Jun 09, 2025 Air Pollution Control Board Regular Meeting: Budget Hearing

HOW MANY IN FIVE SECONDS. THAT'S RIGHT. GOOD MORNING.

[00:00:03]

IN ADDITION TO THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT, WE ALSO HAVE WITH US CEO DAVE RICKARD, COUNTY COUNSEL JOSEPH LARMOR, AND FROM THE CLERK OF THE BOARD, STEPHANIE BLANKENSHIP, MIRANDA ANGEL. AND IN THE FOYER, MARCY WINSTEAD.

WE ENCOURAGE THOSE WISHING TO PARTICIPATE IN PUBLIC COMMENT. FILL OUT A SPEAKER REQUEST CARD AND SUBMIT IT TO THE CLERK'S TABLE SET UP IN THE FOYER WITH MISS WINSTEAD.

SPEAKER REQUEST CARDS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CLERK BEFORE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EACH REGULAR ITEM BEGINS. AND WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE OVER TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

OPEN TIME. MRS. BLANKENSHIP, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTERS? CHAIR, WE DO NOT. WE DO NOT.

WOW. WRITE THAT DOWN. ALRIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF ANYBODY WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION.

[Consent Calendar]

I FORGET. ARE WE. ARE WE COUNCIL. ARE WE? MEMBERS. MEMBER MUNNS.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY MEMBER MUNNS.

SECONDED BY MEMBER LONG.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.

ALRIGHT, MOVING ON TO R ONE, MR.

[R1: Take the following actions: (1) Conduct a public hearing; and (2) adopt a resolution, effective July 1, 2025, which: (a) amends District Rule 2:11, Fees, implementing fee increases effective July 1, 2025, January 1, 2026, and January 1, 2027; (b) finds that the proposed resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15273; and (c) find that based on District’s written analysis prepared in accordance with California Health & Safety Code (HSC) Section 40727.2, the amendments to District Rule 2:11 meet the statutory requirements of Section 40727 of the HSC with respect to necessity, authority, clarity, consistency, non-duplication, and reference.]

I WAS PREFERRING YOU, ROB, ANYWAY.

SHAWN'S OVERRATED. ALL RIGHT.

READY? ALL YOURS. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR CRYE.

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. I'M ROB STAAL, AIR QUALITY DISTRICT MANAGER.

HERE TO DISCUSS ITEM R1.

WE DON'T HAVE SLIDES. THAT'S FOR THE NEXT PRESENTATION.

WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS ITEM R1.

THE AMENDMENTS TO DISTRICT RULE 211.

IN THIS ITEM, WE ARE PROPOSING INCREASING THE ANNUAL PERMITTING FEES FOR STATIONARY SOURCES, THE OPEN BURN, PERMITTING FEES, AND A FEW ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES. THE STATIONARY SOURCE FEES FOR THE SHASTA COUNTY AQMD HAVE NOT CHANGED SINCE 1990. THAT'S 35 YEARS WITHOUT ADJUSTING OUR FEES TO COVER THE RISING COSTS.

CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, SECTION 41512.7 B LIMITS THE INCREASES ON FEES IN ANY CALENDAR YEAR TO 15% PER YEAR FOR DISTRICTS WITH BUDGETS OVER $1 MILLION, WHICH. THIS COVERS THE SHASTA COUNTY AQMD.

EVEN WITH THIS MAXIMUM INCREASE, THE RESTRICTION MEANS IT WILL TAKE MULTIPLE YEARS TO ALIGN THE FEES WITH THE CURRENT NEEDS.

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 211 ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING.

THE. FIRST, THE AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT FEE.

CURRENTLY, IT'S AT $75.

IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THIS WAS ORIGINALLY BASED ON TWO HOURS OF WORK AT 3750 AN HOUR.

OUR CURRENT HOURLY RATE, AN ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT HOURLY RATE INDICATE THAT THE HOURLY RATE SHOULD BE CLOSER, SHOULD BE AT $155 PER HOUR.

THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER DIVISIONS WITHIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.

PROCESSING AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT TYPICALLY TAKES BETWEEN 10 AND 12 HOURS.

THAT INCLUDES THE INITIAL ON SITE INSPECTION OF THE FACILITY.

RULE 211 DOES ALLOW ADDITIONAL HOURS BILLED AT THE HOURLY RATE.

NEXT, THE STATIONARY SOURCE FEES.

THIS YEAR'S PROJECTED REVENUES FROM THE STATIONARY SOURCE FEES WILL BE APPROXIMATELY $200,000, WHILE THE PROGRAM COSTS ARE CLOSER TO $319,000.

THAT 319 IS BASED ON THE THE BURDENED HOURLY RATE AND DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY OF THE INDIRECT COSTS, THE OVERHEAD TO, TO SIMPLIFY SOME OF THE RESOURCE RECOVERY FEES, WE'RE GOING TO BE COMBINING THE ABOVE AND BELOW GROUND FEES INTO JUST ONE FEE AND THEN ADDING US SOME MORE CATEGORIES TO INCLUDE LARGER FUELING STATIONS.

NEXT, THE INSIGNIFICANT EMISSION INVENTORY TRACKING FEE.

THE CURRENT ANNUAL FEE WAS OF $20, WAS ESTABLISHED TO TRACK THE EMISSIONS FROM SOURCES THAT HAVE BEEN CATEGORIZED, CATEGORIZED AS INSIGNIFICANT SUCH AS EMERGENCY BACKUP GENERATORS.

THERE HAVE BEEN NEW AIR RESOURCE BOARD REPORTING REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE INCREASED STAFF TIME TO APPROXIMATELY THREE HOURS PER SOURCE.

THE NEXT IS EMISSION TESTING.

DATA ANALYSIS. THE DISTRICT IS NO LONGER PROVIDES EMISSION TESTING TO THE FACILITIES.

WE PROPOSE REMOVING THE EMISSION TESTING TASK AND INCREASE THE FEE FOR WITNESSING AND FOR DATA ANALYSIS BY 15%. FOR THE OPEN BURN PERMITS, THE FEES ARE CURRENTLY TEN AND $25, DEPENDING ON THE PERMIT TYPE,

[00:05:03]

WE ALSO PROPOSE ADDING A BURN PILE INSPECTION FEE CHARGED AT THE HOURLY RATE.

WE'RE PROPOSING 315% INCREASES TO THE FEES IN RULE 211 STARTING JULY 2025, FOLLOWED BY JANUARY 2026 AND JANUARY 2027.

THIS WILL RESULT IN A CUMULATIVE INCREASE OF APPROXIMATELY 52% TO THE FEES.

TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE, IF THE FEES WOULD HAVE BEEN INCREASED ACCORDING TO THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FROM 1990 TO 2024, THE FEES WOULD HAVE GONE UP APPROXIMATELY 140%.

THESE FEES WILL LESSEN THE DEPENDENCY ON UTILIZING THE A, B 2766 FUNDS AND THE ASSESSMENTS TO THE JURISDICTIONS ON THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. WE WILL CONTINUE EVALUATING STATIONARY SOURCE FEES AND PROGRAM COSTS AND WILL MAKE ADJUSTMENTS ACCORDINGLY.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? MR. MUNNS? THE ONLY THING THAT STRUCK ME AS ODD WAS HOW DO WE ARRIVE AT THE $155 HOURLY RATE FROM 37? I MEAN, I REALIZE IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME.

WE LOOKED AT THE COST OF RUNNING THE PROGRAM OF THE DISTRICT, INCLUDING ALL OF THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT FEES OR COSTS ASSOCIATED TO THE DISTRICT.

$155 IS THE HOURLY RATE THAT THE EMPLOYEE WOULD THEORETICALLY GET.

WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, OR IS IT A COST OF RUNNING THE PROGRAM ITSELF? IT'S IT'S A COST OF RUNNING THE PROGRAM.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

I MISUNDERSTOOD. MEMBER LONG.

THANK YOU. CHAIR. CRYE OR MEMBER CRYE? YEAH, I DON'T KNOW. WHATEVER. IT'S FINE PERSON.

OKAY. SO AT THE 15% INCREASE THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET JULY 1ST JANUARY AND THEN THE FOLLOWING JANUARY 27TH, WHAT, WHAT'S THE PROJECTED TIME TO CATCH UP THE MILLION EIGHT THAT WE HEARD FROM MR. EWING LAST TIME THAT WE WERE SHORT? THAT WE'VE RUN THE DEFICIT, IS THAT A FAIR QUESTION FOR YOU OR WOULD THAT BE BETTER FOR SEAN? I THINK THAT WILL BE COVERED IN HIS PRESENTATION THAT HE'S GOING TO BE GIVING NEXT. OKAY, OKAY.

