# WASHOE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DIVISION

May 24, 2013

Dr. Co lle e n Cripps
, Ph.D

. Adm ini s trator Division o f E nv ironmcntal Protection 901 S. Stewart St reet, Suite 4001 Ca rs on City NY 89701- 5249

Dear Dr. Cripps : 

### PublicHealth

Preven t. Promote. Prolect



### Enclosed is a revision to the Washoe County portion ofNevada 's Sulfur Dioxide (S02) Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (I-SIP). This revision was adopted at a public hearing of the Washoe County District Board ofHealth (DBOH) on March 28
, 2013. The submittal includes:

• Proof of publication for the public hearing ;

• DBOH Agenda for the March 28
, 2013 public hearing;

• Staffreport for the S02 I-SIP;

• S02 I-SIP;

• Approved minutes from the March 28
, 2013 public hearing; and

• Certificate of Adoption

.

Two paper and two electronic copies of the submittal are enclosed. The electronic copies are exact duplicates of the paper copy submittal in searchable pdf format. Please review these documents and determine if this submittal is complete. If so, then please forward one paper and

one electronic copy to the U

. S. EPA Region IX office. If you have any questions or comments regarding this submittal, feel free to contact me at (775) 784-7200.

Sincerely,

Daniel Inouye Acting Director

Enclosures

P.O. BOX 11130 Reno, NV 89520-0027· (77 5) 784-7200 • FAX (775) 784-7225 www.washoecounty.us/health

Printed on Recycled Paper

# (This page left intentionally blank.)

# The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan to Meet the Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP Requirementsof Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)

March 28 , 2013

Washoe County Health District Air Quality Management Division P.O. Box 11130 Reno, Nevada 89520-0027 (775) 784-7200

www. ourcleanair.com

### i 

# Acronyms and Abbreviations

AQS Air Quality System CAA Clean Air Act CSAPR Cross

- State Air Pollution Rule CFR Code of Federal Regulations COCarbon Monoxide DMVDepartment of Motor Vehicles EPAU.S. Environmental Protection Agency FR Federal Register HA Hydrographic Area I- SIP Infrastructure State Implementation Plan NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard NDEPNevada Division of Environmental Protection NO2 

### Nitrogen Dioxide NRS Nevada Revised Statute NSR New Source Review O 3 

### Ozone Pb Lead PM2.5 

### Particulate Matter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter PM 10 

### Particulate Matter less than or equal to a nominal 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration SIP State Implementation Plan SLAMS State and Local Air Monitoring Station SO2

### Sulfur Dioxide USCUnited States Code WCDBOHWashoe County District Board of Health WCAQMDWashoe County Health District - Air Quality Management Division

### Washoe County Health District - AQMD March 28, 2013 Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 1 

# Introduction and Background

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 USC § 7410(a)(1) and (2) hereafter referred to as the “Infrastructure” State Implementation Plan (I

- SIP) requirements, requires states and delegated local agencies to submit an implementation plan to the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) demonstrating their ability and authority to implement, maintain, and enforce each National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing requirement for the submissions of the I-SIP. Washoe County is required to submit an I-SIP to EPA not later than 3 years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS regardless of whether or not the local jurisdiction has any nonattainment areas.

Section 110(a)(2) lists the required elements that cover the I- SIP. These elements include: enforceable emission limitations, air quality modeling, enforcement programs, ambient air monitoring programs, and confirmation of adequate personnel, resources and legal authorities. The following elements are addressed in this I- SIP:

**•** Enforceable Emission Limitations and Other Control Measures (110(a)(2)(A))

**•** Air Quality Monitoring, Compilation, Data Analysis, and Reporting (110(a)(2)(B))

**•** Enforcement and Stationary Source Permitting (110(a)(2)(C))

**•** Interstate Transport (110(a)(2)(D))

**•** Resources, Conflict of Interest, and Emergency Backstop (110(a)(2)(E))

**•** Stationary Source Emissions Monitoring and Reporting (110(a)(2)(F))

**•** Emergency Powers and Contingency Plans (110(a)(2)(G))

**•** SIP Revision For Revised Air Quality Standards or New Attainment Methods (110(a)(2)(H))

**•** SIP Revisions for New Nonattainment Areas (110(a)(2)(I))

**•** Consultation and Public Notification (110(a)(2)(J))

**•** Air Quality Modeling and Reporting (110(a)(2)(K))

**•** Major Stationary Source Permitting Fees (110(a)(2)(L))

**•** Consultation with Local Entities (110(a)(2)(M))

This I

- SIP addresses Washoe County’s portion of the State of Nevada’s requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2

### ) NAAQS.

### Washoe County Health District - AQMD March 28, 2013 Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 2 Table1 Current CAA 110(a)(2) (A)

- (M)Requirements in the Washoe County Portion of the Nevada Infrastructure S IP for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS , Unless Otherwise Noted

Element (A) Enforceable emission limits and other control measures : Requires SIPsto include enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means, or techniques, and schedules for compliance.

WCDBOH Regulations Governing Air Quality Management (Regulation) Section 020.005 (See 38 FR 12702) authorizes the Control Officer to enforce all SIP measures including the following previously submitted Sections: 030.000; 030.005; 030.010; 030.015; 030.025; 030.030; 030.110; 030.115(1), (5), and Subsection B; 030.1201;030.205; 030.215; 030.245; 030.250 (See 46 FR 21758); 030.300; 030.305; 030.310; 030.3101-3105; 030.3107; 030.3108 (See 46 FR 43141); 030.218, 030.230, and 030.970A (See 77 FR 60915); 040.070; 040.075; 040.080; 040.085; 040.090 (See 46 FR 21758); and 050.001 (See 72 FR 33397).

The following Sections have not been submitted as part of the SIP, but have been adopted by the WCDBOH and further support this element requirement (See Attachment B): 020.0051 (Board of Health - Powers and Duties); and 020.020 (Control Officer - Powers and Duties).

Element (B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system : Requires SIPs to provide for establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitors, collection and analysis of ambient air quality data, and to make these data available to EPA upon request.

The WCAQMD operates an ambient air monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR 58. The network is reviewed annually pursuant to 40 CFR 58.10 to ensure it meets ambient air monitoring objectives (See Attachment A).

### Washoe County Health District - AQMD March 28, 2013 Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 3 Element (C) Program for enforcement of control measures : Requires SIPs to include a program providing for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new and modified stationary sources as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved, including a permit program as required in Parts C and D.

WCDBOH Regulation Section 020.005 (See 38 FR 12702) authorizes the Control Officer to enforce all SIP measures including the following previously submitted Sections: 030.000; 030.005; 030.010; 030.015; 030.025; 030.030; 030.110; 030.115(1), (5), and Subsection B; 030.1201;030.205; 030.215; 030.245; 030.250 (See 46 FR 21758); 030.300; 030.305; 030.310; 030.3101-3105; 030.3107; 030.3108 (See 46 FR 43141); 030.218, 030.230, and 030.970A (See 77 FR 60915); 040.070; 040.075; 040.080; 040.085; 040.090 (See 46 FR 21758); and 050.001 (See 72 FR 33397).

The following Sections have not been submitted as part of the SIP, but have been adopted by the WCDBOH and further support this element requirement (See Attachment B): 010.1303 (Regulated Air Pollutant); 020.0051 (Board of Health - Powers and Duties); 020.020 (Control Officer - Powers and Duties); 030.002 (Construction or Modification of Permitted Operations); 030.500 (New Source Review (NSR) Applicability); 030.502 (Review for Emission Limitation Compliance); 030.503 (Conditions for Approval); 030.504 (Emission Offset Ratios); 030.505 (Completeness of Application); 030.506 (Requirements for Public Notice); 030.507 (Comments); 030.508 (Final Action); and 030.905 (Sources Requiring Part 70 Permits).

On March 3, 2008, the WCAQMD received full delegation of the federal PSD program (See Washoe County 2006 PM2.5 

### NAAQS I-SIP, Attachment C, submitted December 4, 2009) and is incorporated into Nevada’s SIP (40 CFR 52.1485).

### Washoe County Health District - AQMD March 28, 2013 Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 4 Element (D) Interstate transport provisions : Requires SIPsto contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions generated within the state from contributing significantly to nonattainment in, or interfering with maintenance by, any other state with respect to the NAAQS, or from interfering with measures required to be included in the SIP of any other state to prevent significant deterioration or to protect visibility.

Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator of the EPA issued a memo on November 19, 2012 to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions 1- 10, regarding states’ and EPA’s obligations with respect to the requirements of (D)(i)(I). Ms. McCarthy notes:

“I would also like to note that the recent CSAPR decision made certain holdings regarding the requirement for states to submit SIPs addressing the provisions of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the good neighbor provision that addresses upwind emissions linked to NAAQS attainment problems in downwind states. The decision states that a SIP cannot be deemed deficient for failing to meet the good neighbor obligation before the EPA quantifies that obligation. Although we have filed a petition for rehearing of the Court’s decision, including this element of the decision, and although the mandate for that decision has not yet been issued, we intend to act in accordance with the decision during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, at this time the EPA does not intend to make findings that states failed to submit SIPs to comply with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). To the extent that states may inquire about their obligations to submit SIPs addressing this provision, we believe it would be appropriate to convey that at this time we do not intend to make such findings with respect to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).”

Because EPA has not informed Nevada of its contribution to any SO2 

### NAAQS attainment problem in downwind states, the WCAQMDconcludes that it is not obligated to address this requirement at this time.

Element (E) Adequate resources : Requires SIPs to provide necessary assurances for adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out its SIP, to contain requirements addressing potential conflicts of interest, and to provide necessary assurances that the state retains responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of the SIP where the state relies on a local or regional government for implementation of any SIP provision.

NRS 445B.500 authorizes the WCDBOH to implement and administer air quality management programs within the geographic boundaries of Washoe County. These programs are managed through the WCAQMD. For the most recent fiscal year (2011 -12), the WCAQMD consisted of 19 allocated full

-time staff. Primary funding sources are: 1) Operating permit fees; 2) EPA grants; 3) Nevada DMV funds; and 4) the City of Reno, City of Sparks, and County of Washoe via an inter

-local agreement with the Washoe County Health District (See Washoe County 2006 PM2.5 

### NAAQS I-SIP, Attachment D, submitted December 4, 2009).

### Washoe County Health District - AQMD March 28, 2013 Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 5 Element (F) Stationary source monitoring system : Requires SIPs to establish a system to monitor emissions from stationary sources, to submit periodic emissions reports, to correlate the emissions reports with the corresponding SIP emission limits and standards, and to make emissions reports available to the public.

WCDBOH Regulation Section 020.005 (See 38 FR 12702) authorizes the Control Officer to enforce all SIP measures including the following previously submitted Sections related to authority for stationary source monitoring and reporting: 030.210; 030.250 (See 46 FR 21758); and 030.218, 030.230 ; 030.235, and 030.970A (See 77 FR 60915).

The following Sections have not been submitted as part of the SIP, but have been adopted by the WCDBOH and further support this element requirement (See Attachment B): 020.0051 (Board of Health - Powers and Duties); and 020.060 (Sampling and Testing).

Element (G) Emergency episodes : Requires SIPsto provide for authority to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public health and to provide for adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.

Emergency powers are authorized under WCDBOH Regulation 050.001 (Emergency Episode Plan) (See 72 FR 33397 ). In addition, general emergency powers are provided in Nevada’s SIP in NRS 445B.560.

Element (H) Future SIP revisions : Requires SIPsto provide for SIP revisions in response to changes in the NAAQS, or availability of improved methods for attaining the NAAQS, and in response to an EPA finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate.

WCDBOH Regulation Section 020.005 (See 38 FR 12702) authorizes the Control Officer to enforce Section 020.0051 (Board of Health - Powers and Duties) which provides the WCDBOH the authority to revise a SIP “to achieve and maintain levels of air quality to protect human health”.

Element (I) SIP revisions for new non

- attainment areas : Requires SIP revisions to meet the applicable Part D requirements relating to

non

- attainment areas.

The WCAQMD commits to submit SIP revisions whenever the county, or portions of the county, are newly designated non- attainment for any federal NAAQS.

### Washoe County Health District - AQMD March 28, 2013 Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 6

Element (J) [§121] Consultation with government officials, public notification, PSD and visibility protection : Requires states to provide a process for consultation with local governments and Federal Land Managers carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements; . . .

All SIP elements are adopted by the WCDBOH before being formally submitted as the Washoe County portion of the Nevada SIP. Participation by local political subdivisions is authorized by WCDBOH Regulation Section 020.005 (See 38 FR 12702) and an inter-local agreement between the City of Reno, City of Sparks, and the County of Washoe, Nevada (See Washoe County 2006 PM2.5 

### NAAQS I-SIP, Attachment D, submitted December 4, 2009). This inter

-local agreement requires that the WCDBOH include one elected official from each of the three political subdivisions in Washoe County. The WCAQMD is committed to include all stakeholders, such as local governments and federal land managers, in the SIP development process.

Element (J) [§127] . . . requires SIPs to notify the public if NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances; and . . .

WCDBOH Regulation Section 050.001 (See 72 FR 33397) authorizes the WCAQMD to advise the public on measures that are taken to reduce their exposure during elevated air pollutant concentrations. Near

-time ambient air monitoring data are posted on the WCAQMD website (www. ourcleanair.com).A Trends report, which summarizes monitored ambient air quality in Washoe County, is prepared annually and also posted on the WCAQMD website.

Element (J) [Part C PSD / Visibility] . . . requires SIPs to meet applicable requirements of Part C related to prevention of significant deterioration and visibility protection.

On July 31, 2007, EPA’s approval of Nevada’s interstate transport SIP (CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)) for the 8

-hour O 3

### and PM2.5

### NAAQS promulgated in July 1997 was published in the Federal Register (See 72 FR 41629). Also, Article 13 of Nevada’s SIP, “General Provisions for the Review of New Sources,” requires an environmental evaluation before a registration certificate may be issued. Finally, on March 3, 2008, the WCAQMD received full delegation of the federal PSD program (See Washoe County 2006 PM2.5 

### NAAQS I-SIP, Attachment C, submitted December 4, 2009) and is incorporated into Nevada’s SIP (40 CFR 52.1485).

### Washoe County Health District - AQMD March 28, 2013 Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 7 Element (K) Air quality modeling/data : Requires SIPs to provide for the performance of air quality modeling for predicting effects on air quality of emissions of any NAAQS pollutant and the submission of such data to EPA upon request.

WCDBOH Regulation Section 030.235 (Requirements for Source Sampling and Testing) (See 77 FR 60915 ) authorizes the Control Officer to require operators provide source stack testing or other types of testing to determine the quantity and effect of emissions produced by a
stationary source.

In addition, the following Section has not been submitted as part of the SIP, but have been adopted by the WCDBOH and further support this element requirement (See Attachment B): 030.503 (Conditions for Approval).

Element (L) Permitting fees : Requires SIPs to require each major stationary source to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing, acting upon, implementing and enforcing a permit until such fee requirement is superseded by EPA approval of a fee program under Title V of the CAA.

Permitting fees are authorized under WCDBOH Regulation Sections 030.210 (See 46 FR 21758) and 030.310 (See 46 FR 43141).

Element (M) Consultation/participation by affected local entities : Requires SIPsto provide for consultation and participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.

All SIP elements are adopted in a public hearing by the WCDBOH before being formally submitted as the Washoe County portion of the Nevada SIP. Participation by local political subdivisions is authorized by WCDBOH Regulation Section 020.005 (See 38 FR 12702) and an inter-local agreement between the City of Reno, City of Sparks, and the County of Washoe, Nevada (See Washoe County 2006 PM2 .5 

### NAAQS I

- SIP, Attachment D, submitted December 4, 2009). This inter

-local agreement requires that the WCDBOH include one elected official from each of the three political subdivisions in Washoe County.

### Attachment A

Letter from Matthew Lakin (EPA Region IX) to Daniel Inouye (WCAQMD) Regarding the “2012 Annual Monitoring Network Plan” (February 28, 2013)

### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX



### Mr. Daniel Inouye, Branch Chief Monitoring and Planning Air Quality Management Division Washoe County Health District P.O. Box 11130 Reno, NY 89520-0027

Dear Mr. Inouye: 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco ,; CA**~4105** 

# FEB 2 0 

# 20tl

Thank you for your submission of the Washoe County Health District, Air Quality Management Division's 2012 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan in July 2012. Based on the information provided in the plan, EPA approves all portions of the network plan except those specifically identified below.

