Governing Board Study Session

AGENDA

Review Proposals for BP/ARCO Settlement Funding Project Ideas

January 6, 2006
Immediately following Governing Board Meeting, which begins at 9:00 a.m.
 Conference Room GB
21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA

Americans with Disabilities Act
The agenda and documents in the agenda packet will be made available, upon request, in appropriate alternative formats to assist persons with a disability (Govt. Code Section 54954.2(a). Disability-related accommodations will also be made available to allow participation in the Administrative Committee meeting. Any accommodations must be requested as soon as practicable. Requests will be accommodated to the extent feasible. Please contact Julie Franco at 909-396-2958 from 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Tuesday through Friday, or send the request to jfranco@aqmd.govjfranco@aqmd.gov.

Adjournment

Meeting Summary
FRIDAY, JANUARY 6, 2006

Notice having been duly given, the special meeting of the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board was held at District Headquarters, 21865 Copley Drive,
Diamond Bar, California. Members present:

William A. Burke, Ed.D., Chairman
Speaker of the Assembly Appointee

Supervisor S. Roy Wilson, Ed.D., Vice Chairman
County of Riverside

Ms. Jane W. Carney
Senate Rules Committee Appointee

Mayor Beatrice J. S. LaPisto-Kirtley
Cities of Los Angeles County – Eastern Region

Mayor Ronald O. Loveridge
Cities of Riverside County

Councilmember Jan Perry
Cities of Los Angeles County – Western Region

Mayor Miguel A. Pulido
Cities of Orange County

Supervisor James W. Silva
County of Orange

Ms. Cynthia Verdugo-Peralta
Governor’s Appointee

Mayor Dennis R. Yates
Cities of San Bernardino County

Members Absent:

Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich
County of Los Angeles

Supervisor Gary Ovitt
County of San Bernardino

CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Burke at 12:00 p.m.

Following is a summary of the discussion and comments made at the special study session.

1.   Introduction - Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env., Executive Officer

           Dr. Wallerstein stated that staff would be presenting an overview of the set of
      proposals received for the $6 million BP Arco Settlement Funding, making initial
      recommendations, and seeking guidance from the Board to return to the Board for
      final action on the items in February or March.

2.   Review of Proposals - Anupom Ganguli, Ph.D., Asst. DEO of Public Affairs

           Dr. Ganguli reported that Board members attended or chaired a series of five public
      meetings, at which over 250 people attended and pitched their ideas. As a result of
      that particular process and also through public outreach, staff received a total of over
      220 proposals, with a total amount requested of over $72 million. When this item was
      presented to the Administrative Committee, the Committee directed staff to hold a
      study session to help the Board sort through the proposals and to provide prioritization
      and recommendations based on staff’s background, experience, and knowledge. The
      staff recommendations are divided into three categories:

      •   Recommendation for allocation of the $6 million – staff will be recommending to the
           Board a total of 21 projects, amounting to approximately $5.5 million, with a small
           amount set aside for contingency.

      •   Alternate funding sources – staff is recommending a large majority of these projects,
           which are very suitable and qualified, and which staff believes could possibly be
           funded through other means; and that category has over 50 projects in it, amounting
           to $24 million.

      •   The remaining projects were compiled in a separate table and are not being
           recommended at this time; however, they could, in the future, be moved into the
           other categories, as funds become available.

      Mr. Yates noted that the Chairman’s initiative was that each board member would be allocated $500,000 to proliferate in their area. In response to that, he had in his area a neighborhood meeting where he listened to testimony of people that had come forward and requested funds out of the $500,000 that he had been allocated. With that, he formulated in his mind a recommendation to this Board on how he would like to have had the $500,000 spent. Staff’s presentation, however, appears to be operating under a different scenario, and he believed some clarification was needed.

      Ms. Carney noted that the Administrative Committee requested staff’s recommendation on this because not only did Board members receive proposals at the meetings they attended in their respective areas, but other proposals were received as well. As it was discussed in Committee, as the number of projects came in and as the meetings were held throughout the basin, it became obvious that there were many good projects, many of which she believed required, for understanding, a staff analysis. The Committee felt, therefore, that Board members need to have the big picture and to decide as a Board. Therefore, in her view, it evolved into the macro (the entire $6 million for the whole district), although it started as a micro ($500,000 for each Board member to decide).

      The majority of the Board members present expressed a preference for the macro.
Mr. Pulido, Mr. Yates, and Dr. Wilson expressed concern, however, because they had been operating from the micro standpoint and believed people in their areas were under that impression as well. Mr. Pulido indicated that he would be supportive of the macro approach, but believes there should be a common set of rules so that there is no confusion. He pointed out that there did not seem to be many Orange County projects among those recommended by staff; and it may be that people from his area did not submit proposals because they were unsure of what process to follow.

      There was further discussion by the Board regarding organizing, categorizing, and prioritizing the proposals, and reopening the time period for submittal of additional proposals. The consensus of the Board was as follows:

      •   Re-open the RFP process and allow submittal of additional proposals until January 20,
           2006, with the caveat that those who have already submitted proposals not resubmit
           their proposals; and post notification on the AQMD website.

      •   Staff directed to schedule a special meeting in March 2006, on a day other than the
           regular board meeting, for the Board to hold a study session to go over the projects
           and make a decision.

      •   Board members, using the list of proposals recommended by staff as a guide, contact
           staff with any questions they may have on the proposals, as well as adding any
           proposals that are not on the list.

      •   Staff evaluate any additional proposals submitted through January 20, 2006;
           reconfigure the list of recommendations into a matrix type of format, prioritized
           into three different levels/categories, with a column for other funding for which the
           projects may qualify and a column for input from board members, for consideration
           by the Board at the special meeting/study session in March 2006.

PUBLIC COMMENT

      Chairman Burke expressed appreciation for everyone coming; and suggested that they may want to reserve their comments until the next meeting on this matter. He indicated that he would allow public comment at this time on the process only; and not on the projects.

JESSE MARQUES, Coalition for a Safe Environment
      Commented that the funds should go purely to projects, and not towards equipment or staffing. If AQMD has need of additional staff or equipment, then that should be part of the regular budget for the AQMD. He further suggested that the money should go towards either refinery or petroleum industry related problems; and if there is an air project or teaching/training curriculum related project, then it should have a petroleum industry related component to it.

MARIA VARGAS, Mexican American Health & Education Services Center
       Noted that she attended the Board’s regular meeting earlier today and one of the items under consideration was an institute that will reach out to community based organizations and local governments. She pointed out that there were 220 organizations already represented, and suggested that the Board give them each one-third of the funds they were requesting, make it a coalition of organizations for the AQMD, and make them come to the Board every three or four months to report on what they are doing to improve the air we breathe.

KIM RICHARDS, Boys & Girls Club of Carson
      Noted that everyone had the same amount of time to submit their proposals, and she felt it was unfair to those that had already submitted their proposals and gone through the process appropriately for the process to now be reopened because of what appeared to be a breakdown in the system.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Burke at 1:35 p.m.

sm