Committee debates fees, tonnage vs acreage and role for general fund in smoke program

Committee members debated whether to change the fee structure that funds the smoke program, weighing statutory caps, equity across landowner types and the program’s public‑health objectives. Stacy McCarter reminded the committee that statute allows registration fees up to 50¢/acre and burn fees up to $5/acre (the transcript cited this as "Per ORS 04/7562"), and that combined registration and burn fees in practice are currently below the statutory maximum. She said the current per‑acre system causes misalignment: some low‑tonnage acres produce most public‑health impacts (near SSRAs), while high‑tonnage West‑side timber burns are charged the same per‑acre rate.

Federal partners worried that moving to a tonnage basis could reduce overall revenue because tonnage across some jurisdictions is low; Trevor Miller and James Dickinson said tonnage could better link fees to smoke emissions but would likely lower revenue and add complexity for burners. Pete Parsons and others argued for examining how fees map to the program’s real goal—minimizing health impacts while supporting mitigation—and for considering more general‑fund support for activities with broad public benefit. Pete Parsons suggested that proximity to SSRAs and forecast complexity could justify differentiated public‑fund contributions or tiered fee approaches.

The committee did not vote on fee changes. Instead members recommended short‑term steps: analyze revenue by registration vs accomplishment and burn type, model modest CPI‑linked fee increases versus one‑time increases, and pursue legislative options if structural change is needed. James Dickinson proposed a tiered incentive approach (lower per‑acre fees if a landowner exceeds multi‑year pace‑and‑scale targets), and several members urged caution so fee increases do not unintentionally disincentivize private or tribal burning operations.