Environmental Quality Restricted Account (EQRA) Options Discussion

Environmental Quality Restricted Environmental Quality Restricted Account (EQRA)Account (EQRA)

Options DiscussionOptions Discussion

Bill SinclairBill Sinclair

Deputy DirectorDeputy Director

Utah Department of Environmental QualityUtah Department of Environmental Quality

June 18, 2009June 18, 2009

EQRA Immediate Need for FY10 (July 1, 2009 - June 30, 2010)

• Will need to address the 2.3 M shortfall projected to occur

• DEQ will be submitting a General Fund supplemental appropriation request as part of the budgeting process

EQRA Immediate Need for FY10 (July 1, 2009 - June 30, 2010)

• Strategy:– Reduce GF Appropriation Supplemental Request

from other sources:• Potential for some revenue to be lapsed into the account• FY09 Carryover from EDO, DRC, DSHW and hiring freeze

for positions on EQRA (range from $500,000 to $800,000)

– Request would be in the range of $750,000 to $1 million

– Will need support of the Governor, Legislature, and Stakeholders

Options for stabilizing EQRA into the future (FY11 and

beyond)

Monies that are required or “may” come out of EQRA

Options to stop the bleeding

19--1-108:

(3) In each fiscal year, the first $400,000 collected from all waste disposal fees listed in Subsection (2), collectively, shall be deposited in the General fund as free revenue. The balance shall be deposited in the restricted account created in this section.


19-1-108:(4) The Legislature may annually appropriate

monies from the Environmental Quality Restricted Account to:

(c) the Hazardous Substances Mitigation Fund, up to $400,000, for purposes set forth in Title 19, Chapter 6, Part 3, Hazardous Substances Mitigation


Years transferred occurred: 8Years not transferred: 7

Total contribution to HSMF to date: 3.2 M

Handout: Hazardous Substances Mitigation Fund


19-1-108:(5) In order to stabilize funding for the radiation program

and the solid and hazardous waste control program, the Legislature shall in years of excess revenues reserve in the restricted account sufficient monies to meet departmental needs in years of projected shortages.

This does not address appropriation of “other” monies - should this be revised to discourage such use?

Additional disbursements:

High level nuclear waste (FY93-FY98)

$2,239,000

General Fund (FY99 and FY03) $737,000

Air Quality (FY08) $500,000

Water Quality (FY08) $66,500

Total $3,542,500



19-1-108:(7) The Legislature may annually appropriate not

more than $200,000 from this account to the Department of Public Safety, created in Section 53-1-103, to be used by that department solely for hazardous materials:

(a) management training; and (b) response preparation and emergency

response training.


Years disbursement occurred: 9

FY96-FY02, FY08-09

Total: $1,800,000


19-6-118. Hazardous waste and treated hazardous waste disposal fees.

(g) (i) The department shall allocate at least 10% of the fees received from a facility under this section to the county in which the facility is located.

(ii) The county may use fees allocated under Subsections (2)(e) and (f) to carry out its hazardous waste monitoring and response programs.


Years Disbursed: FY96-FY09

Range of Payments: $173,062 - 276,782

Total: $3,158,612

Summary of the options to stop the bleeding - next steps

Option 1 - Maintain Current Fee Structure + Option 1 - Maintain Current Fee Structure + Annual General Fund Supplemental Annual General Fund Supplemental

AppropriationAppropriation

Is this a viable option to further explore?

Option 2 - Increase Current Fee Structure Option 2 - Increase Current Fee Structure RatesRates

Discussion of handout by Craig Silotti

Option 2 - Increase Current Fee Structure Option 2 - Increase Current Fee Structure RatesRates

What other information is needed for further consideration?

Option 3 - Develop A Flat Fee StructureOption 3 - Develop A Flat Fee Structure

Discussion by Craig Silotti regarding some of the issues associated with this option

Do you still want to continue pursuit of this option, if so, what information do you need?

Other considerations

Other suggestions by Stakeholders

Other considerations

• Charge hourly fees for license review for DRC (levels the playing field for HW/RW)

• For one time bailout, utilize monies within the Radioactive Waste Perpetual Care Fund (with payback provisions) - must be statutory change

• Reduce DEQ staff positions tied to EQRA

Where do we go from here?Where do we go from here?

• Timeframe for deliberations:– July 2009 - Stakeholder meeting to develop

consensus on path forward– August/September 2009 - Develop strategy for path

forward (including potential legislation)

Documents

Environmental Quality Restricted Account (EQRA) Options Discussion