BUT IT WILL TAKE US SEVERAL YEARS TO GET COST RECOVERY FOR THIS PROGRAM.

I CAN SPEAK TO THAT REAL QUICK, REAL QUICK.

GOOD MORNING BOARD. AND THE BUDGET PRESENTATION, I'LL DISCUSS THAT BRIEFLY DISCUSSED THAT 1.8 MILLION DEFICIT THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED IN REGARDS TO UPDATING THE FEES AND INCREASING THEM TO WHERE THEY OUGHT TO BE.

WE'RE PROBABLY TALKING, YOU KNOW, 5 TO 10 YEARS TO GET THEM UP TO FULL COST RECOVERY FOR THOSE FOR THOSE PERMIT PERMIT COSTS TO WHERE IT KIND OF NEUTRALIZES OUT REVENUE. AND THE PURPOSE IS TO BE FULL COST RECOVERY FOR, YOU KNOW, THE SERVICES THAT WE PROVIDE.

SO FROM THE PERMITTING ASPECT, YOU KNOW, BEING LIMITED BY THE 15%, WE'RE TALKING PROBABLY AT LEAST 5 TO 10 YEARS BEFORE WE START.

WE'LL CONTINUE TO ASSESS IT EACH AND EVERY YEAR AS WE AS WE SHOULD.

BUT I'M JUST BALLPARK.

WE'RE TALKING 5 TO 10 YEARS.

AND WILL YOU SPEAK IN YOUR NEXT PRESENTATION ABOUT THE ACCESS OF THOSE RESTRICTED FUNDS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, WHICH WERE 1,000,009? ARE THE AVAILABILITY HAVE YOU MADE ANY PROGRESS ON THAT OR.

YES, YES. IN THE BUDGET PRESENTATION, I'LL BRIEFLY DISCUSS THAT.

BUT WE'LL ALSO BE BRINGING THAT BACK TO KIND OF PUT SOME CLOSURE ON THAT FOR THE NEXT BOARD MEETING ON THE ON THE 24TH.

SO I WILL SPEAK TO THAT.

EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. BUT. SEAN. BUT IF WE'RE VOTING ON R ONE AND THEN.

BUT THERE'S DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT R ONE THAT ARE GOING TO BE ANSWERED IN R TWO.

BUT YOU'D RATHER HEAR THEM NOW FOR SOME SOMEWHAT FOR R ONE.

SO. SO BASICALLY IF THERE'S A QUESTION AS FAR AS AB 2766 RESTRICTED FUNDS.

THAT'S THE ULTIMATE QUESTION IS COULD WE HAVE BEEN USING MORE.

AND THE ANSWER IS, IS YES.

AND SO WE, WE WILL RETROACTIVELY GOING TO BE TRYING TO PULL THOSE FORWARD.

YEAH. SO BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'LL BE LOOKING WE HAVE THE DOCUMENTATION IN PLACE. WE'LL BE WORKING WITH THE AUDITOR CONTROLLER TO DO FUND BALANCE TRANSFERS TO TO CORRECT THAT DEFICIT AND AND, AND BASICALLY REVISE OUR TIME ACCOUNTING PROCESS AS FAR AS WHAT DOES GET BUILT TO THAT FEE.

SO THE ANSWER IS, IS YES, WE COULD HAVE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN USING MORE. AND WE'LL REMEDY THAT MOVING FORWARD.

AND, AND WE'LL COME BACK, LIKE I SAID ON THE 24TH TO ACTUALLY EXPLAIN, IT'S BASICALLY JUST A PRESENTATION, NO VOTE ITEM TO EXPLAIN, YOU KNOW, THE POSITION ON THAT, BUT TO PUT IT TO REST,

[00:10:03]

SO THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT HOW LONG IS THE RECOVERY TIME? BECAUSE THEN WE CAN STILL ADJUST ON THE FLY IF THESE RESTRICTED FUNDS START COMING IN AND REDUCE THE LIABILITY. BUT IF YOUR GOAL IS TO GET TO A COST NEUTRAL BASIS 5 TO 10 YEARS OUT, THEN THAT'S GREAT. BUT MAKING UP THIS DEFICIT IS WHAT I'M KIND OF TRYING TO FIGURE IT ALL OUT, BUT THAT MAY BE MORE PERTINENT TO THE NEXT TOPIC THAN WHEN YOU DISCUSS THE BUDGET.

