Air District presents draft replacement fee schedule; board presses for longer phase-in and data transparency

The Lake County Air Quality Management District (AQMD) presented a draft replacement fee schedule at the July 15 meeting and asked the Supervisors for direction after an extensive public workshop and staff analysis.

District staff explained that the fee study quantified the staff time and overhead associated with permitting, emissions reporting and inspections and proposed separating authority-to-construct / permit-to-operate fees from an emissions-based fee component. The draft table reclassifies many existing permit categories and, for some source types, shows large percentage increases compared with the decades‑old fee table (the last significant update was in the 1990s). To soften the financial impact on existing permitted entities, staff proposed a three-year phase-in (35% of the difference in year 1, 70% year 2, then full fee in year 3) for current permittees.

Supervisors raised concerns about the magnitude of increases for some categories (several examples shown as multiples of current fees) and requested more transparency on the staff‑hour assumptions behind the new emission fees. Multiple board members proposed a longer phase-in (four or five years) and an annual review after year one to monitor economic impacts before moving to later phases. Several supervisors also noted the county’s interest in not discouraging investment and asked staff to bring back comparative analyses of how other air districts phased in similar changes.

District staff said they are willing to examine longer phase-in options but cautioned that a slower phase-in reduces near-term revenue the district needs to hire staff and comply with new state program requirements. Staff explained new and expanding state responsibilities and said the district has been operating with salary savings and limited staffing; the replacement schedule is meant to address a funding shortfall for mandated work.

Public commenters and some supervisors stressed the need to avoid creating unintended barriers for economic development, and asked staff to provide more granular cost‑of‑service detail by category, and to outline the consequences of different phase-in options for district capacity. The board asked staff to prepare an amended proposal that models a five‑year phased approach with annual review and to return with an estimate of projected revenues and budget impacts; staff noted the district needs time to model scenarios and stated that new fees could not be implemented for the 2025 burn season unless the board met an expedited timeline for formal adoption.

Ending: The board directed staff to return with a revised fee proposal and revenue projections (members suggested a five-year phase-in with a first‑year review) and to schedule a follow-up meeting to consider formal rule adoption after public notice and state review requirements.