Annual network plans are important documents for regulatory purposes (e.g., State Implementation Plans, designations and redesignations) and public information, in addition to the myriad uses by the air districts. EPA is revising the review process for annual network plans
to specifically check and document the comprehensive set of items that are required to be included in the annual network plans per 40 CFR 58.10 in a consistent manner. We have created

a checklist that lists all these items and have included it as Attachment 

### A. While the items in the checklist are required by EPA regulations, we acknowledge that we have not specifically requested some ofthis information in previous annual network plan reviews

. We recognize that your plan may not have all the items that we have currently identified and hope to work with you

on the inclusion of these items in future plans. To facilitate these changes, EPA has provided detailed feedback in the checklist where information should be included or revised in next year's plan.

Please note that we cannot approve portions of the annual network plan for which the information in the plan is insufficient to judge whether the requirement has been met, or for which the information, as described, does not meet the requirements as specified in 40 CFR 58.10 and the associated appendices. EPA Region 9 also cannot approve portions of the plan for which the EPA Administrator has approval authority. Accordingly, we are not acting on the specific portions of your agency's annual network plan listed in Attachment 

### B.

In addition to the checklist and list of specific plan elements where EPA Region 9 is not taking action, enclosed are additional detailed comments on the plan (Attachment C). All of the
comments in Attachments A, B, and C should be addressed in next year's network plan. If you

### have any questions regarding this letter or the enclosed comments, please feel free to contact me at (415) 972-3851 or Elfego Felix at (415)947-4141.

Enclosures : Sincerely,

# ~f~ Matthew Lakin, Manager Air Quality Analysis Office



### A. Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan Checklist B. Elements where EPA is Not Taking Aciion C. Additional Detailed Comments

cc : Julie Hunter, AQMD Craig Petersen, AQMD Kevin Dick, AQMD

### Attachment A: Annual Air 

### Monitoring Network Plan Checklist

Year :

.20 12 Agency : Washoe County AQMD

40 CFR 58.10(a)(l) requires that each Annual 

### Network Plan (ANP) include information regarding the following types of monitors: SLAMS monitoring stations including FRM, FEM, and ARM monitors that are part of SLAMS, NCore stations, STN stations, State speciation stations, SPM stations, and/or, in serious, severe and extreme ozone nonattainment areas, PAMS stations, and SPM monitoring stations.

40 CFR 58. 10(a)

### (1) further directs that, "The plan shall include a statement of purposes for each monitor and evidence that siting and operation of each monitor meets the requirements of appendices A, C, 

## D, and E ofthis part, where applicable." On this basis, review ofthe ANPs is based on the requirements listed in 58.10 along with those in Appendices A, C, 

## D, and E.

EPA Region 9 will not take action to approve or disapprove any item for which Part 58 grants approval authority to the Administrator rather than the Regional Administrators, but we will do a check to see ifthe required information is included and correct. The items requiring approval by the Administrator are: PAMS, NCore, Speciation 

### (STN /

CSN)
, and N02 requirements including near road, area-wide, and RA40.

Please note that this checklist summarizes many ofthe requirements of40 CFR Part 58, but does not substitute for those requirements, nor do its
contents provide a binding determination of compliance with those requirements. The checklist is subject to revision in the future and we welcome
comments on its contents and structure.

. Key : White = 

### meets the requirement Grey 

## = Requirement not applicable for this year's plan Yellow = 

### does not meet or cannotjudge the requirement- action requested in next year's plan or outside the ANP process 

# -=
meets the requirement but action requested to improve next year's plan

1

### ANP requirement Citation 

### Was the info Does the Notes within 

## 40 submitted?! If 

### information CFR58 

### yes, page 

### #s. provided3 

### meet Flaa if 

### the req?4 

## " incorrecr? l. Submit plan by July I" 58.10 (a)(I) Yes Yes Plan submitted July 2, 2012, please aim to submit by or prior to July l. 2. Statement ofpurpose for each monitor 58.10 (a)(I) Yes,p.ll
, 14, 17, Yes 20
, 23,29,32,36

3. 30-day public comment I inspection period 58.10 (aXI), Yes, p.1 Yes 58.10 (ai(2) 4. Modifications to SLAMS network

- case when we are 58.10 (a)(2) N/A N/A- no such
not approving actual system modifications (i.e., we 58.1O(e) modifications will do it outside the ANP process') proposed. 5. Modifications to SLAMS network

- case when we are 58.10 (a)(2) Yes, p.9 Yes The network modifications proposed do not approving actual system modifications per 58.14(c) 58.10 (b)(5) require EPA approval and we find these 58.10(e) acceptable. 58.14 (c) 6. Does plan include documentation (e.g., attached N/A N/A Suggest including any past or future copies of approval letter) for system modifications that have EPA approval letters rec eived for system been approved since last ANP approval? modifications. 7. NCOl\; plan subll1ined to Admin

. b" 7 1'2009 58.10 (a)(3) KA 8. NCore site operational (by December 2010) 58.10 (a)(3) Yes, p.3 NA- HQ approval Please report details of meteorology parameters taken at the NCore site. See [General] comment from Attachment C. 9

. Pb plan for> 1

. 0 tpy sourcos submitlcd by 7 1'2009 

### ,g

. IO (0)(4) N/A 10. Pb**s.it~** for > 1

. 0 tp\ s.ourct':s op(:rationai bv L 1'20 I 0 58

. 10 (a)(4) N/A 

### 11

. Pb plan 

### Cor 0

. 5 -1.0 tpy submittod b\ 1'1 2 011 5S

. 10 (a)(4) l\A 12. Pb site for 0

. 5-1.0 tpy sources operational by 58

. 10 (a)(4) N / A N / A-no Pb Please provide clarity and justification as to why 1212712011 monitoring AQMD does not currently have a Pb monitoring requirement requirement under this criteira. 13. N02 plan for area-wide and RA40 sites submitted by 58.10 (a)(5) N / A N / A- no 7 / 112012 requirement for 

### AQMD 14. )102 area

-wick ond RA40 ,itcs oporational by 5S.IO \a)(5) K/\

J Response options: N / A (Not Applicable), Yes, No, Incomplete, Incorrect. The re sponses "Incomplete" and "Incorrecf' assume that some information has been provided.

2 To the best of our knowledge.

3 Assuming the information is correct 'Response options : N / A (Not Applicable)

- [reason], Yes, No, Insufficient to Judge.

, See 58.14(c) 

## 2

### - 

### ANP requirement Citation Was the info 

### Does the Notes within 40 submitted?l If 

### information CFR58 yes, 

### page #s. 

### provided3 

### meet Flag if 

### the req?4 incorrecr?
I 1 2013

15. N02 plan for near-road sites s ubmitted by 7/ 112012 58.10 (a)(5) N/ A N / A

- no requirement for AQMD 16

. NO :! nt:3r-i mH.i !'ite::- opt:rational 

### by 58.10 (a)(5) N , A (N:/\ until 20l3 01"20l-\ plans) 17

. S02 plan 

# i,,, [,WEI site>
, ubmilled bv?O II 53.10 (a}(6) Nu\ HL 

### 502 :-;it('S opcr:.ltionai 

### "Y 11 20 J 

### 3 58.10(0)(6) N ' A and 58.13( d) 19

. CO pbn for 20 IS l1ear

- road sites 

### submitted b:-- 58.10 (a)(7) N'/\ " I 2014 Jnd 58

. 13(0)(1) 

## :20. CO sites fo r first 

### phas:! of CO monitors opcr3tionai by**5~.1()** (0)01 

## :-: ' .'\ I I**201~** 

### and 58. I 3(")( I) 

# "

_ 1. CO plan tor 20 17**u~:.lr -r** **oad** siles by 7

. 1. 2 0 16 5 8

. 10 (a ) (7) NA anel 5 8

. 13«)(2 ) 

# "" CO 

### sitt!s lor 

### first phase 

### of CO 

### monitors operational by 58.10 (a)(7) N'A I I 2017 and 58.l3(.:)(2) 23. AQS site identification number for each site 58.10 (b)(I) Yes, p.ll, 14, 17
, Yes 

### 20,23 ,29,32,36 24. Location of each site: street address and geographic 58.10 (b)(2) Yes, p.ll, 14, 17, Yes coordinates 20,23,29,32,36 25. Sampling and analysis method(s) for each measured 58.10 (b)(3) Yes, p.13, 16, 19, Yes parameter 22,25 -2 8,3 1,34- 35,38 26. Operating sche dule for each monitor (see items 62-66) 58 .10 (b)(4) Yes, p

. 13, 16, 19
, Yes 22,25 -2 8,3 1 ,34

- 35
, 38 27. Any 

### proposals t o remove or move a monitoring 58. 10 (b)(5) Yes, p.9 Yes See #5 above. station within a period of 1 8 months following plan submittal 28. Scale ofrepresentativeness for each monitor as 58.10(b)(6); Yes, p.13, 16, 19, Yes defined 

### in Appendix D AppD 

### 22,25-28,31,34- 35,38 

### 3

### ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes within 40 

### submitted?1 If 

### information CFRS8 yes, page #s. provided3 

### meet Flag if 

### the req?4 incorrecr?
29. I dentification of sites suitable and sites not suitable 58.10 (bX7) Yes, p.27-28, 35 Yes for comparison to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS as described in Part 58.30 30. MSA, CBSA, CSA or other area represented by the 58.10 (b)(8) Yes, p.ll, 14, 17, Yes 

### monitor 20,23,29,32,36 3l. Designation of any Pb mouitors as either source- 58.10 (b)(9) N/A N/A- no oriented or non-sauree-oriented requirement for AOMD 32. Any source-oriented Pb site for which a waiver has 58.10 (b)(10) N / A N / A- no been granted by EPA RA requirement for AQMD 33. Any Pb mouitor for which a waiver has been 58.10 (b)(1 I) N / A N / A- no requested or granted by EPA RA for us ofPb-PMIO requirement for in lieu of Pb- TSP AQMD 34.**Idt:ntific~tioll** of required N02 monitors U :- eitht'r**10** (b)(12) ]\; //\

n (; 3r

- r0Jd or area- wide: 35

. Document how states and local agencies provide for 58.10 (c) Yes, plO Yes the review of changes to a PM2.S monitoring network that impact the location of a violating PM2.5 

### monitor. 6**~** :.**~'** 

# - 

# - ,.**~- :.~**  

### "



## . ;

- "'It., .':5< il '\**-.~** .... r •. ,**~,** ;!:- "" -.'

,. r

. " '-:;.'" "**.:;;-:.;,:::~** :-: -"\" ," ' :',**~~",:,,";'~.;~.** '\;,)1, ':;''':

-**i.~'"** c. < '-: "

. 

### ".:, ' :-
- .:


### .. ' 

### ..... '. ""
'":.:":' , 

## . ,,"

., "p ' .:::'"

. 

# . ' 

# . '- 

# . , " \:..-,

.'

## .. ,

# ..**..;'..,~; ~;.;**  

### . \

.....**,** 

# ...**,~,,-'** ....... :

... ...:;,;**-,.~.'--** 37. Precision! Accuracy reports submitted to AQS 58.16(a); Yes, p.IO Yes App A, 1.3 and 5.1.1 38. Annual data certification submitted 58.15 Yes, p.IO Yes App. A 

### 1.3 39. Frequency of flow rate verification for manual PM App A 3.3.2 Yes, p.i3, 22, 27- Yes samplers audit 28,31,35,38 40. Frequency of flow rate verification for automated PM AppA 3.2.3 Yes, p.22, 28, 31, Yes analyzers audit 35,38 41. Frequency of one-point flow rate verification for Pb AppA N / A N / A- no

6 The affected state or local agency must document the process for obtaining public comment and include any comments received through the public notification process within their submitted plan. 

### 4

### ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes within 40 

### submitted?! If 

### information CFRS8 yes, page #s. provided3 

### meet Flag if 

### the req?4 incorrecr? samplers audit 3.3.4.1 requirement for AQMD 42. Frequency of one-point QC check (gaseous) App. A 3.2.1 Yes, p.13, 16, 19, Yes 25-26, 31, 34, 38 

### 43

. Date oflast Annual Performance Evaluation (gaseous) App. A 3.2.2 Yes, p.13, 16, 19, Yes 25-26,31,34,38 

### 44. Dates of last two semi-annual flow rate audits for PM App A, 3.2.4 Yes, p.13, 22, 27- Yes 

### monitors , and 3.3.3 28,31,35,38 45. Dates oflast two semi-annual flow rate audits for Pb AppA N/A N/A- no monitors 3

. 3.4.1 requirement for AQMD 46. PM2.5 co-location App A 3.2.5 Yes,p.27 Yes

47. Distance between co-located monitors App

. A Yes, p.27, 35 Insufficient to Ren03 PM2.5 collocated monitors are reponed as 3.2.5.6 judge 1.1 m apart and Sparks PM 1 0 collocated monitors

are reponed as 1.5m apan. These distances are acceptable as long as the flow rate is less than 200 liters/min.

In follow-up conversation with AQMD, they have clarified that the flow rate is indeed less than 200 liters/min and therefore these collocation distances are acceptable. Funhermore, the need for a PM I0 collocation has been eliminated given that all instruments in AQMD's fleet have been switched to continuous FEMs.

Please include the flow rates for remained



### - collocated instruments in next year ' s plan 

### in order to clarifY that collocation distances are acceptable

. 48. Manual PMIO method co-location met? (note: AppA3.3

. 1 Yes, p. 5 Yes In follow-up communication with the agency, continuous PMI0 does not have this requirement) Washoe 

### has clarified that they no longer operate filter based PM I 0 instruments and therefore collocation requirements would not apply.

Please make this clarification in next year's plan.



### 5

### ANP requirement Citation

· Was the info Does the within 

## 40 submitted?) If 

### information CFR58 yes, page #s. provided3 

### meet Flag if 

### the req?4 incorrect2 

### ?
49. Pb co-location AppA N / A N / A· no 3.3.4.3 requirement for AQMD 50

. PMI0·2

. 5 co-location (note: only applies to Fresno App A 3.3.6 N / A N / A· no and Phoenix NCore sites) requirement for AQMD 51. Requirod

- or 1'\12. 5 PEP andits AppA3.2

. - 1\
, .....'\ Yes

- EPA



### - requirement 52. Required' of pb PEP audit; AppA 

### N'A Yes

- EPA 3.3.4.4- requirement**~** 53. Required;. ofi\PAP audits ( or approv\.." d**~qui"ale[]l )**  ApI' A 

# " .4 l\' '.A. Yo,

- EPA



### . . 

## "**rcqulr~mcnt** 54. Instrument/monitoring method code for each monitor : App C 2.4.1.2 No Insufficient to is it reported properly? Is it reported correctly (i

. e., 

### judge appropriate method code for regulatory monitors)?



# -. ;\.:.:' '\: 

### .-**~~.** .- 

# _.
,.

-**..:t~l;';·:'1 :~~**  \/: .:; 

# ,

. 

# ,

- 

## . 

# ...

. . 

# ..

. . 

# . , .-. 

# ,

. .**~** 56. Start date for each monitor Required to Yes
, p.13 ; 16, 19, Yes determine if 22, 25-28, 31, 34- other req. 35,38 (e

. g., 

### min # and co-Io) are

7 EPA has reviewed EPA documentation to confirm that the s e requirements have been met for the area 

### in question.

S EPA has reviewed EPA documentation to confirm that these requirements have been met for the area 

### in question.

9 EPA has reviewed EPA documentation to confirm that these requirements have been met for the area 

### in question. 

### Notes

Method codes were not found in EPA's review, please include this infonnation in next year's plan

. See the "List of Designated Reference and Equivalent Methods" found on EPA's AMTIC website for latest list of method codes for each instrument.

Suggest reporting method codes for each parameter at each site in the detailed site information tables of the network plan. See
sugges ted format provided in Attachment C of the Annual Monitoring Network Plan memo sent by EPA Reoion in May 2012.