YEAH THAT'S CORRECT. AS FAR AS THE AB 2766, WE CAN DEFINITELY HAVE BEEN UTILIZING A MORE TO OFFSET SOME OF THE SOME OF THE PERMITTING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PERMITTING DEVICE PERMITTING. BUT BUT BUT WE'D LIKE TO SEE THOSE PERMIT FEES BEING INCREASED TO A LEVEL WHERE THEIR COST RECOVERY.

GOT IT. AND THEN THAT FREES UP THE A, B 2766 FOR OTHER, OTHER USES. PERFECT. THANK YOU.

SEAN WHEN YOU CAME IN THOUGH WITH THE PERMITS AND LIKE MAKING JUST GOVERNMENT MORE AND MORE EXPENSIVE. I MEAN, DO YOU DID YOU DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER WAYS TO GET THERE OTHER THAN JUST GOUGING TAXPAYERS WITH HIGHER FEES AND HIGHER COSTS? WELL, I THINK THE KEY THING IS, IS A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT SAT ON THIS BOARD BLEW IT FOR YEARS. AND I HATE THAT WE'RE JUST GOING TO NOW STICK IT AND PUT THAT ON THE BACKS OF PEOPLE AFTER 15 YEARS OF INCOMPETENCE.

WELL, THE WAY THAT I ACTUALLY LOOK AT IT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S TECHNICALLY THE CORRECT WAY TO SAY IT, BUT WE'VE ESSENTIALLY BEEN SUBSIDIZING THESE PERMITS FOR ALL THESE YEARS.

THE DISTRICT'S BEEN SUBSIDIZING THEM WITH OTHER FUNDS.

AND SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS THE FACT THAT THOSE THOSE FEES WERE BASED OFF OF AN HOURLY RATE OF AROUND $37.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE WELL BEYOND THAT.

AND SO THE QUESTION AS FAR AS THE 155.

BASICALLY, WE HAVE A WORKSHEET THAT WE LOOK AT WHERE WE LOOK AT DIRECT COST, AND THEN WE ALSO FACTOR IN THE OVERHEAD ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

SO SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE NOT CHARGING THE, THE APPLICANT OR THE FACILITY, THEN WE'RE SUBSIDIZING IT'S ONE OR THE OTHER. AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. AND OF COURSE, THERE'S ALWAYS, HOW CAN WE BE MORE EFFICIENT AND REDUCE THOSE COSTS? I MEAN, THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE ALWAYS LOOKING AT.

BUT IN THIS CASE, IT'S EITHER IT'S EITHER WE'RE SUBSIDIZING IT AS MEMBER JURISDICTIONS OR WE'RE, YOU KNOW, INCREASING THE, THE, THE FEES ON THE APPLICANT.

WE WON'T WE WON'T BE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE OVERCHARGING THEM.

IT'LL, IT'LL, IT'LL TAKE QUITE SOME TIME BEFORE WE GET TO A BREAK EVEN POINT.

YEAH. AS NOEL ALREADY LOOKED AT THAT 155, THAT COST, THAT COST STRUCTURE, THAT FORMULA.

SO BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW, WE'VE ALREADY HAD TWO DEPARTMENTS SET UP HERE AND TELL US THAT THEIR FEES ARE RIGHT AND THE PUBLIC DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND WHEN THE ROV OFFICE WAS OVERCHARGING 40, LIKE 48%, AND WE HAD TO REFUND MONEY TO TAXPAYERS.

I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THAT SITUATION HAPPEN, OF COURSE. SO WHAT WE WHAT WE BASE THAT OFF OF IS THE AUDITOR PROVIDES A WORKSHEET THAT DEPARTMENTS USE FOR THEIR VARIOUS BUDGET UNITS TO BE ABLE TO CALCULATE WHAT THAT HOURLY RATE SHOULD BE.

WE'RE ALWAYS LOOKING AT THAT AND TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S DIALED IN AS APPROPRIATELY AS IT SHOULD.

