Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elap Fund Condition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Environmental Laboratory fund shows reserve; board staff not proposing ELAP fee increases this year
Summary
Staff said the Environmental Laboratory Improvement Fund (ELIF) currently has a prudent reserve and that the board is not proposing fee changes for most labs this year, though budget authority may be adjusted to reflect staffing costs.
State Water Resources Control Board staff told stakeholders Friday that the Environmental Laboratory Improvement Fund (ELIF), which supports the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP), is showing a prudent reserve and staff are not proposing broad fee changes for the upcoming year.
"So our first table shows us last year's fee setting budget at 4,700,000.0 followed by the governor's inactive fee setting budget for fiscal year 25 26 at 4,600,000.0, a net decrease of $62,000 or 1.3%." Cassandra White, fee and revenue branch staff, summarized during the meeting.
Why it matters: ELAP funds 25 positions that administer laboratory accreditation. Staff said their current budget authority (about $4.6 million) understates the personnel cost footprint if each position is costed at an average of about $225,000 (25 positions × $225,000 ≈ $5.6 million). Staff said a technical budget authority adjustment may be needed in FY25–26 or the following cycle to align authority with personnel costs, but the existing reserve could bridge any near‑term shortfall.
On fees, staff said they are not proposing ELAP fee structure changes this year. "We are not proposing any changes to the structure, and or making any fee adjustments for ELAP at this time," staff said; the majority of laboratories will not see a fee increase for the third year in a row. Last year staff adjusted fees for roughly 40 laboratories that had high FOTs (fees on the table) following the creation of an additional category.
Discussion versus decision: staff presented fund condition and the potential need for a technical budget adjustment; no fee changes were proposed at the meeting. Stakeholders asked clarifying questions and staff invited follow‑up meetings.
Ending: staff said they will continue to coordinate with the budget office and update stakeholders if technical adjustments to budget authority are made.