### 6

### ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes within 40 

### submitted?i If 

### information CFRS8 yes, page #s. provided3 

### meet Flag if 

### the req?4 incorrecr?

met 57. Instrument monitor type for each monitor Required to Yes, p.13, 16, 19, Yes This field was called ''Monitor Classification" in determine if 22, 25-28, 31, 

### 34- 2012 Plan. Please rename to "Monitor Type" in other req. 

### 35,38 next year's plan. (e.g

. , 

### min # and co-Io) are met 58. Monitoring objective for each instrument App D 

### l.l Incorrect insufficient to The "monitoring objective" listed should be 58.10 (b)(6) judge cbanged to "site type" in each afthe detailed Site 

### Information tables. 

### HMonitoring objective" could include the following types: public info, NAAQS 

### comparison, or research.

For a suggested reporting fonnat, please see Attachment C of the May 2012 memo sent by EPA Region 9. 59. Site type for each instrument AppD 1.1.1 Yes,p.13, 16
, 19, Yes Please rename "Monitoring Objective" to read 22,25-28, 31. 34- "Site Type" in the detailed site information 35
, 38 tables. See#58 related above. 60

. Instrument parameter code for each instrument Required to No insufficient to Please include in next year's plan. Suggest determine if judge including fQr each parameter in detailed site other req. information tables. (e.g., min # and co-lo) are 

### For a suggested reporting format,**pleas~** 

### see met Attachment C orthe May 2012 memo sent by EPA Re<7ion 9. 61. Instrument parameter occurrence code for each Required to No insufficient to Please include in next year's plan. Suggest instrument determine if judge including for each parameter in detailed site other req. information tables. (e.g.
, min # and co-Io) are 

### For a suggested reporting format, please see met Attachment C of the May 2012 memo sent by EPA Region 9. 62. Sampling season for ozone (note: date of waiver App D
, 4. I (i) Yes,p.16,19,26, Yes approval must be included ifthe sampling season 3 1,34 ,38 deviates from requirement) 63. Sampling schedule for PM2.5

- applies to year-round 58.12(d) Yes, p. 27-28, 35 Yes and seasonal samplin<7 schedules·61ote: date of waiver AppD4.7 

### 7

### ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes within 

## 40 submitted?! If 

### information CFRS8 yes, page #s. provided3 

### meet Flag if 

### the req?4 incorrecr? approval must be included ifthe sampling season deviate s from requirement) 64. Sampling schedule for PM I 0 58. 12(e) 

### Yes, p. 

### 5, 13,22, Yes 

### In follow-up communication with the agency, AppD4.6 27,31,35,38 Washoe has clarified that they no longer operate filter based PM 10 instruments and that all SLAMS PMIO measurements come from continuous monitors.

Please make this clarification in next year's plan. 65. Sampling schedule for Pb 58.12(b) N/ A N/ A- no AppD4

. 5 requirement for AQMD 66. Sampling s chedule for PMIO-2.5 58.12(f) Ye s, p

. 2 7 -28 Yes AppD4

. 8 67. Minimum # of sites for 03[Note: should be supported App D, 4. I (a) Yes, p. 4 Yes Please report monitoring requirements in terms of by MSA ID, MSA population, DV, 

### # sites, and # and minimum required number of sites rather than required sites

## 1 Table 0-2 monitors. For example, a single monitoring station that hosts multiple ozone monitors counts

as a single site to meet minimum monitoring requirements for ozone. 68. Identification of max. conc. 03 monitor(s) AppD4

. 1 (b) Yes, p. 38 Yes



## . 

## , 

# .. . "**.~:.~**

### . 

# - 

# - 

# - "

- . 

### '.



### - 

## " 

## "
, , ..... ;.;."""1**'~·1** .• ';**'<;;~** >- - ... 1.;:"" "



# , -

- ,


## . 

# -

.....**~~** :" .,'.
--. 

# -,-**-.~** -.:." \



# - \i....: 72. Minimum monitoring requirements met for S02 App D 4.4 Ye s , p. 6 Yes 

### 73. Minimum monitoring requirements met for CO AppD Yes, p.5 Yes Please specifY NCore CO monitoring required. 74. Minimum monitoring requirements met for Pb AppD4.5 N / A N / A- no See # 12

. 58.13(a) requirement for AQMD 7 5

. Minimum 

### # of monitors for PM2.5 [Note: should be AppD, Yes, p. 4 Yes Monitoring requirements should be calculated in supported by MSA ID, MSA population, DV, # sites, 4.7. I (a) and terms of# of sites, not monitors, as outlined in 40 and 

### # required sites 

## 1 Table D-5 CFR Part 58 Appendix D. A site with a primary and collocated monitor shou ld be counted as one of the required sites. SpM sites should not be



## 8

### ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes within 40 

### submitted?l If 

### information CFRS8 yes, page #s. provided3 

### meet Flag if 

### the req?4 incorrecr?
counted for the purposes ofmeeting SLAMS minimum monitoring requirements

. Please
correct these calculations in next year's plan

. 76. Required PM2.5 sites represent community-wide air AppD Yes
, p.27-28, 35 Yes quality at neighborhood or urban scale 4.7.1(b) 77. For PM2.5, is at least one site in a population-oriented App D Incomplete, p

. 27- Insufficient to PM2.5 site is listed as "population o r iented."

area of expected maximum concentration 4.7.I(b)(l) 28,35 judge Please specify the site that is located in area of expected maximum concentration. 78. If > I SLAMS PM2.5 required, is there a site in an AppD N / A

. N / A- no
area ofpoor air quality 4.7.1(b)(2) requirement for AQMD 79. Minimum monitoring requirements for continuous App D 4.7.2 Yes, p.28 & 35 Yes PM2.5 80. Requirements for PM2.5 background and transport App D4.7.3 N / A NIA- State level Recommend referencing location of sites in next sites year's plan 81. Are PM2.5 Chemical Speciation requirements met for App D 4

. 7.4 Yes, p.28 Yes official STN sites? 

# ':: 

# " -

.. .:- '\ 

# ".

, 

### -, - 

# - , 

# -
- -

. 

### . ':"



### ..: , ",,",**~** /':- -.:



### ... 

# -

- ,',**~** ""'l' \. 83

. Minimum # of monitors for PM I 0 App D, 4

. 6 Yes
, p

. 5 Yes Please report Max Concentration values to (a) and Table support number of required sites. See 2012 D-4 Annual Monitoring Network Plan memoAttachment A for guidance on reporting minimum monitoring requirements for PMIO. 84. Minimum monitoring requirements met for PMIO-2.5 AppD4.8 Yes, p.35 Yes

mass 85. Distance of site from nearest road AppE6 Yes
, p.ll, 14, 17, Yes Incline Site

- Ozone monitor. Traffic counts 20
, 23,29.32,36 should be given for nearest downwind road, which appears to be Tahoe Blvd, in next year ' s plan.

Plumb-Kit Site- It is unclear which distance segment applies to the traffic count provided. In
next year's plan please clearly tie road segment distance to that segment's count for all sites

.



### 9

### ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes within 40 

### submitted?l If 

### information CFR58 yes, page #s

. 

### provided3 

### meet Flag if the req?4 incorrecr?
Toll Site

- According to 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix E, Figure E·I, the distances and counlS provided suggest PM monitors may be at "neighborhood scale," please revisit and verify appropriate scale in next year's plan.

Note: Parameters at a site can have a different spatial scales and should be calculated individually by parameter rather than for an entire site. 86. Traffic count of nearest road AppE Yes p.II, 14, 17, Yes See notes in #85 20,23,29,32,36 87

. Groundcover App E3(a) Yes p.13, 16, 19, Yes 22
, 25·28,31,34- 35
, 38 88. Probe height AppE2 Yes p.13, 16, 19, Yes 22, 25-28, 31
, 34- 35
, 38 89. Distance from supporting structure AppE2 Yesp.13, 16, 19
, Yes 22
, 25-28,31
, 34- 35
, 38 90. Distance from obstructions on roof App E4(b)

. Yes p

. l3
, 16, 19
, Yes For future obstructions that may exist, please 22,25-28,31,34- include 35,38 distance and height of obstruction.

91. Distance from obstructions not on roof App E 4(a) Incomplete p

. 13, Insufficient to 40 CFR 58, Appendix E spec ifies that "the 16, 19,22,25-28, judge distance from the obstacle to the probe, inlet, or 31. 34-35, 38 monitoring path must be at least twice the height that the obstacle protrudes above the probe, inlet,

or monitoring path." Please provide obstruction height in next year's plan. 92. Distance from trees AppE5 Yes p.l3, 16, 19, Yes 22, 25-28, 31. 34- 

### 35,38 93

. Distance to furnace or incinerator flue App E 3(b) Yes p.13, 16, 19, Yes 22
, 25-28,31,34- 

### 35
, 38 94. Unrestricted airflow AppE,4(a) Yes p.13, 16, 19, Yes 

### 10

### ANP requirement Citation Was the info Does the Notes within 40 submitted ? ! If 

### information CFR 5 8 yes, page #s. provided3 

### meet Flag if 

### the req?4 incorrecr? and 4(b) 22
, 25·28,31,34

- 35
, 38 95. Probe material (i f applicable) AppE9 Yes p

. 13
, 16
, 19
, Yes 22
, 25-28 , 31, 34- 35
, 38 96

. Residence time ( if applicable) AppE9 Yes p

. 13, 16, 19
, Yes 22, 25

- 28, 31, 34

- 35,38



### Public Comments on Annual Network Plan Were comments submitted to the 

# slLrr agency during the public comment period? Yes

Were any ofthe comments substantive? No.

Explain basis for determination if any comments were considered not substantive : No specific ties to not meeting requirements of the annual network plans specified in 40 CFR 5 8.10.

Did the agency respond to the substantive comments? Although comments were not substantive, the agency did provide an adequate response

.

11

### Attachment B : Annual Air Monitoring Netwo.·k Plan Items where EPA is Not Taking Action

We are not acting on the portions of annual network plans where either EPA Region 9 lacks the authority to approve specific items of the plan, or EPA has determined that a requirement is either not met or information in the plan is insufficient to judge whether the requirement has been met.

• Per 40 CFR 58.1 I (c), NCore and STN network design and changes are subject to approval of the EPA Administrator. Therefore
, we are not acting on these items

.

• EPA identified items in you agency's annual network plan where a requirement was not being met or information in the plan was insufficient to judge whether the requirement

was being met based on 40 CFR 58.10 and the associated appendices

. Therefore, we are not acting on of the following items:

Item Checklist Row Issue (Attachment A) For PM2.5, is at least one site 

## 77 Insufficient to judge in a population-oriented area of expected maximum concentration Instrument/monitoring method 54 Insufficient to judge code for each monitor Monitoring objective for each 58 Insufficient to judge instrument Insllument parameter code for 60 Insufficient to judge each instrument Instrument parameter 61 Insufficient to judge

occurrence code for each instrument Distance from obstructions not 91 Insufficient to judge

on roof

Additional information for each of these items is in included in Attachment 

### A.

### Attachment C: Additional Detailed Comments

• [Item 12) Please provide clarity and justification as to why no minimum Pb monitoring requirements currently exist for Washoe County (i.e. no current sources over 0.5 tons per year).

• [Item 47) Please clarify that distances between collocated monitors at Ren03 are acceptable given that flow rates are less than 200 liters/minute

. Furthermore, the need for

a PMIO collocation at Ren03 has been eliminated given that all instruments in AQMD's fleet have been switched to continuous FEMs

. Please clarify the flow rates for remaining collocated instruments.

• [Item 48) Please clarify in next year's plan that AQMD no longer operates filter based PMIO SLAMS instruments and therefore no collocation requirement exists.

• [Item 57) Please rename the "Monitor Classification" rows in next year's plan to read "Monitor Type."

• [Item 59) Please rename the "Monitor Objective" rows in next year's plan to read " Site type."

• [Item 64) Please clarify in next year's plan that AQMD now only operates continuous PMIO SLAMS instruments and therefore sampling fi'equency is continuous.

• [Items 67, 72, 73, 75, 79, 83) Please report minimum monitoring requirements in terms of active and required number of sites, rather than monitors. For example, a single site hosting multiple active monitors counts as a single site to meet minimum monitoring requirements.

• [Item 73) Recommend specifying on page 5 the CO monitor required at the NCore site.

• [Item 83) Although AQMD exceeds the minimum number of required sites for PM I 0, it would be helpful for next year's plan to report the maximum concentrations in the network in order to support the minimum number of sites necessary

.

• [Items 85 

### & 86) Please provide traffic counts for the nearest road to a monitoring site. 

### In the case of the Incline site, the nearest road with available traffic counts appeared to be Tahoe Blvd. The Plumb-kit site road distance and count information was a bit unclear. P lease more clearly pair a distance to the road with the traffic counts for that road

. Traffic information reported for the Toll site suggests that PM monitors may be at a neighborhood scale, however these are currently labeled as middle scale. Please revisit and verify the spatial scale reported for PM monitoring at the Toll site.

• [Items 90) For future plans, as necessary, report any obstructions on the roof by providing

a distance fi 'om the probe/inlet, as well as height of the obstruction

.

### • [General] EPA recommends that AQMD report detailed information for meteorology parameters on a per site basis and incorporate the details into the site tables found on pages 13-38. Examples of helpful detailed site information to provide include : insltument manufacturer and model, start date, siting, and 

### QAlQC information, as applicable.

### Attachment B

Washoe County District Board of Health Regulations Governing Air Quality Management Not Included in the Washoe County Portion of the Nevada Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP But Further Support CAA 110(a)(2)(A)- (M) Requirements

### 010.1303 "REGULATED AIR POLLUTANT" shall mean the following:

1. Nitrogen oxides or any volatile organic compounds;

2. Any pollutant for which a national ambient air quality standard has been promulgated.

3. Any pollutant that is subject to any standard promulgated under section 111 of the Act.

4. Any class I or II substance subject to a standard promulgated under or established by title VI of the Act.

5. Any pollutant subject to a standard promulgated under section 112 or other requirements established under section 112 of the Act, including the following:

a. Any pollutant subject to requirements under section 112(j) of the Act. If the administrator fails to promulgate a standard pursuant to section 112(e) of the Act, any pollutant for which a subject source would be major shall be considered to be regulated on the date 18 months after the applicable date established pursuant to section 112(e) of the Act; and

b. Any pollutant for which the requirements of section 112(g)(2) of the Act have been met, but only with respect to the individual source subject to section 112(g)(2) requirement. (Adopted 10/20/93)

020.0051 BOARD OF HEALTH - POWERS AND DUTIES
Pursuant to the powers and responsibilities that have inured to the benefit of the Board of Health, said Board shall, without excluding any other powers, responsibilities, and authority conferred on said Board in the Nevada Revised Statutes, have the following powers and/or responsibilities:

A. To adopt and enforce rules and regulations to reduce the release into the atmosphere of any air contaminants originating within the territorial limits of the Washoe County Health District in order to achieve and maintain levels of air quality which will protect human health and safety, prevent injury to plant and animal life, prevent damage to property, and preserve visibility and scenic, aesthet ic and historic value within said Health District.

B. To establish ambient air quality standards in accordance with law.

C. To make such determinations and issue such orders as may be necessary to implement the provisions of these regulations and to achieve air quality standards in accordance with law.

D. To institute proceedings to prevent continued violation of any order issued by the Board of Health, Hearing Board, or Control Officer, and to enforce these regulations.

E. To require access to records relating to emissions which cause or contribute to air pollution.

F. To apply or and receive grants or other funds or gifts from public or private agencies.

G. To cooperate and contract with other governmental agencies including the State of Nevada, other states, and the federal government.

### H. To conduct investigations, research and technical studies consistent with the general purposes of the Nevada Revised Statutes.

I. To establish such emission control requirements, as may be necessary to prevent, abate, or control air pollution.

J. To require the registration of air pollution sources together with a description of the processes employed, fuels used, nature of emissions and other information considered necessary to evaluate the pollution potential of a source.

K. To prohibit, regulate or control, as specifically provided in Section 030.000 through 030.260 , the installation, alteration or establishment of any source capable of causing air pollution.

L. To issue or deny all requests or applications for a variance or waiver from any of the requirements of these regulations after due consideration of the recommendations of the Hearing Board and Control Officer.