BECAUSE IF WE IF WE'RE TOO LOW, THEN WE'RE NOT RECOVERING COSTS AND WE'RE RELYING UPON THE GENERAL FUND.

BUT IF WE'RE TOO HIGH, WE'RE OVERCHARGING THE APPLICANT.

SO TRYING TO STRIKE THAT BALANCE AND MAKE SURE WE GET IT RIGHT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE ALWAYS STRIVING FOR. YEAH.

ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. SO I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. MISS BLANKENSHIP, IS ALL CORRESPONDENCE ON FILE OR RECORD WITH THE CLERK OF THE BOARD? YES, CHAIR. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? WE DO NOT. WE DO NOT. ALL RIGHT.

WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'LL BRING IT BACK FOR DISCUSSION.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING ELSE THEY'D LIKE? NO. OKAY. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION FOR US? I GUESS WE COULD TAKE THESE ALL AT ONCE. CORRECT. STEPHANIE. CORRECT. HOLD ON.

ALL RIGHT. SO MEMBER MUNNS.

APPROVES IT AS WRITTEN.

I'LL SECOND. OKAY. MEMBER HARMON.

SORRY I DIDN'T BRING THIS UP SOONER, BUT I ACTUALLY HAVE SEVERAL.

AIR QUALITY PERMITS, SO UNTIL I.

AND I SHOULD HAVE DONE THIS SOONER. F OR FP, I'M GOING TO GET A RULING FROM HIM TO MAKE SURE I'M NOT IN CONFLICT.

SO TODAY I'M GOING TO RECUSE MYSELF.

ALL RIGHT. JOE, DOES HE NEED TO STEP OUT? YEAH. YOU GOT TO GO GET THE BIG GET THE BIG CANE.

THEY PULL YOU OUT. YOU'RE OUT OF HERE.

[00:15:03]

I DON'T KNOW. AS LONG. AS LONG AS YOU DON'T. AS LONG AS YOU DON'T INTIMIDATE THE VOTERS.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE THAT VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE.

OPPOSED MYSELF? PASSES THREE ONE.

ALL RIGHT. COME ON UP, R2.

[R2: Conduct a public hearing to review the proposed Shasta County Air Quality Management District Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget.]

ALL RIGHT. R2, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW THE PROPOSED SHASTA COUNTY AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR. BUDGET 2526.

MR. EWING. COME ON UP, SIR.

ALL RIGHT, NOW WE HAVE THE PRESENTATION.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR CRYE, MEMBERS OF THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. SEAN EWING AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER.

I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT TO YOU THE REQUESTED BUDGET FOR THE SHASTA COUNTY AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2526, AND INTEND TO KEEP THE PRESENTATION FAIRLY BRIEF CONSIDERING THE RECENT PRESENTATION PROVIDED. ON MARCH 11TH, THE SHASTA COUNTY AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IS DEDICATED TO THE PROTECTION OF AIR QUALITY AND THE SAFEGUARD OF PUBLIC HEALTH FOR ALL OF SHASTA COUNTY THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS AND REGULATIONS, WHILE SUPPORTING ECONOMIC GROWTH AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS, THE DISTRICT IS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA CLEAN AIR ACT OF 1988 AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL CLEAN AIR ACT.

THE DISTRICT FUNCTIONS AS PROFESSIONAL STAFF TO THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REGARDING RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND POTENTIAL INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

DISTRICT STAFF ARE, I'M SORRY.

DISTRICT STAFF PROCESS COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS TO CONSTRUCT EMISSION CONTROL DEVICES AND ISSUES PERMITS TO OPERATE, WHICH ARE RENEWED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.

PERMITTING INCLUDES STATIONARY SOURCES OF AIR EMISSIONS, SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, VAPOR RECOVERY FOR FUEL STORAGE TANKS, COMMERCIAL BACKUP GENERATORS, AGGREGATE PLANTS, ASPHALT PLANTS, ETC.. DISTRICT STAFF IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR ISSUING OPEN BURNING PERMITS FOR AGRICULTURAL FOREST MANAGEMENT, LAND CLEARING AND HAZARD REDUCTION BURNING PROJECTS. THE DISTRICT ESTIMATES RELEASES OF AIR CONTAMINANTS AND MAINTAINS AN EMISSIONS INVENTORY TO TRACK EMISSIONS OF ALL PERMITTED DEVICES.

IT ALSO PROPOSES MITIGATION STRATEGIES WORKING COOPERATIVELY WITH THE AFFECTED EMISSION SOURCES, EVALUATES POTENTIAL HEALTH RISKS, AND ADOPTS AIR POLLUTION CONTROL MEASURES AND REGULATIONS THAT SEEK TO ATTAIN STATE AND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS.

THE DISTRICT OPERATES MONITORING DEVICES TO OBTAIN INFORMATION REGARDING CONCENTRATIONS OF PARTICULATE MATTER AND OZONE POLLUTANTS, OZONE AIR POLLUTANTS THAT MAY HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE HEALTH OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND MAY DAMAGE VEGETATION AND OTHER MATERIALS.

THE DISTRICT'S AMBIENT AIR MONITORING PROGRAM INCLUDES THE OPERATION OF FIVE FEDERALLY REGULATED MONITORS. THE MONITORING DATA IS USED TO DETERMINE IF THE EFFORTS OF THE AIR DISTRICT ARE EFFECTIVE IN ACHIEVING AND MAINTAINING STATE AND FEDERAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS, AS WELL AS THE ISSUE PUBLIC HEALTH ADVISORIES DURING WILDFIRES.

LONG RANGE PLANNING ACTIVITIES OF THE DISTRICT INCLUDE THE ADMINISTRATION OF INCENTIVE AND GRANT PROGRAMS AVAILABLE TO THE COMMUNITY TO HELP REDUCE EMISSIONS FROM NON-STATIONARY SOURCES, SUCH AS OFF ROAD EQUIPMENT AND AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT. THE OVERALL OBJECTIVE OF THE DISTRICT IS TO TAKE THE APPROPRIATE STEPS NECESSARY TO HELP IMPROVE THE AIR QUALITY OF OUR COUNTY FOR THE BENEFIT OF ITS CITIZENS.

THE DISTRICT IS PROPOSING TO DELETE ONE VACANT AIR POLLUTION INSPECTOR POSITION AS PART OF THE REQUESTED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2526.

THE DECISION WAS MADE AS PART OF THE EFFORT TO REDUCE THE GENERAL FUND CONTRIBUTIONS FROM SHASTA COUNTY AND CITY OF REDDING.

THIS LEAVES THE DISTRICT LEAVES THE DISTRICT MANAGER FOR AIR POLLUTION INSPECTORS AND ONE ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY FOR A TOTAL OF SIX POSITIONS.

ASIDE FROM THE PROPOSED DELETION OF ONE POSITION, DISTRICT STAFF STAFFING LEVELS HAVE REMAINED UNCHANGED FOR MANY YEARS.

THIS FISCAL YEAR, THERE HAVE BEEN 499 BURN PERMITS ISSUED, 47 NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS ISSUED, 65 NOTICE TO COMPLY ISSUED 52 WOOD SMOKE REDUCTION VOUCHERS ISSUED WORTH OVER $337,000.

AN ESTIMATED OF 575 INSPECTIONS PERFORMED 189 PRESCRIBED BURN REQUESTS PROCESSED, TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 6409 ACRES.

THE GOALS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2526 ARE TO REPLACE AGING AMBIENT AIR MONITORING EQUIPMENT THROUGH THE USE OF AN INFLATION REDUCTION ACT GRANT TO UPDATE THE NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY TRIENNIAL ATTAINMENT PLAN, AND TO EVALUATE THE FEASIBILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AN INCREASE OF MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEE FROM $3 TO $6 PER MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION.

THE INCREASE OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEE WILL BE ESSENTIAL IN

[00:20:02]

CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, SECTION 40701.5 MANDATES THAT EXPENSES OF A DISTRICT THAT ARE NOT MET BY OTHER FUNDING SOURCES ARE TO BE PROVIDED BY AN ANNUAL PER CAPITA ASSESSMENT ON THOSE CITIES THAT HAVE AGREED TO HAVE A MEMBER ON THE DISTRICT BOARD. ALTHOUGH THE POPULATION OF OF THE INCORPORATED CITIES OF SHASTA, LAKE AND ANDERSON ARE INCLUDED WITH THE COUNTY'S ASSESSMENT, THE CITY OF REDDING'S POPULATION AND CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT IS SLIGHTLY GREATER.

