while walking the council through fund categories and recent appropriations.

Staff showed revenue streams that include registrations, a fuel tax and out-of-state fees and estimated that, after appropriations and base-budget commitments, about $8 million remained uncommitted for grants or new projects. Rachel Toker, who presented the breakout, said FY2025 spending for law enforcement was budgeted at about $3.3 million but actual FY2025 spending was closer to $2.2 million, including wages, travel, vehicle maintenance and equipment purchases such as two motorcycles and six trailers.

Public commenters and council members pressed staff on how much of the account is being used for law-enforcement purposes. Cliff, a former council member, traced the law-enforcement share back to changes after HB 143 and said the OHV-restricted account’s apparent allocation to law enforcement rose from historically low percentages to higher shares in recent years. “That did ramp up in 2023,” Cliff said in public comment, citing rises to 12% and 16% in previous years and a budgeted 26% for 2025 that ultimately spent at 17%.

Brett (council/public) asked for more transparency and for Jason to share budget spreadsheets before they are finalized for the legislature. Curry said the increase in law-enforcement charging is tied in part to an agency reorganization that merged state-park rangers and recreation rangers into a single division; that change raised the portion of costs labeled as law-enforcement without necessarily adding new personnel. “When state parks rangers and recreation rangers all went into one agency … they way overestimated the amount of money they were going to put into law enforcement,” Curry said, adding that the division must now account for the resulting budget differences.

Wade, OHV program manager, and other staff said they are tracking grooming and trail-crew costs closely and that the division will continue to provide more detailed reports and a year-end program evaluation following the close of the fiscal year. Curry also told the council a legislative audit is expected in the coming session, which staff expect will produce additional clarity.

What’s next: Staff said they will continue to refine reporting and supply the council with requested spreadsheets and regional breakdowns; a legislative audit is anticipated to further examine fund use and accounting.

Actions: The only formal votes recorded in the transcript during this meeting were procedural (approval of prior minutes and adjournment); the presentation itself produced no formal allocations or policy votes.