at§§_
430/09-91-00£
October 1991
Fund
ongress
•"•"
Of
Hrrtrol Rewlvina Funds
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OCT 02 1991
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable Dan Quayle
President of the Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. President:
Enclosed is the "State Revolving Fund (SRF) Final Report to
Congress." The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepared
this Report in cooperation with the States and water pollution
control planning and financing agencies as required by Section
516(g) of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
The SRF Final Report addresses the financial status and
operations of water pollution control revolving funds established
by the States under Title VI of the CWA. It incorporates
information provided to EPA by 47 of the 51 existing SRF
programs. This Report complements the SRF Interim Report
submitted to the Congress earlier this year.
The SRF program is a significant step in restoring the
responsibility for financing wastewater treatment facilities to
the States and municipalities. This Report presents a national
overview of the development and implementation of the program.
We have included elements of individual State programs as
appropriate to highlight particular operational characteristics
resulting from the State flexibility that is a fundamental
attribute of SRFs.
I would be pleased to discuss the results of this
comprehensive assessment of the SRF program at your convenience.
Sincerely yours,
Enclosure
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OCT 02 1991
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable Thomas S. Foley
Speaker of the House
of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Speaker:
Enclosed is the "State Revolving Fund (SRF) Final Report to
Congress." The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepared
this Report in cooperation with the States and water pollution
control planning and financing agencies as required by Section
516(g) of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
The SRF Final Report addresses the financial status and
operations of water pollution control revolving funds established
by the States under Title VI of the CWA. It incorporates
information provided to EPA by 47 of the 51 existing SRF
programs. This Report complements the SRF Interim Report
submitted to the Congress earlier this year.
The SRF program is a significant step in restoring the
responsibility for financing wastewater treatment facilities to
the States and municipalities. This Report presents a national
overview of the development and implementation of the program
We have included elements of individual State programs as
appropriate to highlight particular operational characteristics
resulting from the State flexibility that is a fundamental
attribute of SRFs.
I would be pleased to discuss the results of this
comprehensive assessment of the SRF program at your convenience.
Sincerely yours,
Enclosure
William
-------
-------
STATE REVOLVING FUND (SRF)
FINAL REPORT TO CONGRESS
Financial Status and Operations of Water Pollution
Control Revolving Funds
October 1991
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance (WH-547)
Washington, DC 20460
Tel. (202) 260-2268
Prepared Under Contract Number 68-C8-0023
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION ONE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Background
1.2 Status of SRF Program Implementation
1.3 Construction Needs of Wastewater Treatment
Projects
1.4 Total Funds Available in SRFs and Other
Programs
1.5 Comparison of Wastewater Treatment Needs
to Funds Available
1.6 SRF Program Operations
1.7 Administration of State SRF Programs
1.8 Impact of the SRF Program on User Fees
1.9 Impact of the SRF Program on Treatment
Plant Efficiency
1.10 Advantages of the SRF Program
1.11 Issues Associated with SRF Implementation
SECTION TWO INTRODUCTION
2.1 Program Background
2.2 Purpose of the Report to Congress
2.3 Scope and Organization of This Report
2.4 Status of Nationwide Implementation
2.5 Federal Funding
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-3
1-4
1-4
1-5
1-5
1-6
1-6
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-6
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Page
SECTION THREE
CONSTRUCTION NEEDS OF STATES FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CLEAN WATER ACT
3.1 Compliance Related Needs
3.2 Additional SRF Eligibilities
3-1
3-1
3-5
SECTION FOUR
AVAILABILITY OF SRF AND OTHER
FUNDING FOR ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
4.1 Availability of Funding from All Sources
4.2 Availability of SRF and Other State Program
Funding
4.3 Current and Anticipated Uses of SRF Assistance
4-1
4-1
4-4
4-8
SECTION FIVE
COMPARISON OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT 5-1
NEEDS TO AVAILABLE FUNDS
SECTION SIX SRF PROGRAM OPERATIONS
6.1 Structure of State SRF Programs
6.2
6.3
Special Programs for Small and/or Economically
Distressed Communities
Ensuring the Viability of the SRF Programs
6-1
6-1
6-7
6-8
SECTION SEVEN
7.1
ADMINISTRATION OF SRF PROGRAMS
7.2
Agencies and Personnel Involved With SRF
Program Administration
Costs Associated With SRF Program Administration
7-1
7-1
7-3
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
SECTION EIGHT
POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE SRF PROGRAM
ON COMMUNITY USER FEES
8-1
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
SECTION NINE
9.1
Scope of the Analysis 8-1
Methodology 8-2
Comparison of User Fees Under SRF and Construction 8-4
Grants Programs
Impact of SRF Loan Interest Rate on Level of Subsidy 8-4
Summary of Key Findings 8-6
POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE SRF PROGRAM 9-1
ON FACILITY OPERATIONS
Anticipated Changes in Sizing, Design and Operation 9-1
and Maintenance Costs of New Facilities
SECTION TEN ADVANTAGES OF THE SRF PROGRAM
10.1 Federal Government
10.2 The States
10.3 Communities
10-1
10-1
10-1
10-2
SECTION ELEVEN
ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH SRF
IMPLEMENTATION
11-1
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
APPENDICES
'age
APPENDIX A
APPENDDC B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
SRF Report to Congress Workgroup Members
Needs Associated with New SRF Program
Funding Eligibilities and New
Enforceable Requirements
Estimated Annual Funding for SRFs and Other
State Programs by State
Total Annual Contributions of Federal and
State Funds for Wastewater Projects
by State
Distribution of Available Funds by Types of
Assistance by State
User Fee Calculation Model
A-l
B-l
C-l
D-l
E-l
F-l
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
2-1 States With Approved SRF Programs In Order of First
SRF Grant Award Date
2-2 Federal Funding of SRFs
3-1 Construction Needs for Facilities in Significant Noncompliance
3-2 Category I to V Wastewater Treatment and Conveyance Needs
4-1 Annual New Federal and State Funding for
Wastewater Projects Aggregated for Forty-Six States
4-2 Estimated Annual Contributions to SRFs and Other State
Programs Aggregated for Forty-Six States
4-3 Planned Uses of SRF Assistance Aggregated for
Forty-Six States
5-1 Comparison of SNC Needs to Federal and State
Funds Available for Forty-Six States
5-2 Comparison of Design Year Category I and II Secondary
and Advanced Wastewater Treatment Needs, Federal and State
Funds Available, and Funds Needed for Forty-Six States
5-3 Comparison of Design Year Category I to V Wastewater
Treatment and Conveyance Needs, Federal and State Funds
Available, and Funds Needed for Forty-Six States
6-1 Types of SRF Assistance and Administrative Costs Aggregated
for Forty-Six States
6-2 SRF Loan Interest Rate Structures of Forty-Seven
Responding States
7-1 Employment in Administration and Operation of SRFs
in Forty-Five States
7-2 Comparison of Estimated SRF Administrative Costs and
Administrative Expense Allowances for Forty-Four States
Page
2-4
2-7
3-3
3-6
4-2
4-5
4-9
5-3
5-6
5-11
6-3
6-5
7-2
7-4
8-1 User Charge Variables, Standard Values, and Range
8-3
-------
LIST OF TABLES (cont.)
Table
8-2 Annual Household Wastewater Treatment Costs: Comparison
of State Revolving Fund and Construction Grants Financing
8-3 SRF Interest Rate and Construction Grant Equivalent
C-l Estimated Annual Funding for SRFs and Other State Programs
by State
D-l • Total Annual Contributions of Federal and State Funds for
Wastewater Projects by State
E-l Types of SRF Assistance by State
8-5
8-6
C-l
D-l
E-l
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
3-1
4-1
4-3
SRF-Eligible Projects and Activities of All States Documented and
Undocumented
Total Federal and State Funding Projected to be Available
for Wastewater Projects Aggregated for Forty-Six States
4-2 Estimated Annual Contributions to SRFs and Other State Programs
Aggregated for Forty-Six States
Estimated Cumulative SRF Funds Available In Forty-Six
States
Page
3-8
4-3
4-6
4-7
vu
-------
-------
How Final Report Findings Differ from Interim Report Findings
The State Revolving Fund Interim Report to Congress pointed out that the nine States
which it reviewed in detail should not be considered representative of all States. Many of the
findings in this final report, based on analyses of all of the States for which information is
available, are the same as those presented in the interim report; certain findings in this report,
however, differ from those presented in the interim report. The contrasts are summarized
below.
The relative contribution of leveraged monies to overall SRF funds is greater in this final
report than it was in the interim report. For the nine States reviewed in the interim report,
leveraged funds accounted for 23 percent of available SRF funds from 1988 to 1999. For the
forty-six States that provided funding estimates for this final report, leveraging accounts for 37
percent of total SRF funds from 1988 to 1999. Loan repayments, which contributed 23 percent
to available SRF funds from 1988 to 1999 in the interim report, contribute only 11 percent to
total SRF funds during that time period for the forty-six States covered in this final report.
Loan repayments are often used to retire the debt from leveraged SRF program bonds.
In the interim report, the nine States projected that their SRF assistance would be used
to fund a higher percentage of wastewater treatment projects and a lower percentage of
waslewater collection and conveyance projects in the 1988 to 1999 time period than the forty-six
States in this final report project. The percentage of SRF assistance projected to be used for
nonpoint source control program activities is lower for the nine States in the interim report than
for the forty-six States in this final report. Additionally, while estuarine protection activities
were not projected to receive SRF assistance by the nine interim report States, the forty-six
States in the final report project that a small percentage of SRF assistance will be used for
estuarine protection activities.
In the interim report, all nine States had a gap between available Federal and State
funding for wastewater projects from 1988 to 1999 and Category I to V design year wastewater
project needs as reported in the 1988 needs survey; in this final report, five States project
sufficient Federal and State funding to cover all of their Category I to V wastewater project
needs in the 1988 to 1999 time period.
In the interim report, staff size appeared to be related to the use of leveraging, with
leveraged programs reporting larger administrative staffs. In this final report, leveraging does
not appear significantly linked with staff size; some of the programs with the smallest staffs
leverage their funds. However, leveraging does appear to be related to administrative costs.
More than half of the States that operate leveraged programs estimated administrative expenses
exceeding the 4 percent administrative cost allowance in the 1989 to 1994 time period.
-------
-------
SECTION ONE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Background
This Report to Congress describes the financial status and operations of State Revolving
Funds (SRFs) established pursuant to Title VI of the Clean Water Act (CWA) as amended by
the Water Quality Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-4). As funding under the CWA Title II construction
grants program is phased out, SRFs have become one of the principal funding sources for
wastewater treatment facilities, collection systems, and other water quality projects in most
States.
This report updates information contained in the Interim SRF Report to Congress.
Both reports address the informational requirements of Section 516(g) of the CWA. (Section
516(g) is summarized on page 2-1 of this report.) The interim report provided a national-level
overview of program implementation, and detailed information for nine States (Connecticut,
Georgia, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia).
This report provides specific information, as of late 1990, for nearly all States and presents an
updated overview of SRF program implementation at the national level.
The State specific information contained in this report is based on responses to an EPA
questionnaire that was mailed to all States. Forty-seven States submitted responses to the
questionnaire. Of these, forty-six provided quantitative data on available funding, and all forty-
seven provided descriptive information about their SRF programs.
1.2 Status of SRF Program Implementation
As of September 30, 1990, all fifty States and Puerto Rico had established SRF
programs and received capitalization grants from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). Twenty-seven States had received two grants, twelve had received three grants, and
two States had received four grants. A total of $2.8 billion in Federal funds had been awarded
to these programs. Nationwide, as of September 30, 1990, SRFs had entered into
approximately 400 binding commitments to provide assistance for construction of wastewater
treatment projects as well as for several nonpoint source activities.
With capitalization of SRFs well under way, the current emphasis in implementing the
program is on assuring that the State programs are viable and well managed. Many of the
States with straightforward loan programs are exploring leveraging and other more
sophisticated financing techniques for possible modifications of their programs in future years.
Using program guidance developed by the Agency to assist in the conduct of annual reviews,
EPA Regional Offices have performed reviews of many SRFs. While the findings of these
reviews are generally positive, a number of minor operational problems have been reported.
The Regional Offices are continually working with the States to improve program management
on both the Federal and State levels.
1-1
-------
1.3 Construction Needs of Wastewater Treatment Projects
Section 516(g)(A) requires EPA to identify facilities in "significant noncompliance"
(SNC) with the Act and to develop estimates of the construction costs of bringing those
facilities into compliance. The definition of SNC as used in EPA's enforcement program was
expanded for the purposes of this report because it does not include all facilities with
construction needed to attain compliance. If EPA or a delegated State enters into an
agreement to resolve the basis of noncompliance, the facility is removed from the SNC list,
even though construction necessary to achieve physical compliance has not taken place. As a
result, the universe of facilities needing construction to achieve physical compliance is larger
than the SNC universe needing construction. This report deals with facilities which need
construction in order to achieve or return to compliance (see Section 3.1). EPA identified
4,689 facilities in the fifty States and Puerto Rico which met the definition used in this report.
The cost of construction necessary to bring these facilities back into compliance is estimated to
be $12.0 billion.
Because a high level of compliance has already been achieved, the above estimate of
compliance-related construction needs represents a small percentage of the cost of constructing
all facilities eligible for SRF funding. The estimate does not include wastewater treatment and
collection costs for facilities currently in compliance, but which have major wastewater funding
needs as documented in the 1988 Needs Survey1. If all documented funding requirements in
Categories I through V of the 1988 Needs Survey2 are included, a total of $83.0 billion will be
needed to construct SRF-eligible wastewater treatment and collection system projects3. This
$83.0 billion does not include costs associated with new funding eligibilities, replacement needs,
and new enforceable requirements of the 1987 CWA Amendments. These water quality
activities, programs, and requirements, which include nonpoint source control, sludge disposal,
estuary protection, and storm sewer projects, will add significantly to the potential demand for
SRF funds. Documented estimates of the funding needs for these activities, however, are not
available.
Needs Survey is a biennial assessment of the cost of wastewater treatment and
collection systems required to meet the goals of the Clean Water Act. The survey divides
community wastewater treatment and collection needs into five categories.
Category I
Category II
Category IHA
Category fflB
Category IVA
Category IVB
Category V
Secondary Treatment
Advanced Treatment
Infiltration/Inflow Correction
Replacement/Rehabilitation of Sewers
New Collector Sewers
New Interceptor Sewers
Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO)
2The 1988 Needs Survey is the most current available for use in this report. The 1990
Needs Survey is expected to be available in the Spring of 1991.
3Includes documented needs for 50 States and Puerto Rico.
1-2
-------
1.4 Total Funds Available in SRFs and Other Programs
Based on data provided by forty-six States, Federal and State funds totaling
approximately $28.7 billion will be available from 1988 to 1999 to meet SRF-eligible needs.
This total includes Federal and State contributions to SRFs, EPA construction grants, other
(non-EPA) Federal grant and loan programs, other State grant and loan programs, and
repayments on SRF loans by local recipients.
Of the $28.7 billion in Federal and State funding for SRF-eligible needs in the forty-six
States from 1988 to 1999, $23.8 billion will be administered through State programs. Of this,
$17.0 billion will be available through the States' SRFs. Between 1990 and 1995, the amount of
SRF funding available annually in the forty-six States is projected by State officials to decrease
by about 40 percent. At this time State funding in general does not appear to be increasing
sufficiently to offset the phase out of Federal SRF monies. Only fifteen of the forty-six States
project further capitalization or leveraging of their SRFs beyond 1994; of these, only nine
project additional annual funding for their SRFs in an amount equal to or greater than the
annual average provided by Federal capitalization grants from 1988 to 1994. However,
historical experience indicates that local funding increases as Federal funding decreases.
1.5 Comparison of Wastewater Treatment Needs to Funds Available
For the forty-six States that provided estimates of available funding, funds available
from Federal and State sources from 1988 to 1999 are projected to be sufficient to cover all
SNC needs in forty-three of the forty-six States and from 52 to 84 percent of the needs in the
remaining three States. However, the SNC-related needs only represent a "snapshot" as of
June 30, 1990. While it is not possible to quantify future SNC-related needs, it is predictable
that there will be additional significant violations through 1999 that will require construction to
correct. The reasons for potential violations include population growth which will generate
flows and/or pollutant loadings in excess of design capacity. During this period, some number
of treatment plants will reach the end of their useful lives and face the need for major
rehabilitation or replacement. Finally, additional regulations in the area of toxics control,
storm water management, and sludge disposal may result in significant new violations that
might require construction to correct. Similarly, in 27 percent of 46 States providing data,
Federal and State funding is projected to be sufficient to meet or exceed all secondary and
advanced treatment needs (Categories I and II). Such needs tend to be among the highest
priority needs for most States. As in the case of SNC-related needs, Category I and II needs
represent a "snapshot" as of a given point in time and additional needs will be identified in
these categories through 1999.
It is possible to make some additional comparisons of funding availability and need
using data contained in the 1988 Needs Survey. Federal and currently projected State funding
covers an average of only 35 percent of the 77.6 billion of Category I to V design year needs
documented for the forty-six States in the 1988 Needs Survey. The gap between available
Federal and State funds and Category I to V needs represents the amount that may need to be
funded from State and local sources between 1988 and 1999 if all needs are to be met. Local
sources provided approximately 40 percent of the financing for such projects in the mid 1980s.
1-3
-------
1.6 SRF Program Operations
All forty-seven States that responded to the SRF questionnaire offer SRF loans at
below-market interest rates. Loan repayments are used to fund additional loans (with the
exception of repayments used to retire SRF program debt). The key structural and operating
characteristics of the States' programs include:
• Method of Obtaining Matching Funds - States obtain matching funds in a variety
of ways. The most commonly used methods are State appropriations, State
general obligation bonds, and SRF program revenue bonds. Other approaches
include pledging the loan repayments of an existing wastewater treatment loan
program and obtaining the State match directly from the loan recipients.
• Use of Leveraging - Over one quarter of the SRF programs currently borrow to
provide additional lendable funds. Additional States plan to consider some type
of leveraging in the future.
• Types of Assistance - The States plan to provide assistance primarily in the form
of loans. States also plan to use a small portion of funds for refinancing existing
debt. States with leveraged programs will use some funds to secure bond issues.
• Interest Rates - All of the State programs offer loans at below-market interest
rates, although two of the States offer some SRF loans at up to market rates.
Interest charges typically range from 2 to 5-1/2 percent. Approximately one
third of the States vary interest rates based on a community's ability to pay.
• Type of Projects Funded - States used virtually all SRF funds for sewage
treatment and collection system projects through FY 1990. Several States intend
to use a portion of their SRF funds for nonpoint source control programs in the
future. One State, Wyoming, intends to use all of its SRF funds for nonpoint
source control activities from 1991 to 1994. A few States also plan to use a
small percentage of their SRF funds for estuarine activities.
• Measures to Assure Fund Viability - States uniformly view the soundness of
their loan portfolios as the critical factor in assuring long-term viability of the
SRFs. States carefully scrutinize applicants to evaluate their creditworthiness.
States require communities to pledge revenues from a range of sources to assure
loan repayments. User fees and full faith and credit are commonly used as
assurances for repayment. In the event of default, several States reported that
they can intercept other State assistance to the recipient.
1.7 Administration of State SRF Programs
SRF program administration requires a mix of technical, financial, and general
administrative personnel. In the forty-five States that reported staffing figures, staff size varied
from 2 to 70 people in FYs 1989-1990. Most of the States anticipate significant staff expansion
1-4
-------
over the next several years as personnel shift from the construction grants to the SRF programs
and the number of projects and the amount of money in the SRF programs increase.
The CWA restricts the cumulative total of SRF funds used for administrative expenses
to four percent of the amount of capitalization grant awards. The adequacy of the four
percent SRF administrative expense allowance varies significantly among the States. The
majority of the States should not have difficulty covering their projected administrative
expenses during the 1989 to 1994 time period. Sixteen States, however, do not expect to cover
their administrative costs with the four percent allowance during the 1989 to 1994 time period;
over 75 percent of administrative costs are covered in seven of these sixteen States. After the
allotment of the final Federal capitalization grants in 1994, States will have to rely primarily on
alternative funding sources such as appropriated funds, or on unused allowances "banked" from
previous years to cover their administrative expenses. States typically have not developed
specific plans to fund these costs after 1994. Many States currently charge loan closing fees or
other types of fees to help pay their administrative expenses. Several additional States plan to
begin charging fees to help cover their administrative costs in the future.
1.8 Impact of the SRF Program on User Fees
Very few facilities financed with SRF loans have been completed. Therefore, actual
data on the user fee impact of the SRF program are not available. For purposes of this report,
a financial model is used to assess the impact of SRF funding on user fees. The model
simulates the user fee impact of SRF funding versus construction grants funding for a range of
community sizes. In the analysis, user fees are assumed to cover all debt service and operation
and maintenance costs for a new wastewater treatment facility (excluding land).
The analysis shows that SRF loans generally provide less of a subsidy to communities
than construction grant funding. This occurs despite the expanded eligibility of project funding
under the SRF program. If SRF loans are issued at four percent interest, a common rate
charged for SRF loans, user fees are expected to be approximately 20 percent higher than
projects constructed with construction grants assistance. However, SRF loans still provide a
substantial subsidy. On average, user fees for treatment facilities constructed with a 4 percent
SRF loan will be approximately 14 percent lower than facilities constructed with market rate
financing.
1.9 Impact of the SRF Program on Treatment Plant Efficiency
Because wastewater treatment plants have only recently been funded with SRF program
assistance, there are no actual data available on the efficiency of SRF-financed treatment
plants. However, many State officials expect that SRF-financing will lead to lower-cost
facilities because communities must finance the entire cost of the facility. Most officials
anticipate a reduction in the use of innovative and alternative technologies because, unlike the
construction grants program, the SRF program offers no special incentives for such projects.
The potential impact of a shift toward lower-cost, non-innovative facilities on treatment plant
efficiency is unclear. However, State officials indicated that they expect no major changes in
treatment plant efficiency.
1-5
-------
1.10 Advantages of the SRF Program
The SRF program offers many financial and environmental advantages to Federal,
State, and local governments. The revolving nature of the SRFs creates a perpetual source of
low cost financing. The funds invested now for the capitalization of SRFs will work for many
years to assist communities in meeting their needs, providing more money for more
communities than would one-time loans or grants.
For the Federal government, the program furthers the long-standing national policy of
assisting States and local governments in financing the construction of wastewater treatment
facilities. SRFs also facilitate the goal of restoring the responsibility for funding these activities
to the States and municipalities. In the process of resuming this responsibility, the States also
have increased flexibility to design and operate their SRFs to address the water quality
concerns most important to them and their communities.
For communities receiving SRF assistance, below market interest rates are the single
most important advantage of the program. This reduced cost of capital enables some projects
to be completed that otherwise would not be affordable and reduces the level of user fees
required to repay project debt.