THE REQUESTED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2526 ASSESSMENTS ARE LOWER THAN THOSE THAT WERE NECESSARY FOR A BALANCED BUDGET OF THE ADOPTED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2425.

AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING, A PRESENTATION WAS PROVIDED REGARDING AN APPROXIMATE 1.8 MILLION DEFICIT IN THE DISTRICT'S GENERAL PURPOSE RESTRICTED FUND THAT ACCUMULATED OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS.

IT WAS DISCUSSED AT A WORST CASE SCENARIO WOULD REQUIRE ASSESSMENTS BE MADE TO THE MEMBER JURISDICTIONS FOR EACH FISCAL YEAR, GOING BACK TO FISCAL YEAR 20 1314.

DURING THAT PRESENTATION, IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT DISTRICT STAFF WOULD BE REVIEWING WHETHER OR NOT THE DISTRICT COULD HAVE HAD ADDITIONAL TIME ACCOUNTING THAT WOULD HAVE AUTHORIZED GREATER USE OF THE AYE B 2766 MOTOR VEHICLE CARRYOVER FUNDS. DISTRICT STAFF HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THE ADDITIONAL TIME ACCOUNTING TOWARDS A B 2766 CARRYOVER FUNDS SHOULD HAVE OCCURRED, AND WE WILL BE WORKING WITH THE AUDITOR CONTROLLER TO COMPLETE THE NECESSARY FUND BALANCE TRANSFER TO RESOLVE THE DEFICIT.

A PRESENTATION WILL BE PROVIDED AT THE JUNE 24TH MEETING TO FURTHER EXPLAIN AND PROVIDE CLOSURE ON THIS MATTER.

THE ADDITIONAL USE OF THE AYE B 2766 CARRYOVER FUNDS WILL AVOID BACK ASSESSMENTS, BUT WILL ESSENTIALLY DEPLETE THESE FUNDS THAT HAVE BEEN CARRIED OVER FOR MANY YEARS.

IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THE DISTRICT WILL CONTINUE TO EXPAND ALL A B 2766 FUNDS EARNED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, WHERE IT IS UNLIKELY ANY CARRYOVER WOULD OCCUR.

MOVING FORWARD, ASSESSMENT TO THE MEMBER JURISDICTIONS WILL STILL BE NECESSARY FOR 2420. FISCAL YEAR 2425 AND AS PART OF THE REQUESTED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2526.

AS NOTED IN THIS SLIDE, ASSESSMENTS WILL CONTINUE TO BE.

ASSESSMENTS WILL CONTINUE TO BE NECESSARY IN FUTURE BUDGET REQUESTS UNLESS THE DISTRICT IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH AN ADDITIONAL SOURCE OF FUNDING.

AS NOTED IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, DISTRICT STAFF IS LOOKING INTO INCREASING THE MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEE THAT HAS NOT BEEN INCREASED FOR OVER 30 YEARS.

AN INCREASE, IF APPROVED, WOULD REDUCE THE REDUCE AND POSSIBLY ELIMINATE ASSESSMENTS FOR A PERIOD OF TIME MOVING FORWARD.

THIS MATTER IS ANTICIPATED TO BE BROUGHT TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION IN THE FALL.

THE DISTRICT ALSO RECEIVES FUNDING FROM THE STATE AND U.S.

EPA THROUGH VARIOUS GRANTS.

MANY OF THE GRANTS ARE FOCUSED ON HELPING TO ASSIST SHASTA COUNTY RESIDENTS WITH THE COST OF REPLACING OLD AND OUTDATED MOBILE SOURCES, SUCH AS OFF ROAD AND AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT.

THESE MOBILE DEVICES ARE OTHERWISE NOT REGULATED YET HAVE AN IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY OF THE COUNTY. AS PART OF THESE GRANTS, THE DISTRICT RECEIVES FUNDING TO OVERSEE AND ADMINISTER THE PROGRAMS. THESE GRANTS, ALONG WITH OTHERS, HELP TO OFFSET SOME OF THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DISTRICT'S EFFORT TO ACHIEVE STATE AND FEDERAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS.

