Report 2015-125 Recommendation 1 Responses
Report 2015-125: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District: To Cover Its Costs, It Recently Increased Permit Fees and Continues to Use Supplemental Revenue but Can Improve Consistency and Transparency for Certain Program Requirements (Release Date: April 2016)
Recommendation #1 To: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
To ensure consistency among its published policy, internal methodology, and indemnification agreements so that permit applicants are aware of the district's requirements and are treated equally, by July 2016 the district should update its internal methodology and indemnification agreements to contain equivalent information that reflect its revised published policy.
60-Day Agency Response
As noted in the audit report, the District had previously revised its published "CEQA Implementation" policy to clearly describe the case-by-case nature of decisions related to requiring indemnity agreements and letters of credit, and to require documentation of those decisions in each project's engineering evaluation report. See page 9 of the revised "CEQA Implementation Policy", APR 2010. District has updated its "Application Review Format" policy, APR 1010, to include specific language to document for the public relevant case-by-case risk management decisions regarding indemnity agreements and letters of credit in each project's engineering evaluation report prepared by the District. See CEQA section, specifically page 78. District has also updated its own internal methodology documentation, FYI-141, to explain and document obligations of District staff regarding indemnity agreements and letters of credit. District has reviewed its standard indemnity agreement language and did not identify any changes necessary to respond to the audit report recommendations.
- Completion Date: May 2016
- Response Date: June 2016
California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented
The district provided revised versions of its published policy and internal methodology, and the documents are consistent and reflect the changes recommended in the audit. Further, as our concern with the district's indemnification agreement related to how it was described in the district's policy, which it revised, the district is correct in making no changes to its indemnity agreement.
Agency responses received are posted verbatim.