M. To require the submission of preliminary plans and specifications and other information as the Board deems necessary to process permits required by these regulations.

N. To enter into and inspect, at any reasonable time, any premises containing an air contaminant source or a source under construction for purposes of ascertaining the state of compliance with these regulations.

O. To hold any hearing as authorized in Chapter 445 of the Nevada Revised Statutes.

P. To review recommendations of the Hearing Board and to take such additional evidence as the Board o f Health deems necessary or to remand to the Hearing Board for such evidence as the Board of Health may direct on any matters arising under these regulations.

Q. To require elimination of devices or practices which cannot be reasonably allowed without g

eneration of undue amounts of contaminants.

R. To specify the manner in which incinerators may be constructed and operated.

S. To delegate all above powers, except Subsections A, B, F, O, and P, to the Control Officer or his representatives as may be necessary to implement these regulations.

T. To appoint by resolution, or other appropriate action of the Board of Health, a Hearing Board consisting of seven (7) members who are not employees of the State of Nevada or any political subdivision of the State of Nevada, or which one (1) member must be an attorney admitted to practice law in the State of Nevada, or which one (1) member must be a professional engineer registered in the State of Nevada and one (1) member shall be licensed in Nevada as a general engineering contractor or a general building contractor as defined by NRS 624.215. All members of said Hearing Board shall be appointed to the terms as specified in NRS 445.481.

U. To institute, in any court of competent jurisdiction, legal proceedings to compel compliance

### with these regulations and the Nevada Revised Statutes pertaining to the emission of air contaminants into the atmosphere within the territorial limits of the Washoe County Health District.

020.020 CONTROL OFFICER - POWER AND DUTIES
The Control Officer, or his designated agent or representative, shall enforce the provisions of these regulations in his name, or in the name of the Board of Health, in any one or combination of the following ways:

A. By issuing a written notice of violation, delivered personally or by registered or certified mail, to any person if reasonable cause exists to believe said person is violating these regulations.

B. By issuing a warning to any person suspected of violating these regulations and by givi ng said person an opportunity to correct the cause of said violation prior to issuing a notice of violation or citation and referring the matter to the Board of Health or proper prosecuting authority in the Washoe County Health District;

C. By requesting the District Attorney of the County of Washoe, or other proper agency, person or prosecuting authority in the Washoe County Health District, to institute appropriate criminal, civil or administrative proceedings against the person or persons responsible for violation of any of these regulations.

D. By requesting the Board of Health to levy an appropriate administrative fine against any person found to have violated any of these regulations.

E. By reviewing each variance to ascertain if the variance holder is meeting all provisions of the variance or dates set forth in the compliance schedule; if they are not met, the Control Officer may notify the variance holder personally or by registered or certified mail to this effect and may suspend or revoke any variances or reject any schedule of compliance involved with said infractions.

F. By requesting the Board of Health to institute all necessary and proper legal proceedings authorized by law to carry out the purposes of these regulations and purposes of Chapter 445 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, including injunctive relief.

020.060 SAMPLING AND TESTING
In addition to any other testing requirements provided for in these regulations, the Control Officer or the Board of Health may require any person to conduct or make arrangements to conduct testing of any source to determine compliance with these regulations. In the event such testing is required, the Control Officer may do any of the following:

A. Witness all tests as required by this Section.

B. Determine whether or not generally recognized methods of measurement have been used to determine the quantity of emissions from the source being tested and if not additional testing may be required.

### C. Determine the point or points at or within the source where testing shall be done, to determine the actual discharge into the atmosphere.

D. Make any modifications or adjustments in the testing requirements so as to be compatible with specific sampling conditions or needs as shown by good practice, judgement and experience.

E. Require the cost of any testing to be paid by the owner or person responsible for any source of air contaminants.

F. Require additional tests of any source of air contaminants tested in accordance with this Section, provided su ch separate or additional tests shall be conducted on behalf of the Board of Health and at said Board's expense.

G. Require in writing the construction or creation of sampling holes, safe scaffolding and related facilities, to be provided at the expense of the owner or person responsible for any source of air contaminants being tested in accordance with this section.

H. Require the owner or person responsible for any source of any air contaminants being tested pursuant to this section to provide a suitable power source to the point of testing, so that sampling instruments can be operated as required.

I. All information gathered during any testing operation conducted pursuant to this Section will be provided to both the Control Officer or the Board of Health and the person or persons who own or control or are responsible for any source of air contaminants that are tested pursuant to this Section. All such information obtained pursuant to any testing required under this Section will be treated as confidential in accordance with the requirements ofSection 020.055 of these regulations.

030.002 CONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION OF PERMITTED OPERATIONS (Amended 4/89, 10/20/93)
A written Authority to Construct shall be required to construct, erect, alter or replace any equipment which may cause, potentially cause, reduce, control or eliminate the issuance of air contaminants. A single Authority to Construct may be issued for all components of an integrated system or process. Plans and specifications drawn in accordance with acceptable engineering practices shall be required before issuance of an Authority to Construct. The applicant for any Authority to Construct must notify the Control Officer in the application of any source which is or will become subject to 40 CFR Part 70 upon completion of the proposed construction. An Authority to Construct is not needed for routine operation and maintenance. This includes maintenance prescribed by the manufacturer, replacement of worn or broken components with like equipment, etc.

030.500 NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) APPLICABILITY
A major new source or major modification which would locate in an area designated as nonattainment for a pollutant for which the source or modification would be major shall not be allowed to construct unless the stringent conditions set forth below are met. These conditions are designed to insure that the new source's or modification's emission will be controlled to the greatest degree possible, that more than equivalent offsetting emission reductions ("emission offsets") will be progress toward achievement of the national ambient air quality standards. For

### the purposes of this part, a reconstructed source shall be treated as a new stationary source. Since major facility definition and requirements vary upon State and EPA area designations, a map (Figure 1) is included to facilitate the determination of which requirements must be met.

030.502 REVIEW FOR EMISSION LIMITATION COMPLIANCE
Authority to construct any new source or modification shall be denied unless the new source or modification meets all applicable emission requirements in the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP), all applicable Federal New Source Performance Standards, and all applicable National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants.

030.503 CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL (Amended 7/28/93, Revised 10/25/95)
If a major stationary source or major modification would be constructed in an area designated as nonattainment for a pollutant for which the stationary source or modification is major, an Authority to Construct shall be denied unless the following conditio ns are met:

Condition 1 The new source or modification is required to meet an emission limitation which specifies lowest achievable emission rate for such
source.

Condition 2 The applicant must certify that all existing major sources owned or operate d by the applicant for any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control of the applicant in the State of Nevada are in compliance with all applicable emission limitations and standards under the Clean Air Act (or are in compliance with an expeditious schedule which is federally enforceable or contained in a court decree).

Condition 3 Emission reductions ("offsets") from existing sources in the same nonattainment area as the proposed new source or modification (whether or not under the same ownership) are required such that they shall not interfere with or contribute to the interference with the attainment of the applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Only intrapollutant emission offsets will be acceptable (e.g. hydrocarbon incre ases may not be offset against SO2 

### reductions). All emission reductions for the purpose of offsets shall be enforceable under the Clean Air Act.
The terms of the offset emission reductions shall be specified and federally enforceable prior to permit issuance.
All offset emissions reductions shall be, by the time a new or modified source commences operation, in effect and enforceable and shall assure that the total tonnage of increased emissions of the air pollutant from the new or modified source shall be offset by an equal or greater reduction.

All offset emissions reductions must be obtained from decreases in actual emissions from the same or other sources in the area. No emissions reductions otherwise required by the Clean Air Act or other regulatory action my be credited for the purpose of meeting offset requirements.

### Condition 4 The emission offsets will provide a positive net air quality benefit in the affected area. Atmospheric simulation modeling is not necessary for volatile organic compounds and NOX. Fulfillment of Condition 3 and Section 030.504 of these regulations will be considered adequate to meet this condition.

Condition 5 The applicant must perform an analysis of at least two (2) alternative sites for the facility, production processes, and environmental control techniques. This analysis must demonstrate that the benefits of the proposed source significantly outweigh the environmental and social costs imposed as a result of its location, construction or modification

.
Condition 6 The Control Officer shall also require the review of any Major Stationary Source or Major Modification subject to New Source Review under this section that may have an impact on visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area. Such visibility review will ensure the source's emissions will be consistent with making reasonable progress toward State and National visibility goals.

Condition 7 The Administrator has not made a determination that the applicable implementation plan is not bein g adequately implemented for the attainment area in which the proposed source is to be constructed or modified.

Condition 8 The proposed major source or major modification shall not contribute to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any o ther State with respect to any national ambient air quality standard, or interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State with respect to prevention of significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility.
All emission limitations shall be assessed in light of the limits of "good engineering practice" on stack heights as specified in Section 030.614

. Any major stationary source or major modification commencing construction without an Authority to Construct shall be subject to an enforcement action. Obtaining an Authority To Construct does not relieve the owner from complying with any applicable local, state or federal regulation.
At such time that a particular source or modification becomes a major stationary source or major modification solely by virtue of a relaxation in any enforcement limitation which was established after August 7, 1980, on the capacity of the source or modification otherwise to emit a pollutant, such as a restr iction on hours of operation, then the requirements of regulations approved pursuant to this section shall apply to the source or modification as though construction had not yet commenced on the source or modification. All permits issued by the Control of ficer shall comply with all applicable terms of the State Implementation Plan for the non

- attainment area in which the source is to be constructed.

030.504 EMISSION OFFSET RATIOS (Amended 7/28/93)
Emission reductions required under Section 030.503 shall be offset at a ratio of 1.2 to 1 when the offset sources are five (5) miles or less from the new source or modification. For offset

### sources that are greater than five (5) miles from the new source or modification, the applicant shall determine an offset ratio based on atmospheric simulation modeling or an equivalent method to ensure a positive net air quality benefit. In no case shall the offset ratio for source located greater than five miles from the proposed project be less than 1.2 to 1. Non-r eactive organic compounds (those which are listed in 40 CFR 51.100(s)) cannot be used for offsets.

030.505 COMPLETENESS OF APPLICATION
Following submittal by the applicant, the Control Officer shall determine whether the application for permit to constr uct is complete not later than thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the application, or after such longer time as both the applicant and the Control Officer may agree. Such determination shall be transmitted in writing immediately to the applicant at the address indicated on the application if it is determined to be incomplete, the determination shall specify which parts of the application are incomplete and how they can be made complete. Upon receipt by the Control Officer of any re

- submittal of the application, a new thirty (30) day period in which the Control Officer must determine completeness shall begin. Completeness of an application or resubmitted application shall be evaluated on the basis of the guideline for such, published by the Control Officer. After acceptance of an application as complete, the Control Officer shall not subsequently request of an applicant any new or additional information which was not specified in the Control Officer's list of items to be included within such applications. However, the Control Officer may, during the processing of the application, request an applicant to clarify, amplify, correct or otherwise supplement the information required in such list in effect at the time the complete application was received. Making any such request does not waive, extend, or delay the time limits in this section for decision on the completed application, except as the applicant and Control Officer may both agree.

030.506 REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC NOTICE (Amended 7/28/93, Re vised 10/25/95)
For those sources subject to Section 030.500, following acceptance of an application as complete, the Control Officer shall:

A. Perform the evaluations required to determine compliance with this section and make a preliminary written de cision as to whether an Authority to Construct should be approved, conditionally approved, or disapproved. The decision shall be supported by a succinct written analysis;

B. Within ten (10) calendar days following such decision, publish a notice by prom inent advertisement in at least one (1) newspaper of general circulation in the County, stating the preliminary decision of the Control Officer and where the public may inspect the information required to be made available. The notice shall provide thirty (30) days from the date of publication for the publication for the public to submit written comments on the preliminary decision;

C. At the time notice of the preliminary decision is published, make available for public inspection at the District office the information submitted by the applicant, the supporting analysis for the preliminary decision to grant or deny the Authority to Construct, including any proposed permit conditions, and the reasons therefore. The confidentiality of trade secrets shall be considered in accordance with Section 020.055 of these regulations;

D. No later than the date of publication of the notice, a copy of said notice and any appropriate data is to be sent to the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural

### Resources Div ision of Environmental Protection, the regional planning authority of Washoe County, local government offices, any Indian governing body whose lands may be affected by facility emissions, any Federal Land Manager whose lands may be affected (including visi bility effects) and the Regional Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and

E. Applicant to bear cost of all public notices under this section and Section 030.508

.
F. The Control Officer shall contact any Federal Land Manager whose lands may be affected for comments on the proposed project within 30 days after the application has been deemed complete. This shall be for the purpose of obtaining comments on the proposed scope of review for affected lands and species.

030.507 COMMENTS

The Control Officer shall consider all written comments submitted during the thirty (30) day public comment period.

030.508 FINAL ACTION (Amended 7/28/93)
Within 180 days after acceptance of the application as complete and the completion of all required preconstruction monitoring and public notice periods (including those required under the District's Part 70 Permit regulations), the Control Officer shall take final action on the application after considering all written comments. The Control Officer shall provide written notice of the final action to the applicant, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, other Affected States and the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and shall publish such notice in a newspaper of general circulation. The notice and all supporting documents shall be made available for public inspection during normal business hours.

030.905 SOURCES REQUIRING PART 70 PERMITS (Adopted 10/20/93, Revised 10/25/95)

A. Sources Required to Obtain a Part 70 Permit

The following sources and source categories shall be subject to Part 70 permitting:

1. Any Major Stationary Source;

2. Any source, including area sources, subject to a standard, limitation or other requirement under section 111 (New Source Performance Standards) of the Act;

3. Any source, including an area source, subject to a standard or other requirement under section 112 (Hazardous Air Pollutants) of the Act. However, a source which is subject to regulations or requirements only under section 112 (r) of the Act shall not be required to obtain a permit;

4. Any source that includes one or more units subject to Title IV (Acid Rain) of the Act;

5. Any source in a source category designated by the EPA Administrator pursuant to 40 CFR Part 70.

### B. Exemptions
The following sources and source categories shall be exempted from Part 70 permit requirements:

1. Any source subject to this regulation solely because it is subject to 40 CFR Part 60, subpart AAA, Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters.

2. Any source subject to this regulation solely because it is subject to 40 CFR Part 61, subpart M, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Asbestos, Standards for Demolition and Renovation.

3. Insignificant Emission Levels
Sources with the potential to emit less than an annual average of two (2) pounds per day of any criteria pollutant or less than one (1) pound per day of any hazardous air pollutant on a facility wide basis are exempted from all part 70 permitting requirements. Such sources may still be required by the Control Officer to obtain a non

-Part 70 operating permit under District regulations. No source which is itself subject to an applicable requirement may qualify as an insignif icant
source.

4. All Dry Cleaning operations with the potential to emit less than ten (10) tons per year of any criteria or hazardous air pollutant shall be exempted for a period of five (5) years from the initial EPA Part 70 program approval date unless required to obtain a permit under Section 030.905(A) (5)

.
5. All sources which would be subject to Part 70 permits under Section 030.905 (A) which are not major sources, affected sources or solid waste incineration units subject to permitting under section 129(e) of the act, are exempt from requirements to obtain a Part 70 permit for a period of 5 years from the date of EPA approval of the Washoe County Part 70 permit program.

6. Sources may seek exempt status by limiting facility emissions to levels below those defined for a major source as provided in Section 010.090, part D (prohibitory status) and part E (Synthetic Minor sources)

.
C. Sources Which Must be Permitted by the State of Nevada
Any facility whose principal business is to generate electricity using steam derived from the burning of fossil fuels must obtain any necessary Part 70 permit(s) from the State of Nevada.

### Evidence of Public Participation

# (This page left intentionally blank.)\/' 

# RENO NEWSPAPERS INC Publishers of Reno Gazette-Journal 955 Kuenzli St • P.O. Box 22,000 • Reno, NY 89520 • 775.788.6200 Legal Advertising Office 775.788.6394

WASHOE CO PO BOX 11130 RENO NY 89520-0027

STATE OF NEYADA COUNTY OF WASHOE Customer Acct# 349008 PO# PUBLIC HEARING Ad# 1000795469 Legal Ad Cost $200.00

Being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That as the legal clerk of the Reno Gazette-Journal, a daily newspaper of general circulation published in Reno, Washoe County, State of Nevada, that the notice referenced below has published in each regular and entire issuc of said newspaper between the dates: 02/20/2013

- 

### 03/25/2013, for exact publication dates please see last line of Proof of Publication below. Subscribed and sworn to belclre me

Signed:**-I-'~.**__**~** ___-.

