LOCAL GOVERNMENT & SMALL BUSINESS
ASSISTANCE ADVISORY GROUP
FRIDAY, AUGUST 16, 2002
MEETING MINUTES

MEMBERS PRESENT:
Greg Adams, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
Detrich Allen, City of Los Angeles
Gene Beck, EnviroTech Financial 
Arthur Brown, Councilmember, City of Buena Park and
     Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG)
Jeff Comerchero, Councilmember, City of Temecula and
     Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC)
Bill LaMarr, Small Business Alliance
Gary Stafford, Terra Furniture

MEMBERS ABSENT:
Jane Carney, AQMD Board Member
Margaret Clark, Councilmember, City of Rosemead and 
      League of California Cities
John DeWitt, California Independent Oil Marketers Association 
Ronald Loveridge, AQMD Board Member
Dale Silverman, Association of Woodworking & Furnishing Suppliers
Cynthia Verdugo-Peralta, AQMD Board Member

OTHERS PRESENT:
John Billheimer, Enviro-Reality
Edward Camarena, AQMD Hearing Board Chair
Rita Loof, RadTech International
Debra Mendelsohn, Board Assistant to Antonovich
Rhonda Reyes, Board Assistant to Verdugo-Peralta
Clifford Roth, CSUF

AQMD STAFF:
Barbara Baird, District Counsel
Mohan Balagopalan, Sr. Air Quality Engineer
Jackie Dix, Clerk of the Board
Pom Pom Ganguli, Public Advisor
Carol Gomez, Manager, Transportation Programs
Maryann Gomez, Administrative Secretary
Larry Kolczak, Community Relations Manager
Peter Mieras, District Prosecutor
Mohsen Nazemi, Assistant DEO
John Olvera, Sr. Deputy District Counsel
Patti Whiting, Staff Specialist

Item #1 – Call to Order/Opening Remarks
In the absence of Board Member Jane Carney, Local Government & Small Business Assistance (LG/SBA) Advisory Group Chair, and other Governing Board Members, Pom Pom Ganguli, Public Advisor chaired the meeting.  Dr. Ganguli called the meeting to order at 9:38 a.m. and asked for self-introductions around the table.

Item #2 – Approval of June 21, and July 19, 2002 Meeting Minutes
Due to lack of a quorum at the July 19, 2002 meeting, the action items discussed at that meeting, as well as the action to approve the June 21, 2002 minutes were deferred to the August 16, 2002 meeting.

Gary Stafford stated that the June 21 meeting minutes, Agenda Item #3 on Environmental Justice, did not reflect his comment that the program should include a safeguard against frivolous lawsuits such as those affecting Proposition 65.  He requested that the minutes be amended to include his comment.

It was also noted that the presence of Gene Beck and the absence of Mayor Ron Loveridge had been omitted from the attendance record for the June 21 meeting.  The minutes were amended to reflect these corrections.

With the noted corrections to the June 21, 2002 meeting minutes, the Advisory Group approved the June 21, and July 19, 2002 meeting minutes.

ACTION:	Staff to incorporate comments received into the June 21, 2002 minutes and forward both the June and July minutes to the Administrative Committee as an informational item.

Item #3 – Subcommittee Reports & Action Items Deferred from July 19, 2002 Meeting:
•	Hearing Board Fee Reduction for Small Business
A draft Hearing Board questionnaire and information sheet drafted by Gene Beck was distributed (attached).  The purpose of this survey is to determine the types of businesses that utilize the Hearing Board for variances, as well as the frequency of use.  Mr. Beck indicated that the survey AQMD staff will be drafting may be more informative.  The results of these surveys will be used to determine the demographics of the businesses utilizing the Hearing Board, and whether a recommendation needs to be made to raise the threshold for businesses that could qualify for the small business discount.  The Advisory Group reviewed the draft survey, with additional input from Mr. Edward Camarena, Hearing Board Chair, and the following amendments were requested:

•	Add a statement at the top of the questionnaire that the purpose is to improve Hearing Board accessibility to the small business community, then below that statement, add a disclaimer that the survey is voluntary.

•	Remove cover sheet.

•	Eliminate the “I think so” option in the first question.
•	Revise the “Number of Employees” category to include the options: 1-10, 11-25, 26-50, 51-500, over 500.

•	Number of employees should be company-wide, not facility-wide.

•	Remove the word “(Optional)” in the third question.

•	Remove the explanatory statement from the Title V question.

•	Revise the “Company Sales” category to include the options: $500,000 or less, $500,000-$1 million, $1 million-$5 million, more than $5 million.

Include the following questions:

•	Type of business (consider the categories that the AQMD Compliance office uses).

•	How frequently the business utilizes the Hearing Board.

•	Dollar amount of company-wide revenues.

•	Include a box asking for “today’s date.”

•	Include a box asking if they have used the Hearing Board in the last six months.

•	Board Member Cynthia Verdugo-Peralta had notified Gene Beck that she recommends including a section that would ask about the ethnic composition of the business, and a section to determine in which county the business is located.  

Finally, Pom Pom Ganguli volunteered AQMD staff to compile and analyze the results of this survey.

ACTION:	1.	Gene Beck to revise draft survey to include all suggested edits, and e-mail revised copy to the Advisory Group for review.
2.	Staff to prepare a survey for the Public Affairs Office to use at on-site consultations.
3.	Staff to add this issue to an upcoming Administrative Committee meeting agenda, asking for concept approval.

