|
|
ELM Home |
Collaborative |
Issues |
Jobs and Volunteering |
Join/Donate |
Activist Tools |
Links |
Directions |
Earth Night |
Letter from the Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP's) Advisory Committee on Fees and Program Improvements
|
Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection
Fees & Program Improvements Committee
Members:
David Baier Jon Beekman John J. Clarke James Coull Pam DiBona Mary Beth Gentleman, Esq. Ileen Gladstone, P.E., LSP Richard A. Nylen, Esq. Thomas Powers Robert A. Rio, Esq. Iris Vicencio-Garaygay Robert Zimmerman |
December 19, 2002 Honorable Mark C. Montigny, Chairman, Senate Committee on Ways & Means Dear Chairman Montigny & Chairman Rogers: We are members of the Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP's) Advisory Committee on Fees and Program Improvements, created in 1990 by section 18 of chapter 21A of the General Laws. The Advisory Committee was established to provide advice to the agency on financial and programmatic issues, and represents a broad cross-section of parties interested in DEP. Each year we file a statutorily required annual report. This year, our report focuses on the fiscal realities facing DEP. For the reasons described below, the Committee supports the use of non-tax revenue solutions to maintain DEP's current level of effort for FY2004. A functional DEP is essential to both the economy and protection of the Commonwealth's natural resources. During the past decade DEP has been given new responsibilities by the Legislature, including the Rivers Act and Brownfields Act. In addition, since the Legislature established a fees-for-service program within the Department in 1990, the agency has improved its permitting program and protected natural resources more efficiently. It has substantially privatized its hazardous waste clean-up regulations, created service centers and a web site for quicker access to information, launched a "self-certification" program to eliminate some smaller permits and taken steps to be able to receive electronically the bulk of the 300,000 filings it receives each year. The enclosed report provides a list of Department actions to conserve resources; those measures seem generally sound and prudent. Yet, as the report makes clear, DEP has sustained a significant cut in its available resources (approximately 15% of full time equivalent employees [FTEs]) during FY2003. Our concern is with the impact on core services that will come with further cuts in FY2004. We well recognize how difficult a job the legislative leadership and Governor-elect Romney will have in addressing an estimated $2 billion deficit. Nevertheless, substantial further cuts will be harmful to the economic progress which is so essential to the state's ability to address the deficit, to new initiatives designed to create jobs and housing, and to the environmental quality which DEP programs are designed to protect. We urge you to find a way to achieve a level-of-effort maintenance budget for DEP consistent with its FY2003 resources of approximately 1085 FTEs, and we offer some suggestions below as to how that might be achieved. The Committee has reviewed a menu of options to reduce DEP's costs. We considered the elimination of certain programs or functions. While the Department will continue to adopt efficiencies, so far we have not found any additional functions that could be eliminated without endangering DEP's core mission. We looked at pushing certain approvals to the municipalities or reducing discretionary technical assistance to cities and towns, but rejected this approach due to the significant budget pressures municipalities are already facing. A third option, increased time for permits to be issued or diminished compliance and enforcement efforts, would contradict the agreements reached ten years ago that are the foundation of Department revenues. So we turned to the option of non-tax revenue. Finding the resources to pay for a level-of-effort maintenance budget at DEP is obviously your role, but we feel we make here a few suggestions about non-tax revenue possibilities. First, we believe a modest increase in the fees DEP charges for permit applications, for hazardous waste transporters, and for a variety of services is warranted; they could justifiably be raised to a level consistent with the rise in DEP expenses since the fees were first instituted, and would be supported by this Committee. Also, a greater amount of the growing Clean Environment Fund should be appropriated for its legislative purposes. We will continue to work with DEP, the Romney Administration, interested stakeholders and your staffs to develop additional recommendations. By asking for maintenance funding, we do not mean that the Department's programs should remain static. Tough budget times require creative thinking. We have stressed that point to DEP staff and have requested quarterly updates from them on a variety of initiatives designed to save resources and improve the quality of service, such as the electronic data initiative mentioned above. While none of us agree with the agency in all respects, on balance we believe that a dollar invested in DEP is a dollar well spent. We urge you to find a way to achieve a maintenance budget for the agency, and would be happy to speak with you if we can be of any further assistance. Very truly yours, Members of the Fees and Program Improvements Advisory Committee ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ___________________________________ __________________________________ ______________________________________ ________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ ____________________________________ ___________________________________ cc: |