____ ......_........._. ___ .._._



### Proof of Publication

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING WASHOE COUNTY DISTRICT BOARD OF HEALTH The Washoe County District Board of Health does hereby declare I :00 p.m., March 28, 20 i 3, at the Washoe County Health District South Conference Room (1001 East Ninth Street, Reno) as the time, date, and place to consider the adoption 

# or an Infrastructure State Implcmentation Plan (I-SIP) for the 20 I 0 

### Sulfur Dioxide (S02) National Ambient Air Quality Standard for submittal
to the U.S. EPA as a revision to the Washoe County portion ufthe Nevada SIP. Interested
persons who may be atfected or wish to comment on any action being considered on the above date should appear at the public hearing to submit oral testimony or may address comments, data, views, or arguments in written jClrm prior to the hearing to the Washoe County District Board of Health, P.O. Box 11130, Reno, NY 89520. Copies of the I-Sll) are available the Air Quality Management Division website (www.ourcleanaiLcom) and oftices (1001 East Ninth Street, Suite B171, Reno NY 89512) for inspection by any interested person. A M Smith Ill, Chairman Washoe County District Board of Health No. 795469 Feb 22, Mar 13,25,2013

Ad Number: 1000795469 Page 1 of 1

# (This page left intentionally blank.)

# _~ 

# WASHOE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT**~. .~**  

# AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DIVISION

'. tv£VA .' 

### E' M h 28 2013 

### PublicHealth

. arc, Prevent. Promote. Protect.



### TO: District Board of Health

FROM: Kevin Dick, Director Air Quality Management Division

SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Proposed approval and adoption of the revisions to "The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan to Meet the Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP Requirements of Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)."

Agenda Item:

Staff Recommendation

Approve and adopt revisions to "The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan to Meet the Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP Requirements of Clean Air Act Section 11 0(a)(2)."

Background

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes health based national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants including Sulfur Dioxide (S02). The Clean Air Act (CAA) directs states to address basic State Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. Many of the CAA Section 110(a)(2) SIP elements relate to the general information and authorities that constitute the "infrastructure" of a state's air quality management program. States

are required to submit an Infrastructure SIP (I-SIP) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard. In 2010, EPA substantially strengthened the lead NAAQS by promulgating a new health-based 1-hour primary standard of 75 ppb.

This I-SIP is a summary of current air quality management elements in Washoe County's portion of the Nevada S02 SIP. It includes air quality regulations and programs demonstrating the Health District's ability to meet these CAA requirements. On February 28,2013, EPA provided comments on the 2012 Annual Monitoring Network Plan. These comments are included in Appendix A of the draft I-SIP dated March 13, 2013 which is
an update to the original draft dated February 27,2013.

To reduce printing resources and expenses, the I-SIP is not included with this staff report. The document is 36 pages and can be accessed from the "News & 

### Events" section of the Air Quality Management Division website, www.ourcleanair.com. The original draft dated February 27, 2013 and updated draft dated March 13, 2013 are both available at the website. A hard copy is also available by contacting Mr. Daniel Inouye of AQMD at (775) 784-7214 or dinouye@washoecounty.us.
P.O. BOX 11130 Reno, NV 89520-0027· (775) 784-7200· FAX (775) 784-7225 www.washoecounty.us/health
Printed on Reeycled Paper

### March 28, 2013 DBOHI S02 I-SIP Page 2

If the I-SIP is approved and adopted, it will be submitted to EPA through the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection as a revision to the Washoe County portion of the Nevada S02 SIP. A notice of today's public hearing was published in the Reno GazetteJournal on February 22, March 13, and March 25, 2012.

Recommended Motion Move to approve and adopt revisions to "The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan to Meet the Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP Requirements of Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)" and direct Staff to forward it to EPA as an amendment to the Washoe County portion of the Nevada S02 State Implementation Plan.

Alternatives

The District Board of Health may:

1. Elect not to adopt the revision to the I-SIP; or

2. Continue this public hearing and direct Staff to research some portion of the I-SIP and report back to the Board at a future meeting.

Kevin Dick, Division Director Air Quality Management

KD/DI: ma

### Page 1 

# MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA
Washoe County District Board of Health Date and Time of Meeting: Thursday, March 28 , 2013 , 1:00 p.m.
Place of Meeting: Note Location : Washoe County Commission Chambers 1001 East Ninth Street, Building A Reno, Nevada


## District Board of Health Meeting Agenda All items numbered or lettered below are hereby designated for possible action as if the words “for possible action” were written next to each item (NRS 241.020). An item listed with asterisk (*) next to it is an item for which no action will be taken.

Time Agenda

Item No. Agenda Item Presenter

1:00 PM * 1. Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance Led by Invitation Mr. Smith

*2. Roll Call Ms. O’Neill

Public Comment * 3. Public Comment (limited to three (3 ) minutes per person) Mr. Smith

4. Approval/Deletions to Agenda for the March 28, 2013 Meeting Mr. Smith

5. Approval/Additions/Deletions to the Minutes of the February 11, 2013 Special Meeting and February 28, 2013 Regular Meeting Mr. Smith

* 6

. Recognitions 

### A. Introduction of new employee (s)

- 

### B. Promotions

– 

### C. Years of Service

– Catherine Gipe

– 20 Years

- CCHS 

### D. Recognitions

– Janet Smith, Organizational Management (OM) certification from the International Association of Administrative Professionals 

### E. Retirements

– Mr. Smith and Dr. Iser 

### WASHOE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT 1001 East Ninth Street / P.O. Box 11130 Reno, Nevada 89520 Telephone 775.328

- 2 400 • Fax 775.328

. 2279 www.washoecounty.us/health GEORGE HESS, MD DENIS HUMPHREYS, OD JULIA RATTI JOSEPH P. ISER, MD, DrPH, MSc District Health Officer MATT SMITH, Chairman KITTY JUNG, Vice Chairman GEORGE FUR MAN, MD SHARON ZADRA

### Page 2

Time Agenda

Item No. Agenda Item Presenter

7

. Proclamations

– National Public Health Week

– April 1

– 7, 2013

8

. Consent Agenda : Matters which the District Board of Health may consider in one motion. Any exceptions to the Consent Agenda must be stated prior to approval.

A. Air Quality Management Cases :

1. Recommendation to Uphold Unappealed Citations to the Air Pollution Control Hearing Board:

a. Margaret Van Dyken

– Case No. 1111, NOV 5352, 124 La Rue Drive, Reno, NV 89509 b. Golden Flower Restaurant

– Case 1112, NOV 5324, 205 West 5 th 

### Street, Reno, NV 89503

c. David Walker

– Case 1113, NOV 5325 205 West 5gh Street, Reno, NV 89503

2. Recommendation of Cases Appealed to the Air Pollution Control Hearing Board. None.

3. Recommendation for Variance: None.

B. Sewage, Wastewater & Sanitation Cases : Recommendation to Approve Variance Case(s) Presented to the Sewage, Wastewater & Sanitation Hearing Board. None.

C. Budget Amendments / Interlocal Agreements :

1. Proposed approval of Subgrant Amendment #1 from the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services, Health Division, Bureau of Child, Family and Community Wellness for the period January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2014, with funding of $460,145 per calendar year (reduced from CY12 funding of $486,542),

approve the reduction of PC#70002278, Health Educator II (vacant) from 1.0FTE to 0. 49 FTE, in support of the HIV Prevention Grant Program, IO 10013; and authorize the Chairman of the Board to sign.

2. Proposed approval of Subgrant Award from the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services, Health Division for the period January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 in the amount of $80,751 in support of the Tuberculosis Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Grant Program, IN 10016; and authorize the Chairman of the Board to sign.

3. Ratification of Interlocal Contract (continuation award) between the State of Nevada, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection and the Washoe County Health District for the period July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2015 in the total Ms. Albee

Ms. Cooke

Ms. Co oke

Ms. Cooke

### Page 3

Time Agenda

Item No. Agenda Item Presenter

amount of $100,000 (not exceeding $50,000 the first year) in support of the Hazardous Materials Grant Program, IO 10022; and if approved, authorize the Chairman of the Board to execute

.
4. Ratification of Intrastate Interlocal Contract between the State of Nevada, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection and the Washoe County Health District in the total amount of $902,000 ($218,000 per year and a one

-time additional payment of $30,000 payable in fiscal year 2014) for the period July 1, 2013 through June 30, 201 7 in support of the Underground Storage Tank (UST) and Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Program ; and if approved, authorize the Chairman of the Board to execute

.

5. Proposed approval of Notice of Grant Award from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration for the period September 12, 2012 through June 30, 2017 in the amount of $346,500 ($69,300 per year) in support of the Advancing Conformance with the Voluntary National Retail Food Regulatory Grant Program (VNRFRPS), IO TBD; and approve amendments totaling an increase of $63,000 in both revenue and expense to the FY 13 VNRFRPS Grant Program, IO TBD.

D. Proposed acceptance of the Air Quality Management Division’s portion of the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan Annual Report

E. Proposed acceptance of the Washoe County Health District 2013 Legislative Session Report Ms. Buxton

Ms. Cooke

Mr. Inouye

Dr. Iser, Mr. Dick, and Mr. Sack

9

. Air Pollution Control Hearing Board Cases appealed to the District Board of Health

. None. Ms. Albee

1 0

. Regional Emergency Medical Services Authority :

A. Review and Acceptance of the Operations and Financial Reports for February, 2013; and B. Update of REMSA’s Community Activities Since February
, 201 2 Mr. Gubbels

1 1

. Presentation, Discussion
, and Possible Direction to Staff regarding Emergency Medical Services (“EMS”), Including Recommendations Contained in the TriData Report and Various Other EMS Studies

. Dr. Iser and Dr. Todd

### Page 4

Time Agenda

Item No. Agenda Item Presenter

*1 2

. Presentation by Keep Truckee Meadows Beautiful (KTMB) regarding Recycling, Reduction, Reuse, and Illegal Dumping Activities Ms. Cakiroglu

13. PUBLIC HEARING : Proposed approval and adoption of the revisions to “The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan to Meet the Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP Requirements of the Clean Air Act, Section 110(a)(2). ” Mr. Inouye

1 4

. PUBLIC HEARING : Proposed approval and adoption of Amendments to the Public Swimming Pool and Spa Operator Certification Program regulations regarding the term of the Washoe County Health District certi ficate

. Mr. Rubio

1 5

. PUBLIC HEARING : Proposed approval and adoption of the Amended Well Construction regulations regarding public well distance

. Mr. Boland

1 6

. Future of the Health District Committee

– Appointment of Additional Member Mr. Smith and Dr. Iser

* 1 7

. Presentation of Community Health Assessment Data Set Mr. Kutz

* 1 8

. Presentation of Community and Clinical Health Services’ Strategic Plan Mr. Kutz

1 9

. Review and Acceptance of the Monthly Public Health Fund Revenue and Expenditure Report for February, 2013 Ms. Stickney

20

. Presentation and Possible Approval/Amendments to the Fiscal Year 14 Washoe County Health District Budget, with Revenues Budgeted at $ 8,822,703 , General Fund Transfer of $8, 72 3,891, and Expenditures Budgeted at $18,978,1 01

. Ms. Stickney

*2 1

. Staff Reports and Program Updates

A. Director, Epidemiology and Public Health Preparedness

- Communicable Disease; Public Health Preparedness; Emergency Medical Services; and Vital Statistics Dr. Todd

B. Director, Community and Clinical Health Services

– Clinical Programs and Non

- Communicable Disease Updates Mr. Kutz

C. Director, Environmental Health Services Food Program; Land Development; Solid Waste/Special Events; and Vector

-Borne Disease Program Mr. Sack

D. Director, Air Quality Management

– Air Quality; Planning and Monitoring Activity; Permitting Activity; Compliance & Inspection Activity; and Permitting & Enforcement Activity Mr. Dick

### Page 5

Time Agenda

Item No. Agenda Item Presenter

E. Administrative Health Services Officer

– AHSO agenda items are included in other agenda items. Ms. Stickney

F. District Health Officer

– 2013 Legislative Session; Budget; Human Resources; Communication; Accreditation; Washoe County and Community Activities; Health District Media Contacts and Outreach; Statewide (and B eyond) Organizational Efforts; RWJF Shared Services Learning Community Grant Update; and District Board of Health Information and Resources Dr. Iser

Board Comment *22

. Limited to Announcements or Issues for Future Agendas Mr. Smith

2 3

. Emergency Items Dr. Iser

Public Comment *24

. Public Comment (limited to three (3) minutes per person). No action may be taken. Mr. Smith

2 5

. Adjournment Mr. Smith

________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Business Impact Statement: A Business Impact Statement is available at the Washoe County Health District for those items denoted with a “$ .”

________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Items on the agenda may be taken out of order, combined with other items, withdrawn from the agenda, moved to the agenda of another later meeting; moved to or from the Consent section, or they may be voted on in a block. Items with a specific time designation will not be heard prior to the stated time, but may be heard later. Items listed in the Consent section of the agenda are voted on as a block and will not be read or considered separately unless withdrawn from the Consent.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The District Board of Health Meetings are accessible to the disabled. Disabled members of the public who require special accommodations or assistance at the meeting are requested to notify Administrative Health Services in writing at the Washoe County Health District, PO Box 1130, Reno, NV 89520-0027, or by calling 775.328.2416, 24 hours prior to the meeting.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Time Limits : Public comments are welcomed during the Public Comment periods for all matters whether listed on the agenda or not. All comments are limited to three (3) minutes per person. Additionally, public comment of three (3) minutes per person may be heard during individual action items on the agenda. Persons are invited to submit comments in writing on the agenda items and/or attend and make comment on that item at the Board meeting. Persons may not allocate unused time to other speakers.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Response to Public Comments : The Board of Health can deliberate or take action only if a matter has been listed on an agenda properly posted prior to the meeting. During the public comment period, speakers may address matters listed or not listed on the published agenda. The Open Meeting Lawdoes not expressly prohibit responses to public comments by the Board of Health. However, responses from the Board members to unlisted public comment topics could become deliberation on a matter without notice to the public. On the advice of legal counsel and to ensure the public has notice of all matters the Board of Health will consider, Board members may choose not to respond to public comments, except to correct factual inaccuracies, ask for Health District Staff action or to ask that a matter be listed on a future agenda. The Board of Health may do this either during the public comment item or during the following item: “Board Comments – Limited to Announcement or Issues for future Agendas.”

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

### Page 6

Pursuant to NRS 241.020, Notice of this meeting was posted at the following locations :
Washoe County Health District, 1001 E. 9th St., Reno, NV Unavailable due to construction. Reno City Hall, 1 E. 1st St., Reno, NV Sparks City Hall, 431 Prater Way, Sparks, NV Washoe County Administration Building, 1001 E. 9th St, Reno, NV Washoe County Health District Website www.washoecounty.us/health

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

### Washoe County

Health District DBOH Agenda Item 

### No •.**'~,5.**



## Washoe County District Board of Health Meeting Minutes

March 28, 2013

PRESENT: Mr. Matt Smith, Chairman, Vice Chair Jung, Councilwoman Zadra, Councilwoman Ratti, and Dr. Humphreys

ABSENT: Dr. Furman and Dr. Hess

STAFF:

1:03 pm 

### 1,2

3. Joseph P. Iser, District Health Officer Kevin Dick, Division Director, Air Quality Management Eileen Stickney, Administrative Health Services Officer, AHS Robert Sack, Division Director, EHS Charlene Albee, Branch Enforcement Chief, AQM Lori Cooke, Fiscal Compliance Officer, AHS Phil Ulibarri, Public Information Officer, AHS Jim Shaffer, Vector Control Coordinator, EHS Jim English, Environmental Health Specialist Supervisor, EHS Leslie Admirand, Deputy District Attorney Peggy F. O'Neill, Recording Secretary Steve Kutz, Division Director, CCHS Randall Todd, DrPH, Division Director, EPHP Daniel Inouye, Air Quality Supervisor, AQM Patsy Buxton, Fiscal Compliance Officer, AHS Steve Fisher, Department Computer Application Specialist, AQM Peg Caldwell, Registered Nurse I, EPHP Stacey Akurosawa, EMS Coordinator, EPHP Catherine Gipe, Licensed Practical Nurse, CCHS Janet Smith, Administrative Secretary, AHS Wes Rubio, Environmental Health Specialist, EHS

Meeting Called to Order, Pledge of Allegiance and Roll Call Chairman Smith called the meeting to order, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilwoman Zadra. Roll call was taken and a quorum noted.

