C
Meeting Minutes
Art Glass Permanent Rulemaking 2016
Fiscal Advisory Committee
Meeting #1
Friday, May 27, 2016
DEQ Headquarters Office
Conference Room EQC-A (10th Floor)
811 SW 6th Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
List of Attendees
Advisory Committee members:
Abe Fleishman, Northstar Glassworks
Al Hooton, Glass Alchemy, Ltd
Amanda Jarman, Eastside Portland Air Coalition
Chris Winter, CRAG law center
Jacob Sherman, South Portland Air Quality
Mark Riskedahl, NW Environmental Defense Center
Paul Trautman, Trautman Art Glass
Advisory Committee members not present:
Eric Durrin, Bullseye Glass Company
Members of the public:
Bob Heath
Bob Nemhauser, Trautman Art Glass
Cindy Young, East Portland Air Coalition
Cynthia Morgan
Frank Peters
Jenn Ferrante
Jessica Applegate, East Portland Air Coalition
Katharine Salzmann, East Portland Air Coalition
Mary Stoneman
Mitzi Kugler
Pam Archuleta
Scott Cura
Sky Archuleta
DEQ staff:
Jaclyn Palermo
Jill Inahara
Joe Westersund
Leah Feldon
The above list is based on the sign-in sheet. Some public attendees may not have signed in. In addition, an unknown number of members of the public participated in the meeting by phone.
List of Handouts and Presentation Notes
❖ Draft fiscal impact narrative and calculations
❖ Proposed rule language (same as current temporary art glass rules)
❖ Text from ORS 183.540, Reduction of economic impact on small business
Agenda
Overview of today’s meeting
Committee member introductions
Walk-through of draft fiscal impact calculations
Walk-through of draft fiscal impact narrative
Request for committee member recommendations
1. Would the rule have a fiscal impact?
2. If so, what is the extent of that impact?
3. Would the rule have a significant adverse impact on small businesses?
4. If so, can the economic input be reduced, consistent with the public health and safety purpose of the rule?
Opportunity for audience member comments and questions
Summary of committee comments
1. All committee members agreed that the rules would have a fiscal impact.
2. Committee members felt the DEQ fiscal impact estimates were reasonable. Some commented that there is high uncertainty about the numbers, and some requested that the health benefits of the rule be quantified.
3. Committee members agreed that the rule would have a significant adverse impact on small businesses. One member commented that small businesses in the neighborhood of the facilities would be negatively impacted if the rule were not implemented because ______________.
4. Committee members did not see ways to reduce the negative economic impact of the rule while still meeting its public health and safety purpose.
Next steps
• The committee requested a second meeting, which has been scheduled for Friday, June 10th at 2pm.
• The public comment period for this rule is scheduled to begin June 15, 2016, and close at 5pm on July 29, 2016.
• A public hearing will be scheduled for mid-July.
• DEQ plans to bring the proposed rules to the Environmental Quality Commission for their vote in October 2016.