4g) Noticed Public Meeting - Discussion and Possible Action Including Direction to Staff as Necessary for Updated Fee Schedule and Receiving Public Comments Regarding the Proposed Adoption of a Regulation Establishing an Updated Fee Schedule for the Air Quality Management District (AQMD)
(Sponsor: Air Quality Management District)
Raising the permit burn fee is not helpful to anyone especially if it’s super expensive. You should be encouraging people to burn the deadwood off their property by not charging them at all.
hello, I have been burning both piles and small controlled burns yearly since the fires in 2017 on the 40 acres of mixed conifer forest I steward. No one pays me to do this work. Radically increased fees ($19 to $1,183) will detour people like me from doing what is required for fuels reduction for fire prevention and good fire for ecosystem health. The proposed increased fees are a threat to community safety and ecological health. Please act on behalf of good stewardship and oppose dramatic increase. cap the increase percentage to a reasonable amount that will not keep the community from this critical work. Additionally I propose the county create more funding opportunities and tax breaks that incentivize not only the people already doing this work but new community members to do it too.
Thank you for your work, help us do ours.
Charging Mendocino County Residents for doing yard/land maintenance and clearing debris using burn piles should be in the hands of the local fire agencies. Air Quality should not be charging residents for responsibly tending their land. Air Quality should be providing advice about weather and air conditions only. The current $19 fee and fines for residential burn piles is over reach already. Residential burn piles should be free and encouraged!
I oppose the seven fold fee increase on residential burn permits. A fee increase of this amount will only discourage homeowners from pulling a burn permit, leading to an increase of potential fuel loads in our area. Many Mendocino county residents are already barely getting by with the high cost of living, and many fixed income older residents suffering. A fee increase of this amount will not be an advantage to Air Quality, it will only reduce the amount of permits sold.
The proposed rate increase is a bad and potentially dangerous proposition. The extreme increase will cause people to illegally burn, and do so on non-advisable days increasing the chance of out of control burns.
I understand the need of an increase but I urge you to reevaluate how much of an increase.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide content and provide feedback.
Scot Steinbring
Director of Operations
501c3 Torchbearr.org
The standards of the permitting and Fees currently are shack at best, Support and follow up is Zero.
Submitted Smp in august paid fee of 130.00 for 900 acres across a Grant funded project to protect water sheds and communities, 1 week prior to ignition, found out that SMP was not approved.
This project is still getting billed per #APN or burn approval at the same cost each time. Prescribed fire grants can’t afford additional cost.
Cost projection if approve for this project: $10,620.00 just for AQ to approve my SMP?
Recommendation is that we look at why a application cost to the County is so high.
Where is the Calfire funding of 2 million dollars that is to support these activities ?
Has a negative impact on the study been looked at ?
Some quick thoughts, cost too high for landowners to do burning, means more fuel loading on properties we are trying to protect in wildfires, first responder safety , not to mention the loss of housing, also impacts taxes.
Wildfires and loss of communities, Family members, and watershed are just a few impacts.
Some solutions:
Let’s reduce impact on landowners/ Low cost /Free/
Look at OIG audit AQ Department/Reorganization- Seems that a lot of this cost in created- Based on that Costumers/Landowners are doing SMP/ And the funding spent by CARB for PIFRS software to help all involved. Also look at models that partner with other organizations to lift some of the burden.
At the preposed cost inflation, It will be cheaper at a point to just take a ticket then writing a SMP or paying per ac and burn.
The current is to unstable, Clear cost, clear leaders’ intent and Exceptions just be addressed for forest health and community protection.
Substitute recovery cost with grants. Increase fines for pollution violations.
Let’s look at the standard policy of billing and procedure, Decrease workload by Application is just as long as the SMP.
and I oppose this proposal currently, At this point for trying to protect values at risk in your county, Prior to a wildfire we need less bumps in the road to treat the acres we need to after 150 years of lack of management and suppression.
The increase in air quality permit fees will likely result in noncompliance at best, and neglect to vegetation management in our high danger fire zone at worst. Our local economy is particularly challenging for many. Please reconsider this proposal at this time.
I urge you to all oppose this request for an increase in fees from the Air Quality Management District. Here in Redwood Valley burning vegetative matter, on approved burn days, is an important element of controlling the risk of wildfire. Our Fire Department issues permits to residents for a nominal fee and educates them on the appropriate means of burning (ie) clearances, size of pile, when to burn. The AQMD determines when the air quality is such that burning will not adversely affect the health of residents and publishes that information via a pre-recorded phone message or on their website. As far as I know, that is the extent of their responsibility when it comes to outdoor burning. Burning on appropriate days and in an appropriate manner is enforced by the Fire District. I do not see any reason to have ANY fees associated with AQMD, and certainly no INCREASE in fees from $19 to $135! If approved, such exhorbant fees will either cause people to burn without permits, or to not burn at all. Perhaps Solid Waste should be providing as many "green" cans to residents as they wish - I know I have asked for a second one and have had that request turned down. THAT might be a productive solution. But green waste must be managed every year or it becomes a danger to our community. Please do not add to our community hazards by putting the cost and hassle of keeping our homes safe out of reach with crazy high fees. Thank you.
As Chief of the Bell Springs Fire Department, I object to this huge increase in fees for burn permits. We do everything we can to get citizens to get permits and burn safely to lower the risks of catastrophic wildfires. This will not help. It will discourage people from burning and from getting the proper permits. It will end up costing more for everyone, including Air Quality, the County, local fire services, and Calfire. You need to make it easier for people to burn instead of harder. I urge the Board of Supervisors to reject this short-sighted measure.
I am opposed to the proposed residential burn permit increase by Mendocino County Air Quality Management District. Vegetation management is imperative in reducing the potential risk of a devastating wildfire. Our community knows how destructive wildfires can be and many of our residents go to great lengths to create and maintain defensible space around their homes. Outdoor residential burning is often the preferred method of removing dead and dying vegetation from ones property. An increase of this magnitude could create a financial burden that would make it impossible for some to remove vegetation from their property, reducing defensible space and increasing fire danger. Residential outdoor burn permits should be an educational tool used to ensure safe, legal, and productive vegetation abatement, not for financial gain.
Thank you for your time,
Megan Turner Brown
Redwood Valley
I urge you Board of Supervisors to not approve this enormous fee jump for burn permits. We need home owners to maintain their properties and reduce our much to large fuel load. If this goes through all that’ll happen is discourage burning. That’ll keep fuel loads up causing hotter, larger and more expensive fires to sweep through our communities. Please do not allow this to be approved.
We must focus on lowering costs of county procedures, not 7X the existing fees.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
I am against the significant increase in fees for prescribed burning. The increase has the potential to stop resident-planned and organized prescribed burning in its tracks. It's taken many years to get public acceptance of burning as a tool to reduce the effects of large wildfires. Don't put these onerous fees in place when we need every tool we have to combat destructive fires.
Dear Honorable Board of Supervisors:
Some County Departments such as Air Quality are not structured to receive full cost recovery based on fees. A 600% increase in burn permit fees will be counter productive and discourage folks from getting burn permits. Remember County Administrative Officer Darci Antle approved the fee increase Board Agenda item. Let's hope the County Board of Supervisors are not as tone deaf as the County CAO and Air Quality and votes no on these exhorbitant fee increases.
Leggett Valley Fire Department is very concerned at the aggressive fee increase proposed. County Fire Chiefs were not consulted. An increase from $19 for an Annual Burn Permit to $135 will discourage residents from participating in obtaining a Burn Permit. It is important to encourage residents and landholders to maintain preventative burning operations, reducing risk of wildfire spread between properties. Proposed fee increases would also impact prescribed burning, which is currently gaining popularity and implementation. Residential burning is an important component of fuel management. Residents should not face undo barriers when attempting to reduce fuel loads on their properties.
I am writing to oppose the increase in fees proposed by the MCAQD, particularly in regards to 18 Burn Permits.
