RD408 - 2013 Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Districts Funding Study


Executive Summary:
Overview

This report details the results of the study requested pursuant to Item 360 A. 2. Chapter 806 of the 2013 Virginia Acts of Assembly.

The Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) held two meetings on May 31, 2013 and July 19, 2013 and developed a work list for study continuation, pulling from the recommendations for continuing work those included in the 2012 report. Areas of study for the 2013 SAG included:

• Cost Reduction and Efficiency Improvement Strategies

• District and Programmatic Performance Measures and Standards

• Process for Distribution of Cost-Share Implementation Funds

To evaluate these topics, the SAG divided into three subcommittees, one focusing on each of these topics. These subcommittees met several times and developed and presented ideas to the full SAG for consideration as recommendations. The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) provided staff coordination for the SAG and the subcommittees. The following is a summary of all of the recommendations generated by the subcommittees and accepted by the full SAG.

Summary of Recommendations

1. Cost Reduction and Efficiency Improvement Strategies

• Develop and maintain a District Employee Skills Database at the VASWCD.

• Support inclusion of “Best Practices” elements in the VASWCD web tools.

• Use 2014 funding to hire a professional engineer as a DCR employee or contractor to replace lost NRCS assistance.

• Consider legislative action to make Districts eligible to participate in state health insurance programs.

• Support increased funding to facilitate District participation in VRS.

• Conduct a survey of Districts to help identify inefficiencies in the delivery of the Cost-Share Program and administrative functions.

• Integrate the tracking database and QuickBooks to minimize duplicative data entry and facilitate financial reporting.

• Improve the Conservation Efficiency Factor (CEF) or develop an alternative tool to prioritize BMP implementation.

• Reassess the cost effectiveness of BMPs given technological advancements, new BMPs, and the revisions to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model.

• Consider changes to Cost-Share Program caps.

• Reconsider the decision to make "Nutrient Management Plan Writing and Revisions" (NM-1) a one-year practice.

• Actions to modify current District boundaries should be initiated by the Districts involved.

2. District and Programmatic Performance Measures and Standards

• Include the performance measures developed through this study in the 2015 District Grant Agreements.

• Consider more efficient methods by which information could be collected regarding the workload of Districts.

• Collect additional information regarding the possibility of market saturation in certain Districts for current Agricultural BMP Cost-Share Practices.

3. Process for Distribution of Cost-Share Implementation Funds

• Consider modifications to practice reimbursement rates through the Agricultural BMP Cost–Share Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).

• During the 2013 Agricultural Needs Assessment, the committee should re-evaluate the 60/40 split between the Chesapeake Bay and Southern Rivers/Outside-the-Chesapeake Bay.

• Establish a general fund allocation to the Cost-Share Program to supplement the current surplus based contributions to the Water Quality Improvement Fund.

• Establish a stable source of Technical Assistance so the Districts’ staff can be hired and retained.

Budget Template Submission Results

The 2012 Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Districts Funding Study developed a Budget Template with the participation of staff from House Appropriations, Senate Finance, and Department of Planning and Budget. DCR received completed budget templates from all 47 Districts. After considerable review by DCR and staff of several Districts (template review committee), the Districts generally agree that the numbers are a fair representation of the funding needs of the Districts in aggregate. The analysis of the District budgets shows a need for additional operational funding. The operational funding for the current State Fiscal Year totals $6,941,091. The difference between current funding and the need indicated in the budget template submissions is approximately $2 million dollars. In discussions with the template review committee, the need for a basic program to provide general operational support, without regard to the amount of Cost-Share and related Technical Assistance funding allocated to each District, was the most critical need.