DISTRICT STAFF IS CONTINUING TO LOOK AT THE VARIOUS FUNCTIONS AND PROGRAMS OF THE DISTRICT TO IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES TO SAVE COST AND REDUCE FUTURE ASSESSMENTS.

TO THE MEMBER JURISDICTIONS.

THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ALLOWING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT TO YOU THE REQUESTED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2526, AND I'M PREPARED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE OPEN HEARING? NO. ALL RIGHT. OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING, MISS BLANKENSHIP, IS ALL CORRESPONDENCE ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE BOARD. YES, CHAIR. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME? WE DO NOT. WE DO NOT. ALL RIGHT.

WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. RIGHT ON CUE AT THE BELL.

MEMBER LONG. THANK YOU.

CHAIR CRYE. SO WE ARE WE START BUDGET HEARINGS TOMORROW AND THROUGH.

SO, ARE YOU LOOKING FOR A VOTE ON THE AIR QUALITY BUDGET? WE CAN'T REALLY DO THAT, IN MY OPINION, UNTIL WE APPROVE THE BUDGET TOMORROW. WE WE'RE OPENING THE AIR QUALITY THE AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT BUDGET HEARING IS IS OPEN TODAY.

AND WE'LL, IT'LL BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ON THE 24TH.

SO THIS IS SEPARATE FROM THE COUNTY'S.

OKAY. OKAY. SEAN HAVE, HAVE YOU HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH CITY OF REDDING ABOUT THIS PROPOSED BUDGET? I MEAN, WHO ARE YOU WORKING WITH OVER THERE? NO, I HAVE NOT. I, I REACHED OUT TO MIKE ON FRIDAY.

MIKE LITTAU AND AND LET THEM KNOW THAT I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING

[00:25:04]

OKAY. MIKE'S OUT OF TOWN.

YEAH, NO, BARRY'S BEEN DOING SOME ANALYSIS AND REVIEW.

YEAH. WELL, JOE JOKINGLY, I DON'T KNOW WHY I WAS TEXTING MIKE BACK AND FORTH. IF HE WASN'T GOING TO BE HERE. I JUST WOULD HAVE TOLD AARON. SO. MIKE.

ANYWAY. OKAY. MY, MY, MY NUMBER ONE PRIORITY WAS OBVIOUSLY TO GET A BALANCED BUDGET BEFORE THE BOARD, BUT THEN ALSO TO LOOK AT THOSE BACK ASSESSMENTS BECAUSE THAT'S A BIG, BIG COMPONENT OF, OF, OF YOUR DECISION. YEAH.

AND I, AND I APPRECIATE HOW YOU'VE DELINEATED ONE AND TWO AND HOW YOU'VE, I JUST, I MEAN, I SPENT MORE TIME WITH YOU LAST WEEK, SO I JUST APPRECIATE IT.

SO I'LL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE R-2 AS WRITTEN. I'LL SECOND.

OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? CLARK, ARE YOU OUT OF HERE? MY QUESTION.

DON'T ASK ME. SO? SO THIS ITEM IS FOR AN OVERALL BUDGET FOR FOR THE DEPARTMENT, NOT NOT THE SPECIFIC ITEM THAT R1 WAS.

SO THAT'S JUST A LAWYER SPEAK.

HE DOESN'T WANT TO GIVE YOU AN ANSWER EITHER. LET'S BE HONEST.

I DID, I DID WANT TO SAY THE REASON I'M ON THIS BOARD IS BECAUSE I'M A SUPERVISOR THAT ACTUALLY HAS SOME EXPERIENCE WITH AIR QUALITY, BECAUSE I'M A BUSINESSMAN AND I HAVE PERMITS.

SO, SO THAT LENDS TO WHAT WE WOULD LIKE ON THIS BOARD, AN OVERALL BACKGROUND THAT LENDS EXPERIENCE TO IT.

SO I'M GOING TO VOTE. ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.

HEARING NO DISSENTERS PASSES FIVE ZERO.

OH. SORRY. SORRY. I WAS A NO.

OH, YOU'RE A NO. OKAY. SO NO UNTIL BARRY GETS BACK TO US FOR ONE.

OKAY. WITH THAT, MISS BLANKENSHIP, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? THAT'S ALL ON THIS SIDE, CHAIR. PERFECT.

ALL RIGHT, WITH THAT, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.