Laserfiche WebLink
• I ;V <br /> i Ill <br /> I <br /> II <br /> ' ISI Page 2 . <br /> Approximately $170 ,000.44 of cleanup fundslare involved. Had <br /> we been properly classified we would have been placed in <br /> Priority Class B, but due to administrative confusion, and an <br /> apparent unwillingness or inability to understand the <br /> pertinent issues that we have raised, we find ourselves being <br /> denied timely access to the required cleanup monies . The <br /> magnitude of these funds are far beyond out means to raise <br /> and would create a severe financial haicdshxp. We trust that <br /> the State Resources Water Control Board will favor us by <br /> taking the time necessary to respond directly to the issues <br /> that we are raising, and thereby, correct the existing <br /> _r inequity by reclassifying as ].nto Priority]Class B. <br /> I <br /> We will provide as brief a summary as possible of the issues <br /> which are the basis of our appeal and urill �'respond as much as <br /> possible to the Final Staff and FinallDivision Decisions. We <br /> would ask that the two appeals whichpiocee`ded this appeal <br /> (which are enclosed) be read and be incorporated as part of <br /> this appeal since they detail the issues involved. First and <br /> foremost, we are challenging the manner ini�which the Fund has <br /> calculated our gross annual. receipts whichMthey use as a <br /> major yardstick in assigning an applicant to a given priority <br /> class . They state that in using particular business f <br /> categories which are assigned specificllgross receipts dollar <br /> limitations that they are following procedures mandated by <br /> the Office of Small & Minority Business (OSMB) . They <br /> reference without citing the applicable government <br /> regulations ie. Title 2 , Section 18961�and �Section 15399. 12 <br /> and subdivision (c) of Section 14837 of they California Code <br /> of Regulations . <br /> r <br /> Although the Fund claims to be using the Code as their guide, <br /> they then proceed to violate the language and intent of Title <br /> 2 . Section 1896 of the California Codeof -Regu,lations that <br /> governs the definition of a "small business" and the manner <br /> in which annual receipts are determined. The Fund in -their <br /> Staff Decision states that their calculation of annual <br /> receipts "includes but is not limited to ail gross receipts , <br /> wages , and pensions, interest, dividends, capital gains , <br /> rents and royalties" from whatever source. ; However Title 2 <br /> Section 1896 clearly defines "annual receipts" as "all <br /> pecuniary receipts . . . of a business conCE from whatever <br /> source derived, as entered or to have been 'lentered on its <br /> regular books of account for its most recently completed <br /> fiscal year. " This clearly limits thei3calculation of gross <br /> receipts to those receipts directly from the "business <br /> concern" and not from any source whatsoever. The Fund' s <br /> i <br /> { <br /> "l <br /> M <br />