Lake County air board reviews replacement fee schedule and directs five‑year phase‑in with one‑year review

The Lake County Air Quality Management District board continued a workshop on a draft replacement fee schedule for rules 6.60–6.68 on a continuation of a prior meeting, asking staff for more detail on proposed fee changes and how they would be phased in.

The discussion matters because the district has not overhauled the fee schedule since the 1990s, board members said, and staff says fees must be updated to cover work the agency is required to perform — including permitting, inspections and emissions reporting — while remaining mindful of economic impacts on businesses and residents.

Air district staff presented the fee study framework, explaining fees were built from estimated staff hours (including overhead) for permitting, inspections and emissions monitoring. Staff said emission fees are structured to recover costs from facilities that generate more pollution because those sources require more monitoring and reporting. "We're not an economic development agency. We are here to protect the community from air pollution," staff presenter Doug Earhart said during the meeting.

Board members pressed for clearer line‑item hours and described some proposed increases as large. Members cited examples raised in the materials and discussion: a comparison that shows a jump from about $670 to about $23,000 for a power‑plant modification in one scenario, and an aggregate extraction/processing fee item that moves from about $670 to roughly $8,000 in the draft comparison. A board member also noted an example moving from $300 to $3,000. Staff said some previously similar activities were categorized differently under the old schedule, which partly explains uneven historical footing among permit holders.

Several board members and a public commenter urged a longer phase‑in than the three‑year, 35%‑then‑35%‑then‑remainder schedule staff proposed. A number of elected members said a four‑ or five‑year approach would be more workable; one board member offered a five‑year phase‑in with a one‑year review, which drew general support in the discussion. Public commenter Tom Lasik urged the board to account for ongoing CPI increases when setting the phase‑in target, saying, "whatever schedule you put in... it needs to account for the fact that every year, the CPI is also increasing." Supervisor Sabatier said the cumulative CPI increase from 1996 to the present is about 104 percent.

Staff clarified several technical and legal points. Under the health and safety code framework staff referenced, new sources that apply after a new fee rule is adopted would pay the full (100%) new fee, while existing permitted sources would typically be phased in to avoid sudden economic impacts. Earhart told the board the district cannot realistically process a system‑wide fee increase in 2025; even if the board provides direction, existing permit renewals under the new fee schedule are unlikely to be implemented until 2026 because of required public notice to state and federal agencies, review and administrative updates to billing and databases.

Board members also singled out specific permit types for close scrutiny. Multiple members expressed concern about raising the burn permit too high, saying a very large increase could discourage residents from creating defensible space. A board member clarified during the meeting that the draft change to the burn permit was not a thousand‑percent increase but closer to a doubling in one illustrative calculation. The board asked staff to examine burn permits and program readiness separately so those rule updates can be in place before the coming burn season.

Other items raised during the workshop included: how to categorize and bill new or novel sources that do not fit existing fee categories; a note that the district’s current reserves and salary savings have constrained staffing; and that the district is exploring how much additional staff could be funded if fees are raised. Staff said at current projected phase‑in levels the district could likely hire at most one additional staff member in the near term and emphasized the board must balance public‑health mandates with economic impacts.

The board directed staff to return with a proposal reflecting a five‑year phase‑in with an annual review after the first year and to provide a clearer revenue projection and implementation schedule for a subsequent meeting. Staff also said they will proceed with separate, expedited updates for the burn‑permit rule so program materials and notices are ready before burn season. Staff noted final adoption will require the district to send notices to the California Air Resources Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and complete additional review steps before a formal adoption hearing.

Next steps: staff will prepare revised materials that include a five‑year implementation proposal with projected revenues and clearer hour‑based cost details, and return to the board for further direction and possible scheduling of a noticed adoption hearing.