Public Comment Smith stated that the Proposed Fee Schedule will not come for a vote at this meeting, but the District Board of Health will hear any Public Comment on the matter.

Aaron West representing NAIOP presented public commentin opposition to the Proposed Fee Schedule with the adoption of a budget which contemplates that fee increase.

### 4.

5.

6.



### 7. ApprovallDeletions

- Agenda

- March 28, 2013

ApprovallAdditions/Deletions to the Minutes of the February 11, 2013 Special Meeting

Recognitions

Proclamations Deputy District Attorney Leslie Admirand stated that public comment for certain agenda items could be heard during the presentation of that item.

Mike Dillon representing the Builder's Association of Northern Nevada chose to reserve his public comment in opposition to the Proposed Fee Schedule until Agenda Item No. 20.



### Chairman Smith called for any deletions to the Agenda of the March 28, 2013 

### DBOH Meeting.

It was noted that the February 28, 2013 

### District Board of Health minutes are not included in the packet and will not be approved today.

Chairman Smith called for any additions or corrections to the minutes of the February 11, 2013 

### Special Meeting.

Recognitions 

### A. Introduction of new employee(s)

- None. 

### B. Promotions

- None. C. 

### Years of Service

- Catherine Gipe

- 20 

### Years

- CCHS 

### D. Recognitions

- Janet Smith, Organizational Management (OM) certification from the International Association of Administrative Professionals Retirements

Proclamations

- National Public Health Week

- April 1 - 7, 2013 

### Councilwoman Zadra rnoved, seconded by Dr. Humphreys, that the March 

### 28, 2013, Agenda be approved as revised.

MOTION CARRIED

Councilwoman Ratti moved, seconded Dr. Humphreys, that the minutes of the February 

### 11, 2013 Special Meeting be approved as presented.

MOTION CARRIED

Councilwoman Ratti moved, seconded by Commissioner Jung, to

Page 2

### 8. Consent Agenda Consent Agenda: Matters which the District Board of Health may consider in
one motion. Any exceptions to the Consent Agenda must be stated prior to approval.



### A. Air Quality Management Cases:

1. 

### Recommendation to Uphold Unappealed Citations to the Air Pollution Control Hearing Board:
a. Margaret Van Dyken

- Case No. 1111, NOV 5352,124 La Rue Drive, Reno, NV 89509 b. Golden Flower Restaurant- Case 1112, NOV 5324, 205 West 5 1h 

### Street, Reno, NV 89503
c. David Walker

- Case 1113, NOV 5325 205 West 5gh Street, Reno, NV 89503

2. Recommendation of Cases Appealed to the Air Pollution Control Hearing Board. None.

3. 

### Recommendation for Variance: None.

B. Sewage, Wastewater & 

### Sanitation Cases: Recommendation to Approve Variance Case(s) Presented to the Sewage, Wastewater & 

### Sanitation Hearing Board. None.

C. Budget Amendments Iinteriocal Agreements: 1. Proposed approval of Subgrant Amendment #1 from the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services, Health Division, Bureau of Child, Family and Community Wellness for the period January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2014, with funding of $460,145 per calendar year (reduced from CY12 funding of $486,542), approve the reduction of PC#70002278, Health Educator II 

### (vacant) from 1.0FTE to 0.49 FTE, in support of the HIV Prevention Grant Program, 

### 10 10013; and authorize the Chairman of the Board to sign.

2. 

### Proposed approval of Subgrant Award from the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services, Health Division for the period approve the proclamation

as presented.



### MOTION CARRIED

Page 3January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 in the amount of $80,751 in support of the Tuberculosis Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Grant Program, IN 10016; and authorize the Chairman of the Board to sign.

3. Ratification of Interlocal Contract (continuation award) between the State of Nevada, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection and the Washoe County Health District for the period July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2015 in the total amount of $100,000 (not exceeding $50,000 the first year) in support of the Hazardous Materials Grant Program, 

### 10 10022; and if approved, authorize the Chairman of the Board to execute.



### 4. Ratification of Intrastate Interlocal Contract between the State of Nevada, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection and the Washoe County Health District in the total amount of $902,000 ($218,000 per year and a onetime additional payment of $30,000 payable in fiscal year 2014) for the period July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2017 in support of the Underground Storage Tank (UST) and Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Program; and if approved, authorize the Chairman of the Board to execute.



### 5. Proposed approval of Notice of Grant Award from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration for the period September 12,2012 through June 30, 2017 in the amount of $346,500 ($69,300 per year) in support of the Advancing Conformance with the Voluntary National Retail Food Regulatory Grant Program (VNRFRPS), 

### 10 TBD; and approve amendments totaling an increase of $63,000 in both revenue and expense to the FY 13 VNRFRPS Grant Program, 

### 10 TBD.

D. Proposed acceptance of the Air Quality Management Division's portion of the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan Annual Report

E. Proposed acceptance of the Washoe County Health District 2013 Legislative Session Report 

### ACTION ITEMS: Letters to Margaret Van Dyken, Golden Flower Restaurant, and David Walker, regarding fines and due dates.



### Dr. Humphreys moved, seconded by Councilwoman Ratti, that the Consent Agenda be approved as presented in a single motion.



### MOTION CARRIED

Page 4Air Pollution Control Hearing Board Cases Appealed to the District Board of Health.

10. 

## I Regional Emergency Medical Services Authority:



### A. Review and Acceptance of the 

### 0 perations and Financial Reports for February, 2013; and

BOARD COMMENTS Mr. Jim Gubbels, Vice President of REMSA, reported that the DBOH members have been provided copies of the February 2013 Operations and Financial Reports; overall emergency response times for Priority One compliance was at 91 %; the 8-minute zone was 91 %; the15-minute zone was 98%; and the 20-minute zone was 95%. Priority Two compliance was 95%. The overall average bill for air ambulance service to date is $7,405, and overall average bill for ground ambulance services to date is $1,027.

Dr. Humphreys stated that every month REMSA reports on the comments received from the patients it has treated and or transported. Dr. Humphreys stated that the vast majority of the comments are positive, but questioned Mr. Gubbels about what action is taken for the negative comments. Mr. Gubbels stated that he reviews the comments with Operations staff each month, and supervisors are assigned to follow up on each negative comment and then report back to Mr. Gubbels on a monthly basis. Mr. Gubbels brings those follow up responses with him to the DBOH meetings in case any Board Member would like a report on a specific comment.

Councilwoman Ratti stated she has recently received an email regarding helicopter transport when there were no ambulances available. Councilwoman Ratti asked how frequently that occurs. Mr. Gubbels stated that it happens very infrequently, but it did happen on Monday of this week. At that time, REMSA had nine ambulances out in the system, and all nine
were active on calls. Care Flight was already launched for a call in Nixon. That call was cancelled for CareFlight so they were in the air coming back. Since this was a Priority One call, we used this helicopter to respond. When that happens, the patient is charged a ground rate and not a helicopter rate.

Councilwoman Ratti asked that Mr. Gubbels report at the next meeting how many times that has happed in the last year. Mr. Gubbels reported that CareFlight cannot be requested by an individual citizen; it has to be requested by law enforcement, Fire, or EMS on scene. There are some times when Fire
on scene will request a helicopter. Councilwoman Ratti clarified that she wants to know how many times a helicopter was dispatched when a ground 

### Page 511. B. Update of REMSA's Community Activities Since February, 2013

Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Direction to Staff regarding Emergency Medical Services ("EMS"), Including Recommendations Contained in the TriData Report and Various Other EMS Studies. ambulance was not available. Mr. Gubbels stated he will report on that request.

Mr. Gubbels stated that REMSA's current liabilities for the month of January 2013 are $15 Million and the assets are at $34 Million. Commissioner Jung stated that is not the information for which she asked. Commissioner Jung would like to know what REMSA's debt payment is per month. Mr. Gubbels stated that he will go back to his CFO and get that information to provide in the reporting in the future.

Mr. Gubbels presented REMSA's community service activities since February, 2013.

Dr. Joseph P. Iser, Washoe County District Health Officer, presented a compilation of activities that have happened in February and March, 2013. At the ongoing Managers' Meetings, attendees continue to go through the recommendations in the TriData Report item by item. Health District Staff has collected comments from all jurisdictions and is compiling those comments.

At the February 11 Concurrent Meeting, Mr. Carey and Sheriff Haley provided updates on Dispatch and REMSA discussions. At this meeting, it was agreed that REMSA would be involved in the future meetings of this group.

At the February 22 Managers' meeting which included REMSA, the group asked REMSA's position on each of the 38 recommendations. It was an effective meeting. The group was able to establish concurrence or nonconcurrence on each of the recommendations in the TriData Report.

At the March 6 Managers' meeting, we discussed dispatch issues and additional issues related to recommendations. That process continued at the March 15 meeting.

Dr. Iser reported that Staff shared a summary of the TriData Report recommendations dealing with the overarching EMS authority at the March 15 Meeting of the EMS Working Group. Staff was then tasked with developing
an operational budget for the EMS authority. Staff is in the process of developing such a budget. 

### Councilwoman Ratti moved, seconded by 

### Councilwoman Zadra, to accept the REMSA Operations and Financial Report for February 2013

as presented.



### MOTION CARRIED



### Page 6

### 12.



## 13. Presentation by Keep Truckee Meadows Beautiful (KTMB) regarding Recycling, Reduction, Reuse, and Illegal Dumping Activities

PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed approval and adoption of the revisions to "The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan to Meet the Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP Requirements of the Clean Air Act, Section 110(a)(2)." The group is at a point of coming to a recommendation for potential modifications to the ambulance franchise agreement. Dr. Iser suggested that before these recommendations are used as points of negotiation, they be taken to each political body to have direction on how to proceed.

Councilwoman Ratti asked for clarification on the budget being developed, and Dr. Iser confirmed that it is the budget for any oversight agency. It is not the budget implications for everyone of those recommendations.

Councilwoman Ratti suggested that Dr. Iser clarify that it 'IS 

### the Franchise Agreement that needs to be addressed in slide 4 of his presentation.

Ms. Cakiroglu, Executive Director of Keep Truckee Meadows Beautiful (KTMB), presented information about the KTMB recycling, reduction, reuse, and illegal dumping activities. Ms. Cakiroglu thanked the DBOH for its support during the last few years.

Mr. Daniel Inouye, Chairman of the Board of KTMB, thanked the DBOH and the Health District for their support, and stated KTMB is dedicated to creating
a cleaner and more beautiful region through education and community involvement. The Health District's mission, priorities, and many of its goals align with KTMB programs.

On Saturday, April 20, KTMB will be sponsoring an electronics drop off from 9 am to 2 pm. Folks will need to buy a voucher ahead of time for televisions. The vouchers are available for $10 at Whole Foods or at New To You Computers, which helps to cover the cost of properly recycling them.

Councilwoman Ratti congratulated the staff at KTMB for their phenomenal work and this great public/private collaboration.

Mr. Daniel Inouye, Air Quality Monitoring Supervisor, presented on the approval and adoption of the revisions to the Washoe County Portion of the Nevada SIP to meet the SIP requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), Section 11 0(a)(2).

Mr. Inouye reported that the EPA establishes health based national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants, including Sulfur Dioxide (S02)' When these standards are revised, Section 11 0(a)(2) requires Air Quality agencies to develop plans demonstrating the ability to implement, maintain, and enforce the standard. In 2010, EPA strengthened the S02, and Councilwoman Ratti moved seconded by Dr. Humphreys, to approve and adopt revisions to "The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan to Meet the Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SI P


### Page 7

## 14.

15. Board Comment

PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed approval and adoption of Amendments to the Public Swimming Pool and Spa Operator Certification Program regulations regarding the term of the Washoe County Health District certificate.

Board Comment

PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed approval and adoption of the Amended Well Construction regulations regarding public well distance.

Board Comment Chairman Smith opened the matter for public hearing. There being no comments, Chairman Smith closed the public hearing.

Mr. Wes Rubio, Environmental Health SpeCialist, presented and recommended approval and adoption of the Amendments to the Public Sw'lmming Pool and Spa Operator Certification Regulations. The amendment seeks to extend the renewal process from a three year to a 

### five year process to help benefit the Certified Pool Operators and aligns their time frame with the national certification, making them equal.

Chairman Smith opened the matter for public hearing. There being no comments, Chairman Smith closed the public hearing.

Mr. Dave Boland, Senior Environmental Health Specialist, presented and recommended approval and adoption of the Amended Well Construction Regulations changing a 

### 200 foot setback from public wells to any component of a septic system down to 

### 150 feet. This change will align Health District regulations with state regulations that are at 

### 150 feet now.

Chairman Smith opened the matter for public hearing. There being no comments, Chairman Smith closed the public hearing.

Councilwoman Ratti commented on how much she appreciates the 

### efforts of 

### Staff to align our certification process and laws with other existing laws. It makes things so much easier on the public when they are trying to navigate the processes. Requirements of the CM, Section 11 0(a)(2)" and direct Staff to forward it to EPA as an amendment to the Washoe County portion of the 

### Nevada S02 State Implementation Plan.

MOTION CARRIED

Dr. Humphreys 

### moved, seconded by Commissioner Jung, to approve and adopt the Amendments to the Public SWimming Pool and Spa Operator Certification Program Regulations, as presented.

MOTION CARRIED

Councilwoman Ratti 

### moved, seconded by Councilwoman Zadra, to approve and adopt the Well Construction Regulations,

as amended.

MOTION CARRIED

Page 8

## 16.

17.

18. Future of the Health District Committee

- Appointment of Additional Member

Presentation of Community Health Assessment Data Set

Presentation of Community and Clinical Health Services' Strategic Plan Dr. Joseph P. Iser, Washoe County District Health Officer, suggested that in line with the previous dialogue regarding this subcommittee, it was suggested that another elected member of the DBOH be appointed to this Committee.

Dr. Iser stated that the goal of this committee is to look at efficiencies and evaluate what the future of the Health District should look like, and where it should be located organizationally five years into the future.

With the Chairman's and other members' permission, Dr. Iser will work with this Committee on a timeline and briefing materials. These meetings will be subject to the Nevada Open Meetings Law, so they will be properly noticed.

Dr. Iser stated that this is the Community Health Assessment (CHA) prepared by St. Mary's Hospital in cooperation with the University of Nevada in Reno. Dr. Iser introduced Mr. Steve Kutz, Division Director of Community and Clinical Health Services, who presented on the Community Health Assessment Data Set, a copy of which was placed on file for the record.

Mr. Kutz stated after the presentation that there will be more statewide data available in Version 2.0, which will be released in early 2015. There will be updates to the CHA about every two years.



### Councilwoman Ratti asked if the data is becoming powerful enough that we
can overlay each data set and really look at how to target services to make the most impact for the human level and the areas that are costing the most money because we are not impacting the areas at a preventive level. It

seems like we are getting close to convening some of those conversations. We have the potential to do better about using our resources globally. We need to start a community conversation about the impacts of poverty.

Steve Kutz, Division Director of Community and Clinical Health Services, presented on the Community and Clinical Health Services' StrategiC Plan, a copy of which was placed on file for the record.



### Councilwoman Ratti stated that she is really pleased with how the strategic planning process is evolving compared to two or three years ago.



### Councilwoman Ratti questioned Mr. Kutz about how the planning process is going. Mr. Kutz responded that CCHS has done strategic planning for a number of vears. It has chanqed and evolved; CCHS has aliqned itself with 

### Councilwoman Ratti moved, seconded 

### by Dr. Humphreys, add 

### Councilwoman Zadra to the Committee.



### MOTION CARRIED



### Page 9the Health District and the County to assure that our goals and objectives pertain to our scopes of work.

Mr. Kutz then presented personnel and budget changes for CCHS from FY 2008 to FY 2013. Mr. Kutz stated that the he believes the County as a whole has shrunk by approximately 30%. CCHS has decreased staffing by 44% since FY 08. CCHS General Fund funding has decreased by approximately 41 % in that same time frame. Mr. Kutz then discussed how these staffing and funding reductions have impacted programs and services.

