LAKEPORT >> With a small staff yet a substantial balance of funds on hand, the Lake County Air Quality Board made a convincing pitch for support from the Board of Supervisors Tuesday.
Doug Gearhart, air quality board director, reminded the BOS, air districts are generally not expected to have further funding increases at the state level in part because of the significant deficit, but also because air districts’ only other source of funding is permit fees. “So, we want to go on record as continuing to oppose reductions to state support,” Gearhart said. “We don’t expect it to happen, but it’s one of the things proposed when states want to balance their budgets- air districts are always one of the things on the cutting block.”
Despite having a staff of just a handful of employees, they managed to keep their agency’s coffers sufficiently insulated against any unexpected contingencies. But noting a potential legislative shot in the arm for the state’s air districts, District 2 Supervisor Bruno Sabatier cited Assembly Bill 914, he was informed but not confirmed, had been tabled. The bill supported by Assembly Member Robert Garcia, who introduced the Pollution Hotspots Solution Act (AB 914) at the end of May. The bill equips California with new tools to clean up its polluted air. The legislation affirms the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) authority to regulate “indirect sources” that attract activity from polluting vehicles and equipment. The law will build on the success of regional indirect source rules already adopted in the state. Californians breathe some of the dirtiest air in the country and ports, warehouses, and other major hubs — with the polluting diesel trucks and equipment that serve them — are major culprits. This bill provides a crucial new pathway to slash this dangerous pollution.
Bruno said he was appraised the bill had been tabled. “Last I’ve seen, to a status order of an inactive file, at the request of Assembly Member Garcia” he said. “And that was on June 2. Maybe it’ll remain there or maybe come back to life… In your budget, as I recall from our conversation, from what I understand, from FY 2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-26 are basically the same, $320,000. You had some carry over, $540,000. Apparently, you had staffing difficulties, which is where most of your savings come from. But you also talked about your potential hardships and based on your response to me- the Revenue Fund is using the current fees, and not the proposed fees, so it’s coming back to the board for an approval. And the fact you’re using current fees rather than potential fees, that will increase your revenue”
Gearhart went on to state that traditionally they had taken a very active role in CAPCOA , the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, a non-profit association of the Air Pollution Control Officers from all 35 local air quality agencies throughout California.
Gearhart said that the air district’s goal is to stay engaged on these issues and provide the best practices in the most efficient manner possible for the community. “In the last three to five years, we’ve had significant increases of air quality legislation,” Gearhart said. “I mentioned air toxic program reporting requirements at three sections of the state. It’s similar work, but different sources and different types of reports…They do not want to coordinate so, we have three reports being worked on. There is a new asset/management program coming online this year. This will define the lifespan and replacement frequency for equipment.”
“What it means is, every five to 10 years our monitoring equipment must be replaced. Each piece of equipment ranges from $25 to $50,000. They’ve had monitoring equipment that’s been run 20 years, and they have met attainment standards with, but with some of the pieces they’re experiencing problems, and they do not want to risk losing attainment. So, they cannot move forward unless the equipment is stable and the district made that clear to the Enviornmental Protection Agency and the state. What it comes down to, we have to buy more equipment and have a dedicated staff to help calibrate that equipment,” Gearhart said. “But they need quality assurance monitoring and quality ambient monitoring data, and we’d have more monitoring if we had a sixth employee.”
Meanwhile, the EPA wants to have separate people monitoring equipment, separate ones for calibrating, a separate person for auditing and a supervisor overseeing the process. The EPA and the State authorities will give the air district, their plan, and explain how they want the district to execute it. So, the summary of the air district’s proposed budget are currently balanced noted Gearhart. However, their costs are significantly higher in the last five years. They are hoping they they’ll be able to increase their fees. They have projects coming in; a new geothermal power plant, as well as revenues coming to the district because of work required by the fire agencies. Other changes will include additional hiring and training to get that staff up to speed
In addition to fees for permits the air district several years ago created an Operating Reserve Fund, which they lacked in prior years. This fund was held in abeyance from operations and maintenance so as to sustain a cash reserve for unexpected breakdowns or other emergencies Gearhart explained. Several motions were made to vote for a resolution, the principal which was to oppose the state from cutting additional financial support for operations and equipment, the first three passing unanimously and the last two motions passing by 4 to 1, with Sabatier in opposition.