1.11 Issues Associated with SRF Implementation
The overall implementation of the SRF program has been smooth. The number of
issues associated with implementation has been reduced as people and institutions become
more familiar with program requirements. There do not appear to be any fundamental flaws in
the structure of the SRF program or any significant impediments to successful implementation
that have not been adequately managed.
State officials in the SRF programs identified a number of areas of concern that affect
their ability to implement their programs. Many of these concerns arise from Federal and
State statutes, regulations, and policies.
Of primary concern to most officials was Federal funding of the SRF program. The
States believe that funding the program at less than the full authorized levels will reduce their
ability to accomplish the goals of the CWA, including the 1987 Amendments. They also report
that uncertainty in the level of funding due to the appropriations process makes planning
difficult for them and their communities.
Several States mentioned that they anticipate difficulty in providing SRF assistance to
economically distressed communities because these communities may be unable to repay loans
even at very low interest rates. Many of these communities were unable to accept a grant
under the construction grants program because they could not finance the local share.
Similarly, they will not be able to repay a loan under the SRF program even at low interest
rates because the subsidy will be even less than it was under the construction grants program.
The States report that the application of "cross-cutters" (i.e., Federal laws and
authorities that exist independently of the SRF program, such as the National Historic
1-6
-------
Preservation Act, but apply to certain activities undertaken under the program) adds
significantly to administrative and project costs. In addition, the States are having difficulty
monitoring and assuring compliance with cross-cutters because at any time, Federal laws can be
enacted that apply to the SRF program, and a permanent list of these authorities cannot be
identified. States recommend that Congress consider exempting the SRF program from all
Federal cross-cutters. As an alternative, some State officials recommend that compliance with
cross-cutters be based on the intent of law rather than specific requirements, and be
determined by the Governor of each State.
The States believe that Federally mandated Title II requirements on the SRF program
can also increase project costs. The most frequently mentioned requirement in this regard is
the Davis-Bacon Act.
The letter of credit (LOG) payment process was also cited as an impediment. Several
States expressed concern about the loss of interest earnings on Federal funds caused by the
LOG process. Also, States mentioned that the LOG process becomes cumbersome because
States have to comply with their own overlapping fiscal and accounting procedures which can
impede the quick transfer of funds. Thus, although the LOG itself as a method of payment is
not causing delays beyond the maximum of 36 hours necessary to make the electronic transfer
of funds, delays are occurring in some States due to State processing problems associated with
the cash disbursements.
Several States reported that the statutory restriction on the use of SRF funds for
administrative costs is an impediment to establishing effective SRFs. The CWA restricts the
amount of money in an SRF that can be used for administrative expenses to four percent of all
capitalization grant awards received by the fund. A number of States expect that the allowed
amount will be inadequate to cover the full costs of administering their funds during the period
of Federal capitalization. As discussed in Subsection 1.7 of this executive summary,
quantitative data show that twenty-eight of the responding States should be able to pay all of
their administrative expenses with the four percent allowance during the period of Federal
capitalization.
Land eligibility was also cited as an impediment. The purchase of land for a wastewater
treatment facility is not an eligible cost under the SRF program unless the land is integral to
the treatment process or used for sludge disposal. This statutory restriction means
communities must obtain separate financing for land.
The CWA also requires that recipients of SRF assistance provide a dedicated source of
revenue to cover loan repayments. Because of this, some States reported that it may be
difficult to fund nonpoint source and estuarine activities. To address this concern, EPA has
completed a case study guidebook that presents examples of how expanded use activities can be
funded under the SRF program.
1-7
-------
-------
SECTION TWO
INTRODUCTION
2.1 Program Background
Title VI of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987
(P.L. 100-4), authorizes the Administrator of the EPA to make capitalization grants to States
for State Water Pollution Control Revolving Funds (SRFs). The SRF program is intended to
bring to a successful culmination a long-standing national policy of assisting States and
municipalities in financing the construction of publicly owned wastewater treatment works
(POTWs). This new program, however, is fundamentally different from the Title II
construction grants program that has provided financial assistance for many years and received
its last appropriation in fiscal year (FY) 1990.
Unlike the construction grants program under which EPA provided grant assistance
directly to municipalities for wastewater treatment projects, the SRF program is designed to
give individual States the responsibility for developing and operating their own programs,
including providing financial assistance for POTW construction and other eligible activities.
Financial assistance provided by SRFs can include loans and various forms of credit
enhancements, but not grants. A key element of SRFs is their "revolving" nature—most
disbursements return to the program to provide assistance to additional recipients. SRF
assistance can be used for a broader range of water quality management activities than
construction grants assistance, such as the implementation of nonpoint source management
programs and the development and implementation of comprehensive conservation and
management plans under the National Estuary Program.
The SRF program is a significant step in restoring the responsibility for financing
wastewater treatment facilities to the States and municipalities. The CWA allows flexibility in
the program; each SRF is designed and operated to address the water quality needs in a
particular State and its communities. EPA cooperates with and provides technical assistance to
States in establishing their programs.
2.2 Purpose of the Report to Congress
Section 516(g) of the CWA requires EPA to prepare a Report to Congress on the
financial status and operations of the State SRFs. In accordance with Section 516(g), the
report must provide:
(A) an inventory of the facilities that are in significant noncompliance with the
enforceable requirements of the CWA;
(B) an estimate of the cost of construction necessary to bring such facilities into
compliance with such requirements;
2-1
-------
(C) an assessment of the availability of sources of funds for financing such needed
construction, including an estimate of the amount of funds available for
providing assistance for such construction through September 30, 1999, from the
water pollution control revolving funds established by the States under Title VI
of the CWA;
(D) an assessment of the operations, loan portfolio, and loan conditions of such
revolving funds;
(E) an assessment of the effect on user fees of the assistance provided by such
revolving funds compared to the assistance provided with funds appropriated
pursuant to Section 207 of the CWA; and
(F) an assessment of the efficiency of the operation and maintenance of treatment
works constructed with assistance provided by such revolving funds compared to
the efficiency of the operation and maintenance of treatment works constructed
with assistance provided under Section 201 of the CWA.
The report was to be prepared in cooperation with the State water pollution control
planning and financing agencies. EPA formed a workgroup of State and EPA Regional staff
directly involved in the SRF program to assist in the development of this report. The
workgroup participated in the development of the approach and commented on draft
questionnaires and a draft of the report. Workgroup participants are identified in Appendix A.
2.3 Scope and Organization of This Report
This report provides a national-level overview of SRF program implementation and
presents detailed information on the SRF programs in forty-seven States. This final report
addresses the informational requirements of Section 516(g) of the CWA, and updates
information contained in the Interim SRF Report to Congress.
The interim report contained detailed information on the SRF programs in nine States
(Connecticut, Georgia, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
and Virginia) as of June 1989. To provide information for the interim report, each of the nine
States completed a program questionnaire; additionally, program officials were interviewed
during EPA site visits to each State. The information contained in this final report is based on
questionnaires received from forty-seven States, follow-up phone conversations with program
officials from many of those States, and the information collected for the interim report.
Information in this final report is based on the status of State programs as of late 1990.
This report is organized to respond to Section 516(g) of the CWA and to provide
additional information that may be of use to Congress in evaluating the SRF program.
• Section Three estimates the cost of bringing facilities that are currently in
significant noncompliance into compliance with the enforceable requirements of
2-2
-------
the CWA and discusses new enforceable requirements and new funding
eligibilities of the CWA [responsive to Sections 516(g)(2)(a) and 516(g)(2)(b)].
Section Four discusses the funds available to address these needs from State
SRFs and other sources [responsive to Section 516(g)(2)(c)].
Section Five compares available funds to the funding needs required for
compliance with the CWA [also responsive to Section 516(g)(2)(c)].
Sections Six and Seven describe the operation and administration of State SRFs
[responsive to Section 516(g)(2)(d)].
Section Eight provides an assessment of the impact of SRF funding on user fees
in comparison to construction grants funding [responsive to Section
516(g)(2)(e)].
Section Nine provides an assessment of the impact of SRF financing on the
efficiency of POTW operation and maintenance [responsive to Section
516(g)(2)(f)].
Section Ten describes the advantages of the SRF program to the Federal
government, States, and communities.
Section Eleven presents a discussion of the impediments States have
encountered in implementing their SRFs.
2.4 Status of Nationwide Implementation
To initiate an SRF program, States must apply for a capitalization grant from EPA.
The capitalization grant is the Federal seed money that the State uses to establish its revolving
loan fund. To qualify for the capitalization grant, the State must provide matching funds equal
to at least 20 percent of the grant and conform to the applicable Title VI program
requirements.
As of September 30, 1990, all fifty States and Puerto Rico had established SRF
programs and received capitalization grants from EPA. (The District of Columbia, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territories have been authorized by Congress to receive CWA
Title VI funds without having to establish an SRF.) Twenty-seven States had received two
grants, twelve had received three grants, and two States had received four grants (Table 2-1).
A total of $2.8 billion in Federal funds had been awarded to these programs. Nationwide as of
September 30, 1990, SRFs had entered into approximately 400 binding commitments to provide
assistance for construction of wastewater treatment projects as well as for several nonpoint
source activities.
It is clear that a successful transition has been made from the construction grants
program to the SRF program in most States. With capitalization of SRFs well under way, the
current emphasis in implementing the program is on assuring that the State programs are
2-3
-------
TABLE 2-1
States With Approved SRF Programs
In Order of First SRF Grant Award Date(a)
STATE
Tennessee(b)
Texas(b)
Georgia
New Mexico
Utah
Virginia
Connecticut
Louisiana
New Jersey
Nebraska
South Carolina
Alaska
Arkansas
South Dakota
Oklahoma
Kentucky
North Carolina
Minnesota
Alabama
Florida
Kansas
Iowa
New Hampshire
Vermont
Mississippi
Maine
Illinois
Missouri
FIRST
SRF GRANT
AWARD DATE
March 1988(c)
March 1988(d)
April 1988(d)
May 1988(c)
June 1988(d)
June 1988(d)
September 1988(d)
September 1988(d)
October 1988(d)
October 1988(e)
November 1988(d)
November 1988(e)
December 1988(d)
March 1989(e)
March 1989(d)
March 1989(d)
March 1989(e)
April 1989(e)
April 1989(e)
April 1989(e)
April 1989(e)
May 1989(e)
May 1989(e)
May 1989(e)
June 1989(e)
June 1989(e)
June 1989(e)
June 1989(e)
Continued
2-4
-------
TABLE 2-1, continued
States With Approved SRF Programs
In Order of First SRF Grant Award Date(a)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
FIRST
SRF GRANT
STATE AWARD DATE
Ohio June 1989(e)
California June 1989(d)
Michigan July 1989(e)
Idaho August 1989(e)
Maryland August 1989(e)
Colorado August 1989(e)
Wisconsin September 1989(e)
Pennsylvania September 1989(e)
Massachusetts September 1989(e)
Indiana September 1989(f)
Hawaii September 1989(e)
Nevada September 1989(e)
Puerto Rico September 1989(f)
Oregon September 1989(e)
Washington September 1989(e)
New York March 1990(f)
North Dakota August 1990(f)
West Virginia August 1990(f)
Wyoming September 1990(f)
Montana September 1990(f)
Rhode Island September 1990(f)
Arizona September 1990(f)
Delaware September 1990(f)
Status as of September 30, 1990
Received the first grants in the program
State has received four capitalization grants
State has received three capitalization grants
State has received two capitalization grants
State has received one capitalization grant
2-5
-------
viable and well managed. Many of the States with straightforward loan programs are exploring
leveraging and other more sophisticated financing techniques for possible modifications of their
programs in future years. EPA, through its Regional Offices, is assisting the States in this
process through a mission support contract that provides SRF training and the advice and
support of financial and legal professionals.
Using program guidance developed by the Agency to assist in the conduct of these
reviews, the Regional Offices have performed reviews of many SRFs. While the findings of
these reviews are generally positive, a number of minor operational problems have been
reported. The Regional Offices are working with the States to address these problems and
make necessary improvements.
2.5 Federal Funding
Federal funding for State SRFs includes both Title VI allotments and Title II transfers
as authorized by Section 205(m). The latter category consists of funds transferred at State
discretion from the construction grants allotment to the SRF program. As of September 30,
1990, Federal funding for the SRF programs totaled $2.8 billion (see Table 2-2). All funds
committed in FY 1988 were Title II funds transferred at State discretion to their SRF
programs; Title VI funds were not authorized until FY 1989. Thus far, approximately 33
percent of Federal contributions to SRF programs have come from Title II transfers and
approximately 67 percent from Title VI allotments. Many States chose to transfer the
maximum allowable amount of their Title II funds to SRFs in FY 1989 and FY 1990.
2-6
-------
S
3
o
ON
S rr>
oa S3
"8 "I
t>D (D
G -tt
• 1-1 £-^t
•O — i
H
<
OH
W
Q
>
W
>-J
H
H
>
W
, i
c_i
»__(
H
oo
W
CO
•"£
H
-^
W
H
o
^_4
<
U
S"
erf
^
<;
O
CO
H'
1
o
<;
o
ON
ON
vS-
Z
I
E— '
O
i—]
,-J
<
ON
00
ON
i — I
P
OO
* ^
oo
oo
f~r
oo
Q
H
<
J
CQ
O
W
Q
W
H
00
in oo ON vo ^ o ^i" in
^^^H^g^P^
Oxoovocnooooor^
^^ LO ^O ^O ON C"^ CM ^1*
^ VO i-l
invocoi— iinvovovo
omvovor-ooi— i-^-
T-H VO »— 1
OT)-OI— ii— 1VOONCN
OTfOTj-OVDONO
'~<
oooooooo
oooooooo
3
_ w .2 o •- ®
1 3 1 1 1 = 1 i
•§ M y^!S« 3JS
,__( ,__! VH (-H OJ O O 1)
<<< s
_ ta _ ii K
W • i— i ' — 5/3 C3 c/3 CJ "
-•H |° | o o % w s 1 :» s
Eoffi23llt2wJI
1*
VO
VO
CO
CN
oo
CN
CN
o
o
0
o
Maryland
in
CN
^^
CO
CO
o
CN
CO
CO
VO
o
0
03
Massachus
f-
CN
oo
o
CN
VO
Q
^J-
CN
O
O
0
CO
00
'4
ii
CO
in
CO
ON
i-H
ro
^
^ — i
O
0
o
o
Minnesota
1
a
o
O
2-1
-------
1
O
o
CN
o
ON
o\
S rr>
to 53
•s-i
W) (D
*3 CD
C CO
PU O
2 a
s
w g
H 3
C^ •»
H <
o
o\
O\
t— i
_ W
W fc
3 Q
p H
H <
CO
ON
o"
,.. o\
OO -
H P3 o^
W oo
W (L, "„
i-J CO OO
H £ 2°
H S i>
pTj QQ
H "
1
Q Q
£%
S O
3
>J OQ
< O
W W
Di Q
W
g
oo
O CN CO f~ CO 00
- co ox ON ON o;
oo o r~ o\ f- r-
00 C^ Tt ^f ^- 0
in -. vo oo vo Tt
oo vo Ti* Tj~ ^1* o\
CN
oo O O O O vo
»— <
O O O O O O
000000
ID
.fcl
J3
en
|| a |^|
W W r^ *""( CQ ->
CO tO t? O ^ J>
oo--i
o\oor~vor-~ONO\ovoo in
Tt" O <— i W) ^H CO
mvo — ovo — voc-^co co
QQ ^j. ^. ^ ^. j^ f-^. o C"^* OJ ^O
CTJ O i-H V/^ i— 1 (T} i-H
Tf ^^ ^^ *•""< ^^ C^l CO ^" ^^ ^^ ^O
"^* ^N) ^^ i-^ ^^ Q\ Q\ (Y*j ^^ ^^ ^^
CN >-i CN
oooooooooo o
oooooooooo o
A
O -ji -5 ea -a
>> .a ^ o _g '5 8 a
g|°t3Q |a-|SS
O CO l> CN O\ ON
O) ON CO CN CN Tt-
n- vo vo CN *-<
(N r*
O C- CN VO 1-1 O
o "^f "^f ^ *n o
*— ' ^^ "^ CS
c~~ vo r^ »— ' ON co
ON ^3" CO CO "^ ON
CO O ON C- ON I-H
cN O >n cs cs co
CN co r~ I-H r-
O O O 00 O VO
O O O i— i O C-)
ctt
1 1 0
« n u
0 Q % .2
^S € g 3 j -|
3 3 d X ea i-T
O O
1
a
o
o
2-8
-------
0
ON
ON
1-1
•o [£ cT
1 1?
C ^^ rt)
•-C2 M-H jo
g ° H
8 g> a
CM *O
03
H"
^^
prj
> S
rrl f"1
il
o\
oo
&o 5s
a es oC
PQ oo
K-5 CO OO
H ^; °°
p^ OO
H -
UH
11
So
\^ j^*j
i-4 _j
d m
§s
Pi Q
H
VO Tf O\ O r- 1 ON
O ^ O CM CM V
•— i co CM >n >— i t-~
CM
0 O CM •<*• O CM
^f C*^ ^O VO ^* C^
1-1 CM T-H
o\
\o in t^ *n ^o c^i
»ssa- §
co o o »— i CM in
'-' >-< O O CM CM
CO
0\
O O O O VO CO
o o o o o \o
OS
« is
^ 2 °c .« eo
75 OO -3 « c3 i
o a > e •§ >-3
§ "P o S •<
S "1 8 8 I H
^J > > > ^ °
V3
|
S
0
6S
"u
fSi
H
s
ra
§>
V3
"-<
«> ^?
O ff)
.a °
•s •«
* s
s ©
o in
8 8
S a
u, .2
° |
T— H j^
Efl
-------
-------
SECTION THREE
CONSTRUCTION NEEDS OF STATES FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CLEAN WATER ACT
Sections 516(g)(2)(a) and (b) of the Act require EPA to prepare an inventory of
facilities currently in significant noncompliance with enforceable requirements of the Act and an
estimate of the cost of construction necessary to bring such facilities into compliance. Section
3.1 provides the required inventory and cost estimates. Section 3.2 provides estimates of SRF-
eligible construction needs for all facilities regardless of their compliance status.
3.1 Compliance Related Needs
Significant noncompliance (SNC) is a term used by EPA to identify facilities (generally
with flows greater than 1 million gallons per day (mgd)) covered under the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) which are in serious and/or repeated violations of
effluent limits, compliance schedule milestones, reporting requirements or other administrative
or judicial requirements, and that require priority management attention. Some facilities in
significant noncompliance may require construction or other corrective actions in order to come
back into compliance. However, when a facility owner/operator enters into a compliance
agreement with EPA and commits to resolve the basis of noncompliance, the facility is removed
from the SNC list, even though construction necessary to achieve physical compliance has not
taken place. Thus, the universe of facilities needing construction to achieve physical compliance
is larger than the SNC universe needing construction. This report deals with facilities which
need construction in order to achieve or return to compliance.
EPA does not routinely collect data specifically on the construction-related needs to
bring SNC facilities back into compliance. As a result, EPA's estimate of "significant
noncompliance," as used in this report, and associated construction needs is based on a
compilation of data from several sources. First, EPA prepared a list of facilities in SNC with
outstanding construction needs as reported in its Permit Compliance System (PCS) national
database as of June 30, 1990. EPA then prepared a list of facilities in PCS with a "resolved
pending" (RP) enforcement status as of June 30, 1990. This second list consists of facilities that
had been classified as SNC but, for enforcement purposes, are no longer in SNC because they
are on construction schedules. These RP facilities were included because they were not yet
physically meeting their permitted effluent limits as of June 30, 1990.
The SNC and RP lists do not include facilities with flows of less than 1 million gallons
per day (mgd) unless there is a significant impact on water quality. Therefore, EPA has for the
purposes of this report expanded its definition of significant noncompliance to include secondary
treatment (Category I) and/or advanced treatment (Category II) needs of all facilities with flows
of less than 1 mgd, based on the 1988 Needs Survey.
3-1
-------
Table 3-1 shows the number of facilities in the fifty States and Puerto Rico that meet the
SNC definition used in this report. The cost of construction needed to bring these facilities into
compliance is estimated to be $12.0 billion. The construction costs for each of the three
categories of SNC defined for this report are concentrated among a small group of States that
differs for each category. Eight States account for nearly 78 percent of SNC construction needs.
For RP facilities, 82 percent of the needs are concentrated in five States. Forty-nine percent of
the Categories I and II treatment needs for facilities with flows less than 1 mgd occur in seven
States. The total need for this latter category of facilities represents nearly 54 percent of the
total SNC need as defined in this report; the number of facilities in this category accounts for
nearly 94 percent of the facilities inventoried. For the remainder of this report, the aggregated
construction needs for the three groups of facilities shown in Table 3-1 will be referred to as
"SNC needs."
While Table 3-1 provides an estimate of the cost of construction required to correct
significant violations (as required under Section 516(g) of the Act), States strongly assert that a
comparison of SNC-related needs with SRF funding availability is not a reasonable measure of
the ability of SRF programs to meet current and future municipal sewage treatment
construction, needs.
The Agency developed the concept of "SNC" as a method for setting priorities for its
enforcement effort. The reasons why certain types of violations are included in the definition
are based on enforcement considerations rather than on construction needs. Thus, repeated
failure to monitor or report effluent data is a significant violation but does not require
construction to correct. Conversely, major and legitimate construction needs exist
independently of significant violations. For example, Houston, Texas, is not considered to be in
significant violation, although it has been sued by the State and is under administrative order to
correct its sewage collection system overflow problems. Inclusion of Houston's construction
needs would add about $800 million to the estimate of Texas' SNC needs presented in
Table 3-1. Further, the 1987 Amendments expanded eligibilities under the SRF program to
include funding required for compliance with new enforceable requirements of the Act (e.g.,
storm sewers) and for the implementation of new programs (e.g., nonpoint source control
programs). These potential demands on SRF funds are also not included in the SNC cost
estimates in Table 3-1.
The SNC-related needs shown in Table 3-1 only represent a "snapshot" of needs as of
June 30,1990. While it is not possible to quantify future SNC-related needs, it is predictable
that there will be additional significant violations through 1999 that will require construction to
correct. The reasons for potential violations include population growth which will generate
flows and/or pollutant loadings in excess of design capacity. During this period, some number
of treatment plants will reach the end of their useful lives and face the need for major
rehabilitation or replacement. Finally, additional regulations in the area of toxics control, storm
water management, and sludge disposal may result in significant new violations that might
require construction to correct.
In order to provide additional perspective on the adequacy of SRF program funds, the
next section addresses SRF-eligible funding needs beyond those associated with the correction
of significant violations.
3-2
-------
CO
S
3-3
-------
§
• 1—t
C3
o
o
JZi
•g
C^J
_. 0
M y^
2 'S
C OjQ
1 1
o •£!