Commissioner Jung requested that all future reports be in writing and that these reports be distributed to the Board Members prior to the meeting so that they can be prepared for such presentations.

Councilwoman Ratti stated that this is information for which she has been asking for the last three years. This enables policy makers to be able to tell the story to the community of what the impact of the budget cuts are to the Health District. There is a myth out there that the Health District has not taken any hits; she has known that not to be true, but needed this type data to make the case. Councilwoman Ratti would like the same information exactly like Mr. Kutz presented for every division and for the Health District as
a whole. Councilwoman Ratti would like to have this information before the next meeting. She believes this information should be readily available and easy to pull together. Forty percent is a huge reduction. Councilwoman Ratti stated that she believes that CCHS has taken the biggest hit in the budget reductions, but she has no idea the relation across the divisions.

Mr. Kutz stated that he believes Ms. Stickney included a sheet in the budget book which shows the position eliminations over the last several years. Councilwoman Ratti stated she does appreciate that, but she needs it in a summary format. Councilwoman Zadra requested information on what is actually mandated by state law and the Interlocal Agreement. Commissioner Jung requested additional information to include: (1) what is the mandate; (2) what are we providing to address the mandate; (3) what services are we providing that are not mandated; and (4) justification for services which are not mandated but have been determined to be necessary to public health or no one else provides.

Councilwoman Ratti stated that Staff has provided information on mandated services and other services, but it falls short as to ways to scale back our approach to that mandate, We need to look at efficiencies in services that are mandated. Councilwoman Ratti stated that in those first vears of sianificant 

### Page 10

### 19.



### 20. Review and Acceptance of the Monthly Public Health Fund Revenue and Expenditure Report for February, 

### 2013

Presentation and Possible Approval/Amendments to the Fiscal Year 

### 14 Washoe County Health District Budget, with Revenues Budgeted at 

### $8,822,703, General Fund Transfer of 

### $8,723,891, and Expenditures Budgeted at 

### $18,978,101. funding decreases, we focused too much on areas that were not mandated and thereby cut significantly. That was evident in Mr. Kutz's presentation today. CCHS took by far the biggest hit and it was mostly driven by the lack of mandated services; yet as Mr. Kutz stated, prevention is a critical part of what we are doing as a Health District. We need to look at to what level do
we need to meet that mandate, or is someone else better suited to provide a service. We are too far along in this year's budget process to address these issues. However, Councilwoman Ratti wants to put us on notice that for next year, we will look at the level of service.

Dr. Iser stated that "mandated" does not always equate to "best practices." For instance, it is mandated to do restaurant inspections. How many inspections would best practices provide? Staff 

### will provide that information
as well.

Dr. Humphreys stated that we need to look at public need and be sure to balance that against what is mandated and what is not mandated. That needs to be a part of the equation.

Eileen Stickney, Administrative Health Services Officer, presented the Monthly Public Health Fund Revenue and Expenditure Report for February 

### 2013, stating that Staff recommends the Board accept the report.

Eileen Stickney, Administrative Health Services Officer, reviewed the FY 

### 14 Budget process to date. Ms. Stickney discussed the decision made to eliminate the three positions that the Health District was hoping to fill and staffing issues that impact the FY 

### 14 Budget. Ms. Stickney reported that the County Finance Department has agreed to those position changes.

Ms. Stickney reported that Dr. Iser will present the FY 

### 14 Recommend Budget to the BCC on Monday, April 

### 1. If the DBOH does not agree with FY 

### 14 Budget as recommended, we have held a time slot for appeal to the County Manager. Dr. Humphreys moved, seconded by Commissioner Jung, to accept the Health Fund Revenue and Expenditure Report for February, 

### 2013.



### MOTION CARRIED

Page 11Ms. Stickney reported that Staff now projects revenues at $9,165,760; a General Fund Transfer of $8,373,891; a proposed Opening Fund Balance of $1,771,396; Expenditures of $19,185,234; and an Ending Fund Balance of $125,813.

Dr. Iser and Ms. Stickney noted that the numbers that are changing in the Board's packets are on pages 7 and 8. Ms. Stickney also reported that the County's Co CAP charge changed from $2.5 to $2.9 Million.

Councilwoman Ratti clarified that the numbers in the PowerPoint presentation are the correct numbers. Ms. Stickney stated that this is the presentation that Dr. Iser will make to the BCC on Monday. The County is developing their tentative budgets now as they hear the different requests from each department. Final Budgets are adopted in June.

Chairman Smith questioned Ms. Stickney about the increase in the CoCAP charge, and Ms. Stickney reported that the contractor who prepares the IOCR figures just completed his report for the County, and County Finance has just notified us of the increase in the charge. Chairman Smith stated we are being charged an additional $362,000. Ms. Stickney stated that the County also increased the subsidy from $1 Million to $1.75 Million.

Councilwoman Ratti asked for clarification on how we will handle public comment on this item, and Ms. Admirand stated that Dr. Iser should make his presentation first, and then Chairman Smith can request public comment.

Ms. Stickney clarified that the Fee Schedule that will be presented next month at the April regular meeting will have the reduced fees. Ms. Stickney reported that the justifications and methodology for every single fee are included in the orange fee packet that was distributed at the Fee Workshop. Ms. Stickney stated that the packet explains each activity; who is conducting that activity; what is the hourly salary, including fringe, of the person conducting the activity; how long it takes to complete the activity. Then AHS performs the arithmetic calculation of the cost of that activity. Each program certifies who is doing the job and how long it takes. In AHS, we are doing the calculations. There might be opportunities in some of these activities to have lower level staff perform that function, which would be a cost savings, or if the time allowed for performance could be shortened. There is an increase in
revenues from our fees in our budget, but not to the level it was originally. Originally, it was roughly 26 or 27% due to an error in how the CoCAP rate
was applied to the fees; AHS has restated the correct values, and those Fee Schedules were provided at the Fee Workshop. 

### Page 12In addition, County Finance assisted us in crafting an overview which has all the different fees and an executive summary.

AHS Staff met with Commissioner Jung and Sheri Mendez to do our due diligence to explain the adjustments that were made. Ms. Stickney restated that what is now including in our Fee Schedule are our normal Health District fees with Health District Indirect Costs and the County's Indirect. Since we will not be adopting a fee schedule until next month, there will be a short delay in implementation of the capture of the new structure, which may create
a shortfall since what we have in the Budget System currently is calculating based on twelve months of projected fee revenue.

Commissioner Jung questioned Ms. Stickney about the example she gave
on Page 14, Air Quality Management, Indirect Cost Rate

- has the Health District always assessed a Health District Indirect Cost Rate? Ms. Stickney reported that the Health District has contracted with Kafoury Armstrong since 1983; the Health District has always captured indirect costs on our fees. Ms. Stickney reported that the rate covered administration in each division. Commissioner Jung stated that the County will no longer subsidize special
reserve funds. The County has never recovered or accounted for its internal service departments, so the County could not tell taxpayers or grantors the true cost of services. Evidently, the Health District has been doing this since 1983, so you were ahead of your time for that practice. This recommendation
came out of the County's Fundamental Review process.

Councilwoman Ratti asked for clarification about the restated version of the Fee Schedule and its accuracy. Councilwoman Ratti clarified that this restatement changed the net impact to our budget and requested information

as to whether that change is reflected in the presentation, and Ms. Stickney stated that it is. Councilwoman Ratti asked Ms. Stickney about the other document she has and whether that is provided to the Board; Ms. Stickney said that it is not. Commissioner Jung requested that it [Washoe County Health District

- Proposed Fee Analysis

- Revised

- 3/18/2013] be emailed out to the entire Board.

Councilwoman Zadra questioned again where we will identify mandated services versus unmandated services; Interlocal Agreement versus not. Ms. Stickney confirmed that Staff will develop a more comprehensive version to reflect the fees and whether the service is mandated or not. Councilwoman Zadra stated that it was her interpretation from comments made at the Fee Workshop that there are activities occurring that are outside of the Interlocal Aoreement, so she would like those identified cateqoricallv. 

### Page 13Dr. Iser began presenting the FY 14 Recommended Budget as outlined in his presentation, a copy of which is on file for the record. Dr. Iser stated that over the last several years there has been about a 29% reduction in staffing from 205

- 210 down to approximately 150 currently.

Dr. Iser stated he had hoped to have an increase in General Fund Transfer and initially requested $8.7 Million, but was informed today that the General Fund Transfer will be $8.3 Million. Dr. Iser also reported that throughout the year, Staff has been projecting a $2.553 Million Overhead allocation from the County, and on Tuesday of this week Staff was informed that the allocation will actually be $2.914 Million for FY14. Those changes required leadership to make the decision to go ahead and eliminate those additional three positions. This would give the Health Fund a projected FY 14 Ending Fund Balance of approximately $126,000. Dr. Iser confirmed with County Manager and Finance that they are comfortable with that level of an Ending Fund Balance.

Dr. Iser presented regarding the known budget impacts of Sequestration and the Affordable Care Act, and notified the Board that he will update them as
soon as more information becomes available.

Dr. Iser then presented on the challenges and opportunities which will impact the Health District in FY 14. Dr. Iser stated that this budget is contingent upon passing the fees as presented at the Fee Workshop. If the Board chooses not to implement fully, Staff will have to make more cuts.

Councilwoman Ratti stated that with this Proposed Budget, the Health District will be using $1.65 Million in unsustainable revenue, and she is curious if the projections are realistic or if Staff is actually contemplating a much higher Ending Fund Balance. Dr. Iser stated that the Health Fund has managed with salary savings to maintain a much higher Ending Fund Balance than has been projected; however, that policy is now an issue with the County. The Ending Fund Balance is estimated from filling all of the positions that are funded. Dr. Iser reiterated that he has chosen to not fill some General Fund positions knowing that required CoCAP payment would increase.

Councilwoman Ratti stated then that the six positions that are being eliminated were simply eliminated because they were already vacant, but not due to any program evaluation or strategic decision. Dr. Iser stated that a

osition was lost in the enqineerinq part of EHS. We allowed someone to 

## Page 14transfer over. In Vector Control, Staff did an analysis of that position, and Mr. Sack decided it was not necessary to refill that position at this point in time.

Councilwoman Ratti asked then how the decision was made to go from a full time FTE to a halftime FTE and a.8 to a 1.0, for a net of approximately a 0.75 position, more or less. Dr. Iser responded that they were chosen by program need. Councilwoman Ratti asked how the decision was made to again cut CCHS when that Division has borne the brunt of the cuts to date. Dr. Iser asked Mr. Kutz to respond to Councilwoman Ratti. Mr. Kutz reported that one of the positions eliminated from CCHS to help meet this budget reduction was
a 1.0 PHN that spent 75% of their time in the STD/HIV Program. That program is a far harder program to fill with intermittent hourly (I H) or per diem nursing staff. CCHS has been very fortunate to have retired nurses come back into the programs as IH or per diem. This gave CCHS the opportunity to increase that 0.8 to a 1.0 FTE PHN, which affords us some surge capacity. The IZ program has approximately 20 nurses who are IH per diem that help fill the gaps. So we looked at surge capacity and need, and did decide in November when our 1.0 PHN retired, that we would not fill her position, in part to meet a budget reduction, and also with the implementation of ACA in 2014, the community should have more access to preventative health care services (i.e., IZ, reproductive health, sexual health). So we thought that the 0.2 addition of a nurse who is now 0.8 to be a reasonable request to help meet that gap in our Sexual Health Program.

Dr. Iser stated that for the Health Educator, the Health District lost funding in the HIV Program, and therefore, lost the need for the second fulltime Health Educator, but wanted to maintain some capacity. We are always writing for grants. The Board recently approved an IH Health Educator so that we can expand without adding a full time person if we are successful in receiving
some of the grants that for which we have applied.

Councilwoman Ratti stated that we are adding a fifth and subtracting a half, but the changes in the status in the CoCAP that happened recently ($362,000) and a decrease in the subsidy of $250,000, which is very hard to follow since these were not presented in writing, are a net loss of $610,000, which is not covered by the reduction of .33 of a position. So what adjustments are being made to meet that gap? Dr. Iser stated that was when the decision was made to eliminate the three extra positions. Councilwoman Ratti requested the total income for the fees. Ms. Stickney stated that amount is at Page 7 of the PowerPoint presentation, and Ms. Stickney described the various sources of revenue. The fees are a portion of the $2.8 Million broken out bv Licenses and Perm"!!s and Charqes for Services. 

### Page 15Commissioner Jung questioned Ms. Stickney about how much of the proposed fee increase is expected to be recouped in those eleven months. Ms. Stickney stated that originally we were to receive $680,000, and we reduced 26% out of that number. There was discussion about the impacts of implementing the fee increase later in the fiscal year and the delta of fees available to the Health Fund. Commissioner Jung asked that Ms. Stickney email that information to the Board Members tomorrow.

Ms. Stickney suggested to the Board that they could accept this Tentative Budget for Dr. Iser to present to the BCC with the caveat that the fee issue has yet to be determined.

Commissioner Jung stated that at the last meeting she asked Staff to come back with some plans for some structural changes and those have not yet been addressed. Commissioner Jung questioned if the Health District budget could be changed throughout the year to address these structural changes, and Ms. Stickney confirmed that it can be changed during the year.

Commissioner Jung stated that the District Board of Health has promised the BCC that it will come back with structural changes and efficiencies, and
we have not done that. Just holding vacancies and eliminating vacant positions is not enough. Commissioner Jung stated to the Board that it is not unusual for changes to made to budgets by the BCC and the County Manager at that last presentation. Dr. Iser stated that Staff brings budget amendments and adjustments to the Board throughout the year. Dr. Iser reported that the impact to the budget if Staff is unable to implement the new fees until August is approximately $50,000. Commissioner Jung restated that her question is, "How much new revenue does the new fee schedule bring into our budget?"

There was discussion about the new CoCAP charge of $2,914,637 Million to the Health Fund and the subsidy of $1.75 Million; the net charge to the Health Fund being $1,164,637. Ms. Pam Fine, Fiscal Analyst for Washoe County, confirmed these numbers. Councilwoman Ratti stated this is the impact to the Health Fund ending fund balance and operating budget. Commissioner Jung restated that is why the Health District needs to restructure.

Councilwoman Ratti asked if in this meeting today we know the answer of what the difference is between last year's fee schedule and this year's fee schedule. Chairman Smith stated that the initial fee schedule was wrong, and it was recalculated but he does not have those numbers todav. 

### Page 16Councilwoman Ratti stated that her point is that we are not trying to make up the entire CoCAP on the back of fees. That is what she wants to clarify.

Chairman Smith stated that what concerns him most is the volatility of the imposition of the CoCAP and how neither the DBOH nor the Hea[th District has any control over how it is implemented. Not only has the County implemented an overhead charge (CoCAP); they are simultaneously reducing the Genera[ Fund transfer allocation. It's a huge cut to the Hea[th Fund. There is no way the Hea[th District can generate $3 Mi[lion in fees.

Dr. [ser stated that in FY 08 the Genera[ Fund Transfer was $10.6 Million before a CoCAP charge of $2,553,000 or $13 Million, and now we are down to $7.3 Mi[[ion. If you [oak at the net funding the Hea[th Fund receives in Genera[ Fund from the County, we are down about 40% over the last five or six years. We've lost more than that when you consider grant funding also.

Commissioner Jung stated that the Hea[th District has other revenue sources, efficiencies, and restructuring that should be explored and implemented. The County as a whole has lost 30% of its budget and 27% of its staff, and has no other funds to go after. Nobody subsidizes the County. That's why County Finance suggested the Hea[th Fund can have such a [ow Ending Fund Ba[ance, because the Hea[th District would be backed by the County. The County has no one to save it if it can't cover its Expenditures.

