BOARD MEETING DATE: March 4, 2005
AGENDA NO. 17

Survey Findings and Recommendations of Discretionary Programs/Activities Stakeholder Working Group

SYNOPSIS:

In June 2004, as part of the FY 2004-2005 Budget process, the Board directed staff to work with a Stakeholder Working Group comprised of business, environmental, local government, and community members to identify and recommend discretionary programs/activities that could be enhanced, maintained, scaled back, or eliminated. The final report summarizes the District program activities reviewed by the working group, survey findings, and member recommendations.

COMMITTEE:

Administrative, February 11, 2005, Recommended for Approval

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

1. Receive and file.
    
2. Direct staff to further analyze the specific discretionary program/activity re-evaluations recommended by Stakeholder Working Group members and report back to the Board with recommendations at the Budget Workshop on April 29, 2005

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.
Executive Officer

Background

During the June 2004 public hearing on the adoption of the FY 2004-05 Budget, staff was directed to convene a Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) approved by the Board’s Administrative Committee to identify discretionary programs agency-wide that could be enhanced, maintained, scaled back or eliminated and report such findings to the Governing Board at its January meeting. In November 2004, SWG members requested a revised submittal date for their findings, in order to allow more thorough review and rating of the District's discretionary programs. The submittal date was then moved to the February 2005 meeting of the Administrative Committee, and the March 2005 Board meeting.

Creation and Charge of the Working Group

A potential list of geographically diverse group members from the business, environmental, local government, and community sectors was revised and approved by the Administrative Committee on September 10, 2004. Invitations to participate were sent to the potential members and the resulting group consisted of broad geographic representation by 10 business, 4 environmental and 4 local government/community/other participants. A roster of group members and their affiliations is included at the beginning of the attached report.

The SWG was charged to: a) review identified discretionary work programs / activities, and b) complete a survey indicating whether the programs / activities should be enhanced, maintained, reduced, or eliminated. By request of the members, two iterations of the survey were conducted, and the results of the responses received are presented in the Survey Findings section of the attached report.

Working Group Meetings

The SWG began meeting in October 2004. District staff presented detailed briefings on programs / activities that were identified as potentially discretionary, including current budgetary and labor allocations, and responded to members' queries about activity levels and results to date. In addition, SWG members were also given an agency-wide budget overview.

Work Program Review Methodology

The SWG was briefed on AQMD's Work Program Tracking Report (WPTR), which accumulates costs by nine (9) Work Program Categories, which in turn are tied to the agency's annual Goals and Objectives. The FY 2004-05 Work Program has a total of 333 work program activity lines.

For purposes of the group’s analysis, these 333 activities were combined into 77 major groupings within each Work Program Category. A preliminary list of discretionary programs, or programs containing discretionary activities was developed. In addition, the group was encouraged to submit other potential areas of study.

Subsequent to the group’s review and discussion of the identified programs, group members ranked the programs/activities according to the Board's specifications: to be enhanced; to be maintained; to be reduced; or to be eliminated. The results were tabulated, incorporating weighting factors to better represent the participative mix of business, environmental, and local government/community/other members.

SWG Survey Findings and Recommendations

The report, Survey Findings and Recommendations of the Discretionary Programs / Activities Stakeholder Working Group, provides insight to the programs/activities that various stakeholder interests believe should be enhanced, maintained, scaled back, or eliminated, and presents the results of the ranking exercise. The original survey instrument is included in Appendix A.

Four out of 13 Stakeholder Working Group members provided written comments regarding the report and/or process. These comment letters are included in Appendix B of the report. The draft report was modified based on the comments to reflect that general consensus recommendations were not reached on many program areas.

Key Recommendations
Although individual SWG members as well as the three categories of group members (regulated businesses, environmental organizations, and local government/community representatives/other) varied in opinions of the various programs reviewed, in general the following recommendations were highlighted. Multiple members recommended that staff carry out quantitative re-evaluations of the following discretionary programs/activities, as listed below. However, in some cases, other members strongly disagreed with the peers’ recommendations and yet other members lessened their participation toward the end of the process and provided little final input.

1. Re-evaluate attempts to recover cost, or consider
    reducing / eliminating.
    -Subscription Services
    -Emergency Response
    -Clean Air Store

2. Re-evaluate enhanced performance measurements and
    quantification of benefits / costs and results achieved.
    -Environmental Justice
    -Outreach
    -Pollution Prevention
    -Newspaper Advertisement

3. Re-evaluate enhanced partnerships with other agencies
    (minimize potential or actual overlap).
    -Public Education/Information
    -Source Education
    -MATES III
    -Health Effects Studies
    -Children's Air Quality Agenda
    -Environmental Justice

4. Re-evaluate outsourcing (if cost-effective and otherwise
    feasible).
    -Graphic Arts
    -New Systems Development
    -Subscription Services
    -Clean Air Store

5. Re-evaluate a return to more narrowly tailored, traditional
    "core functions."
    -Asthma & Outdoor Air Quality Consortium
    -Brain Tumor & Air Pollution Foundation
    -Health Effects Studies

6. Re-evaluate programs for efficiency and effectiveness.
    -Subscription Services
    -Newspaper Advertisement

Opinion Summary By Stakeholder Category
A summary of opinions by stakeholder category (business, environmental, or local government/community/other) is also presented in the report. It is important to note that the business and environmental group members expressed widely divergent comments on several issues.

For instance, business group members felt that too much emphasis was placed on health research activities and that the intercredit trading program should be enhanced. With respect to toxics rulemaking, several business group members expressed that the District should not create additional rules above and beyond the State adopted air toxics control measures. In addition, although some of the business group were in favor of reducing the Emergency Response program, they first wanted an assessment to be performed to identify what other agencies are providing the service and the role the District provides to determine if the program can be reconfigured to meet that need.

The environmental stakeholders, on the other hand, feel that there should be less emphasis placed on intercredit trading, preferring command and control to achieve SIP compliance. In addition, an environmental group member believed that more environmental justice work should be done, albeit perhaps more efficiently, and that penalty monies should be put back into the affected communities. Environmental representatives were also more supportive of the various research programs being conducted.

Resource Impacts

Any fiscal impacts are dependent upon the Board’s FY 2005-06 budget development actions in light of the report recommendations.

Attachment (1,547 KB)

Survey Findings and Recommendations of the Discretionary Programs/Activities Stakeholder Working Group

/ / /