WASHOE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT 

AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DIVISION 

May 24, 2013 

Dr. Co lleen Cripps, Ph.D. 

Adm inistrator 

Division ofEnvironmcntal Protection 

901 S. Stewart Street, Suite 4001 

Carson City NY 89701-5249 

Dear Dr. Cripps: 

Public Health Preven t. Promote. Prolect 

Enclosed is a revision to the Washoe County portion of Nevada 's Sulfur Dioxide (S02) 

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (I-SIP). This revision was adopted at a public hearing 

of the Washoe County District Board of Health (DBOH) on March 28, 2013. The submittal 

includes: 

• Proof of publication for the public hearing; 

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

• Staff report 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· (775) 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 Requirements of 

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

CO Carbon Monoxide 

DMV Department of Motor Vehicles 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FR Federal Register

HA Hydrographic Area

I-SIP Infrastructure State Implementation Plan

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard

NDEP Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide

NRS Nevada Revised Statute

NSR New Source Review

O3 Ozone 

Pb Lead

PM2.5 Particulate Matter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 microns 

in aerodynamic diameter

PM10 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 

USC United States Code 

WCDBOH Washoe County District Board of Health 

WCAQMD Washoe 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 

Table 1 

Current CAA 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) Requirements in the 

Washoe County Portion of the Nevada Infrastructure SIP for the 

2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS, Unless Otherwise Noted

Element

(A)

Enforceable emission limits and other control measures:

Requires SIPs to 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 SIPs to 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 WCAQMD concludes 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 SIPs to 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 SIPs to 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 O3 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 SIPs to 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, P AMS 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 of this part, where applicable." On this basis, review of the 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 if the required information is included and correct. The items requiring approval by the 

Administrator are: P AMS, NCore, Speciation (STN/CSN), and N02 requirements including near road, area-wide, and RA40. 

Please note that this checklist summarizes many of the requirements of 40 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 cannot judge 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 of purpose 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 received 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 2011 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 responses "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 

submitted by 7/112012 58.10 (a)(5) 

N/A N/A- no 

requirement for 

AQMD 

16. NO:! nt:3r-imH.i !'ite::- opt:rational by 58.10 (a)(5) 

N,A 

(N:/\ until20l3 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 I S l1ear-road sites submitted b:-- 58.10 (a)(7) N'/\ 

" I 2014 Jnd 

58.13(0)(1) 

:20. CO sites for 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-road siles by 

7. 1. 20 16 

58.10 (a)(7) NA 

anel 58.13«)(

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 ide

ntification 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 22,25-28,3 1,34-

35,38 

26. Operating schedule for each monitor (see items 62-66) 58.10 (b)(4) Yes, p.13, 16, 19, Yes 

22,25-28,31,34-

35, 38 

27. Any proposals 

to remove or move a monitoring 58. 10 (b)(5) Yes, p.9 Yes See #5 above. 

station within a period of 

18 months following plan 

submittal 

28. Scale of representativeness 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. Identification 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 I 0 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 these 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 

suggested 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 if the sampling season 31,34,38 

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 if the sampling season 

deviates 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 schedule for PMIO-2.5 58.12(f) Yes, p. 27-28 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 Yes, 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 

75. 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 should 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 of meeting 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 oriented." 

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 of poor 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 NI A- 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 specifies 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 58 yes, page #s. provided3 meet 

Flag if the req?4 

incorrecr? 

and 4(b) 22, 25·28,31,34-

35, 38 

95. Probe material (if 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 of the 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 58.10. 

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. 

Please 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, aesthetic 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 of 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 

generation 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 giving 

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 such 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 of Section 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 conditions 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 

operated 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 

increases 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 being 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 other 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 restriction 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 officer 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-reactive 

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 construct 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, Revised 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 decision 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 prominent 

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 Division 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 visibility 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 insignificant 

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 NEY ADA 

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 Public Health . 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 775.328-2400 • 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 FURMAN, 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 5th 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. Cooke

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, 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), 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

10. 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, 

2012

Mr. Gubbels

11. 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

*12. 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

14. 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.

Mr. Rubio

15. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed approval and adoption of the 

Amended Well Construction regulations regarding public well 

distance.

Mr. Boland

16. Future of the Health District Committee – Appointment of 

Additional Member

Mr. Smith and Dr. 

Iser

*17. Presentation of Community Health Assessment Data Set Mr. Kutz

*18. Presentation of Community and Clinical Health Services’ Strategic 

Plan 

Mr. Kutz

19. 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 $8,723,891, and 

Expenditures Budgeted at $18,978,101.

Ms. Stickney

*21. 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 Beyond) 

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

23. Emergency Items Dr. Iser

Public 

Comment

*24. Public Comment (limited to three (3) minutes per person). No 

action may be taken.

Mr. Smith

25. 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 Law does 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 51h 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 3 
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 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 4 
Air 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 5 
11. 

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 9 
the 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 11 
Ms. 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 12 
In 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 13 
Dr. 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 14 
transfer 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 15 
Commissioner 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 16 
Councilwoman 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 17 
process. 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 18 
when 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 19 
well. 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 20 
Stickney 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!. 

WASHOE COUNTY DISTRICT BOARD OF HEALTH 

CERTIFICATE OF ADOPTION 

WHEREAS, a need has arisen to prepare "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)"; 

WHEREAS, this matter has been duly noticed and heard in conformance 

with applicable administrative procedure requirements; 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 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 Infrastructure 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 28th day of March, 2013, by the following vote of 

the Board: 

AYES: Smith, Jung, Humphreys, Ratti, Zadra 

NAYS: None 

ABSENT: Furman , Hess 

~?/9~ Kevin Dick 

Interim District Health Officer 

.'. 

A M Smith III 

Chairman 

1001 EAST NINTH STREET I P.O. BOX 11130, RENO, NEVADA 89520 (775) 328-2400 FAX (775) 328-2279 

www.washoecounty.us/health WASHOE COUNTY IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER