Thursday, October 1, 2026
The Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA) wants to hear from the public on its draft Fiscal Year 2027 budget.
Higher fees for registration, asbestos and demolition notification programs, which were approved by the board in March 2026, are part of the budget package.
The agency opened the comment window on May 8 and is giving the public 30 days to respond.
The ORCAA Board of Directors will take up the budget at a public hearing on June 10 at 10 a.m. at ORCAA's offices at 2940 Limited Lane NW in Olympia and via Zoom.
In a Feb. 11 memo to the board, Compliance Manager Mike Shults and Executive Director Jeff Johnston said fee revenue for the registration program has fallen short of the $459,000 in direct expenditures.
The board approved a 5 percent registration fee increase in March 2026 to close the gap.
Shults and Johnston also said program costs have been climbing faster than the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments required by Board Resolution 274. Of the 5 percent increase, 2.8 percent covers the mandated CPI adjustment, and the remaining 2.2 percent is an added increase.
The hike applies to base registration fees and pollutant fees for source classes RC1 through RC3. At current rates, the two-year fee revenue average is $455,000. The increase is projected to push that figure to $477,000.
The board also approved a new $110 annual review fee for smaller gasoline dispensing facilities classified as RC5.
Since a 2019 federal rule took effect, those facilities have been required to conduct annual vapor-tightness testing, with reports going to ORCAA inspectors for review. Frequent ownership changes at smaller stations have piled onto that workload.
Asbestos and demolition notification fees also got a board-approved overhaul in March 2026 after staff first raised the restructuring issue in January 2025.
Over three fiscal years, the program averaged a $60,000 annual deficit. Fiscal Year 2025 expenses were $225,370 against a revenue average of $158,643.
The revised fees are projected to generate $200,450 annually, a 26 percent increase over the three-year revenue average.
For costs the fee hike does not fully recover, staff said the agency would rely on operational efficiencies, including batched inspections and database improvements already underway.
With the new fee schedule, single-family residential asbestos and demolition fees, applicable to owner-performed work, would more than double to $100 from $47.
Commercial demolition fees would rise to $200 from $80. Emergency notifications, meanwhile, would be charged at double the applicable project rate.
Inspection Supervisor Rob Wyland, Shults and Johnston wrote in the memo that the doubled rate discourages what they called frivolous emergency claims. Most other Washington local clean air agencies, they wrote, have adopted the same approach.
People wishing to review the draft budget package may access it here. To comment, submissions may be emailed to info@orcaa.org or mailed to ORCAA, 2940 Limited Lane NW, Olympia, 98502, no later than 9 a.m. on June 10.
3 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
36098501
My concern, and I'm wondering if others share the concern too, is that ORCAA doesn't appear to report into any other State/Federal agency for oversight.
The same agency investigates, accuses, and initially penalizes people or companies
No internal appeals process. Appeals are handled by a different bureaucracy run by the Washington State's Environmental Administration Appeals System
The governing board is not a neutral adjudicative body
There is no embedded independent hearing examiner at the agency level
Smaller entities may lack resources to appeal externally
I certainly see the need, but the enforcement mechanism and administrative penalties seem challenging, if not impossible, for people to work through timely - especially small businesses.
Anyone with more clarity on how this system works?
Sunday, May 17 Report this
OlyRegionCleanAir
Hello,
We appreciate your interest in the Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA). As a local government agency, we strive to be as open and transparent in our work as possible. ORCAA is governed by a Board of Directors, composed of elected representatives from each of the six counties and the three largest cities we serve. And as noted in the previous comment, enforcement and permitting actions taken by ORCAA may be appealed to the state Pollution Control Hearings Board (eluho.wa.gov/boards/pollution-control-hearings-board). In addition, our finances are audited every two years by the Washington State Auditor’s Office.
Our website, www.orcaa.org, provides detailed information about our agency, and our programs.
Monday, May 18 Report this
36098501
ORCAA’s response is courteous and informative, but it still does not fully address the underlying concern being raised by many citizens and small business owners.
Most reasonable people support clean air enforcement. Environmental regulations exist for legitimate public health reasons, and agencies like ORCAA are expected to have technical expertise and the ability to act independently when necessary. The strongest argument in ORCAA’s defense is that environmental enforcement cannot become arbitrary, political, or selectively ignored. A formal regulatory structure, external appeals through the Pollution Control Hearings Board, and periodic state audits are all intended to create procedural order and legal consistency.
That is the best case for the current system.
But legality and fairness are not always the same thing.
The deeper concern is structural: ORCAA investigates complaints, determines violations, issues penalties, and then directs affected parties into a separate state-level appeals process that can be prohibitively expensive, technically complex, and time-consuming for ordinary citizens or small businesses to navigate. In practice, many people do not have the resources to meaningfully challenge agency decisions, even if they believe the agency made an error or acted disproportionately.
For large corporations with attorneys and consultants, this may simply be another compliance process. For smaller entities, it can feel like facing a highly specialized bureaucracy with little practical recourse.
And this is where public trust begins to erode.
Financial audits do not evaluate whether enforcement actions are proportionate or whether citizens are receiving accessible due process. Likewise, a governing board composed of elected officials is not the same thing as having an independent adjudicative body that exists specifically to review agency conduct neutrally.
A more just and balanced structure would preserve ORCAA’s enforcement authority while adding meaningful procedural safeguards for the public.
For example:
• An independent hearing examiner or ombudsman embedded at the regional level before matters escalate into costly state appeals
• Mandatory mediation opportunities for smaller violations before formal penalties are imposed
• Clear proportionality standards for enforcement actions and fines
• Independent review panels for disputed technical determinations
• Public reporting metrics showing how many enforcement actions are reduced, overturned, or dismissed on appeal
• Greater transparency regarding complaint initiation, investigatory thresholds, and discretionary enforcement decisions
None of these reforms would weaken environmental protections. In fact, they would likely strengthen public confidence in them.
The issue is not whether ORCAA should exist. The issue is whether citizens have a realistic ability to challenge the agency when they believe it has acted incorrectly or disproportionately. A system that concentrates investigative authority, enforcement authority, and practical leverage into one institution — even when staffed by well-intentioned people — inevitably creates an imbalance of power.
Public trust requires more than compliance. It requires visible fairness, accessible review, and accountability mechanisms that ordinary people can realistically use.
Friday, May 22 Report this