•	No-Fault Inspection Service
The Advisory Group focused on three main issues related to this topic:

1)	Is AQMD’s 14-day correction period sufficient for companies to come into compliance following a no-fault inspection?
2)	Is the business community aware of this service, and does AQMD need to improve its outreach to advertise this service?
3)	Are the Hearing Board fees burdensome to small businesses?

Peter Mieras, District Prosecutor, gave a brief background of AQMD’s and EPA’s No-Fault Inspection programs.  Both programs keep the inspection results confidential, however, the primary difference is the time period allowed for a company to make a correction once the inspection has taken place.  The EPA allows the company up to six months to make a correction, with a possible six-month extension, however, AQMD’s time period is 14 days.  Mr. Mieras explained that if a company was not able to come into compliance within that 14-day period, the variance process was available, and if that is not successful, AQMD may issue an Abatement Order.

Gene Beck stated three points of concern:  1)  The purpose of this program is to get companies into compliance, and 14 days is not a sufficient period of time for small businesses to come into compliance;  2) small businesses in AQMD’s non-attainment area should not have a more stringent burden than what is required by EPA; and  3) EPA has a published policy that clearly outlines their program.  AQMD needs to have a clear written procedure outlining AQMD’s No-Fault Inspection program.

Peter Mieras then reported that an internal document was drafted in 1991, however, the program is now more flexible than the procedure described in the original document.  Gene Beck reiterated that the Advisory Group wished to have Karen Brown of EPA participate in an upcoming meeting, preferably the meeting in September.

Garry Stafford asked staff for the number of No-Fault inspections performed a year, and the number subsequently going to the Hearing Board to apply for a variance.  Larry Kolczak reported that staff performs approximately 300 to 400 on-site consultations per year, mostly dealing with record keeping or how to apply for a permit – issues that would not lead to a visit to the Hearing Board.  Mr. Stafford then commented that it does not seem reasonable that, with all the permitted businesses in the system, that so few are availing themselves of this service, which he believes is due to the confidentiality issue and the short compliance period.  The Advisory Group also requested the number of businesses out of compliance.  Dr. Ganguli suggested having the Compliance staff give a presentation on compliance rates for different industries.

Dr. Ganguli stated that staff plans to institute a standing report to the Advisory Group, which would provide information on the monthly Small Business Assistance unit inspection activities.

The Advisory Group continued to voice concerns that the 14-day correction period was not an adequate amount of time for a small business to come into compliance.  Peter Mieras stressed that the program has always had the 14-day correction period, and that no enforcement action has ever been taken as a result of a No-Fault inspection.  He added that the Hearing Board and AQMD staff have assisted businesses through the variance process if the 14-day deadline cannot be met.  Greg Adams asked whether all applicants had legal representation, indicating that small businesses that cannot afford such representation may be at a disadvantage.  Mr. Camarena explained that many businesses that appear before the Hearing Board do not have legal representation and successfully receive a variance.  The Hearing Board and AQMD staff make every effort to assist a business through that process.  Peter Mieras then explained that if a company fails to obtain a variance, the District Prosecutor’s Office follow up with an Order for Abatement to allow businesses time to comply.

Greg Adams stated that a written policy/procedure document should be drafted and used as an outreach tool to the small business community.  Peter Mieras and Pom Pom Ganguli explained that it would not be prudent to create such a written document, as it could reduce the flexibility of the program.  Dr. Ganguli committed to improving the current outreach efforts to advertise the No-Fault Inspection service, as well providing the Advisory Group with monthly reports on Small Business Assistance activities.

ACTION:	1.	Staff to contact Karen Brown of EPA to arrange her participation at an upcoming meeting.
2.	Schedule a presentation for an upcoming LG/SBA Advisory Group meeting by Engineering & Compliance regarding compliance rates for different industries.
3.	Add a standing report item, beginning in September, of Small Business Assistance activities.
4.	Review and improve current outreach activities to small businesses to specifically advertise the No-Fault Inspection service.

Item #4 – Report on Enhancements to Permit Assistance Outreach Program:
Dr. Ganguli gave a brief presentation on the current Permit Outreach program (attached), including efforts such as on-site consultations, web site improvements, phone help lines, special notifications of upcoming rule deadlines, the City Building Department Clearance Letter Program, and outreach to the various trade associations.  Staff’s recommendation included creating a Permit Outreach Subcommittee, which would review the plan, provide comments, and then bring the enhanced plan back to the Advisory Group in October or November, with the goal of presenting the plan at the January, 2003 meeting of the Administrative Committee for consideration.

Bill LaMarr, Gene Beck and Garry Stafford volunteered to work on this subcommittee with Pom Pom Ganguli.

Bill LaMarr suggested that it should be “business assistance” rather than “permit assistance.”  He also mention the California Connected television program on public television as a possible outlet to promote the Business Assistance program.

ACTION:	1.	Staff to meet with the Permit Outreach Subcommittee to receive comments on the Permit Assistance Outreach Program.

Item #5 – Informational Item Regarding the Ethnic Community Advisory Group:
This item was deferred to the September 20, 2002 meeting.

Item #6 – Discussion Regarding September Meeting Date:
The Advisory Group agreed to meet on September 20, 2002 at 11:00 a.m.  Councilmember Art Brown reported that he would not be available to attend the meeting.

Item #7 – Other Business
There was no other business.

Item #8 – Public Comment
Mr. John Billheimer of Enviro Reality presented the Advisory Group with a memo regarding Rule 219 conflicts.  He specifically sited one specific health food business, where permitting requirements have become burdensome and costly.

Item #9 – Adjournment
There being no further comments, the meeting was adjourned at 12:16 p.m.