•* oo
*— t (U
cn «
S 1
1 1
oo
•o
(U
£
a
Q
CO
g
U
U
CO
"S
£
0
CO
1
[— i
S'-S 8 -a
|_C 03 CO °°
„ PH !J g
•2 g .2 ~
S <*-• V-> d
DO w ^ J3
•e u -g E-c
ro a) s
u z
CO
OO T3
•J ^ 8
la S £
« ^ d
P-l CO O
•d .2 £
> 3 5
1 § |
£ fa a
^3 .23
S "^
CO ^
:! g
1 1
fc S
to
U d
'7* O
co U
.4-> CO
co *g
o d
CJ co
—1 3
_S o
H f"1
S
43
g
3
•*-»
W ^-s,
O co
O 'S
o w
2 o
S -^
CO ,A
W ^3-
u
,2
|
*^
^*
C
3 s
'w §
.§ H
^ rr\
W t_J-
1-1
43
*~
W <-s
a i
13 ®
S M
"w o
•1 H
W ^,-
«
"1
3
"Z-
u
5
^o^o^mvo-^vo^oo.nvo^o^-ooo
VO O OJ C?^ ^O OO 0*4 "^J" ^" OO C^ C*" OO CO IO VO »~< "^" O\ C^*
Q^ f^.. yQ (^j ^^ f^. Q^ , ( ^J Q^ ^ |^-J f^J QQ QQ f^. ^j- Q^ \y-J
tN tN C^ *— i vo ^t *-« CNiT—l *"* ^
T— 1 1— (
mot-~(Ncnmw-nnvocMo\^o — n-ONOTj-cNivo
0s! ^* *™~* ^d* **"* c^ m vo ^^ en ^o vo 0*3 t"^ o^ T~^ c^ T^
«— I i— i C»l CN ^H^-IT^- ^-(
go^g^rnvocscNvocNoovovo^gOv^Ooo
vovO'— tc^c^Oolcnooi— ' 100
cN^n OOT-ICM T—I^-*^ ^
\O ^H VO
ooocn^oo-ocNvo-^c^^-^oomcn
OOOOOOOW^OOOOOOOOOOOO
C"^OS CNO COO O\O OOO OOO
COO »—>>>'^>Soc8OOd'S':S'SQ'Bj3S '5n"S
Sll§sssaaalJgggg3s.^|
^Z^^^2ZOOO(SScocoHHD»^
^* *""* vo ^D
m oo c^ vo
^~~* c ] OO C3\
CN r~ rf oo
p~ oo m
o m ON oo
i — i O
VO O3 C"~ VO
OO ON OO OS
in •* oo
v} r"°~ m
*n 0s! os oo
0 O O O
o
o_
^
— i O O O
O 1-1 O O
tSj^
i— i
**d" i—* O O
.2
.d o
• « g d M
ill!
££££
8
«•"!
<^j-
OS
i— <
OS
oo
VO
^
o
cn^
i — i
Tfr^
Ol
t?)
^r
VO
vo"
o
m
i — i
VO
»— i
m
3
en"
S
i—i
J
<
H
g
oo
oo
OS
*— 1
1
§
•8
CO
W
CO
d
§
a
^
c3
•a
§
CO
•3
1
d
CO
O
CO
1
3
CO
:!
'o
00
I
o
CO
S
•*"*
^
8
r f^
CO
t
•3
CO
i
t
CO
gH
•S
o
>
^
^
CO
1
3-4
-------
3.2 Additional SRF Eligibilities
As described above, many communities with major construction needs have not
experienced compliance problems in the past and are, therefore, not included on EPA's SNC or
RP lists. The Needs Survey, required by Section 205(a) and 516(b)(l) of the CWA, is a biennial
assessment of the cost of constructing all publicly-owned wastewater treatment works necessary
to meet the goals of the CWA regardless of compliance status. The 1988 Needs Survey showed
a design year1 need of $83.0 billion to satisfy all currently documented needs2 nationwide
through the year 2008 (see Table 3-2).3 The 1987 Amendments to the CWA allow SRFs to
fund certain activities not eligible under the construction grants program and not included in the
$83.0 billion needs cited above. The 1990 Needs Survey, which was not available during
preparation of this report, will include State cost estimates for these SRF-eligible activities.
Additionally, EPA has or will soon promulgate rules related to new enforceable requirements as
specified in the 1987 Amendments.
^'Design year" needs reflect the total needs for documented facilities to satisfy the design
year population. Year 2008 is used as the design year to better approximate a 20-year design
life for facilities in the Needs Survey.
2To be incorporated into the Needs Survey, an estimate of construction needs must conform
to a number of criteria, including:
" The projects included in the needs estimate must address a documented public
health or water quality problem.
« The projects must be required to rectify a current problem (e.g., needs solely for
future growth requirements cannot be included). However, if a project has a
legitimate current need, the cost for meeting future growth needs is included in
the survey.
• The needs must be project-specific (e.g., needs for a county-wide problem are not
acceptable).
Wastewater treatment needs are reported in five categories in the 1988 Needs Survey.
Category I
Category II
Category IIIA -
Category IIIB -
Category IVA -
Category IVB -
Category V
Secondary Treatment
Advanced Treatment
Infiltration/Inflow Correction
Replacement/Rehabilitation of Sewers
New Collector Sewers
New Interceptor Sewers
Combined Sewer Overflows
Includes fifty States and Puerto Rico.
3-5
-------
TABLE 3-2
Category I to V Wastewater Treatment
and Conveyance Needs
STATE
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
TOTALS
1988 Design
Year Needs
($ Millions, 1988)
781
221
979
370
6,539
196
1,392
127
278
6,186
1,007
413
124
2,958
1721
646
720
1,457
1,189
341
919
5,836
3,321
1,106
548
1,222
69
114
165
854
3,754
130
12,721
1,799
34
3579
476
1,273
1,644
408
684
87
1,467
4,975
583
209
957
2,685
976
1,399-
18
1592
27
83,276
3-6
-------
The major categories of new eligibilities are nonpoint source control and programs for
the protection of ground water, estuaries, and wetlands. The primary programs with new
enforceable requirements are those addressing storm water, toxics discharges, and sludge use
and disposal. The costs of meeting the needs for these new eligibilities and enforceable
requirements (which are discussed in more detail in Appendix B) as well as the costs for
maintaining compliance at existing facilities are not included in the 1988 Needs Survey. These
new eligibilities and other requirements, however, will add substantially to SRF-eligible needs.
Figure 3-1 shows that the SNC needs, described in Section 3.1, are only a part of the SRF-
eligible financing requirements nationwide.
3-7
-------
Figure 3 — 1
SRF-Eligible Projects and Activities of All States
Documented and Undocumented (a)
Undocumented
Toxics and Sludge
Estuaries, Wetlands
Ground Water
Nonpoint Source
Undocumented
Plant Renovation
Undocumented
Combined Sewer
Overflow (CSO)
I I Undocumented needs
iiilil Documented needs
Note: Figure is not to scale.
(a) Includes fifty States and Puerto Rico.
3-8
-------
SECTION FOUR
AVAILABILITY OF SRF AND OTHER FUNDING FOR
ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
Funding for wastewater treatment, collection, and conveyance projects comes from a
mix of Federal, State, and local sources. Prior to the 1987 CWA Amendments, the
construction grants program provided the largest share of Federal funding for these projects.
With the phaseout of the construction grants program, SRFs will shift the relative contribution
for wastewater project funding away from Federal sources towards State and local sources. In
addition to changing the funding source mix for wastewater projects, the SRF program expands
the scope of wastewater and other water quality projects and activities eligible for CWA
financial assistance (see Section 3.4).
4.1 Availability of Funding from All Sources
Wastewater treatment, collection, and conveyance projects can receive funding from the
construction grants program, State SRF programs, other State programs, other (non-EPA)
Federal sources, and local sources. Other Federal sources include the Farmers Home
Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Economic
Development Administration. Local sources could include municipal appropriations, user fees,
impact fees, and debt financing.
Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1 show the total amount of funding for wastewater projects
coming from Federal and State sources, including CWA Titles II and VI, other Federal
sources, and other State sources in the forty-six States that provided funding data. SRF loan
repayments, which come from local sources and represent a portion of the total local source
funding contribution, are included in Table 4-1 under State funding. For the period 1988 to
1999, approximately $28.7 billion (in 1988 dollars) in Federal and State funding is projected to
be available for wastewater treatment and conveyance projects in the forty-six States. For the
States in aggregate, CWA Titles II and VI monies contribute approximately $9.4 billion from
1988 to 1999. Other Federal sources play a small but consistent role, contributing an
additional $2.2 billion during that time period. State funding, which is projected to decline
from 1991 to 1994 and then slightly increase, contributes approximately $17.0 billion from 1988
to 1999. It should be noted that several States were unable to provide estimates of funding
from a range of Federal and State sources.
The funding provided by each source varies throughout the 1988 to 1999 time period.
CWA Titles II and VI funding for the forty-six States declines from $1.9 billion in 1988 to $517
million in 1994 (the last year of capitalization grants) to zero thereafter, based on the
authorizations specified in the 1987 CWA Amendments. State funding peaks at $2.9 billion in
1991 then declines to $15 billion in 1994 because most States plan to reduce their matching
fund contributions as Federal capitalization grant contributions decline. After 1995, funding
4-1
-------
cd
a e
CO
(U
4
S
CQ
55 "g
KJ
(U
•8
fl4
CO
cd
W>
M
@ _
ts S
S o
o *
o b
u £
oo O
So Q
S
3
o
H
o^
o\
o\
1
o\
»— 1
S CO
o o
-------
cu
cd
SH
CU
T3!
0)
f-,
(D
O
PJ
cd
o
CD
-4-J
cd
-^
CO
OS
a
S-,
o
CO
o
p,
0>
S-,
fi
o
o
cu
'
c .
II
C w
11
§ -3
I
£
S.I
CO S
I »
PQ
o a w
4-3
-------
from State sources increases slightly as higher levels of loan repayments flow back into the
SRFs and are available for relending. In general the States do not plan to provide additional
funding of SRFs to replace Federal capitalization grants after they are discontinued in 1994. It
should be noted, however, that fifteen States do plan to further capitalize their SRFs after the
Federal capitalization period. Of these, nine will provide future capitalization at a level
substantially greater than the average annual Federal capitalization of their fund from 1988 to
1994; the other six at a level less than one-half of average Federal capitalization (See State
specific funding data in Appendix C).
During the mid-1980s, local sources contributed approximately 40 percent of the
financing for wastewater treatment projects.1 Because nearly half of the States were unable to
project local source funding other than that provided by SRF loan repayments, and because
many States that did project local funding indicated that their projections were highly
uncertain, Table 4-1 does not include local funding projections. Section Five of this report
provides estimates of the amount of local funding that may be needed to meet wastewater
collection and conveyance needs in the forty-six States. Funding for wastewater projects from
all sources for each of the forty-six States is presented in Appendix D.
4.2 Availability of SRF and Other State Program Funding
Much of the available funding detailed in Section 4.1 is administered through State
programs including SRFs, non-SRF State loan programs, and State grants. Table 4-2 shows the
amount of actual and projected funding available through SRF and other State programs
aggregated for the forty-six States from 1988 to 1999. Figure 4-2 presents a graphic illustration
of these data. The States project that their programs will provide funding totalling $23.8 billion
(in 1988 dollars) from 1988 to 1999.
In most of the forty-six States, the SRF programs have or will become the predominant
source of State funding for wastewater projects. The States' SRFs are comprised of funds from
Federal capitalization grants (including Title II transfers), State match and overmatch monies,
SRF leveraging, loan repayments, and interest earnings. Collectively these sources are expected
to contribute approximately $19.5 billion to SRFs in the forty-six States from 1988 to 1999. Of
this, approximately $2.4 billion is projected to be held in debt service reserve accounts, leaving
a total of approximately $17.0 billion in SRF funds available for project assistance during that
time period. Figure 4-3 illustrates the increasing cumulative amount of SRF funds projected to
be made available for forty-six States from 1988 to 1999.
Federal capitalization grants contribute to SRF capitalization through 1994 and, at
authorized levels, are projected to provide 35 percent of all SRF funds in the forty-six States
for the period 1988 to 1999. State match and overmatch monies together contribute about 16
percent of SRF funds available for this time period. Leveraging contributes about 37 percent
and loan repayments contribute about 11 percent to the 1988 to 1999 SRF total. The
.. EPA. Environmental Investments: The Cost of a Clean Environment. Office of
Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. December 1990.
4-4
-------
2
8?
GO
•S (L)
o S
•O CO
c
o
•r) "O
P .22
X) rt
O t>Z)
S*
a
c
I
-2
<3 a I
00 O
S ol
a\
H
inl
8
s
°\
00
ON
oo
FUNDING SOURCE
5 §5 £ £3 8
CM oo T-C CN) csi
f
•O
o e- oo
i—< TJ* r*^
o^ •—< CM
o\ rn"
0
•«*• CN
«— ' O
S
O O \O V^ VO •<;(•
oo --a- oo m
CM vo •*
CM ir> TJ- t-~
rj o\ o\ r-
ir> ^-i c-
O\ vo oo o
•* o\ r-~ >n
O <-^ »— i oo
o
ro
CN -H
>o m
cs" ^^
a i
^
en •* CN
00 CM VO
^» fc^ErSS^^ -*CM
SS^S^^ 2S
CM oo in o\
O. II — CM CM ^
VO OO p- i— i
— i i-* VO O
CM Cs) -^1-
10
CN
VO 00
**! ci
cs" ^^
Ov
;-.
O
CM"
5 S £ 5 ° ° S
ro \r>
CM
CM
>n
3
O
C/3 00
>
O
-a
a
g
S
-
S '
« w
a w
>, to1
S [L,
o §
J CO
-§
co
J3
CO
c2
•§
Q
CO CO
1
3
g
1
CL.&
ll
g o .S
lit
o
•§
18
.2 55 o
§1 i
s 3 !
g>« S
•3 M H
1-S S
ti
o
.3
S
8,
.f
^j
3
.S
a '"3
S
<
S
o
c
C3
2
Q
•
in siis
S S 3*
4-5
-------
0>
h >
0> SM
cd
CD
cd
CD
+j
cd
-tj
CO
D
id CD
cd d
o P
CO
C\2
PQ
O
4-6
-------
cd
cr>
cd
o
CO
-I-J
o
CD
C32
03
o
CD
•^H
id
o
cd
CD
I
CO
CO
OT
SH
a
o
cd
m
4-7
-------
percentage contributed by loan repayments increases rapidly throughout the time period, rising
to 33 percent for 1995-1999. Overall, new contributions to SRFs and other State programs are
projected to drop after 1994, the last year of Federal capitalization funding.
As shown in Table 4-2, annual new capitalization investments in SRFs are projected to
decrease about 40 percent in nominal terms, from $2.1 billion to $1.3 billion, between 1990 and
1995; due to inflation, the decrease will be greater. Total State funding will decrease by over
50 percent during that same time period. Although SRF loan repayments will increase beyond
1995, this increase is not expected to be sufficient to offset the phase-out of Federal
capitalization grants within the time frame of this analysis. Additional State capitalization
and/or leveraging may be necessary to maintain or increase the annual level of available SRF
funding for wastewater treatment and conveyance. However, as reported in the SRF Report to
Congress Questionnaires, most States do not plan to provide increased assistance for
wastewater treatment projects after the end of the federal capitalization period. As discussed
in Subsection 4.1, of the forty-six States, fifteen States projected future capitalization of the
SRF at various levels beyond 1994.
In addition to SRF assistance, many States will continue to provide financial assistance
using State grants and/or other non-SRF programs, although these programs will provide less
assistance as SRFs become more established. Appendix C shows the estimated amount of SRF
and other State program funding to be provided from 1988 to 1999 for each of the forty-six
States.
4.3 Current and Anticipated Uses of SRF Assistance
State SRF programs may provide assistance for wastewater treatment projects,
wastewater collection and conveyance projects (including CSO and storm water projects),
implementation of approved NPS and ground water control activities, and planning and
implementation of approved estuary protection activities. States must, however, use SRF funds
"in the fund as a result of capitalization grants" (i.e., the capitalization grant, repayments of the
first round of loans awarded from the grant, and the State match) for wastewater treatment
projects on the National Municipal Policy (NMP) list, or otherwise satisfy the "First Use"
requirements, before these funds can be used to provide assistance for any other projects or
activities. First use requirements are satisfied by a State when all NMP facilities are in
compliance, are on enforceable schedules, have enforcement actions filed, or have a funding
commitment during or prior to the first year covered in a State's most recent SRF Intended
Use Plan.
The forty-six States are using the majority of their SRF assistance for wastewater
treatment projects. Table 4-3 shows the actual and projected SRF funding used for the
different types of eligible projects and activities. In 1988, over 85 percent of SRF assistance
went to treatment projects. After 1995 the States estimate that treatment projects will account
for 61 percent of SRF assistance. Most of the remaining funds will be used for wastewater
collection and conveyance projects, including CSO and storm water projects. Wastewater
collection and conveyance projects account for 28.5 percent of projected SRF assistance for
1991 to 1994 and 31.9 percent for 1995 to 1999. Beginning in 1989, the States report that a
4-8
-------
TABLE 4-3
Planned Uses of SRF Assistance Aggregated for Forty-Six States(a)
($ Millions)
TYPE OF PROJECT/ACTIVITY
Wastewater Treatment
Projects (Section 212)
(% of Total)
Wastewater Collection &
Conveyance (Section 212)
(% of Total)
Nonpoint Source & Ground
Water (Section 319)(b)
(% of Total)
Estuarine Activities
(Section 320)
(% of Total)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
398.9
85.4%
68.0
14.6%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
466.9
100%
1989
773.8
81.3%
176.6
18.6%
1.3
0.1%
0
0.0%
951.7
100%
1990
1,285.6
76.6%
389.9
23.2%
1.4
0.1%
0.04
0.0%
1,678.2
100%
1991-1994
Aggregated
7,387.1
69.0%
3,055.1
28.5%
200.6
1.9%
60.16
..0.6%
10,703.1
100%
1995-1999
Aggregated
4,171.3
61.2%
2,174.6
31.9%
439.0
6.4%
30.16
0.4%
6,814.3
100%
Note: Funds used for administrative expenses and debt service reserves are not included in this table. The
amount of money used for funding projects in individual years may differ from SRF funding available in
those years because project funding schedules are not necessarily tied to available funds year-by-year..
(a) Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding information for this report.
(b) Wyoming intends to use all of its available SRF funds for NPS activities in the 1991 to 1994 time period.
4-9
-------
small percentage of SRF assistance will be used for NFS activities. One State, Wyoming,
intends to use all of its available SRF funds for NFS activities in the 1991 to 1994 time period.
The States project using only a very small percentage of SRF assistance for implementation of
estuary management plans developed under the National Estuary Program.
4-10
-------
SECTION FIVE
COMPARISON OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT NEEDS TO AVAILABLE FUNDS
This section compares the wastewater treatment and conveyance needs of the forty-six
States that provided funding data to the total projected funding available from Federal and
State sources in those States. The section also estimates the amount of local funding that may
be needed, in addition to Federal and State funding, to meet documented needs.
Table 5-1 compares the needs of SNC facilities in the forty-six States to funding
available during 1988-1999 (in 1988 dollars). The SNC needs data are derived from Table 3-1
as explained in Section 3.1. Table 5-1 shows that SRF funds are adequate to cover SNC needs
in forty-three of the States and from 52 to 84 percent of the needs in the remaining three
States. As pointed out in Section Three, however, the SNC-related needs represent a "snapshot"
as of June 30, 1990; there will likely be additional significant violations through 1999 that will
require construction to correct. Furthermore, SRF funding extends far beyond the requirements
of SNC facilities.
Table 5-2 compares the design year Category I and II wastewater treatment needs in the
forty-six States to funding available from Federal and State sources during 1988-1999 (in 1988
dollars). Similarly, Table 5-3 compares design year Category I through V wastewater treatment
needs in the 46 States to funding available from the same sources for the same period. The
design year needs data are derived from the 1988 Needs Survey, which was the most current
available during preparation of this report (the 1990 Needs Survey is expected to be available in
the Summer of 1991). The tables show the proportion of Category I and II (Table 5-2) or
Categories I through V (Table 5-3) design year needs potentially covered by Federal and State
funds. The gap, if any, between Federal and State funding and design year needs is shown in
the right hand columns of both tables. The design year needs in Tables 5-2 and 5-3 are
estimates made at the time the 1988 Needs Survey was conducted. These estimates will almost
certainly increase over the 12-year study period forming the basis of the available funding
estimates in the tables.
For the forty-six States in aggregate, total Federal and State funding is sufficient to cover
69 percent of Category I and II design year needs and 35 percent of all Category I to V design
year needs. State and local funding, therefore, may need to provide $9.1 billion or 31 percent of
Category I and II needs and $50.3 billion or 65 percent of all Category I to V needs.1 The
proportion of design year needs covered by Federal and State sources varies widely among the
States. Five States project sufficient funding from Federal and State sources in the 1988 to 1999
time period to completely cover their Category I to V design year needs. Eight States project
xFor the 46 States in aggregate, there is total Federal and State funding of $20.6 billion available
for Category I and II needs (see Table 5-2) and a total of $27.3 billion available for all Category
I through V design year needs (see Table 5-3). These funding totals do not include the excess funds
available in States where funds are sufficient to cover 100 percent of the needs, since it is assumed
funds exceeding needs in one State will not be available to meet design year needs in other States.
5-1
-------
available Federal and State funds to meet 75 to 99 percent of their design year needs. Five
States project coverage of 50 to 74 percent of their design year needs; seventeen project
coverage of 24 to 50 percent of these needs. Eleven States project Federal and State funding to
cover less than 25 percent of their design year needs; of these, two project coverage of only 12
percent of their design year needs. One of these two States, Michigan, did not provide 1995 to
1999 funding data and would, therefore, show a smaller gap if more complete funding estimates
were available; the other State, Florida, provided more complete funding information, and, as
indicated in the table, has projected needs in excess of projected available funds.
In the mid-1980s, localities typically provided approximately 40 percent of such funds.2
The approximate 65 percent local funding share for the forty-six States in aggregate therefore
represents an increase of over 50 percent in the level of local funding needed for wastewater
treatment and conveyance for the period covered. Further, localities will be responsible for
repaying SRF loans. Based on the final composition of grant and loan funding, localities will
ultimately be responsible for paying well over 65 percent of the cost of wastewater treatment
and conveyance.
The total cost of SRF-eligible projects in the forty-six States will greatly exceed the
design year needs presented in Tables 5-2 and 5-3. New needs are expected to arise between
1988 and 1999 due to economic growth and wastewater treatment plant renovation and
expansion. The latter needs are likely to be significant because many treatment plants built in
the 1970s will be reaching their design capacity during the 1990s. In addition, funding needs
arising from the new funding eligibilities and new enforceable requirements (e.g., toxics control,
storm water management, and sludge disposal) will add substantially to the documented needs.
Some States have already committed funds to address these additional needs and will continue
to do so in the future. Therefore, not all of the Federal and State funds shown in Table 5-3 will
be available for Category I to V wastewater treatment and conveyance projects. Appendix B to
this report discusses the new eligibilities and new enforceable requirements.
2U.S. EPA. Environmental Investments: The Cost of a Clean Environment. Office of Policy,
Planning, and Evaluation. December 1990.
5-2
-------
<— 4
m
W
1
^^
^
OJ
2
PL,
CO ^ cd
•g | ^
«* CO Q
"rt ^ °°
2 a oo
8 t?" o\
*o .3 '— '
£ T -2
f t a
•0 £ .2
^* t 1 1 1
Qj Q •>-<
£ ELi S
o
•72 ri 03 OO
3 « •« oo
O cJ O\
H 3 -1
(In
I* CO
o |
e
CO
-g
£ ^
o> 2 -SB
S «, o to
CW oo
0 ' '
3
O
V _^
fl_l
%fl
U
Iz; «
co "g
« *^
E22
w
%
b
VO ^3 */^ O\ C^l ^^ OO ^O ^1" C5 ^" C1^ ^^ ^~^ ^* O\ ^i* C3 C**l
c^j ^^ ^~™* o^ ^* 0s) oo c^*1 r^ *~^ ^™* c^i c**1 t^i *""^ ro *^* C1*! f**
T— < 1— I
' — ' ^O C^J OO 10 */"! ^1" *O O C^* OO ^O * — i CN O\
^^ »-< CO CNCS CSCS ^H *«i
^^ 0s! ^3 f^ r^~ O\ C^^ C^1* OO ^3 O\ ^4" ^O ^3 ^5 ^3 ^D C^ V)
co ^5 ON r^- *-"• "^t1 co oo vo oo Tt* "^J*
I™™* o\ V) *~^ ^o ON C1^ ^3 oo *~^ co c*^ ^o o\ co ^o oo o\ ON
l^J ^O OO f"^ ^}" ^^ ^^ O\ ^^ ^3 ^O CO ^O C^J OO ^^ C*^ ^O C""*
fsj O\ <-H f^* -^J- f^ y—t l^i ^J OJ C^ CO Vl
g^S^oS§2SS2^gg?5^g2^
, p
co 2 O ° >> w "O
I a, g S 'E "S 'o' « .3 - „ CD a> "3 § §
§J2o«,oSaT3W 'S o -S o "3'55S"S.
•|^.§J2S^ § 'g o 1 ^ a -S g ca'3'l 1"
<^<^2H>iWi-j22
a
•S3
a
o
o
5-3
-------
ontinued
o
^
T
tn
W
»J
S
* 7
3 1 .3 §§
O IS Os
H § —
Wt C3
D 1— <
o |
e
VI
•a
•0 ON
^ o\
o i-< Jrt o
f 2 ||
-ci ON
C3 '~4
w
w
2
0
<.
Pi
C/D
U
p^ en
w "2
*~-4 ^3
o
H
1
00
C*^ ^vt" ON C^l C^* ^O t^ "^" C"^ ^^ C^l CJ C*") ^^ C"^* CO C^* ^D \O
o^Tfoocso^^-H cs cs^ <— « r-^ co t> cs -^ *— t »n
T— ( 1— I 1—4 Cf^ '— *
o o ^o vo c^* co vo o\ "^ vo *o C"*" ^i* ^^ oo r*1* *^* ^" oo
coir^-'^t'r^'OTj-cscoc^'— ^o'ocso^ocS'— io
« 1 1-^ "^ ,1— 1 T— 1 fO *— (
Ol O 0s) r*"l *~H oo O v/^ ^J* t^* co f^ r^* O ^O O O 0s! *O
co CM 10 »— '•^j-'— i^oc^r— W-JON o
vo^cs^^ _,,_, covo cs
O^CSfOO\cOTj'O\ON^HO\VOCSO\rnvOCSO\f^»
cS c^i "^f »— < C-* o co T— < co »— < ro *-< cs
vo ^O vo ON ON C1^* '"^ ON C*** ^O Tt" CO *~^ CO ON ^~* ^D ^^* G\
vo ^j* o\ <~^ i/"i »••** ^~~* ON ro ro ON C1^ ^3 ^^ ^^ oo c** ON
CO i— i t>3 <-H *— i CSCS CS'— < -^ I-H
^
0
42 IS § §
1 a S 1 „ I 1" 1 •« 1 « 1 1 1 1 o
_S o *^ S i^S^fl > w w w ?co'^K2''-^od "S. l—l O Q in
g -p g -S3 0 n'S'1''-^'21^^^ 6 w'^rirt S
JXJ?S"'"'t;J!i-i.i.>ri3c3oOdn3^S'Sc!
M O C w w ,u > ^ ;> ^ !> M ^ CD H O ^ n H
isS'Sgsssssssidlslll
Continued
5-4
-------
, continued
i
TABLE 5
r-H
"Is
45
1
a ^
cd ^
OO ta ci
C S ®
03 00 Q
»—j __ oo
S ^ oo
0) ^ ON.
•o .a — •
g> 2
|2
o
l-i C3
a) IH
^ %
° t£
u B
•5 3
CO
U
Z w
co "g
1*
w
H
H
CO
>ncMro-*inONOooN o\
'-"cnc-lfioovorocM \o
I-H" CM" ocT
CM
•*r~r»ioo— i--icMn- ON
ON-— iCMONONmcMcM O\
CM — i 00
•*"
£"*• 'O VO Tl" ^J" O CO C^l O
r-^mincoc^ •— o
t>. o i— * ^-o o- r~- oo xt*
1-1 ^
c !s ^
S S? -S oo 3,
•g w 00 •= tn c i
I :§ 1 > § s <
5-Sgoc-S^^o H
gSu.ti««-2>. o
HP>>££££ H
I
£
en
'•S
^2
mation
c
00
o
VH
•4—1
O
c
O
T3
_
c«
^
03
0
z
CB
C
s
a
o
^
«•
CB
^
1
«
«3
S
00 5
00 W gj|
2 « ."2 8
2 ^i '§3 jg "g ^
||!|1|
_ - [5 o ai w
a oo J t*-i e i
a fr-i a
« .Si, S c i! M
"^3 O* » «^ l-i
a £H P ^ S
V "= o 3 « 0
^v en -t-j OJD ^73
03
^ ; ^
| |1| f| S
IS *S > ^3 *-• Q
ca C C C ^ 3 fc
"| £ g |f | § w
CO • f\S W ^ ^
«) 4i PH >» o
w VH O C/} O W3 S
"^ ca -^ i >
-------
TABLE 5-2
Comparison of Design Year Category I and II Secondary and Advanced
Wastewater Treatment Needs, Federal and State Funds Available, and
Funds Needed for Forty-Six(a) States
($ Millions, in 1988 Dollars)
Actual and Projected Funds(b)
1988 to 1999
(*)
(f)
(0
(0
(0
(f)
(0
(f)
STATE
Alabama
(% of Cat. I-II Need)
Alaska
(% of Cat. I-H Need)
Arizona
(% of Cat. I-II Need)
Arkansas
(% of Cat. I-II Need)
California
(% of Cat. I-H Need)
Colorado
(% of Cat. I-II Need)
Connecticut
(% of Cat. I-II Need)
Florida
(% of Cat. I-II Need)
Georgia
(% of Cat. I-E Need)
Hawaii
(% of Cat. I-II Need)
Idaho
(% of Cat. I-II Need)
Illinois
(% of Cat. I-II Need)
Design
Year Needs(c)
(Cat. I-II)
324
94
692
215
3,385
144
421
2,427
436
174
73
759
SRF(d)
251
77%
69
73%
85
12%
71
33%
945
28%
149
104%
707
168%
490
20%
248
57%
101
58%
53
72%
532
70%
Other
State
0
0%
32
34%
0
0%
100
46%
97
3%
9
6%
177
42%
17
1%
248
57%
0
0%
39
53%
484
64%
Other
Federal
111
34%
5
6%
67
10%
128
59%
385
11%
57
39%
0
0%
252
10%
248
57%
1
0%
52
71%
208
27%
Total Federal
and State
Funds Available
1988 to 1999
362
112%
106
113%
151
22%
298
139%
1,427
42%
215
149%
884
210%
759
31%
744
171%
101
58%
144
197%
1,223
161%
Potential
Funding
Gap(e)
(38)
-12%
(12)
-13%
541
78%
(83)
-39%
1,958
58%
(71)
-49%
(463)
-110%
1,668
69%
(308)
-71%
73
42%
(71)
-97%
(464)
-61%
Continued
5-6
-------
TABLE 5-2, continued
Comparison of Design Year Category I and II Secondary and Advanced
Wastewater Treatment Needs, Federal and State Funds Available, and
Funds Needed for Forty-Six(a) States
($ Millions, in 1988 Dollars)
Actual and Projected Funds(b)
1988 to 1999
(0
(f)
(0
(f)
(f)
CO
(f)
STATE
Indiana
(% of Cat. I-IINeed)
Iowa
(% of Cat. I-IINeed)
Kansas
(% of Cat. I-IINeed)
Kentucky
(% of Cat. I-II Need)
Louisiana
(% of Cat. I-IINeed)
Maine
(% of Cat. I-H Need)
Maryland
(% of Cat. I-IINeed)
Massachusetts
(% of Cat. I-IINeed)
Michigan
(% of Cat. I-II Need)
Minnesota
(% of Cat. I-IINeed)
Mississippi
(% of Cat. I-IINeed)
Missouri
(% of Cat. I-II Need)
Design
Year Needs(c)
(Cat. I-II)
337
311
193
245
505
150
591
2,560
876
550
282
515
SRF(d)
256
76%
229
73%
83
43%
205
83%
328
65%
59
39%
579
98%
220
9%
334
38%
482
88%
123
43%
769
149%
Other
State
166
49%
0
0%
0
0%
80
33%
0
0%
142
95%
45
8%
1,682
66%
0
0%
222
40%
3
1%
151
29%
Other
Federal
279
83%
84
27%
63
33%
111
45%
121
24%
0
0%
98
17%
80
3%
70
8%
146
26%
76
27%
157
30%
Total Federal
and State
Funds Available
1988 to 1999
701
208%
313
101%
146
76%
395
161%
449
89%
201
134%
722
122%
1,982
77%
404
46%
849
154%
202
72%
1,077
209%
Potential
Funding
Gap(e)
(364)
-108%
(2)
-1%
47
24%
(150)
-61%
56
11%
(51)
-34%
(131)
-22%
578
23%
472
54%
(299)
-54%
80
28%
(562)
-109%
5-7
-------
TABLE 5-2, continued
Comparison of Design Year Category I and II Secondary and Advanced
Wastewater Treatment Needs, Federal and State Funds Available, and
Funds Needed for Forty-Six(a) States
($ Millions, in 1988 Dollars)
Actual and Projected Funds(b)
1988 to 1999
(0
(f)
CO
CO
(0
CO
CO
Design
Year Needs(c)
STATE (Cat. I-II)
Nebraska 66
(% of Cat. I-II Need)
Nevada 124
(% of Cat. I-II Need)
New Hampshire 139
(% of Cat. I-H Need)
New Jersey 1,831
(% of Cat. I-II Need)
New Mexico 55
(% of Cat. I-II Need)
New York 2,106
(% of Cat. I-H Need)
North Carolina 631
(% of Cat. I-II Need)
Oklahoma 293
(% of Cat. I-II Need)
Oregon 517
(% of Cat. I-II Need)
Pennsylvania 751
(% of Cat. I-II Need)
Rhode Island 41
(% of Cat. I-II Need)
South Carolina 292
(% of Cat. I-II Need)
SRF(d)
48
73%
54
44%
79
57%
1,069
58%
81
147%
3,309
157%
196
31%
342
117%
119
23%
363
48%
56
137%
152
52%
Other
State
8
12%
0
0%
115
83%
144
8%
14
26%
68
3%
27
4%
377
129%
50
10%
695
93%
0
0%
0
0%
Total Federal
and State
Other Funds Available
Federal 1988 to 1999
48
73%
26
21%
39
28%
34
2%
15
27%
405
19%
167
26%
24
8%
101
20%
368
49%
27
65%
14
5%
105
159%
80
65%
234
168%
1,247
68%
110
200%
3,783
180%
390
62%
743
253%
271
52%
1,427
190%
83
202%
167
57%
Potential
Funding
Gap(e)
(39)
-59%
44
35%
(95)
-68%
584
32%
(55)
-100%
(1,677)
-80%
241
38%
(450)
-153%
246
48%
(676)
-90%
(42)
-102%
125
43%
Continued
5-5
-------
TABLE 5-2, continued
Comparison of Design Year Category I and II Secondary and Advanced
Wastewater Treatment Needs, Federal and State Funds Available, and
Funds Needed for Forty-Six(a) States
($ Millions, in 1988 Dollars)
Actual and Projected Funds(b)
1988 to 1999
(0
(0
(0
(0
(f>
STATE
South Dakota
(% of Cat. I-IINeed)
Tennessee
(% of Cat. I-IINeed)
Texas
(% of Cat. I-IINeed)
Utah
(% of Cat. I-IINeed)
Vermont
(% of Cat. I-II Need)
Virginia
(% of Cat. I-IINeed)
Washington
(% of Cat. I-IINeed)
West Virginia
(% of Cat. I-II Need)
Wisconsin
(% of Cat. I-IINeed)
Wyoming
(% of Cat. I-IINeed)
TOTAL
(% of Cat. I-IINeed)
Design
Year Needs (c)
(Cat. I-II)
57
584
2,761
462
94
399
1,077
337
780
9
29,665
SRF(d)
59
104%
253
43%
845
31%
79
17%
44
47%
352
88%
170
16%
138
41%
1,802
231%
73
812%
17,049
57%
Other
State
2
4%
205
35%
111
6%
36
8%
56
59%
184
46%
424
39%
0
0%
413
53%
32
353%
6,720
23%
Other
Federal
24
43%
108
19%
294
11%
17
4%
23
24%
98
25%
91
8%
31
9%
122
16%
24
264%
4,899
17%
Total Federal
and State
Funds Available
1988 to 1999
86
150%
566
97%
1,315
48%
132
29%
123
131%
634
159%
685
64%
169
50%
2,338
300%
129
1429%
20,599 (g)
69%
Potential
Funding
Gap(e)
(29)
-50%
18
3%
1,446
52%
330
71%
(29)
-31%
(235)
-59%
392
36%
168
50%
(1,558)
-200%
(120)
-1329%
9,066
31%
Continued
5-9
-------
FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE 5-2
(a) Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding information
for this report.
(b) Funds available data are derived from Table D-l. All funds have been discounted to 1988
dollars. Funds not considered available for wastewater project funding, including debt
service reserves and monies used to repay State bonds, are excluded. Some of Virginia's
non-SRF funds included in their total funds figure have been targeted for wastewater
conveyance projects, and thus may not be available to fund treatment needs. Several
States were unable to provide Federal funding estimates for some non-EPA Federal programs
and non-SRF State programs.
(c) For a discussion of design year needs, see Footnote #1 and #2, Section 3.2.
(d) SRF monies include loan repayments from local sources. Loan repayments account
for 12% of SRF funds from 1988 to 1999. Michigan, New Hampshire, and Rhode
Island did not provide SRF funding projections for the 1995 to 1999 time period.
(e) Derived by subtracting actual and projected 1988 to 1999 SRF, other State, and Federal
funding from design year needs.
(f) State's available funds exceed Category I-II design year needs.
(g) Total equals sum of State and Federal funds for 19 States whose Category I-II
design year needs exceed available funds, plus funds equaling design year needs in 27
States whose funds exceed needs. Available funds in excess of design year needs in any
one State are assumed not to help meet needs in any other State.
5-10
-------
TABLE 5-3
Comparison of Design Year Category I to V Wastewater Treatment and
Conveyance Needs, Federal and State Funds Available, and Funds Needed
for Forty-Six(a) States
($ Millions, in 1988 Dollars)
STATE
Alabama
(% of Cat. I- V Need)
Alaska
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Arizona
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Arkansas
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
California
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
(f) Colorado
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Connecticut
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Florida
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Georgia
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Hawaii
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
(f) Idaho
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Illinois
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Design
Year Needs(c)
(Cat. I-V)
781
221
979
370
6,539
196
1,392
6,186
1,007
413
124
2,958
Actual
SRF(d)
251
32%
69
31%
85
9%
71
19%
945
14%
149
76%
707
51%
490
8%
248
25%
101
24%
53
42%
532
18%
and Projected Funds(b)
1988 to 1999
Other
State
0
0%
32
14%
0
0%
100
27%
97
1%
9
5%
177
13%
17
0%
248
25%
0
0%
39
31%
484
16%
Other
Federal
111
14%
5
2%
67
7%
128
35%
385
6%
57
29%
0
0%
252
4%
248
25%
1
0%
52
42%
208
7%
Total Federal
and State
Funds Available
1988 to 1999
362
46%
106
48%
151
15%
298
81%
1,427
22%
215
110%
884
63%
759
12%
744
74%
101
25%
144
116%
1,223
41%
Funding
Gap(e)
419
54%
115
52%
828
85%
72
19%
5,112
78%
(19)
-10%
508
37%
5,427
88%
263
26%
312
75%
(20)
-16%
1,735
59%
Continued
5-11
-------
TABLE 5-3, continued
Comparison of Design Year Category I to V Wastewater Treatment and
Conveyance Needs, Federal and State Funds Available, and Funds Needed
for Forty-Six(a) States
($ Millions, in 1988 Dollars)
Actual and Projected Funds(b)
1988 to 1999
STATE
Indiana
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Iowa
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Kansas
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Kentucky
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Louisiana
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Maine
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Maryland
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Massachusetts
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Michigan
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Minnesota
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Mississippi
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Missouri
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Design
Year Needs(c)
(Cat. I-V)
1,721
646
720
1,457
1,189
341
919
5,836
3,321
1,106
548
1,222
SRF(d)
256
15%
229
35%
83
12%
205
14%
328
28%
59
17%
579
63%
220
4%
334
10%
482
44%
123
22%
769
63%
Other
State
166
10%
0
0%
0
0%
80
5%
0
0%
142
42%
45
5%
1,682
29%
0
0%
222
20%
3
1%
151
12%
Other
Federal
279
16%
84
13%
63
9%
111
8%
121
10%
0
0%
98
11%
80
1%
70
2%
146
13%
76
14%
157
13%
Total Federal
and State
Funds Available
1988 to 1999
701
41%
313
48%
146
20%
395
27%
449
38%
201
59%
722
79%
1,982
34%
404
12%
849
77%
202
37%
1,077
88%
Funding
Gap(e)
1,020
59%
333
52%
574
80%
1,062
73%
740
62%
140
41%
197
21%
3,854
66%
2,917
88%
257
23%
346
63%
145
12%
Continued
5-12
-------
TABLE 5-3, continued
Comparison of Design Year Category I to V Wastewater Treatment and
Conveyance Needs, Federal and State Funds Available, and Funds Needed
for Forty-Six(a) States
($ Millions, in 1988 Dollars)
STATE
Nebraska
(% of Cat. I- V Need)
Nevada
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
New Hampshire
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
New Jersey
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
New Mexico
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
New York
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
North Carolina
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
f) Oklahoma
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Oregon
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Pennsylvania
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Rhode Island
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
South Carolina
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Design
Year Needs(c)
(Cat. I-V)
114
165
854
3,754
130
12,721
1,799
476
1,273
1,644
408
684
Actual
SRF(d)
48
42%
54
33%
79
9%
1,069
28%
81
62%
3,309
26%
196
11%
342
72%
119
9%
363
22%
56
14%
152
22%
and Projected
1988 to 1999
Other
State
8
7%
0
0%
115
13%
144
4%
14
11%
68
1%
27
2%
377
79%
50
4%
695
42%
0
0%
0
0%
Funds(b)
Other
Federal
48
42%
26
16%
39
5%
34
1%
15
12%
405
3%
167
9%
24
5%
101
8%
368
22%
27
7%
14
2%
Total Federal
and State
Funds Available
1988 to 1999
105
92%
80
49%
234
27%
1,247
33%
110
85%
3,783
30%
390
22%
743
156%
271
21%
1,427
87%
83
20%
167
24%
Funding
9
8%
85
51%
620
73%
2,507
67%
20
15%
8,938
70%
1,409
78%
(267)
-56%
1,002
79%
217
13%
325
80%
517
76%
5-13
-------
TABLE 5-3, continued
Comparison of Design Year Category I to V Wastewater Treatment and
Conveyance Needs, Federal and State Funds Available, and Funds Needed
for Forty-Six(a) States
($ Millions, in 1988 Dollars)
Actual and Projected Funds(b)
1988 to 1999
South Dakota
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Tennessee
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Texas
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Utah
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Vermont
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Virginia
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Washington
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
West Virginia
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
(f)(g) Wisconsin
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
(f) Wyoming
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
TOTAL
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Design
Year Needs(c)
(Cat. I-V)
87
1,467
4,975
583
209
957
2,685
976
1,399
18
77,570
SRF(d)
59
68%
253
17%
845
17%
79
14%
44
21%
352
37%
170
6%
138
14%
1,802
129%
73
406%
17,049
22%
Other
State
2
2%
205
14%
177
4%
36
6%
56
27%
184
19%
424
16%
0
0%
413
30%
32
177%
6,720
9%
Other
Federal
24
28%
108
7%
294
6%
17
3%
23
11%
98
10%
91
3%
31
3%
122
9%
24
132%
4,899
6%
Total Federal
and State
Funds Available
1988 to 1999
86
98%
566
39%
1,315
26%
132
23%
123
59%
634
66%
685
26%
169
17%
2,338
167%
129
715%
27,314 (h)
35%
Funding
Gap(e)
1
2%
901
61%
3,660
74%
451
77%
86
41%
323
34%
2,000
74%
807
83%
(939)
-67%
(111)
-615%
50,256
65%
Continued
5-14
-------
FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE 5-3
(a) Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding information
for this report.
(b) Funds available data are derived from Table D-l. All funds have been discounted to 1988
dollars. Funds not considered available for wastewater project funding, including debt
service reserves and monies used to repay State bonds, are excluded. Some of Virginia's
non-SRF funds included in their total funds figure have been targeted for wastewater
conveyance projects, and thus may not be available to fund treatment needs. Several
States were unable to provide Federal funding estimates for some non-EPA Federal programs
and non-SRF State programs.
(c) For a discussion of design year needs, see Footnote #1 and #2, Section 3.2.
(d) SRF monies include loan repayments from local sources. Loan repayments account
for 12% of SRF funds from 1988 to 1999. Michigan, New Hampshire, and Rhode
Island did not provide SRF funding projections for the 1995 to 1999 time period.
(e) Derived by subtracting actual and projected 1988 to 1999 SRF, other State, and Federal
funding from design year needs.
(f) State's available funds exceed Category I-V design year needs.
(g) A large portion of Wisconsin's available Federal and State funds will be used to fund
pollution prevention and urban stormwater needs. These needs were not included in the
1988 Needs Survey. With the addition of these new needs, Wisconsin projects that total
funds available will equal needs and Wisconsin's funding gap will be 0%.
(h) Total equals sum of State and Federal funds for 41 States whose Category I-V
design year needs exceed available funds, plus funds equaling design year needs in five
States whose funds exceed needs. Available funds in excess of design year needs in any
one State are assumed not to help meet needs in any other State.
5-15
-------
-------
SECTION SIX
SRF PROGRAM OPERATIONS
This section discusses how the States operate their SRF programs. Program structure is
described in Section 6.1. Section 6.2 discusses special programs for small and economically
distressed communities, and Section 6.3 describes the mechanisms used to ensure the viability
of the States' SRFs.
6.1 Structure of the State SRF Programs
All of the forty-seven States that responded to the SRF questionnaire offer SRF loans
at below-market interest rates. Loan repayments, except for those required to retire program
debt, are used to fund additional loans. While the SRFs have some basic similarities, the
programs differ in several ways, including their manner of obtaining matching funds, their use
of leveraging, and their method of determining interest rates.
Method of Obtaining Matching Funds
The States have adopted several different approaches toward generating matching funds.
The most commonly used methods are State appropriations, State general obligation (G.O.)
bonds, and State or SRF program revenue bonds. Of the forty-six States that provided data on
their method of obtaining State matching funds, 21 obtained their match with State
appropriations, 12 with G.O. bonds, 5 with revenue bonds, and 1 with a combination of State
appropriations and revenue bonds. The remaining 7 States use a variety of other methods
which include pledging the loan repayments of existing wastewater treatment loan programs
and requiring SRF loan recipients to provide their own matching funds. One State,
Washington, obtains its State match through a tax on tobacco products.
The method a State uses to supply the match affects the amount of lendable funds in
the SRF in the long term. Funds provided by a State G.O. bond or appropriation generally do
not need to be paid back by the SRF. Therefore, when these funds are loaned by the SRF, the
repayments are available to fund additional loans. In cases where loans are made with
matching funds provided by SRF revenue bonds or similar debt instruments, less money will be
available to fund additional loans if SRF interest earnings are used to repay the SRF debt.
Leveraging
For most States, the SRF capitalization grant and the State match constitute all
available capitalization for program assistance. SRF programs in 13 of the forty-seven States
that responded to the questionnaire issue debt to provide additional lendable funds. Some of
6-1
-------
the States that are not currently leveraging indicated that they intend to consider this option in
the future.
Each of the leveraged SRF programs is different. States have designed leveraging
structures that best address their particular needs and achieve their program goals. All of the
leveraged SRF programs developed to date, however, fit into one of two general categories:
reserve fund leveraging or blended rate leveraging.
The reserve fund approach, which is the most common of the two, uses some or all of
the capitalization grant and/or the State matching funds as a reserve fund within the SRF that
serves two purposes. First, these monies secure a revenue bond issue, the proceeds of which
are deposited into the SRF and lent to SRF assistance recipients. In addition, the reserve fund
produces investment interest earnings that are used along with loan repayments to pay debt
service on the bonds. It is this feature that allows the SRF to charge less interest on loans
than it must pay on its bonds, effectively providing an interest rate subsidy to communities.
An SRF program that leverages using the blended rate approach provides an interest
rate subsidy through a different mechanism. The SRF in this case also issues revenue bonds,
but secures the bonds through a traditional debt service reserve fund from bond proceeds and
lends the balance of the proceeds to recipients at the market interest rate of the bonds. The
capitalization grant and State matching funds are lent to the assistance recipient at zero
percent interest. Each recipient receives half of its loan assistance from capitalization and
match funds at zero percent and half of its loan assistance from, bond proceeds at market rate.
The effective interest rate on the SRF loan produced by this "blending" is below market rates
and provides a subsidy to communities borrowing from the program.
Types of Assistance
Table 6-1 presents the estimated distribution of available funds among the various types
of SRF assistance. The data are aggregated for the forty-six States that provided information
on types of SRF assistance. (Appendix E provides these data for each of the forty-six States.)
The States intend to provide most of their financial assistance through loans. Twenty-two of
the States indicated that loans would be the only form of financial assistance provided.
Twenty-four States plan to use a small amount of program funds for refinancing. States that
leverage through revenue bonds will often use some funding to secure program indebtedness.
As Table 6-1 shows, the portion of aggregate funds committed as revenue or security for SRF
debt is expected to increase beginning in 1991 as additional States implement leveraged SRFs.
While this shift leads to a corresponding decrease in the portion of funds used for loans the
overall impact of the increase in leveraging is a significant increase in the amount of funds lent.
Interest Rates
All States offer SRF loans at below market rates, although two of States reportedly
offer some of their SRF loans at up to market rates. The vast majority of SRF loans are
issued at interest rates of 2 to 5-1/2 percent. The range of interest rates and methods of setting
6-2
-------
TABLE 6-1
Types of SRF Assistance and Administrative Costs
Aggregated for Forty-Six States(a)
($ Millions)
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
(% of Total)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
(% of Total)
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
(% of Total)
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
(% of Total)
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
(% of Total)
Administrative Expenses
(max. 4% of cap grant)(b)
(% of Total)(c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
428.2
88%
37.9
8%
0.0
0%
14.1
3%
0.0
0%
7.4
2%
487.6
100%
1989
939.0
92%
26.3
3%
0.0
0%
56.4
6%
0.0
0%
18.4
2%
1,023.3
100%
1990
1,533.2
82%
152.8
8%
0.0
0%
160.7
9%
0.0
0%
40.2
2%
1,869.6
100%
1991-1994
Aggregated
9,153.0
75%
1,486.5
12%
0.0
0%
1,462.5
12%
0.0
0%
206.0
2%
12,203.1
100%
1995-1999
Aggregated
5,914.6
80%
765.1
10%
0.0
0%
640.3
9%
0.0
0%
79.6
1%
7,399.5
100%
17,967.9
78%
2,468.6
11%
0.0
0%
2,333.9
10%
0.0
0%
351.7
2%
22,983.1
100%
(a) Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding information for this report.
(b) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization
grant awards received by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is
limited to 4% of all grant awards minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(c) Note that this figure is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
6-3
-------
loan interest rates are presented in Table 6-2. Sixteen States report that they adjust their
interest rates based on the economic condition of the community (see discussion in Section
6.2).
In setting interest rates for SRF loan recipients, States must set rates low enough to
make the program attractive to communities, but high enough to ensure the long term viability
of the fund. The differing approaches used by the States reflect their perception of this
trade-off. Some States reported that the high cost of program requirements (described in
detail in Section Eleven) had to be offset by very low interest rates to make the SRF program
attractive in their State. Various analyses have estimated that an interest rate subsidy of 2 to 3
percent to loan recipients (compared to the rate they can obtain in the market) is necessary to
offset these costs.
The low, subsidized interest rates offered by SRF programs, however, reduce the level
of funding available in the SRF in future years. After initial capitalization, SRFs will rely to a
large extent on loan repayments to provide capital from which to make additional loans. While
the initial SRF capitalization funds will be maintained by the principal portion of the
repayments, the growth or decline of the fund depends directly on the rate of interest charged
to recipients. In general, to maintain a level amount of actual project purchasing power, an
SRF would have to charge an average interest rate equal to the inflation rate (which since 1982
has averaged 4.5 percent per year for State and local government purchases1). There would be
some fluctuation in the amount available for loans each year, based on the repayment
schedules, but an SRF charging interest at the inflation rate would, over time, provide a steady
source of loan assistance.
An SRF with a loan portfolio that has an average interest rate below the inflation rate
will lose purchasing power without additional State capitalization. In addition to inflation, SRF
program expenses such as the purchase of local debt insurance, allowable administrative costs,
and SRF loan defaults, could diminish lendable SRF funds over time in the absence of
adequately high interest charges or further capitalization. Therefore, a State that makes a
policy decision to provide loans below the inflation rate will need to make the financial
commitment to provide further capitalization if it desires to maintain the fund in real terms. If
a State desires to increase the size of the fund in real terms, it must provide further
capitalization, charge interest rates in excess of inflation, or both. It appears that the policies
adopted by many States will not maintain or increase the fund. As noted in Subsection 4.1,
only fifteen States plan to provide further capitalization of their SRF through leveraging or
"overmatch" beyond 1994. Of these, nine will provide future capitalization at a level
substantially greater than the average annual Federal capitalization of their fund from 1988 to
1994; the other six at a level less than one-half of average Federal capitalization. And Table 6-
2 indicates that many SRF programs make loans at interest rates below reasonably expected
rates of inflation.
on U.S. Department of Commerce News. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analyses.
BEA 90-33. July 27, 1990.
6-4
-------
00
6B
.S
o
DH
00
^O
S
cxa
1
CO
Explanation
CO
O5
3
00
CO
1
"ca
S
2
S
1
in
Alabama
•a"
CO
.1
CO
CO
Ci
ca
O
CD
•4_)
ca
CO
1
o
d
S
oo
£
g
3
1
m
!•
o
1
t+H
0
ca
•*->
£
u
c-S
2
S?
.3
CO
rt
CO
1
"ca
§
2
S
1
D
>n
Arizona
CO
CD
'g
te?
in
CO
:>*
1
"8
£?
ca
CJ
£
ca
js
HH
<2
-*->
8-
§
CO
C
ca
S3
O
'o
S
2
S
M
'S
p
o
-*-»
in
„*
Arkansas
CN
"8
8
*.
-4->
Q
C
o
8
J-c
"S
i
_Q
ast recent sale of State G.O. bonds; G.O.
B
<+*
o
ta
•3
*-H
•4_»
«J
0
CO
2
1
"S
1
I
o
^
o
California
ogram loans - 65% of market.
a,
•a
CD
00
2
CD
1
CO
a
ca
CJ
Q
1
ca
S
o
^
in
vo
S?
Colorado
a
.8
o1
S,
"«
j-c
2
00
oo
| Additional subsidy of 20 to 50%
tN
Connecticut
1
o
CJ
.S
2
c
_o
ca
Hi
.s
•a
1
j
CO
8
•a
ca
1
ca
1
S3
Rate varies depending on comm
m
2
rsl
Q^
Delaware
CO
•a
1
o
CN
f
3
M
X
CD
•o
i
C5
|3% below General Obligation 2(
1
ca
£
J3
43
^
m
ca
."H
E
PH
tin
CO
CD
1
CO
ca
"ca
B
a
'o
D
CN
.2
'S
S
o
CJ
ca
CO
co
>— >
'o
1
1
ca
S
g
"§
o
43
O
d
S
<*-,
o
o
ca
CO
ca
_O
"ea
O
£
ca
1
a
D
S
^
1
ca
ffi
CO
C
ca
"ca
-2
ca
1
'S
D
§
1
CO
CO
rS
O
t-i
2
1
CN
00
O
<*-,
O
CO
ca
_a
CO
•a
CD
CO
•o
cS
a
co
t
O
o
t-l
CO
00
1
W)
CN
p
"*
"^
I/-J
CN
CO
'S
3
1 Undetermined at this time.
Indiana
State bond interest.
g
co
CO
ca
2
UH
CO
ca
ca
05
vo
OO
«
1
1
CO
1
CQ
1
05
'o
CD
00
2
ca
•3
1
m
!
o
o
o
•a
CD
CO
ca
CD
2
£3
CO
CO
00
1
ca
S
•8
^•5
o
CO
ca
household income of county.
1 Interest rate depends on median
CO
o
•kJ
CO
o^
Kentucky
§
based on review committee recommendati
t
ea
CO
00
ca
43
0
2
o
_CD
CO
ca
in
in
Louisiana
•spunj jo }soo i
a
(S
1
CQ
,0
co
CN
•4-1
CO
ta
1
ca
S
£
_O
CO
43
gS»
CN
.1
ca
CQ
ca
CJ
a
•§
0
.S
S?
o
CO
5:
O
CO
r*i
household income of county. Rates may 1
1 Interest rate depends on median
1
ca
"8
^
o
c-
1
g?
«
Maryland
i
2
=t
«
CO
_CO
'S
3
g
O
O
cl
0
CO
T3
55
CD
PH
CD
•o
borrowing. Additional subsidy (State gran
o
CO
8
g
•8
CO
CQ
1
ta
05
£
CJ
.CD
.>
3
of
QJ
1
ori
£
Massachusetts
CO
ca
^H
"ca
2
^a
CN
Michigan
£
S3
a
•^
ca
CO
CO
CO
o
1
CO
CD
1
unities' ability to pay, household income, i
o
CJ
g
OO
t
•3
J
0
C^7
vd
2
&•*.
o
Mrnnesota
ca
2
1
S
Mississippi
2
ca
S
|SRF interest rate equals 50% of
1
1
o
^
o
in
Missouri
Continued
6-5
-------
1
CO
t?
a
8
I
.S «
h
VO <4-<
S S3
CO
O
I-J
CO
I
1
CD
2
CO
•
C
cs
&
CB
P-,
1
S
1
C]
^O
1
1
•»
VO
1)
CO
CO
5
Ul
O
-4->
JS
1
CS
T-H
o
1-1
CD
CO
CB
1
•s
£
42
pt revenue bone
I
X
S
i-i
cs
CD
>»
O
cN
g
2
2
1
1
o
00
xl
1*
CO
.22
1
-4-»
1
CB
•s
l^
§
Oklahoma
8?
i
2
CO
w
cs
1
o
1
CO
1-4
I
1
*
CD
•3
0
1
6
CO
C
t
«s
CO
c/
i
c/
X
O
j
p
c
c
t/
a:
e p*
|H
ni
2
unemployment
. .s
l!
2
depending on communities' ability
.1
i
s.
&
&
2
7o of market
^^
^"
2
T— <
Pennsylvani
-j
e
QJ
ca
S3
00
c
cs
•S
1
^H
o
"CD
43
1
CO
1
2
CD
1
c
f
k
CS
CO
°G
-a
s
_O
43
cs
•c
?
1
CO
£
o
13
43
xi
c
J3
"co
CD
XI
O
*:
1
's
cN
a
o
1
fC
O
fc
CO
d
d
CO
a
o
CO
CB
Rate varies
CN
XI
CS
a
1
U
1
CO
1
"CB
§
S
Uniform ral
*S
.S
CB
Q
1
«t
based on communities' ability to p;
Rate varies
2
2
•*-»
J3
1
2
o
Tennessee
4:
c
55
E
u
O
X
«
tc
£
_£
W
V"
u.
^cs
CO
XI
pq
Q
H
o
2
-4_>
CO
S,
1
o
-S
s
t
2
1
1
CO
1
=2
K,
w
S?
>n
2
cN
CO
X
CD
f
a
o,
2
depending on communities' ability
Rate varies
1
1
1
2
o
1
c
V.
CO
QJ
O
-5
i
3
CO
1
o
X)
CD
CO
CB
43
4— »
1
1
d-i
O
6?
o
OO
2
§•
(D
CO
1
O
CO*
o
CO
U
J-H
2
8?
o
_co
2
,2
1
, cs
4-c
O
fes
O
00
2
c^
O
Vermont
f
1
2
depending on communities' ability
Rate varies
c-
2
8?
o
cs
;§
j
C4-I
O
a
u
j
CO
.2;
*£
d
>
«
03
. «
1
2
depending on communities' ability
CO
-s
CB
>
2
CS
A
in
2
o
Washington
n
source of state
. *s
CB
O.
2
depending on communities' ability
Rate varies
£
2
o
.2
.S
£
-*_»
,
CS
O,
depending on community ability to
$
•n
?
2
CB
OS
IT)
68
0
Wisconsin
i
*es
g
Uniform rat
0
| Wyoming
3
I
CIS
2
•4->
CO
2
2
.3
--
§
."2
T3
o
Q
-------
As an additional source of capital, SRFs have the capability to invest and earn interest
on funds between the time they are received by the SRF and the time they are disbursed to
municipalities. Some SRFs may generate substantial investment earnings which will enhance
the purchasing power of the fund.
The determination of interest rates is left exclusively to each State. All of the States
have incorporated some interest rate subsidy into SRF program design. About 20 percent of
the States have set current interest rates that can be expected to be significantly below inflation
rates. However, some of these States have already established policies for additional
capitalization of their SRFs that will offset such subsidies. EPA is currently assessing
capitalization levels necessary to maintain various fund values for all the States. As part of the
SRF annual review process, EPA will monitor the impact of various interest rate structures on
the financial condition of SRFs.
States that issue bonds to leverage their SRFs would have another concern in protecting
the long term viability of their funds. If loans are made at a rate less than that at which the
bonds are issued, loan repayments will not be adequate to repay the bonds. Additional funds
will have to be provided to make up the difference. Some States use investment earnings from
their debt service reserve funds for this purpose. A leveraged SRF provides a significantly
greater amount of loan assistance in the early years of the program than does an unleveraged
fund. However, the use of loan repayments to retire leverage bond debt will limit the capital
growth of the fund as well as the long-term balance of lendable funds. Additional State
capitalization in future years will be necessary if the State wants to expand its leveraged
amount.
6.2 Special Programs for Small and/or Economically Distressed Communities
State officials reported that many economically distressed communities throughout the
country cannot afford SRF loans even at very low interest rates. These communities include
the colonias2 in Texas, Indian lands, and some very small communities in Minnesota, among
others. Many States take the needs of these communities into account in developing and
operating the SRF and related programs. Sixteen States consider the economic condition of
the community in setting interest rates for SRF loans. Ten of these States indicated that they
may offer zero interest SRF loans to economically distressed communities. An eleventh State,
Wyoming, offers zero interest on all SRF loans, including loans to economically distressed
communities.
2In the area immediately adjacent to the international boundary with Mexico, there are
over 200,000 people living in small communities known as "colonias". These communities are
economically distressed and either have inadequate water and sewage service or lack these
services altogether. In the Agency's appropriation for fiscal year 1990, Congress authorized the
State of Texas to establish a special revolving fund to serve residents of these communities.
Funds from the special revolving fund can only be used to finance indoor plumbing and
improvements in connections to potable water distribution and sewage collection systems. The
special revolving fund has been capitalized from the construction grant allotment for Texas.
6-7
-------
In addition to offering special interest rates, several States operate other loan or grant
programs that provide additional subsidies to economically distressed communities. Of the
forty-five States that responded to questions regarding small and economically distressed
communities, twenty-six indicated they provide State grant funding to help small and/or
economically distressed communities meet their wastewater project needs. While several of
these State programs provide substantial assistance, the principal form of subsidy for
wastewater treatment in small and/or economically distressed communities in many States is the
low rate of interest offered under the SRF program.
6.3 Ensuring the Viability of the SRF Programs
All of the States plan to operate their SRF programs through 1999 and beyond. In
thejr responses to the questionnaire, States primarily approach the viability of their SRFs in
terms of securing reliable loan repayment streams. It appears that most States intend to
ensure the long-term viability of their programs through sound management of their loan
portfolios. The CWA requires that all SRF loan recipients specify a dedicated source of
revenue to repay the loan. The States employ several other measures to assure the long term
viability of their SRFs.
All of the States give careful consideration to affordability before issuing a loan under
the SRF program. All States either review credit information or undertake their own financial
review of applicants before issuing loans. States uniformly view the soundness of their loan
portfolio as the most important factor in the long-term viability of their programs.
In addition to financial review, States use some combination of community pledges
and/or assurances to secure loans. All States require communities to pledge user fees, the full
faith and credit of the community, or both, before issuing a loan. Some States require
communities to pledge both user fees and full faith and credit (the "double barrel" pledge) for
every loan.
Some States purchase insurance on their SRF debt to help protect the long term
viability of their programs. (Note that this insurance is for SRF program debt such as leverage
or match bonds. This is different from the purchase of insurance for local debt obligations as a
form of. SRF assistance as presented in Table 6-1.) While these insurance policies add to"
program costs, they also lower the interest rates charged on the bonds by providing an
additional level of protection to the fund and the holders of SRF program bonds. At least one
State requires loan recipients to maintain a loan repayment reserve.
An important aspect of loan portfolio management is the reduction of potential losses
through late payments and loan defaults. There are several common elements in State plans
for anticipating and reacting to problems with loans:
• States typically plan to review annual audited statements and/or community user
fees to ensure that communities are operating in a fiscally sound manner and
are charging sufficient fees to cover their indebtedness.
6-8
-------
• When potential problems are spotted, States will work with the community to
rectify the problem and prevent a default. The State may encourage an increase
in user fees. Many States indicated that they would consider restructuring or
refinancing in the event of serious problems.
• States will, in general, use all recourse allowed under State law in the event of a
default. This recourse typically includes suing the community, seeking a court
order to require the community to raise user fees, and withholding state-shared
tax revenues or other State funding to the community.
Because the program is so new, it is not possible to provide any statistics concerning the
frequency of late payments, default, or other loan problems. None of the States report any
problems, as yet, with their current loans.
6-9
-------
-------
SECTION SEVEN
ADMINISTRATION OF SRF PROGRAMS
At the time information was being collected for this report, the States were still making
the transition from the construction grants program to the SRF program. In some States
construction grants personnel were in the process of taking on the duties associated with the
SRF program; some individuals divided their time between the two programs. As a result, cost
accounting for time spent on the construction grant versus SRF program was difficult for some
States. As the number of SRF projects and the amount of money in the SRFs increase, most
States project increasing SRF staff size and escalating administrative costs. This section
summarizes the States' estimates of the number and type of personnel and the associated cost
of administering the SRF program over the next several years.
7.1 Agencies and Personnel Involved With SRF Program Administration
Administering the SRF program requires a mix of administrative, technical, accounting,
and financial personnel. Table 7-1 shows the number and type of staff working in SRF
programs in forty-five States that reported staffing figures for FYs 1989 and 1990. For the
forty-five States, 49 percent of SRF personnel worked in technical support, 20 percent in
financial management, 29 percent in general administration, and the remainder in other
capacities. States' technical and financial experts often work in separate agencies. Thirty-four
States have two or three different agencies involved in running their SRF programs. Seven
States have more than three agencies involved in SRF administration. Only four States
reported that all aspects of their SRF program are handled through a single agency.
The total number of personnel involved in SRF programs during FYs 1989 and 1990
varies considerably among the forty-five States, ranging from 2 to 70 (see Table 7-1). For the
forty-five States reviewed in this analysis, the amount of SRF funding appears to be an
important factor, but leveraging does not appear to be as significant in determining staff size.
Two of the ten States that reported having the largest staffs operate leveraged programs, yet
two of the ten States that reported the smallest staffs also leverage. Some States did, however,
report that they anticipated future staffing increases due to increased leveraging activity.
Thirty-four States anticipate modest to substantial increases in both technical and
financial personnel as the number of SRF projects and the amount of money in the SRFs
increase. Seven States reported that they expect staffing needs to remain relatively constant.
7-1
-------
TABLE 7-1
Employment in Administration and Operation of SRFs
In Forty-Five States(a)
FY 1989-1990
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
(b) West Virginia
Wisconsin
(c) Wyoming
TOTAL
(% of Total)
Annual Full Time Employee Equivalents
Staff Function
Admin.
6
0.5
0.75
10
7.2
2.4
4
9
3
3
1.03
1
5
1.5
2
1.7
5
3
6.5
9
4.5
7.2
2.5
1.1
1.07
2
23.5
2
22.38
6
3.1
2.02
5
0
3.7
1
3.95
7.2
1
0.91
6.8
1.3
1.6
9
1.5
201.91
29%
Technical
Support
4
0.7
0.75
7
18.4
1.65
12
19
6
6
1.22
2
20
2.5
0.2
2.5
5
3.5
9
25
11.5
14
1
1
0.75
4
33
1
23.25
24
1.8
0.1
10
3
9.87
2.5
5.5
14.8
3
0.97
10.5
7.4
2.2
7
3
341.56
49%
Financial Management
Accounting
3
0.1
0
1
4.3
0.15
5
4.5
1
1
0.25
1.1
6
1
0.2
0
2
2
3
3
2
1.2
0.5
0.5
0.75
1
8
1.25
10
1
0
0.1
2
0
1.4
1
1.25
2.9
1
0.34
1.5
0.25
1
0.05
1
78.59
11%
Finance
6
0.2
0
1
0
2.2
1
2.5
0.25
0.5
0.5
0.1
0
0.5
3
1
2
2
2
2
4
1.1
0
0.5
0
1
6
0
4.25
1
0.4
0.1
3
1
1
1
0.25
2.4
0
1.3
3
1.5
1
2
1
63.55
9%
Other
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0.25
0
0
0
0
0
0.8
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0.2
0.1
0
0
0
5.5
0.2
0
0
0
1.5
0
0
0
0
15.55
2%
Total
19
1.5
1.5
19
29.9
6.4
23
35
10.25
10.75
3
4.2
31
5.5
5.4
6
16
10.5
20.5
39
22
23.5
4
3.1
2.57
8
70.5
4.25
59.88
36
5.5
2.42
20
4
15.97
11
11.15
27.3
5
3.52
23.3
10.45
5.8
18.05
6.5
701.16
100%
(a) Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide employment
data for this report.
(b) West Virginia's figures represent projected FY 1991 staffing.
(c) Wyoming's figures represent projected FY 1991 staffing.
7-2
-------
After the equivalency requirements1 of the last capitalization grant are met, States may change
the nature and number of SRF program staff if the workload decreases. States that begin to
leverage may need to add staff with financial expertise.
7.2 Costs Associated With SRF Program Administration
Annual administrative expenses for 1989 to 1995 for forty-four States that provided cost
projections are presented in Table 7-2. Included in each State's estimates are all direct and
indirect costs associated with SRF program administration. Also shown are each State's SRF
administrative expense allowances. The allowances for 1989 and 1990 are an amount equal to
four percent of the actual capitalization grants awarded. The allowances for 1991 to 1994 are
estimated based on the authorized capitalization grant.2 Program requirements limit the
amount of SRF funds spent on administrative expenses in a given year to four percent of the
cumulative capitalization grant amount, less previous expenditures of SRF funds on
administration. States can accumulate or "bank" any unused portion of their expense allowance
for use in future years.
The table shows that the cumulative SRF administrative expense allowance will be
adequate in some States and not in others. Based on State estimated administrative expenses
and SRF capitalization grant awards at authorized amounts, twenty-eight States are expecting
to have sufficient allowances from their capitalization grants to cover their projected
administrative costs for the 1989 to 1994 time period. Of the sixteen States, highlighted in
Table 7-2, that are projected to experience shortfalls between their expected administrative
expenses and the four percent capitalization grant allowance, over 75 percent of the
administrative costs are covered in seven States, from 50 to 75 percent of costs are covered in
six States, and less than 50 percent of costs are covered in the remaining three States.
While leveraging does not appear to have a significant impact on staff size, it does
appear to increase program administration expenses. Nearly half of the States projected to
experience administrative expenses in excess of their four percent administrative cost allowance
between 1989 and 1994 operate leveraged programs.
'The equivalency requirements are 16 statutory CWA Title II requirements included in
Section 602(b)(6) that cover wastewater treatment projects constructed in whole or in part with
funds "directly made, available by" Federal SRF capitalization grant awards. These incorporate
requirements regarding the type of technologies, analyses, and issues which must be taken into
account by such projects. After States have committed funds equal to the total amount of
capitalization grant awards, additional SRF-funded wastewater treatment projects are not
subject to these requirements.
2Where States projected capitalization grants at less than authorized amounts, the
allowances are based on four percent of the amount of capitalization grant funding which they
project.
7-3
-------
TABLE 7-2
Comparison of
Estimated SRF Administrative Costs And
Administrative Expense Allowances(a) For Forty-Four(b) States
($ Thousands)
Actual
STATE
Alabama
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Alaska
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Arizona
Estimated Ajdi^tou Costs
Administrative Allowance
Arkansas , , „, - *- *
\
Estimated Admin, Costs
California
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Colorado
Estimated Admim Costs
Administrative Allowance
Connecticut .v x ^
Florida ^
v ,, - ^ -- -
Estimated- Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Georgia
Estimated Admin. Costs(d)
Administrative Allowance
1989
27
424
0
406
0
' 256
Q
546
0
5,104
236
892
490
' 2,268
606
1,224
1990
81
436
50
232
0
260
996
556
1,626
4,792
430
1,789
932
1,600
2,332
954
1,560
1991
120
828
88
485
500
640
1,041
636
2,862
6,944
555
760
1,923
2,250
2,480
1,240
1,624
Projected
1992
140
624
118
436
700
480
1,221
476
3,142
5,208
690
"570
2,067
892
2,700
2,320
1,210
1,228
1993
203
416
219
291
700
320
i,292
3,268
3,472
838
380
2;222
596
3,200
1360
990
812
1994
340
208
267
145
700
160
1,369
160
3,398
1,736
"ToocT
2,389
296"
"3,700
"76Q
1,030
404
1989 to
1994 Projected
TOTAL
911
2,936
743
1,994
••£
5,919
2,690
14,296
27,256
1 3,749
2,S49 '
12,054
4,804
13,946
s f fff •*• - S
_£. *.s
6,030
6,852
1995
625
322
700 |
1,450
3,534
t* |
*. j
3,800 v |
/• i
990
Continued
7-4
-------
TABLE 7-2, continued
Comparison of
Estimated SRF Administrative Costs And
Administrative Expense Allowances (a) For Forty-Four(b) States
($ Thousands)
STATE
Hawaii
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Idaho
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Illinois
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative. Allowance
Indiana
Estimated Admia, Cost&
Administrative Allowance
Iowa
Estimated Admin. Costs(e)
Administrative Allowance
Kansas
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Kentucky
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Ixsilslana
Estimated Admiti.. Costs
A&oYnistrattv& Allowance
"" "Estimated Admia* Costs
Administrative Allowance
Maryland
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Actual
1989
0
292
0
180
63
Projected
1990
303
292
60
188
430
2,000 2,000
, , , ,
200
90S
0
508
160
340
18
872
480
- 420 - ^
750
295
200
912
500
940
165
528
340
352
301
708
520
432
600
301
684
944
1991
309
472
150
476
1,229
4,000
2,000
2,340
200
1,324
873
876
450
1,168
1,040
1,040
700
720
773
2,348
1992
324
356
220
356
1,668
3,000
2,000
1,756
220
992
655
660
690
876
" 1,144
720
650
540
1,417
1,760
1993
341
236
300
236
2,554
2,000
'
2,000
1,172
242
660
436
440
850
584
J,250
480
600
360
1,351
1,176
1994
358
120
350
116
3,234
1,000
2,000
584
266
332
218
220
1,070
292
1,500
240
600
180
1,172
584
1989 to
1994 Projected
TOTAL 1995
1,634
1,768
1,080
1,552
9,178
14,000
S,700
7,700
1,093
4,344
2,682
2,888
3,379
4,500
5,934
3,332
3,900
2,396
5,597
7,724
376
400
3,532
2,000
293
325
1,190
1,650
600 ;
762
Continued
7-5
-------
TABLE 7-2, continued
Comparison of
Estimated SRF Administrative Costs And
Administrative Expense Allowances(a) For Forty-Four(b) States
($ Thousands)
Actual
STATE
Michigan
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Minnesota-'
Estimated. Acbnrox Cosfe
Administrative Allowance
Mississippi , x;\-,"" ; ,
< v*-v
Estimated Adm.tow Costs^g),
AdrakistrKtivfc Allowance
Missouri
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Nebraska
Estimated Admb. Costs{h}
Administrative Allowance
Nevada
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
New Jersey " <"!•
Estimated Admis, Costs
Administrative Allowance
New Mexico
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
New York
Estimated Admin. Costs(j)
Administrative Allowance
1989
0
1,620
2,340
6£2
•. f
79
608
0
1,000
34
192
0
183
*• '
•--3,650
2,604
0
344
0
4,160
1990
400
1,676
2,600
716
579
632
66
1,040
169
196
0
190
4,370
2,772
75
344
3,770
4,320
1991
1,000
3,352
2,650
1,760
898
724
490
2,080
255
488
46
477
4,570
3,724
240
344
5,551
9,040
Projected
1992
1,100
3,132
2,650
1,320
999
64a
700
1,560
375
364
320
357
5,370
2,840
280
344
5,877
7,960
1993
1,150
2,088
2,650
&80
1,107
432
900
1,040
400
244
350
238
5,670
1,844
320
240
6,213
5,320
1994
1,200
1,044
2,700
440
'
1,1£>9
216
1,100
520
410
120
390
119
'
6,070
920
360
120
6,504
2,640
1989 to
1994 Projected
TOTAL 1995
4,850
12,912
15,590
5,&08
4,86)
3,260
3,256
7,240
" ',',, ""
M>43V
"1^04
1,106
1,564
' .- f fff f r's,
" ,,
2^,700
14,70'i
1,275
1,736
27,915
33,440
1,250
2,700 i
1,259 ;
1,200
!
430
430
6,070 ^ i
404
6,886
Continued
7-6
-------
TABLE 7-2, continued
Comparison of
Estimated SRF Administrative Costs And
Administrative Expense Allowances (a) For Forty-Four(b) States
($ Thousands)
STATE
North Carolina
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Qklaljoina
Estimated. AdjHjitv Cosfs
Admlafeteatiy* Allowance
Oregon
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Pennsylvania
Estimated Admin. Costs(k)
Administrative Allowance
Rhode Island
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
South Carolina
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Sotjfli Dakota ,
Estimated Admin, Cosfc*
A^mitasteatiy^ AUowgacs
Tennessee
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Texas
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Utah
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Actual
1989
17
908 1
21
304
0
561
100
1,494 1
50
264
491
914
%
200
in
147
608
880 1
3,308 2
128
284
Projected
1990
181
,320
371
314
50
441
462
,546
75
271
611
765
200
236
286
948
,424
,912
180
252
1991
519
1,760
304
7*4
200
1,096
1,070
2,538
250
652
685
820
400
472
600
1,164
2,104
4,308
225
484
1992
905
1,320
314
5m'
400
824
1,700
2,856
300
489
567
739
4QO
360
758
1,034
2,984
3,176
300
364
1993
1,162
880
8oo
391
470
548
2,590
1,904
350
326
690
493
400
236
930
689
3,634
2,052
300
240
1994
1,331
440
900
196
490
276
3,360
952
350
163
713
245
400
120
1,138
344
3,967
588
250
120
1989 to
1994 Projected
TOTAL 1995
4,114
6,628
ajio
2tS7S
1,610
3,745
9,282
11,290
1,375
2,165
3,757
3,976
2,000
1^12 ,
3,858
4,787
14,993
16,344
1,383
1,744
1,747
1,000 1
510
3,970
500
725
400
1,428
4,223
150
Continued
7-7
-------
TABLE 7-2, continued
Comparison of
Estimated SRF Administrative Costs And
Administrative Expense Allowances(a) For Forty-Four(b) States
($ Thousands)
Actual
STATE
Vermont - s '" \s - *
Estimated Admin; Costs'
AdrainistratiVl "Allowance
Virginia
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Washington
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
West Virginia
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Wisconsin'
Estimate^ A.d,miH» Costs
Admini&rative Allowance
Wyoming
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Note: The administrative allowance
1989
m
183
560
1,228
0
664
0
0
199
960
0
183
is based
1990
as ,
192
600
1,080
232
668
100
800
,
755
1,000
0
194
on actual car
1991
~487
380
600
1,924
390
1,680
400
1,912
1,675
2,480
200
477
>italizati
Projected
1992
58&
356
800
1,444
490
1,240
600
1,136
1,900
1,880
240
358
Dn grants
1993
651
237
800
960
800
840
800
756
f
2,100
1,240
260
238
awarded
1994
748
119
800
480
800
400
1,000
380
2,250
'640
260
119
for FY
1989 to
1994 Projected
TOTAL 1995
2,644
1,467
4,160
7,116
2,712
5,492
2,900
4,984
' 'a '
8,879
8,21)0
960
1,570
750 |
800
980
1,000
2,400 I
' i
260
1989 and 1990, and on
4 percent of the authorized capitalization grant funding for 1991 to 1994 for most States. For States that
projected capitalization grant funding at less than authorized amounts, the allowance is based on four
percent of the projected amount. Shaded States project administrative costs exceeding the 4% allowance in
the 1989 to 1994 time period.
(a) Administrative expense allowance represents the total Federal source of funds available for administering SRFs.
(b) Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide
administrative cost estimates for this report.
(c) 1989 administrative costs for five months.
(d) 1990 administrative costs for three months.
(e) In fiscal year 1989 many "start up" costs were paid with proceeds from the State Match Revenue Bond issue.
(f) Excludes bond issuance costs paid from bond proceeds.
(g) 1990 administrative costs for ten months.
(h) New Jersey's administrative costs are estimated based on 1988 cost and staffing data, and staff increase
projections, supplied by New Jersey DEP. New Jersey's 1988 costs cover most, but not all, SRF employees.
Actual costs may be higher than those estimated here.
(i) 1990 administrative costs for nine months.
(j) 1990 administrative costs for nine months.
(k) 1988 administrative costs for three months.
7-8
-------
It is important to note that no funds from capitalization grants are shown for 1995 or
subsequent years. After the final Federal grant allotment, States will have to rely on
alternative funding sources, such as appropriated funds, or banked allowances to cover their
administrative expenses. Projected administrative expenses for 1995 are shown in Table 7-2.
SRF program representatives made recommendations regarding the short-term (up to
FY 1995) and long-term (after FY 1995) funding of administrative costs. For the short term,
19 States recommended increasing the four-percent ceiling or allowing four percent of the
authorized, rather, than the appropriated amount. As an effective alternative, representatives
from ten States recommended that their SRF programs charge a loan closing or similar fee.
Two States recommended a separate Federal grant for administrative costs.
For the long term, States suggested a variety of funding methods, although they have
not yet developed specific plans. Twenty-one States recommended instituting a closing or other
type of fee to cover administrative costs. Ten States have already implemented a loan closing
fee. It should be noted that any such fees collected must be kept out of the SRF itself so that
they will not be counted towards or limited by the four-percent ceiling. Several States
recommended the following administrative cost funding mechanisms, some of which (marked by
an asterisk) are not currently allowed or viable in the SRF program:
• using State appropriations;
• using fund reserves*;
• transferring unused 205(g) funds (Federal grant funds for States to implement
certain Title II program management activities)*;
• using a portion of the debt service payments*; and
• having the Federal government provide funds matching State appropriations for
administrative costs on a dollar for dollar basis (up to 10 percent of the actual
loans made).
7-9
-------
-------
SECTION EIGHT
POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE SRF PROGRAM ON COMMUNITY USER FEES
As explained in Section Six, SRF programs offer loans at below-market rates for eligible
projects. By contrast, the construction grants program generally provided a 55 percent grant for
the eligible cost of projects1 coupled in many cases with a State grant. This section examines
the impact on user fees of a shift from construction grants funding to SRF funding for a typical
facility. Because the SRF programs have been operating only a short time and data are not yet
available on SRF-financed facilities, an analytical modeling approach is used to assess the
impact of the SRF program on user fees. The sections that follow describe the scope and
methodology of the analysis and present the analytical results.
8.1 Scope of the Analysis
This analysis assesses the incremental financial burden placed on households resulting
from SRF loan financing of wastewater treatment facilities compared to construction grant
funding. It is based on theoretical typical facilities and compares user fees for identical facilities
built with SRF assistance versus construction grant funding. Although some changes in design
may occur as the source of funding assistance changes from construction grants to SRF loans,
interviews with State officials suggest these changes will be minor. One possible change is more
construction of reserve capacity.2 Reserve capacity was not eligible under the construction
grants program after 1984 except in certain grandfathered phased or segmented projects.
Reserve capacity is eligible for funding with SRF monies. As a result of the differing eligibilities
of reserve capacity, the analysis assumes that a slightly higher percentage of costs are eligible
under SRF financing in comparison to construction grants financing.
Land costs, except for those to acquire land that is an integral part of the treatment
process or used for sludge disposal, are ineligible under both the SRF and construction grants
programs. Since there will be no change in a community's ability to finance land costs with the
switch to SRF funding, this item is not included in the analysis. The costs assessed here are
limited, therefore, to construction and operation and maintenance (O&M) of the wastewater
treatment facilities.
In conjunction with the construction grants program, States have typically provided a 10
to 15 percent State grant to municipalities. Under the SRF, States must provide a 20 percent
match to receive a capitalization grant from EPA. It is not anticipated that many States will
Innovative or alternative projects could receive a 75 percent grant.
2Extra treatment capacity built into treatment plants and interceptor sewers to accommodate
flow increases due to future population growth.
8-1
-------
provide grants to municipalities as a general rule in conjunction with an SRF loan. However,
some States anticipate the continuation of separate grant programs for special circumstances,
such as communities which are economically distressed. As a result, the user fee impact analysis
presented here assumes no State grants under the SRF program.
There is no provision in the analysis for existing debt, which can vary significantly from
one community to the next. The incremental cost calculated here for the new facility could
represent all of the financial burden for wastewater treatment in a community, or only a fraction
of that burden.
8.2 Methodology
To assess the impact of user fees under the SRF program, a model which simulates user
fees was developed. The model is structured to simulate user fees under the construction grants
program and under the SRF program. The variables that the model uses to derive the user fees
are identified in Table 8-1. The first column in Table 8-1 lists each of the different variables.
The second column presents the value for each variable most commonly found under both the
construction grants and SRF programs. The values in the second column were used to calculate
the user fees presented in this chapter. The third column presents the range of values for the
variables depending on particular conditions in a State.
Based on the input variables in Table 8-1 the model calculates other values used in the
analysis. These calculated values include facility capital cost, daily flow rate, and the number of
hook-ups. Output from the model includes the annual cost of capital financing (assuming level
debt service), the annual O&M cost, and the total annual user fees per household under the
construction grants and SRF programs. The user fee calculated by the model represents the
annual incremental costs of construction and O&M for a new facility; it does not include land
costs or costs of existing debt service.
Appendix F contains a sample input-output page from the model, the formulas used in
the model and a description of the standard variable values and their sources, including a
detailed description of the capital and O&M cost curves and their derivations. The model
presented in Appendix F is designed so the user can input any of the variables presented in
Table 8-1 and calculate the impact on user fees. The capital cost curve is an inflated version of
EPA's Construction Costs for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants: 1973-1978. developed
to describe construction grants-funded projects.3 The O&M cost curve is derived from a user
fee survey of 161 construction grants-funded projects in EPA Region III. EPA is currently
undertaking a comprehensive national survey of user fees and O&M costs.
3Cost curves reflect the capital cost of the components of a secondary treatment facility for
all community size categories.
8-2
-------
TABLE 8-1
User Charge Variables, Standard Values, and Range
VARIABLE
STANDARD
VALUE
ESTIMATED
RANGE
SRF interest rate:
Market interest:
Persons/household:
Gallons/person/day:
Loan period:
Percent total costs
eligible under a 55%
construction grant:
Percent total costsb
funded by State grant
under construction
grants program:
Percent total costs
eligible under SRF:
Percent total costs funded
by State grant in con-
junction with SRF loans:
Population served
by facility:
4%
8%a
Fixed at 2.64
90-110 depending on
community size
20yrs
90%
15%
100%
0%
Fixed at one of the
following:
1,000; 2,500;
10,000; 100,000
0-9%
7-11%
90-110 depending on
community size
5-20 yrs
75-100%
0-25%
0-50%
aRecent cost of borrowing funds in the municipal bond market.
bApplies to all eligible costs.
8-3
-------
8.3 Comparison of User Fees Under the SRF and Construction Grants Programs
The results of a comparison of user fees under SRF and construction grants financing
for facilities serving four community population sizes are presented in Table 8-2. The results
reflect the standard values displayed above in Table 8-1.
In Table 8-2, user fees are calculated as the household's proportional share of two cost
components: the annualized cost of the capital expenditure and the annual operation and
maintenance cost. The SRF and construction grants programs subsidize only the capital
expenditure portion. But as Table 8-2 illustrates, it is the second cost, O&M, that often drives
the user fees. The O&M costs account for approximately 60 percent of user fees under the
SRF program and about 73 percent of user fees under the construction grants program.
Table 8-2 also shows that the size of the community served by a facility has a substantial
impact on user fees under both the SRF program and the construction grants program. User
fees for facilities serving communities with a population of 1,000 are over 3 times greater than
user fees for facilities serving communities of 100,000. This disparity in user fees across
community sizes is not altered significantly under the SRF loan program, due in part to the
predominance of O&M costs in the overall user fee.
Table 8-2 indicates that user fees are higher under the SRF program than under the
construction grants program. The difference in user fees under a 4 percent loan compared to a
55 percent construction grant ranges from $72 annually for facilities serving communities of
1,000 to $22 annually for facilities serving communities of 100,000. This represents a 21 percent
increase for a community of 1,000 and a 19 percent increase for a community of 100,000.
8.4 Impact of SRF Loan Interest Rate on Level of Subsidy
The interest rate charged on SRF loans has a significant impact on user fees. One way
of quantifying the value of the SRF loan subsidy is by expressing the loan interest rate in terms
of a "grant equivalent." For example, a 4 percent SRF loan, a common rate charged for SRF
loans, is equivalent to a grant subsidy of 16 percent under the construction grant program
(assuming a 15 percent State grant is provided along with the construction grant). A zero
interest SRF loan is equivalent to a 42 percent construction grant, while a 6 percent interest
SRF loan is equivalent to a 1 percent construction grant. Table 8-3 shows various SRF loan
interest rates and their construction grant equivalents.
Another way to quantify the value of the SRF loan subsidy is to compare projected user
fees for facilities constructed with SRF loans to facilities constructed with market rate financing.
A facility designed to serve a community of 1,000 constructed with an SRF loan using a 4
percent interest rate would have an annual user fee of $351, whereas the same facility financed
with a market rate loan charging 8 percent interest would have an annual user fee of $407.
Thus, the SRF reduces annual user fees by 14 percent. For a facility designed to serve a
community of 100,000, annual user fees would be $116 with a 4 percent SRF loan compared
with $134 for a market rate loan, a savings of 13 percent.
8-4
-------
a
«a
55
0 60
wa £3
e .a
2
§ I
1
2
I
M
1
e
II
8
w S
w _ S
fe
8
O
M
111
o Eo
o
a,
fc
CS
t~
ON
0
,-1 \D T-H VO
«O O *-< ^H
CO CO M t-l
s g
a
s" §
S3
er tr
1=1
K)
-5 W W
3-5
-------
TABLE 8-3
SRF Interest Rate and Construction Grant Equivalent"
SRF Interest
Rate
Construction15
Grant
Equivalent
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
42%
36%
29%
23%
16%
9%
1%
"Ineligible costs financed at an 8% market rate.
"This number represents the construction grant equivalent (assuming construction grants are
coupled with a 15% State grant) necessary to achieve the same subsidy as an SRF loan at the
interest rate shown in the same row.
8.5 Summary of Key Findings
Key findings of this theoretical analysis include:
For facilities serving the community sizes examined in this analysis, the household
user fee under a 4 percent SRF loan is approximately 20 percent greater than the
user fee under a 55 percent construction grant.4
The absolute dollar difference in user fees under a 4 percent SRF loan compared
to a 55 percent construction grant4 ranges from about $22 annually for a
community of 100,000 to about $72 for a community of 1,000.
^Assuming a 15 percent State grant is provided along with the construction grant.
8-6
-------
A 4 percent SRF loan, a common rate charged for SRF loans, provides the same
financial subsidy as a construction grant5 that funds 16 percent of eligible cost.
Even at zero percent interest, SRF loans cannot provide the same financial
subsidy as a 55 percent construction grant.5 Therefore, user fees will generally be
higher under the SRF program than the construction grants program.
Community size has a substantial impact on user fees under both the SRF
program and the construction grants program. Because of economies of scale,
total user fees to cover operation and maintenance in addition to capital costs
are estimated to be about three times as great for a community of 1,000
compared to a community of 100,000.
While SRF loans provide less of a subsidy than construction grants, SRF loans
still provide a substantial subsidy. User fees for facilities constructed with SRF
loans charging 4 percent interest will be approximately 14 percent lower on
average than facilities constructed with market rate financing.
5Assuming a 15 percent State grant is provided along with the construction grant.
8-7
-------
-------
SECTION NINE
POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE SRF PROGRAM ON FACILITY OPERATIONS
This section summarizes the opinions of State SRF officials on whether the SRF
program will lead to changes in the operation of wastewater treatment facilities. Because the
SRF is a new program, program officials had minimal information about the impact of SRF
funding on facility operation. Anticipated changes in facility sizing, design, and operating
efficiency are discussed below.
9.1 Anticipated Changes in Sizing, Design, and Operation and Maintenance Costs of New
Facilities
Because communities have to pay for a larger portion of project capital costs under the
SRF program than under the construction grants program, there is an incentive to construct
lower cost facilities to minimize the impact of capital costs on user fees. Of forty-three SRF
program officials who expressed opinions on facility costs under the SRF program, nineteen
expect that costs will decrease, twenty-one expect no change, and three expect cost increases.
SRF officials expressed divergent views on the effect of SRF financing on facility sizing.
SRF officials in thirteen States expect that facilities will be smaller; most of the twelve expected
that facility size would decrease because communities must repay the loans and will, therefore,
tend to keep the size and costs of projects to a minimum. Twenty-six States expect no change
in facility sizing. Six States anticipate that facilities will actually be larger because, according to
four of the six, the SRF can be used to fund reserve capacity projects that were ineligible under
the construction grants program. In some cases, increased facility size may result from the
expansion of existing facilities rather than the construction of larger new facilities. Two States
anticipate that new construction will become less common, with municipalities favoring phased
improvements over new construction.
The SRF program provides less incentive for the use of innovative and alternative
technologies than the construction grants program. While several States require innovative and
alternative technology projects be considered during the planning phase of project development,
few States offer any direct incentive for innovative or alternative technology projects.1 As many
States pointed out, this is a change from the construction grants program which provided direct
incentives for innovative and alternative technology projects (e.g., 75 percent grants rather than
55 percent).
1Consideration of innovative and alternative treatment technologies is one of the CWA Title
II equivalency requirements (described in Footnote 3, Section 7.1). Therefore, in all States,
projects subject to equivalency requirements must evaluate innovative and alternative
technologies.
9-1
-------
Thirty of the forty-five States that expressed opinions felt that the number of innovative
and alternative projects undertaken would decrease, twelve expected no change, and three
expected an increase. Because the SRF is a loan program, communities assume a greater
financial risk. The added risk and uncertainty associated with innovative technologies may
discourage their use. Proven alternative technologies will still be chosen, however, and might be
preferred if they have lower overall costs.
Most SRF program administrators view the O&M requirements under the construction
grants program as constructive and integral to the successful operation of facilities. In their
questionnaires, thirty-seven States said they did not expect O&M requirements to change under
the SRF program. Nine States said that O&M requirements would change. Five of these
States indicated that O&M programs would be more rigorous under their SRF programs. The
other four States indicated that they would not apply certain construction grant O&M
requirements within their SRF programs.
The majority of the State program officials anticipate little or no change in the O&M
costs of facilities built with SRF funds. While the increased debt service costs under the SRF
program are expected to increase pressure to keep O&M expenditures down, municipalities may
also wish to spend more on O&M to prolong plant life. Twenty-six States reported that they
expect O&M costs to remain about the same under the SRF program as they were under the
construction grants program. The other eighteen States that expressed an opinion on O&M
costs were split, with nine expecting cost decreases and ten expecting increases.
9-2
-------
SECTION TEN
ADVANTAGES OF THE SRF PROGRAM
The SRF program offers benefits to all levels of government concerned about water
quality. These benefits are both financial and environmental, helping responsible agencies and
officials to use their limited resources to achieve the goal of clean water.
10.1 Federal Government
The SRF program provides a mechanism for the Federal government to further the
long-standing national policy of assisting States and local governments in financing wastewater
treatment and other water quality management activities. At the same time, the program
facilitates the goal of restoring the responsibility for financing water quality construction and
management to State and local governments.
The "revolving" nature of the SRFs developed under this program allows a limited
amount of Federal funds to satisfy many more water quality needs than would happen with
direct grants or one-time loans.
10.2 The States
The primary benefit of the SRF program to the States is that it allows flexibility in
providing financial assistance. Each State designs its SRF to address the particular water quality
concerns of that State and its communities. States can structure their SRF to meet a broad
range of needs or to focus on a limited number of needs of major concern. By varying the types
and terms of SRF assistance, States can reach "target" types of communities or projects. Also,
States can integrate or coordinate the SRF with other State programs to develop a
comprehensive system for financing water quality management, tailoring the level of subsidy to
the varying needs of their communities.
Another substantial benefit of the revolving funds is their ability to sustain themselves.
The SRF loan repayment stream provides a continuing source of funding which is not subject to
annual appropriations and therefore allows for more certain projections of the availability of
funds for assistance.
Expanded eligibilities under the SRF program further increase its flexibility. In addition
to the new types of activities and facilities that can be funded, SRFs, in comparison to
construction grants, can fund a larger portion of the costs of traditional types of treatment
works. Fewer Federal requirements apply to SRF assistance than to construction grants, and
certain of the SRF funds carry none of the requirements of Title II. This reduction in
requirements can reduce the cost of facilities.
10-1
-------
10.3 Communities
Low interest rates are the single most important benefit to communities mentioned by
the States. Due to the Federal grant and State match (and in some cases leveraged funds) that
capitalize SRFs and because of the funds' fiscal strength, loan recipients can obtain interest
rates lower than they could get on their own. This reduced cost of capital enables some projects
to be completed that otherwise would not be affordable and reduces the level of user fees
required to repay project debt.
An example is provided by using the model presented in Section Eight of this report to
calculate the debt service costs for a community with a population of 10,000 people, building a
wastewater treatment plant with a capital cost of $4.56 million and borrowing the entire amount.
With a 20-year, four percent SRF loan the annual capital cost per household would be $89. If
the community borrowed the funds at a market interest rate of eight percent, the annual capital
cost per household would be $123, or 38 percent higher than capital cost per household with an
SRF loan.
Some States, such as Minnesota and Virginia, charge no interest on SRF loans during
the construction period, providing even more savings in the cost of capital. Most SRFs do not
charge closing costs, providing an additional savings over market financing for loan recipients.
Even in States that charge closing costs or administrative fees, communities experience
savings because the administrative burden of capital financing is centralized at the State level,
realizing economies of scale. State governments are more likely than municipalities to have the
management and financial institutions and expertise necessary to access the public finance
market at the most advantageous time and at the lowest cost. These reductions in financing
costs can result in significant overall savings to a community and the beneficiaries of its water
quality projects and activities.
Other benefits to communities mentioned by the States include starting construction
more quickly than under the construction grants program (with resultant savings in capital cost
inflation), fewer eligibility constraints, no maximum or minimum assistance amount (unless
imposed by the State), and efficient disbursements for incurred costs.
Communities also benefit from many features of the SRF program discussed above as
benefits to the States. State-specific SRF program design and expanded eligibilities allow more
communities to meet their particular needs. The variety of assistance types (i.e., credit
enhancements) broadens the scope of the program to include communities that do not require
direct grant or loan assistance. Also, fewer Federal requirements and restrictions on the
assistance provided can reduce administrative complexities, costs, and time delays.
Finally, the SRF provides a long-term funding program to meet the water quality
management needs of many communities. The revolving nature of the fund creates a perpetual
source of affordable financing. The funds invested now for the capitalization of SRFs will work
for many years to assist communities in meeting their needs, providing more money for more
communities.
10-2
-------
SECTION ELEVEN
ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH SRF IMPLEMENTATION
Officials of the States' SRF programs identified a number of areas of concern that affect
their ability to effectively implement their programs. Some of these impediments arise from
Federal and State statutes, regulations, and policies while others are inherent in a new financial
assistance program such as the SRF. This section presents the major concerns expressed by the
States and discusses the realized or potential impact of each on the program.
Federal Funding
Many State officials expressed serious concern regarding the Federal funding of the SRF
program. The FY 1989 and 1990 appropriations for Clean Water Act Title II (funds of which
can be transferred to the SRF program) and Title VI were less than the authorized amounts, as
were FY 1991 Title VI amounts. State officials believe that future appropriations will also fall
short of the authorized levels.
State officials also expressed concern about uncertainty as to what the Federal funding
level will be from year to year. Because the States must provide matching funds based on the
capitalization grant amount, such uncertainty makes planning difficult for both the States and
communities. In many States the budget process is not coordinated with that of the Federal
budget. If an SRF fails to obtain an appropriation or bond authorization for its match because
the State legislature goes out of session before the necessary amount can be determined,
significant delays in program implementation can occur.
Ability to Reach Communities With Assistance
A few States mentioned that they anticipate difficulty in providing SRF assistance to
particular communities. Some economically distressed communities cannot afford to pay back a
loan even at a 0 percent interest rate. States will have to work closely with communities that
have financial capability problems to structure an assistance package that provides adequate,
affordable funding to meet water quality objectives and regulations. As discussed in Subsection
6.2, such an assistance package may need to incorporate funding from other State aid programs
in addition to the SRF. To be effective, financial assistance for small, economically distressed
communities should also be coordinated with technical assistance outreach programs.
Cross-Cutting Federal Laws and Authorities
The States report that the application of other (non-CWA) Federal laws and authorities
(e.g., National Historic Preservation Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, Executive Orders
11625 and 12138, Women's and Minority Business Enterprise) to the SRF program leads to a
number of difficulties. These "cross-cutters" apply to projects funded in whole or in part by
11-1
-------
"funds directly made available" by the Federal capitalization grant. The States are unsure of
their responsibilities for monitoring and assuring compliance with the cross-cutters; therefore, it
is difficult to build the appropriate procedures into their SRFs. This concern arises because at
any time, Federal laws can be enacted that apply to the SRF program, and a permanent list of
these authorities cannot be identified. (The Agency is now examining twenty-four cross-cutting
Federal authorities and will soon distribute a handbook describing their application in the SRF
program.) In addition, once the State responsibilities and procedures are developed, the
administrative costs of the program will increase as State officials ensure compliance. While
several States indicated that cross-cutting authorities that apply to assistance recipients may
increase project costs and delay project completion, EPA was unable to obtain descriptions of
how cross-cutters affected specific projects. State officials are also concerned about EPA's role
in reviewing State project-specific compliance actions.
In order to facilitate compliance with other Federal laws and authorities, EPA is working
with the appropriate Federal agencies to develop programmatic agreements for major cross-
cutters that outline the roles and responsibilities of the various government entities involved.
Several States and their representatives have recommended another approach to managing
compliance with cross-cutters. They urge that compliance be "as determined by the Governor"
of each State and that the focus should be on certifying compliance with the intent of law rather
than adherence to project-specific requirements. These States would prefer, however, that the
SRF program be exempted entirely from cross-cutters by Congress.
Effect of Program Requirements on Project Costs
Several States expressed the view that the Title VI Federal requirements associated with
the SRF program add substantially to project costs as well as administrative costs. In particular,
the Title II "equivalency requirements" for treatment works, which apply only to "funds directly
made available" by Federal capitalization grants, are said to reduce the program's attractiveness
to communities. Texas and New Jersey officials estimate cost increases of up to 20 percent in
some communities due to Federal requirements.
Tennessee SRF officials assert that prevailing wage rates mandated under the Davis-
Bacon Act, along with other equivalency requirements, could increase project costs by as much
as 30 percent. Five other States also said that the Davis-Bacon requirements increase project
costs. Studies reviewed by EPA show a wide variety of project cost increases due to Davis-
Bacon. A 1983 study by the Federal Highway Administration estimates an impact of two to
four percent, while a 1982 study by Oregon State University estimates cost increases of 26 to 38
percent in rural areas of the country. For water and sewerage systems in Utah, a 1986 study by
the State of Utah reports construction bids averaging 17.5 percent higher for projects subject to
the Davis-Bacon Act compared to those not subject to Federal wage rates. As these studies
suggest, the impact of Davis-Bacon wage rate requirements varies considerably based on local
socioeconomic and market conditions and State prevailing wage rate laws.
Some States have chosen to apply the Federal requirements discussed above to all
projects funded by their SRFs, not only to those projects funded by an amount equal to the
"funds directly made available" by their capitalization grants ("equivalency projects"). Although
11-2
-------
not a Clean Water Act or EPA requirement, States are using this practice to facilitate the
handling of projects and to provide for equal treatment to all assistance recipients.
Letter of Credit Process
Payment of capitalization grants to an SRF occurs through a Federal letter of credit
(LOG). No cash is transferred to the fund until the SRF requests a cash draw, up to the
amount available in the LOG, generally as costs are incurred. Many States indicated that this
process is an impediment to the implementation of the SRF program for a number of reasons.
Tennessee and New Mexico point out, for instance, that lack of immediate cash
payments to the SRF prevents the State from earning interest on the Federal funds. Those
interest earnings would help the fund grow and increase the amount available for assistance.
But, in an effort to ease the pressure of program outlays on the Federal budget deficit, the LOG
payment process was instituted to coordinate outlays with the actual expenditure of Federal
funds. This process complies with provisions of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (31
U.S.C. 6503; Pub. L. 97-258) which require Federal agencies to "schedule the transfer of grant
money to minimize the time elapsing between transfer of the money from the Treasury and the
disbursement by a State."
The LOG process was cited by several States as particularly cumbersome in regard to the
refinancing of projects. The States report that the LOG payment and cash draw provisions
generally do not correspond well with the timing of the financial procedures of refinancing
existing local debt. In order to facilitate the refinancing of some projects, EPA has provided for
the immediate cash draw of a portion of each capitalization grant for this purpose.
Another concern of some of the States is that the LOG adds one more level of
complexity to their programs. Under a cash payment system, cash would be available for
disbursement as costs are incurred. With the LOG payment system, however, a request for a
cash draw from the LOG must be made before that cash is available for disbursement. The
cash draw may take up to 36 hours, usually considerably less, as the funds are transferred to the
SRF.
There have been reports that the "LOG process" can take several weeks. States must
comply with their own overlapping fiscal and accounting procedures which can impede the quick
transfer of funds. Thus, although the letter of credit itself as a method of payment is not
causing delays beyond the maximum of 36 hours necessary to make the electronic transfer of
funds, delays are occurring in some States due to State processing problems associated with the
cash disbursements.
Administrative Expenses
The CWA restricts the amount of money in an SRF that may be used for administrative
expenses to four percent of all capitalization grant awards received by the fund. The amount
available each year to cover administrative costs is four percent of all awards received up to and
11-3
-------
including that year minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the fund in previous
years.
A number of States expressed concern that the allowed amount would be inadequate to
pay the full costs of administering their fund. This appears to be especially true of leveraged
funds because of the additional financial operations and management they require. While
States have expressed this concern, the data presented in Section Seven indicate that twenty-
eight of forty-four responding States should be able to fund their administrative costs with the
four percent allowance through FY 1994. The States expressed particular concern about the
administration of the SRFs after FY 1994, when capitalization grants are scheduled to end.
SRF program representatives made recommendations regarding the short-term (up to
FY 1995) and long-term (after FY 1995) funding of administrative costs. For the short term,
nineteen States recommended increasing the four-percent ceiling or allowing four percent of the
authorized, rather than the appropriated, amount, changes that would require legislative action.
While this would allow additional SRF funds to be used for administrative expenses, it is neither
normal practice nor prudent to pay the operating costs of a revolving loan program with its
capital funds. Doing so can jeopardize the fiscal integrity of the capital account because it is an
open-ended, consumptive use of funds. As an effective alternative, representatives from ten
States recommended that their SRF programs charge a loan closing or similar fee. Two States
recommended a separate Federal grant for administrative costs.
For the long term, States suggested a variety of funding methods. Twenty-one States
recommended instituting a closing or other type of fee to cover administrative costs. Ten States
have already implemented a loan closing fee. It should be noted that any such fees collected
should be kept out of the SRF itself so that they will not be counted towards or limited by the
four-percent ceiling. Several study States recommended the following administrative cost
funding mechanisms, some of which (marked by an asterisk) are not currently allowed or viable
in the SRF program:
• using State appropriations;
• using fund reserves*;
• transferring unused 205(g) funds (Federal grant funds for States to implement
certain Title II program management activities)*;
• using a portion of the debt service payments*; and
• having the Federal government provide funds matching State appropriations for
administrative costs on a dollar for dollar basis (up to 10 percent of the actual
loans made).
11-4
-------
Eligibility of Land
The purchase of land for a wastewater treatment facility is not an eligible cost under the
SRF program unless the land is integral to the treatment process or used for sludge disposal.
Several States recommended that this restriction be lifted because it makes the SRF less
attractive as a source of financing. Since land upon which to build a facility must often be
purchased, a community seeking assistance from an SRF may have to finance land acquisition
through another source. This increases total financing costs for the project, especially since the
land financing is unlikely to be at a subsidized interest rate. Minnesota mentioned that this
restriction is especially problematic for small communities.
The restriction on the use of SRF funds for the purchase of land is statutorily imposed
by the CWA. Therefore, legislative action would be necessary to expand the eligibility of land
under the SRF program.
Identification of Repayment Revenue Source
The CWA requires that recipients of SRF assistance provide a dedicated source of
revenue to cover repayments. While nonpoint source, ground water, and estuarine programs are
a high water quality priority in many States and are eligible for assistance under the SRF
program (see Section 3 and Appendix B), the activities associated with such "expanded uses" do
not typically provide a source of revenue to repay loans. Because of this, some States reported
that it may be difficult to provide SRF assistance for expanded use activities. At least twelve
States, however, currently fund or plan to fund expanded use activities through their SRFs.
Although the revenue to repay SRF loans may not be derived directly from the funded
activities themselves, repayment sources are available. An assistance recipient can dedicate the
proceeds of fees (e.g., permit fees, inspection fees, impact fees), taxes (e.g., property taxes, sales
taxes, pollution taxes), or fines and penalties to the repayment of an SRF loan. EPA has
prepared a case study guidebook to present examples of how expanded use activities may be
funded under the SRF program.
Financial and Legal Aspects of the Program
A number of States commented that SRFs involve more financial and legal complexity
than construction grants and many other funding programs. States and communities have an
increasing need for expertise in public finance and bond and tax law to effectively utilize SRFs.
While these added complexities can increase costs, they also are the elements of the program
that increase the available forms of assistance (i.e., credit enhancements) and the amount of
funds available (i.e., leveraging). Each State should determine whether or not its water quality
needs are such that its SRF should incorporate various financial complexities.
EPA is aware of the potential delays and problems that financial and legal complexities
may present to the program. In an effort to assist States to develop and implement effective
SRFs, the Agency has put in place a mission support contract for use by EPA Headquarters,
Regional Offices, and, through the Regions, States. The contract team has provided training
11-5
-------
and the advice and support of financial managers, investment bankers, and bond attorneys
during the development and establishment of many SRFs.
Many SRFs issue bonds to raise State match, overmatch, or leverage funds. Some
programs purchase, refinance, or provide security for local bonds issued for wastewater
treatment projects. In order to minimize the cost of capital, States and municipalities may use
tax-exempt financing in these situations. By doing so, however, SRFs become subject to the
many provisions of Federal tax laws and regulations that affect tax-exempt bonds. The statutory
and regulatory framework surrounding tax-exempt financing is very complex and cannot be
covered in this report.
Although none of the tax laws or regulations prevent a State from developing an SRF
and making use of the financial mechanisms allowed under the CWA, they do restrict the
flexibility of the States in structuring their SRFs. These provisions can increase the costs of
providing assistance and administering the program. Arbitrage tracking, for example, can be an
intricate and costly process. Delays can occur during program development and implementation
as State officials and bond counsel ensure that the program follows the applicable laws and
regulations. This diligence is necessary to safeguard the tax-exempt status of SRF-related
bonds.
The overall implementation of the SRF program has been very effective. As with any
new program, especially one like the SRF which involves fundamental changes in the roles and
responsibilities of the Federal, State, and local governments, some operational difficulties have
arisen. However, EPA and the States have worked closely and successfully to develop solutions
that are enabling SRFs to become effective State financing programs.