Councilwoman Ratti suggested that Public Comment be presented at this point. Dr. Iser reported to the Board on the Fee Workshop which was held on March 21. The main concerns were the County's and the Hea[th District's Indirect Costs. Attendees wanted to know: (1) how the [DCRs are calculated and how they impact fees; (2) audits of the fee schedule are conducted; (3) differences between the County Genera[ Fund and County funding of the Hea[th District, including how the Genera[ Fund Transfer from the County to the Hea[th District is determined; (4) there were questions about the creation of the Hea[th District; (5) the formula for the funding by the three jurisdictions; and 6) which services are absolutely necessary to provide. There was also a request from the City of Reno to help them be able to answer questions when customers come to them about the fees that they collect for the Hea[th District.

Dr. [ser reported that Staff explained: (1) how the fees were created and calculated; (2) how the County's [DCR was created and calculated; (3) the Countv's Genera[ Fund; (4) the funding for the District; (5) and the budoetin 

## Page 17process. There were also questions about the Interlocal Agreement and whether the Health District is operating outside of that agreement.

Dr. Iser reported that future areas for review and consideration were (1) a review of efficiencies; (2) looking at all fees and elimination of things we don't need to do; and (3) help the City staff in providing explanations.

Councilwoman Zadra added that there was a lot of discussion about duplication of efforts and that should be explored while reviewing for efficiencies.

Chairman Smith called for Public Comment:

Mr. Mike Dillon, representing the Builders Association of Northern Nevada, thanked Staff and Members of the Board for holding and attending the Workshop at the Builder's Association. Mr. Dillon stated that he is in opposition to the proposed fee increases. He is not familiar with all the fee increases that are being proposed, but with those that relate to community development he is quite familiar. The initial proposal was approximately a 50% increase, and now they are projected at a 30 to 35% increase. Our biggest issue is understanding how we arrive at these numbers. The City of Reno Community Development Department has been directed by the Council to review all their fees over the next nine months or so, and part of those could have the Health District included in those. Each jurisdiction is going through a similar process. Mr. Dillon will be happy to gather fee payers and end users to participate in this process to facilitate review in these very challenging times. The private sector is feeling the same pains as government.

Mr. John Krmpotic, current president of the Builders Association of Northern Nevada, stated that professionally, he does land use planning and civil engineering. Mr. Krmpotic stated that he has never in 15 years had a Health District comment on a variance, zone change, or master plan amendment, so why is there a fee for review? Mr. Krmpotic pulled up the City of Reno's Fee Schedule, and there is a $322 fee for development. What is the Health District's interest in looking at a development agreement that has nothing to do with sanitation, water quality, vector control, nothing. A variance for a single family home regarding a front yard setback; how does that relate to the Health District? It sounds like a trivial amount, but it is $205 and no one has
an explanation for that fee. Ms. Zadra just mentioned Reno's requests and Dr. Iser's comments about the Fee Workshop. Ms. Zadra mentioned duplicaflon of efforts. Please look at why we need that enqineerinq siqn off 

### Page 18when TMWA has already done a review. Mr. Krmpotic stated he understands methodology, but he's more concerned about rationale for the fees. Please direct your Staff to review for rationale.

Mr. Larry Harvey, John Ascuaga's Nugget, stated that all of the large hotel/casinos in the area have the same concerns as he will present today. About a year ago, he presented public comment on a fee increase. His perception from a business process is that he appreciates all the work done in Health District. We do a lot of work with the Health District with restaurants, pools, hotel rooms, and we have a good working relationship, and anytime we have had an issue, we have always been able to resolve it. Dr. Iser has personally resolved a few issues for us. Last year there was presented a fee increase that was about 30 or 35% also. The public stated at that time that there is real concern about such a large increase. To have such a large increase is very difficult to manage. We do contracts for conventions three to five years out, and to have such swings in fees is very difficult to manage. Mr. Harvey discussed the previous year's workshop that he attended. He said no Board Members were present, and there was only one Health District employee present. They were there basically to rece'lve comments and relay them to the Board. That was not what we expected as a workshop. We thought there would be listening, and that the business community would be able to give input; and that from our input maybe a change would happen. Mr. Harvey stated that the industry has had a 40% drop in the gaming
revenue in this town. We have cut 40% in our employee base in the last five years. The Nugget has to deliver the same service level with fewer pieces. We can't pass along expenses so easily either. Technology has helped us a lot. We have to make it work, and our customer service scores are just as high as they have always been. That takes a lot of work and effort. Such a large change in fee structure is hard to absorb. We and our association will be involved in all future workshops.

Ms. Lea Tauchen, Retail Association of Nevada, stated that the association represents the grocers, chain drug stores, big box stores, and hundreds of restaurants and small business in Reno, Sparks, and Washoe County. They
are all responsible for paying in to these fees for permits and services. We
are very concerned about the Board approving a budget before the funding mechanism is in place, and that the process for looking at these fees and discussing them was going to be heard at next month's meeting. We are appreciative of the Staffs time that they took to have the workshop and the information that was provided there. We will not be able to support the 30+% fee increase that has been discussed. We will return to the next meetina as 

### Page 19well. We are looking for any potential or opportunity for reducing or eliminating some of these permits and service fees.

Mr. Tray Abney, representing the Chamber of Reno/Sparks and Northern Nevada, and echoed all the comments made by prior public comment speakers. The 30% increase on most of the fees is quite alarming. Mr. Harvey mentioned the 10-15% increase that occurred approximately two years ago. Mr. Harvey's point about stability is well taken. Business needs stability to plan out for success. We recommend frankly that the Health District follow the City of Reno's lead. The City is now going through every single one of its fees and activities that it charges to determine the need and necessity. He understands mandated services and the need to review those along with those that are not mandated. The business community understands that in a civil society you have to pay for things. If we are not paying enough for services and it takes a month or more to get a permit, that affects our economic development as well. But, it also affects economic development efforts if it becomes ever more expensive year after year to
come set up shop and hire people. We oppose 30% in a fell swoop increase. We recommend a complete review of every fee that is charged and every activity that the Health District performs.

Chairman Smith called for further public comment; there being none, he closed the public comment.

Councilwoman Zadra stated that we do need to be looking at all the fees, and that is the intent behind her request for determining what is mandated and what is within the Interlocal and what is left over. Councilwoman Zadra stated the she also wants to know the fiexibility in changing the budget if the Board adopts a budget today, can changes be implemented later?

Chairman Smith stated that the Board needs to approve a budget for Dr. Iser to present to the Board of County Commissioners. Staff will have the opportunity to meet with the County Manager and make suggested changes. Chairman Smith would like to attend that meeting on the fees himself. The increase in the CoCAP allocation is one item for discussion. He does not want to increase fees 30%. There should be incremental increases if we decide to raise fees.

Ms. Stickney stated that Staff is preparing a fee schedule at different tiered levels. Ms. Stickney stated that the Division Directors certify the time and the activities, and Administrative Health Services prepares methodoloav. Ms. 

### Page 20Stickney stated that the public and the Board want to hear more about what is the rationale for each of the activities.

Chairman Smith stated that we need to find out what it takes to complete a certain tasl< and determine if we are still efficient at it. Chairman Smith stated that the time has come for these reviews to be conducted to make sure that the Health District is efficient at its mission. We will review the mandates also.

Councilwoman Ratti stated that there are different windows we need to look at: (1) Short Term; (2) Medium Term; and (3) Longer Term. Through this rather confusing process, we [the Board] have thrown out all kinds of different direction to Staff. Some of which is an extensive amount of work, and some of which is a very small amount of work that can be turned around in a month. We have a budget process timeline that we need to work within which technically is today if we are following the budget process as it is laid out. There are processes that have been put on the table such as a fundamental review, which is a fabulous process, and the County has done a very nice of job throughout the entire County system. Doing things such as having stakeholder groups that provide meaningful input on a regular basis is vital. It should not be a one off event. To Mr. Harvey's point, part of the reason there is disconnect and a lack of authenticity with working with the Health District is because it is a one of process rather than an ongoing relationship. Those are big things. A fundamental review if we hold it to the County's standard had a third party reviewer and a relatively significant contract to bring people in and look at every process and help the team find those efficiencies. That will not happen for this year's budget cycle. We have in our Budget Books at Tab 6 the Mandated Matrix. We have already done some of the mandate work, but not anywhere near to the level that was discussed here by the Board today. Again, that will not happen before the budget needs to be completed for the July 1 budget cycle.

Councilwoman Ratti stated that she has been incredibly frustrated with the budget process for the last several years, because she thinks these things do need to happen, but they are bigger than what we can do today. So, if we are going to give any direction today, we are going to have to figure out what we
are going to do with this mess and this corner that we have been backed into
as a Board with the fee question not being answered in time for the budget process timeline, since we have to approve a budget today.

Councilwoman Ratti stated that she is one hundred percent behind a Fundamental Review. We need to look at efficiencies of service; at eve Councilwoman Ratti moved, seconded by Dr. Humphreys, to approve the Budget with the note that the Board has not been able to complete the review of the fee structure, and that the budget as presented includes the significant increase. It is our intent as the Board prior to final roval of the Budqet to 

### Page 21

### 21. 

## I Staff Reports and Program Updates



## A. Director

- Epidemiology and Public Health Preparedness

B. Director

- Community and Clinical Health Services

C. Director

- Environmental Health Services

D. Director

- Air Quality Management single fee and confirming what's going on is necessary; looking at the mandates and looking at it from a scale of how much of that do we really need to do; and looking at whether if there is somebody else who can do it; however, to do that well is at least a year long process. Councilwoman Ratti asked what happens if we don't approve a budget today, and Deputy District Attorney Admirand responded that the Board is required in the Interlocal Agreement to approve a Tentative Budget under the timeline set by the County. If the Board does not approve your Tentative Budget, the County has to go forward. Councilwoman Ratti stated the County will then provide one for us. So since there is no clarity that says what that budget has to look like, Councilwoman Ratti suggested that since she has not been satisfied with the clarity of the numbers presented today regardless of the fee structure, she would suggest that the Board approve the budget with a note, and the note is that the we have not been able to complete a review of the fee structure, and that the budget as presented includes this significant increase. It is intent of the Board prior to final approval to review those assumptions and make the budget balance based on whatever the Board does with the fee structure.

Ms. Admirand suggested that further direction to Staff be made under Agenda Item No. 22

- Board Comment

- Limited to Announcements or Issues for Future Agendas.

Dr. Randall Todd, Director, Epidemiology and Public Health Preparedness, presented his monthly Division Director's Report, a copy of which was placed
on file for the record.

Mr. Steve Kutz, Director, Community and Clinical Health Services, presented his monthly Division Director's Report, a copy of which was placed on file for the record.

Mr. Robert Sack, Director, Environmental Health Services, presented his monthly Division Director's Report, a copy of which was placed on file for the record.

Mr. Kevin Dick, Division Director, Air Quality Management, presented the monthly Division Director's Report, a copy of which was placed on file for the record. review those assumptions and deliver a balanced budget based on whatever the Board does with the fee structure.

Dr. Humphreys seconded with a comment that it is a "Tentative Budget" meaning that it is a starting point and that we can modify it from that point and he respects public comment as we move forward in this process with

a Tentative Budget with a note.

MOTION CARRIED



### Page 22

### 22. 

### E. Administrative Health Services Officer


## F. District Health Officer



### Board Comment

- Limited to Announcements or Issues for Future Agendas Mr. Dick elaborated on the Transportation Conformity Plan referenced in his report. Mr. Dick stated that Staff is working with the RTC on their 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. Staff has completed its analysis of the air quality impacts of their proposed plans 

### over the next 20 years, and they conform to
our Motor Vehicles Emissions budgets. The Transportation Conformity Review, which is an interagency process, should conclude this week, and we expect the plan to 

### move forward smoothly. The plan should be presented to the Board of RTC on April 19.

The Administrative Health Services Officers Reports for this month were addressed in other agenda items.

Dr. lser, District Health Officer, presented the monthly District Health Officer Report, a copy of which was placed on file for the record. Dr. lser directed the Board Members to the attachments included in with his report.

Councilwoman Ratti stated that in terms of future direction, she directed the Board to Tab 6 in their Budget Books, which is the Mandated Matrix. She stated thai the Mandated Matrix is at a high-level, and she would like the document to evolve to include both a mandate reference and rationale of

some sort to get it down to the fee schedule level. It gets to our ability to tell the story; it's the how, but not the why. We need to know what it would take to do some of these things.

Councilwoman Ratti stated that the second common tone and call she heard today was the need for the fundamental review process, This process would include mandates, efficiencies, community needs; sustainability; Ending Fund Balance policy, etc. The CoCAP continues to grow. If we are going to be held to meeting that standard, we are going to have to figure out how to operate more and more efficiently.

Councilwoman Ratti stated that the City of Sparks is doing an employee driven process called "Project Pie" which examines how these processes can be done more effiCiently. What services are essential from a top up and bottom down look. The Sparks City Manager has been leading efforts for the last four years and taking different looks at what services are essential. Staff needs to come back to the Board with what would that look like. She does not expect it to happen overnight. It needs to take place during the year, but it must happen prior to the next budget cycle.



### Page 23

### 23. Emergency Items



## 24. Public Comment Councilwoman Zadra requested a presentation on the City of Reno's fundamental review process so that we can determine if it is something we
can buy into as a Board. Fundamentally, the end game is: what are we doing, what's necessary, and what can we do better.

Councilwoman Ratti said we are behind the curve. We've had a leadership transition, and there are a lot of good reasons, but the Board needs to get better information to make better decisions about the budget and operationally.

Chairman Smith stated that the Finance Department of the City of Reno is developing a list of questions about duplicity of services and determining whether the Health District should be doing a task also or not. Chairman Smith asked that the City of Sparks participate in the same type analysis. Chairman Smith stated that the Board should review one division at a time and determine: (1) what are the mandates; (2) are we doing the mandates; and (3) to what level are we doing the mandate. We will go through one division at a time. We can take a couple months on each division.

Dr. Iser stated that we will make a plan to begin that process in Mayor April.

Chairman Smith wants to meet with Dr. Iser and Ms. Simon to discuss some of the issues facing the Health District. Staff will arrange such a meeting.

Councilwoman Ratti requested that when Staff brings back the long range plan, the Board should consider a third-party consultant for such review. She knows it is expensive, but believes it is important.

Dr. Iser suggested that that topic be discussed with Ms. Simon at the meeting with Chairman Smith. Dr. Iser also noted that any changes in the fees at the April meeting will require program changes. None of the additional 

### $329,000 in CoCAP is included in the proposed fee structure to date.

None.

No public comment was presented.



## Page 24

# . <jl//)\,/ 

# /!dj:t;;p

# ~dk~ KEVIN DICK, INTERIM DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. Councilwoman Ratti, moved, seconded by 

### Chairman Smith, that the meeting be adjourned.



### MOTION CARRIED The meeting was adjourned at 4:24 p.m

.

# l8~~t?~ PEiS'IF'. O'NEILL, RECORDING SECRETARY



### Page 25

# (This page left intentionally blank.)

# Washoe County Health District

Public Health

PrCYeIlI

. PrOnlO\C. Protec!.



### WAS H OE CO U NTY D I STR I CT BOARD OF H EALTH

CERT I FICATE OF ADOPTION

W H EREAS , a need has arisen to prepare " The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan to Meet the Sulfur Dio x ide Infrastructure SIP Requirements of Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)" ;
WHEREAS, this matter has been duly noticed and heard in conformance with applicable administrative procedure requirements ;

NOW

, THEREFORE

, BE I T RESO L VED
, that this Board hereby adopts "The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan to Meet the Sulfur Dioxide Infrastructure SIP Requirements of Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)".

"The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan to Meet the Sulfur Dioxide Infrast r ucture SIP Requirements of Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)" was duly and regularly introduced, passed
, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Washoe County District Board of Health, on the motion of Ratti
, seconded by Humphreys, on the 28 th 

### day of March, 2013, by the following vote of the Board:

AYES: Smith, Jung
, Humphreys
, Ratti, Z adra

NAYS : None

ABSENT : Furman
, H e ss

# ~?/9~ Kevin Dick Interim District Health Officer 

# .'.

A M Smith III Chairman

1001 EAST N I NTH STREET 

### I P

. O

. BOX 11130, RENO

, NEVADA 89520 (775) 328-2400 FAX (775) 328

- 2279


### www

.washoecounty.us/hea lth

WASHOE COU N TY IS AN EQUAL O P POR T UN ITY EM PLOYER PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER