Laserfiche WebLink
k <br /> UST Cleanup Fund Program <br /> Claim Number 43 - Appeal <br /> Page 2 . <br /> ,i <br /> prioritize eligibility of applicants for ,the ;fund in <br /> accordance with these guidelines, we find, ourselves opposed <br /> to the staff' s administrative policy, which includes sources <br /> of income which do not derive directly from t e business <br /> concerned but rather are derived from personal investments <br /> totally unrelated to the business. This unfairly penalizes <br /> _ non-corporate, sole proprietorship, family-run businesses, <br /> which presumably your fund is primarily intended to assist. <br /> By including income from any source whatsoever, there is a <br /> significant reduction in the possibility 'bf not only our i <br /> business, but many other small businesses;, qualifying for <br /> priority B which was intended to give small businesses <br /> greater access to the cleanup funds relative to large ' <br /> businesses and corporations . This administrative decision F <br /> seems to fly in the face of your larger mandate, (i.e. , to E <br /> solve the pollution problem) and results ,' an unfair <br /> categorization of many applicants . We have trouble � * <br /> understanding how we as a small family run business with less <br /> than 10 part-time employees, no full-timetemp,loyees, and an E <br /> F unsalaried owner, whose net income from the business in 1991 <br /> was $55 , 543 can be classified by your staff As not qualifying <br /> as a small business . The latter treatment results in our <br /> being placed in Priority C along with buinesses having up <br /> to 500 full-time employees. Surely thisI'l3.s a gross departure <br /> both from the intent of the legislation estab{lishing this <br /> fund as well as from your purported administrative intent. <br /> The second issue involves the category into which we were <br /> placed, [ie. Service: ix. l Real Estate Op!erat#ors , <br /> Accountants . Auditors, Appraisers and Busines.Is Services <br /> (NEC) ] in determining the gross annual reIceipts limit. Our <br /> prior appeal letter details the history off how real estate <br /> operators came to be included in this category as a result of <br /> the staff' s determination. Mr. Deaner' sIposition states <br /> N that real estate operators were placed in this category in <br /> error and asserts that it really belonged in Miscellaneous <br /> ( Services Not Elsewhere Classified (NEC) . � This we believe is <br /> J more of a defensive and legalistic argument and does not <br /> Iaccurately represent the facts. Your dep',arta ent recognized <br /> early on in establishing guidelines for the Fund that "real <br /> estate operators" was an important category of applicants not <br /> i normally coming to the attention of the 0'ff is{ie of Small and i <br /> Minority Business , and therefore, it had not ,iinitially been <br /> k - <br />