An increase from $19 for an Annual Burn Permit to $135 will discourage residents from participating in obtaining a Burn Permit. It is important to encourage residents and landholders to maintain preventative burning operations, reducing risk of wildfire spread between properties. Proposed fee increases would also impact prescribed burning, which is currently gaining popularity and implementation.
I applaud the district for analyzing its costs and fees to better understand where budget is being spent. In the "Mendocino County AQMD Cost Recovery Study Report" it appears to have been identified that the district has unusually high costs compared with the services provided to the People of Mendocino. In the report, the Summary at the end states that the District's cost fees are significantly higher than the comparable surveyed jurisdictions.
If the Mendocino Air Quality Management District is spending more money to provide adequate services, it should strive to reduce its costs, not increase its fees.
I am asking the Board of Supervisors to not approve the burn permit fees increase. MCAQMD should look for means to reduce costs to avoid a fee increase for residential burn permits altogether, or only increase fees by an amount that is manageable for those who will be paying the fees.
It is understandable that the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (MCAQMD) must look for cost recovery methods for their agency which may necessitate raising fees for service. However, the proposed 7-fold increase for residential burn permits is concerning and available public information informing that decision is lacking. MCFSC would like to better understand the costs and activities associated with processing a burn permit and why an increase of that amount is necessary. Residential burning is an important component of fuel management. Residents should not face undo barriers when attempting to reduce fuel loads on their properties.
Notably, the "Appendix - Comparative Survey" seems to show that Mendocino's current fees are generally in line with what other jurisdictions charge, which suggests that there may be significant public policy reasons for keeping fees low. For example, such a substantial increase in Burn Permit fees might result in an equally substantial increase in either people not burning, which could increase community fire risk and associated costs, and/or not getting permits when they do burn, potentially driving an increase in enforcement costs.
We are asking the Board of Supervisors to request more information from MCAQMD before approving the residential burn permit increase and we also request that MCAQMD look for other places to recover or reduce costs to avoid a fee increase for residential burn permits altogether.
- Nancy Armstrong-Frost
Board President, Mendocino County Fire Safe Council
Raising the permit burn fee is not helpful to anyone especially if it’s super expensive. You should be encouraging people to burn the deadwood off their property by not charging them at all.
hello, I have been burning both piles and small controlled burns yearly since the fires in 2017 on the 40 acres of mixed conifer forest I steward. No one pays me to do this work. Radically increased fees ($19 to $1,183) will detour people like me from doing what is required for fuels reduction for fire prevention and good fire for ecosystem health. The proposed increased fees are a threat to community safety and ecological health. Please act on behalf of good stewardship and oppose dramatic increase. cap the increase percentage to a reasonable amount that will not keep the community from this critical work. Additionally I propose the county create more funding opportunities and tax breaks that incentivize not only the people already doing this work but new community members to do it too.
Thank you for your work, help us do ours.
Charging Mendocino County Residents for doing yard/land maintenance and clearing debris using burn piles should be in the hands of the local fire agencies. Air Quality should not be charging residents for responsibly tending their land. Air Quality should be providing advice about weather and air conditions only. The current $19 fee and fines for residential burn piles is over reach already. Residential burn piles should be free and encouraged!
I oppose the seven fold fee increase on residential burn permits. A fee increase of this amount will only discourage homeowners from pulling a burn permit, leading to an increase of potential fuel loads in our area. Many Mendocino county residents are already barely getting by with the high cost of living, and many fixed income older residents suffering. A fee increase of this amount will not be an advantage to Air Quality, it will only reduce the amount of permits sold.
The proposed rate increase is a bad and potentially dangerous proposition. The extreme increase will cause people to illegally burn, and do so on non-advisable days increasing the chance of out of control burns.
I understand the need of an increase but I urge you to reevaluate how much of an increase.
Not a good idea and not helpful to members of the county. People already can't afford to live. Stop making it harder
Thank you for the opportunity to provide content and provide feedback.
Scot Steinbring
Director of Operations
501c3 Torchbearr.org
The standards of the permitting and Fees currently are shack at best, Support and follow up is Zero.
Submitted Smp in august paid fee of 130.00 for 900 acres across a Grant funded project to protect water sheds and communities, 1 week prior to ignition, found out that SMP was not approved.
This project is still getting billed per #APN or burn approval at the same cost each time. Prescribed fire grants can’t afford additional cost.
Cost projection if approve for this project: $10,620.00 just for AQ to approve my SMP?
Recommendation is that we look at why a application cost to the County is so high.
Where is the Calfire funding of 2 million dollars that is to support these activities ?
Has a negative impact on the study been looked at ?
Some quick thoughts, cost too high for landowners to do burning, means more fuel loading on properties we are trying to protect in wildfires, first responder safety , not to mention the loss of housing, also impacts taxes.
Wildfires and loss of communities, Family members, and watershed are just a few impacts.
Some solutions:
Let’s reduce impact on landowners/ Low cost /Free/
Look at OIG audit AQ Department/Reorganization- Seems that a lot of this cost in created- Based on that Costumers/Landowners are doing SMP/ And the funding spent by CARB for PIFRS software to help all involved. Also look at models that partner with other organizations to lift some of the burden.
At the preposed cost inflation, It will be cheaper at a point to just take a ticket then writing a SMP or paying per ac and burn.
The current is to unstable, Clear cost, clear leaders’ intent and Exceptions just be addressed for forest health and community protection.
Substitute recovery cost with grants. Increase fines for pollution violations.
Let’s look at the standard policy of billing and procedure, Decrease workload by Application is just as long as the SMP.
and I oppose this proposal currently, At this point for trying to protect values at risk in your county, Prior to a wildfire we need less bumps in the road to treat the acres we need to after 150 years of lack of management and suppression.
The increase in air quality permit fees will likely result in noncompliance at best, and neglect to vegetation management in our high danger fire zone at worst. Our local economy is particularly challenging for many. Please reconsider this proposal at this time.
I urge you to all oppose this request for an increase in fees from the Air Quality Management District. Here in Redwood Valley burning vegetative matter, on approved burn days, is an important element of controlling the risk of wildfire. Our Fire Department issues permits to residents for a nominal fee and educates them on the appropriate means of burning (ie) clearances, size of pile, when to burn. The AQMD determines when the air quality is such that burning will not adversely affect the health of residents and publishes that information via a pre-recorded phone message or on their website. As far as I know, that is the extent of their responsibility when it comes to outdoor burning. Burning on appropriate days and in an appropriate manner is enforced by the Fire District. I do not see any reason to have ANY fees associated with AQMD, and certainly no INCREASE in fees from $19 to $135! If approved, such exhorbant fees will either cause people to burn without permits, or to not burn at all. Perhaps Solid Waste should be providing as many "green" cans to residents as they wish - I know I have asked for a second one and have had that request turned down. THAT might be a productive solution. But green waste must be managed every year or it becomes a danger to our community. Please do not add to our community hazards by putting the cost and hassle of keeping our homes safe out of reach with crazy high fees. Thank you.
As Chief of the Bell Springs Fire Department, I object to this huge increase in fees for burn permits. We do everything we can to get citizens to get permits and burn safely to lower the risks of catastrophic wildfires. This will not help. It will discourage people from burning and from getting the proper permits. It will end up costing more for everyone, including Air Quality, the County, local fire services, and Calfire. You need to make it easier for people to burn instead of harder. I urge the Board of Supervisors to reject this short-sighted measure.
I am opposed to the proposed residential burn permit increase by Mendocino County Air Quality Management District. Vegetation management is imperative in reducing the potential risk of a devastating wildfire. Our community knows how destructive wildfires can be and many of our residents go to great lengths to create and maintain defensible space around their homes. Outdoor residential burning is often the preferred method of removing dead and dying vegetation from ones property. An increase of this magnitude could create a financial burden that would make it impossible for some to remove vegetation from their property, reducing defensible space and increasing fire danger. Residential outdoor burn permits should be an educational tool used to ensure safe, legal, and productive vegetation abatement, not for financial gain.
Thank you for your time,
Megan Turner Brown
Redwood Valley
I urge you Board of Supervisors to not approve this enormous fee jump for burn permits. We need home owners to maintain their properties and reduce our much to large fuel load. If this goes through all that’ll happen is discourage burning. That’ll keep fuel loads up causing hotter, larger and more expensive fires to sweep through our communities. Please do not allow this to be approved.
We must focus on lowering costs of county procedures, not 7X the existing fees.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
I am against the significant increase in fees for prescribed burning. The increase has the potential to stop resident-planned and organized prescribed burning in its tracks. It's taken many years to get public acceptance of burning as a tool to reduce the effects of large wildfires. Don't put these onerous fees in place when we need every tool we have to combat destructive fires.
Dear Honorable Board of Supervisors:
Some County Departments such as Air Quality are not structured to receive full cost recovery based on fees. A 600% increase in burn permit fees will be counter productive and discourage folks from getting burn permits. Remember County Administrative Officer Darci Antle approved the fee increase Board Agenda item. Let's hope the County Board of Supervisors are not as tone deaf as the County CAO and Air Quality and votes no on these exhorbitant fee increases.
Sincerely,
Scott Ward
Redwood Valley
Leggett Valley Fire Department is very concerned at the aggressive fee increase proposed. County Fire Chiefs were not consulted. An increase from $19 for an Annual Burn Permit to $135 will discourage residents from participating in obtaining a Burn Permit. It is important to encourage residents and landholders to maintain preventative burning operations, reducing risk of wildfire spread between properties. Proposed fee increases would also impact prescribed burning, which is currently gaining popularity and implementation. Residential burning is an important component of fuel management. Residents should not face undo barriers when attempting to reduce fuel loads on their properties.
I am writing to oppose the increase in fees proposed by the MCAQD, particularly in regards to 18 Burn Permits.
An increase from $19 for an Annual Burn Permit to $135 will discourage residents from participating in obtaining a Burn Permit. It is important to encourage residents and landholders to maintain preventative burning operations, reducing risk of wildfire spread between properties. Proposed fee increases would also impact prescribed burning, which is currently gaining popularity and implementation.
I applaud the district for analyzing its costs and fees to better understand where budget is being spent. In the "Mendocino County AQMD Cost Recovery Study Report" it appears to have been identified that the district has unusually high costs compared with the services provided to the People of Mendocino. In the report, the Summary at the end states that the District's cost fees are significantly higher than the comparable surveyed jurisdictions.
If the Mendocino Air Quality Management District is spending more money to provide adequate services, it should strive to reduce its costs, not increase its fees.
I am asking the Board of Supervisors to not approve the burn permit fees increase. MCAQMD should look for means to reduce costs to avoid a fee increase for residential burn permits altogether, or only increase fees by an amount that is manageable for those who will be paying the fees.
Will Lennox
Comptche Volunteer Firefighter
It is understandable that the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (MCAQMD) must look for cost recovery methods for their agency which may necessitate raising fees for service. However, the proposed 7-fold increase for residential burn permits is concerning and available public information informing that decision is lacking. MCFSC would like to better understand the costs and activities associated with processing a burn permit and why an increase of that amount is necessary. Residential burning is an important component of fuel management. Residents should not face undo barriers when attempting to reduce fuel loads on their properties.
Notably, the "Appendix - Comparative Survey" seems to show that Mendocino's current fees are generally in line with what other jurisdictions charge, which suggests that there may be significant public policy reasons for keeping fees low. For example, such a substantial increase in Burn Permit fees might result in an equally substantial increase in either people not burning, which could increase community fire risk and associated costs, and/or not getting permits when they do burn, potentially driving an increase in enforcement costs.
We are asking the Board of Supervisors to request more information from MCAQMD before approving the residential burn permit increase and we also request that MCAQMD look for other places to recover or reduce costs to avoid a fee increase for residential burn permits altogether.
- Nancy Armstrong-Frost
Board President, Mendocino County Fire Safe Council