The number of issues associated with implementation, such as those discussed above, has
been reduced as people and institutions become more familiar with program requirements.
There do not appear to be any fundamental flaws in the structure of the SRF program or any
significant impediments to successful implementation that have not been adequately managed by
the States and EPA.
11-6
-------
APPENDIX A
SRF REPORT TO CONGRESS WORKGROUP MEMBERS
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
SRF REPORT TO CONGRESS WORKGROUP MEMBERS
State Members
C.R. Miertschin
Construction Grants Division
Texas Water Development Board
P.O. Box 13231 - Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711-3231
512-463-7853
David Hanna
Wastewater Construction Grants
Environmental Improvement Division
1190 St. Francis Dr.
Harold Runnels Bldg.
Santa Fe, NM 87504-0968
505-827-2812
Fred Esmond
Division of Construction Management
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Room 438
Albany, NY 12233
518-457-6252
Paul Zugger, Chief
Surface Water Quality Division
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30038
Corner of Pine and Allegan
Lansing, MI 48909
517-373-1949
Doug Garrett
Department of Natural Resources
Water Pollution Control Program
205 Jefferson St.
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65101
314-751-5723
Alternate for Doug Garrett:
Susan Hoppel
Nebraska Department of Environmental
Control
301 Central Mall South
Lincoln, NE 68508
402-471-2182
Regional Members
Roger Janson
Region I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Rm. 2203
Boston, MA 02203
617-565-3580; 8-835-3580
Lee Murphy
Region in
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(3WM-20)
841 Chestnut St.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215-597-3847; 8-597-3847
Richard Hoppers
Region VI
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Ave., 12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
214-655-7110; 8-255-7110
Mike Muse
Region IX
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
215 Fremont St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-974-8341; 8-454-8341
A-l
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
NEEDS ASSOCIATED WITH NEW SRF PROGRAM FUNDING ELIGIBILITIES AND
NEW ENFORCEABLE REQUIREMENTS
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
NEEDS ASSOCIATED WITH NEW SRF PROGRAM FUNDING ELIGIBILITIES
AND NEW ENFORCEABLE REQUIREMENTS
This Appendix describes the potential impact of new funding eligibilities and new
requirements under the CWA on the need for SRF financing. The discussion considers these
issues primarily from a qualitative, national perspective rather than a quantitative, State-specific
one. This approach is necessary because the cost implications of many of the new
requirements are either not available or, when available, are very preliminary.
B.I New Funding Eligibilities
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Congress specified in the 1987 Amendments to the CWA that States prepare
Assessment Reports to identify the significant impact that nonpoint source (NFS) pollution can
have on water bodies. These reports should identify waters unlikely to achieve water quality
standards without NPS controls as well as the sources causing the water quality impairment. In
addition, Section 319 of the CWA requires States to develop Management Programs to address
these impairments.
All States have submitted their Assessment Reports and Management Programs. EPA
has approved or partially approved management programs for all jurisdictions. EPA and State
agencies will identify funds available to carry out the activities necessary for meeting water
quality standards. Funding is authorized in the CWA to implement these NPS control
activities, and includes grants under Section 319 and Section 201(g)(l)(B) and assistance from
the SRF program.
To be eligible for SRF financing, NPS activity must meet three threshold requirements:
the State must have SRF-authorizing legislation which makes Section 319 activities eligible for
SRF assistance, the activity must be included in the State's approved NPS Management
Program, and the activity must be on the State's SRF Intended Use Plan (IUP). Twelve States
have indicated they plan to fund NPS activities through the SRF program in the future. One
of the twelve, Wyoming, plans to use all of its available SRF funds for NPS projects from 1991
to 1994.
Estuarine Protection
Section 320 of the CWA established the National Estuary Program to ensure protection
of estuarine areas "threatened by pollution, development, or overuse." The program calls for
the development and implementation of Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans
(CCMPs) to achieve this protection.
B-l
-------
As of July 1990, 17 estuaries had been accepted for participation in the National
Estuary Program:
Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts
Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island
Long Island Sound, Connecticut and New York
Puget Sound, Washington
San Francisco Bay, California
Santa Monica Bay, California
Albemarle/Pamlico Sounds, North Carolina
New York/New Jersey Harbor, New York and New Jersey
Delaware Estuary, Delaware and New Jersey
Delaware Inland Bays, Delaware
Sarasota Bay, Florida
Galveston Bay, Texas
Casco Bay, Maine
Massachusetts Bays, Massachusetts
Indian River Lagoon, Florida
Tampa Bay, Florida
Barataria-Terrebonne, Louisiana
In coordination with the States, EPA convenes management conferences to develop
CCMPs for estuaries included in the National Estuary Program. Conference planning activities
and actions needed to implement the CCMPs are eligible for funding under the SRF program.
Since most of the management conferences are still assessing the status of their estuaries, final
CCMPs have yet to be developed. Consequently, comprehensive cost estimates for CCMP
implementation activities are not available at this time.
The State of Washington reported that its SRF provided funding for CCMP activities in
FY 1990. Two other States, California and Pennsylvania, indicated that they intend to fund
CCMP activities through their SRFs in the future. Additionally, Connecticut reported that it
intends to make loans for wastewater treatment and CSO projects that are closely tied to the
nutrient reduction strategy being developed for the Long Island Sound CCMP.
Ground Water Protection
Section 319 of the CWA emphasizes ground water protection by encouraging States to
assess the impact of NPS problems on ground water quality and by authorizing grants for
ground water protection activities related to NPS problems. As an ongoing effort under
Section 106 of the CWA, EPA provides grant money to States to support the development of
State Ground Water Protection Strategies. Most States have submitted Ground Water
Protection Strategies to EPA. The Agency encourages States to keep the Strategies current.
The CWA provides a mechanism for using SRF monies for ground water protection
under the NPS program. For ground water protection activities to be eligible, they must be
identified in the State's EPA-approved NPS Management Program through direct identification
or incorporation by reference to the State's Ground Water Protection Strategy. State Ground-
Water Protection Strategies do not generally include cost estimates. Therefore, it is not
B-2
-------
possible at this time to determine the extent to which ground water protection activities will
add to the total cost of SRF-eligjble water pollution control activities.
Wetlands Protection
EPA encourages states to coordinate planning and implementation of programs for
nonpoint source pollution control, ground water protection, and estuarine protection. Although
no new program efforts were established for wetlands protection in the 1987 Amendments,
wetlands protection is also a priority concern. Implementation of wetlands protection activities
is SRF-eligible to the extent that the activities are included as part of approved State Nonpoint
Source Management Programs or estuary CCMPs.
Maintaining Permit Compliance
Traditional Needs Surveys have not captured the needs associated with wastewater
treatment facilities which are compliant at the time of the survey, but in need of near term
improvements, because they are at a design capacity, near retirement, or in an area where
stream standards will be upgraded. This is particularly critical in areas which are experiencing
population growth. These needs are eligible for funding from SRFs and will add substantially
to States' total needs for wastewater funding.
B.2 New Enforceable Requirements
Separate Storm Sewers
The 1987 Clean Water Act Amendments expand the permitting program for discharges
from municipal separate storm sewers to include comprehensive storm water quality
management programs to reduce the discharge of pollutants. Section 402(p) of the CWA
provides deadlines for EPA to establish permit application requirements for discharges from
large municipal separate storm sewer systems (systems serving a population of 250,000 or
more) and discharges from medium municipal separate storm sewer systems (systems serving a
population between 100,000 and 250,000). EPA is to study discharges from other municipal
separate storm sewers and issue regulations based on the results of these studies.
On November 16, 1990, EPA published a final rule on permit application requirements
in the Federal Register. The rule covers permit application requirements for discharges from
large and medium municipal separate storm sewers. The requirements are sufficiently flexible
to allow the development of site-specific permit conditions. Under the requirements, municipal
applicants will be required to submit proposed storm water management programs as part of
their permit application.
The municipal storm water management programs that municipal permittees will be
required to develop and implement as permit conditions will address a wide range of structural
and nonstructural controls. Structural controls include the removal of illicit connections,
regional storm water management basins, retention and infiltration basins, and other retrofit
B-3
-------
projects. Nonstructural controls include developing and implementing an ordinance to control
construction site runoff, street sweeping, operation and maintenance improvements, public
education programs, and waste collection programs to discourage illegal dumping.
Structural improvements to municipal separate storm sewer systems qualify for
assistance from Federal funds authorized after FY 1990 for the SRF program. Activities for
storm water pollution control are also eligible for SRF assistance if they are part of approved
Section 319 State Nonpoint Source Management Programs or Section 320 estuary
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans. Structural improvements and control
activities for storm sewers that are part of these programs will, therefore, increase SRF-eligible
needs. Estimates of the dollar amount of the increase are not yet available. Initial cost
estimates should be available after municipal applicants submit cost analyses of implementing
municipal storm water management programs. These cost analyses are required as part of the
permit application for large and medium-sized municipal systems.
Discharge of Toxic Pollutants
Section 304(1) of the CWA requires EPA and the States to address the reduction of
toxics from point source discharges. EPA promulgated requirements to implement Section
304(1) in June 1989. Section 304(1) required States to prepare lists of water bodies not meeting
water quality standards because of point source discharges of one or more of the 126 priority
toxic pollutants. Section 304(1) also required States to prepare lists of point sources
discharging these pollutants and to develop control strategies to reduce these discharges.
As of July 1990, the States and EPA had identified 193 municipal facilities and 53 CSOs
or storm water drains that are discharging toxic pollutants into impaired waters. To comply
with new, more stringent limits on toxic pollutants, the treatment facilities will have to choose
between either enforcing more stringent pretreatment requirements or installing more advanced
technology within the facility. Communities with CSO and storm sewer problems will have a
choice of adopting either nonstructural (e.g., street cleaning) or structural (e.g., separation of
^sanitary and storm sewBrs) controls. With-certain restrictions, these options are eligible for
assistance from SRFs.
EPA and the States have completed identifying impaired waters and point sources of
toxic discharges and are now completing control strategies. After public comment, additional
water bodies and facilities have been added to States' lists, while others have been deleted.
After the control strategies become incorporated into final permits, facilities will have three
years to comply with their new effluent limits. Because most facilities have yet to determine
necessary treatment modifications, it is not possible to assess the cost of these new controls at
this time.
Sludge Use and Disposal Regulations
Sludge is a byproduct of the wastewater treatment process. Treatment facilities bear
the responsibility for managing their sludge. The 1987 CWA Amendments require EPA to
B-4
-------
identify toxic pollutants of concern in sludge, establish numerical limits for each pollutant, and
determine appropriate beneficial use and disposal practices to protect human health and the
environment.
EPA proposed regulations in February 1989 that address five sludge beneficial use and
disposal practices: incineration, land application, monofill (sludge-only), distribution and
marketing, and surface impoundments. These new requirements may generate additional costs
for treatment facilities. SRF programs can provide financial assistance for the capital costs of
POTW investments. Eligible capital costs might include upgrades for an existing treatment
process, hardware purchases for sludge disposal (e.g., a truck to transport the material to a
landfill), or engineering costs associated with a capital investment project.
As part of its regulatory development process, EPA prepared a regulatory impact
analysis estimating the costs to treatment works of complying with the proposed regulations.
Data in the record provide a basis for estimating capital costs. The total capital costs
(including engineering costs) associated with POTW compliance with the proposed sludge
regulations are estimated to be $408.3 million (1988 dollars). The methodology used to
estimate the cost of compliance with the proposed regulation will change, however, based on
new data gathered from a national sewage sludge survey. Thus, this cost estimate may change.
Furthermore, this cost estimate is for the proposed regulation; the cost associated with the final
regulation may differ substantially.
Ocean Dumping Ban Act
The Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988 affects the State Revolving Fund program in
New York and New Jersey. The Act requires these states to commit ten percent of their
capitalization grants awarded for fiscal years 1990 and 1991, and ten percent of their State
match associated with those grants, to provide assistance authorized under Title VI for
identifying, developing, and implementing alternatives to ocean dumping of sewage sludge.
Summary
Sludge use and disposal, new toxics requirements, separate storm water sewers, NFS
pollution control, and ground water, estuary, and wetlands protection activities are eligible for,
and could add substantially to the demand for, SRF assistance. With the exception of the
estimated $408 million for compliance with proposed sludge beneficial use and disposal
regulations, comprehensive estimates of the financing needs for these new eligibilities and
requirements are not available. It is anticipated that costs associated with new funding
eligibilities and new requirements will substantially exceed the Category I through V needs
estimated in the 1988 Needs Survey.
B-5
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
ESTIMATED ANNUAL FUNDING FOR SRFS AND OTHER
STATE PROGRAMS BY STATE
-------
-------
TABLE C-l
Estimated Annual Funding for SRFs and Other State Programs by State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Alabama
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments(b)
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(c)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(d)
Alaska
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(c)
State Grant Programs(e)
Other State Programs
TOTAL(d)(f)
Actual
1988 1989
10.6
2.1
25.7
38.4
(7.2)
31.2
-
~
31.2
0.0 10.1
0.0 2.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5
0.0 12.6
0.0 0.0
0.0 12.6
10.0 11.0
0.0 0.0
10.0 23.6
1990
10.9
2.2
31.0
44.1
(8.0)
36.1
36.1
5.8
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
7.4
0.0
7.4
12.0
0.0
19.4
Projected
1991
20.7
4.1
50.0
74.8
(14.0)
60.8
60.8
12.1
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
15.2
0.0
15.2
0.0
15.2
1992
15.6
3.1
25.0
43.7
(7.0)
36.7
36.7
10.9
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.5
13.9
0.0
13.9
0.0
13.9
1993
10.4
2.1
25.0
37.5
(7.0)
30.5
30.5
7.3
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
9.7
0.0
9.7
0.0
9.7
1994
5.2
1.0
25.0
31.2
(7.0)
24.2
24.2
3.6
0.7
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.5
5.8
0.0
5.8
0.0
5.8
1995-1999(a)
25.0
25.0
(7.0)
18.0
18.0
0.0
0.0
3.4
0.5
3.9
0.0
3.9
0.0
3.9
(a) Annual average.
(b) Alabama's SRF loan repayments are used to retire SRF bonds during the time period, and are thus not available to fund projects.
(c) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e., does not include debt service reserve funds.
(d) Totals vary due to rounding.
(e) Alaska's State Grants are appropriated annually. Projections after 1990 are not possible.
(f) Total does not include Alaska's State Grant funding after 1990.
C-l
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Annual Funding for SRFs and Other State Programs by State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Arizona
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Arkansas
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments(d)
SRF Interest Earnings(e)
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs(f)
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1989
6.4
1.2
10.8
18.4
(6.4)
12.0
12.0
13.6
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.4
0.0
16.4
0.0
0.0
16.4
1990
6.5
1.3
10.7
18.5
(6.5)
12.0
12.0
13.9
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.7
0.0
16.7
0.1
9.3
26.1
Projected
1991
16.0
2.4
21.6
40.0
(12.0)
28.0
28.0
15.9
3.2
0.0
26.4
0.0
0.0
45.5
(26.4)
19.1
0.3
13.5
32.8
1992
12.0
1.6
0.0
14.4
28.0
(8.0)
20.0
20.0
11.9
2.4
0.0
15.3
0.0
0.0
29.5
(15.3)
14.3
0.2
13.5
27.9
1993
8.0
0.8
7.2
16.0
(4.0)
12.0
12.0
7.9
1.6
0.0
11.4
0.0
0.0
20.9
(11.4)
9.5
0.2
13.5
23.1
1994
4.0
0.4
3.6
8.0
(2.0)
6.0
6.0
4.0
0.8
0.0
7.6
0.0
0.0
12.4
(7.6)
4.8
0.2
13.5
18.5
1995-1999(a)
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
0.0
0.0
3.5
(3.5)
0.0
0.2
13.5
13.7
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e., dqes not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) 1*01815 vary due to rounding.
(d) Arkansas' SRF Wn repayments are used to retire SRF bonds during the time period, and are thus not available to fund projects.
(c) Arkansas' SRF jnterest earnings are used to retire SRF bonds during tiie time period, and are thus not available to fund projects.
(0 Arkansas Soil & Water Conservation Commission Loan Program.
C-2
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Annual Funding for SRFs and Other State Programs by State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
California
i
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Fun/is
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs(c)
Other State Programs(d)
TOTAL(e)
Colorado
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(e)
Actual
1988
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.5
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
1989
127.6
25.5
-
-
-
-
153.1
-
153.1
-
5.4
158.5
11.6
0.9
0.0
6.9
0.0
0.0
19.4
(3.1)
16.3
0.8
0.0
17.1
1990
119.8
24.0
'• -
-
-
-
143.8
-
143.8
2.0
21.5
167.3
12.1
3.5
0.0
3^.0
0.1
0.0
51.7
(16.0)
35.7
0.6
0.0
36.3
Projected
1991
173.6
34.7
-
-
-
-
208.3
-
208.3
5.0
37.1
250.4
19.0
3.4
0.0
34.0
0.3
0.0
56.6
(17.0)
39.6
1.0
0.0
40.6
1992
130.2
26.0
-
-
10.9
-
167.1
—
167.1
10.0
3.0
180.1
14.3
2.5
0.0
24.0
. 0.5
0.1
41.3
(12.0)
29.3
1.0
0.0
30.3
1993
86.8
17.4
-
-
24.6
-
128.8
—
128.8
8.0
3.0
139.8
9.5
1.7
0.0
16.0
0.8
0.1
28.0
(8.0)
20.0
1.0
0.0
21.0
1994
43.4
8.7
-
-
40.8
-
92.9
—
92.9
0.0
3.0
95.9
4.8
0.8
0.0
8.0
1.3
0.1
15.0
(4.0)
11.0
1.0
0.0
12.0
1995-1999(a)
0.0
0.0
-
-
50.3
-
50.3
—
50.3
0.0
3.0
53.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
1.4
0.1
6.5
(1.4)
5.1
1.0
0.0
6.1
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e., does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) California's Small Community Grant Program
(d) California's Water Quality Control Fund loan program and Water Reclamation Loan Program.
(e) Totals vary due to rounding.
C-3
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Annual Funding for SRFs and Other State Programs by State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Connecticut
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Florida
SRF Cap. Grant(d)
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments(e)
SRF Interest Earnings(e)
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988
28.1
5.6
52.8
0.0
86.5
0.0
86.5
21.6
108.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.1
1.8
1989
22.3
4.4
23.2
0.0
49.9
0.0
49.9
12.4
62.3
56.7
11.8
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
72.0
0.0
72.0
2.6
6.2
80.8
1990
23.3
4.6
70.8
0.0
98.7
0.0
98.7
24.6
123.3
58.3
12.1
(0.1)
0.0
0.0
0.2
70.5
0.0
70.5
0.9
0.2
71.6
Projected
1991
29.9
6.0
35.2
5.2
76.3
0.0
76.3
18.8
95.1
,62.0
12.9
(0.9)
0.0
0.0
4.0
78.0
0.0
78.0
1.9
0.5
80.4
1992
22.3
i4.4
37.6
8.2
1
72.5
0.0
72.5
18.0
90.5
58.0
12.2
(0.2)
0.0
10.5
5.1
85.6
0.0
85.6
0.5
0.5
86.6
1993
14.9
3.0
38.0
14.2
70.1
0.0
70.1
19.0
89.1
39.0
8.1
0.9
0.0
16.2
4.0
68.2
0.0
68.2
0.0
0.5
68.7
1994
7.4
1.5
41.3
18.7
68.9
0.0
68.9
17.2
86.1
19.0
4.1
(3.0)
0.0
22.5
4.0
46.6
0.0
46.6
0.0
0.5
47.1
1995-1999(a)
41.9
30.9
72.8
0.0
72.8
18.1
90.9
0.0
0.0
33.3
4.0
37.3
0.0
37.3
0.0
0.5
37.8
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e., docs not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
(d) Florida's capitalization grant for 1991 projected at 80% of authorized amount.
(c) Indicates year obligated, not year earned.
C-4
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Annual Funding for SRFs and Other State Programs by State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Georgia
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match(b)
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(c)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(d)
Hawaii
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988 1989 1990
28.0 30.6 39.0
0.0 0.2 2.0
28.0 30.8 41.0
28.0 30.8 41.0
6.0 6.0 6.0
20.0 20.0 20.0
54.0 56.8 67.0
7.3 7.3
1.5 1.5
46.9
55.7 8.8
55.7 8.8
55.7 8.8
Projected
1991 1992 1993
40.6 30.7 20.3
3.9 5.2 7.9
44.5 35.9 28.2
44.5 35.9 28.2
6.0 6.0 6.0
20.0 20.0 20.0
70.5 61.9 54.2
11.8 8.9 5.9
2.4 1.8 1.2
14.2 10.7 7.1
14.2 10.7 7.1
14.2 10.7 7.1
1994 1995-1999(a)
10.1
10.1 13.5
20.2 13.5
20.2 13.5
6.0 6.0
20.0 20.0
46.2 39.5
3.0
0.6
0.5 1.3
0.6 1.3
4.7 2.5
4.7 2.5
4.7 2.5
(a) Annual average.
(b) Georgia's State match is from non-SRF loans dedicated for repayment into the SRF. Repayments on the State match loans are included
with SRF loan repayments.
(c) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e., does not include debt service reserve funds.
(d) Totals vary due to rounding.
C-5
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Annual Funding for SRFs and Other State Programs by State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Illinois
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.8
0.0
8.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
'65.0
0.0
65.0
1989
4.5
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.5
0.0
5.5
9.8
5.5
20.8
50.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
60.1
0.0
60.1
181.4
.0.0
241.5
1990
4.7
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.7
0.0
5.7
1.5
0.0
7.2
50.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
60.6
0.0
60.6
128.3
0.0
188.9
Projected
1991
11.9
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
14.6
0.0
14.6
3.0
0.0
17.6
100.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.6
122.4
0.0
122.4
74.5
0.0
196.9
1992
8.9
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.1
11.4
0.0
11.4
2.0
0.0
13.4
75.0
15.0
0.0
0.0
8.6
0.6
99.2
0.0
99.2
74.5
0.0
173.7
1993
5.9
1.2
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.1
8.5
0.0
8.5
2.0
0.0
10.5
50.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
17.4
0.6
78.0
0.0
78.0
0.0
0.0
78.0
1994
2.9
0.6
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.1
5.5
0.0
5.5
2.0
0.0
7.5
25.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
24.4
0.6
55.0
0.0
55.0
0.0
0.0
55.0
1995-1999(a)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.1
2.6
0.0
2.6
2.0
0.0
4.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
36.0
0.6
36.6
0.0
36.6
0.0
0.0
36.6
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e., does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
C-6
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Annual Funding for SRFs and Other State Programs by State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Indiana
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Iowa
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds (d)
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988 1989
22.7
4.5
-
-
-
-
27.2
0.0
27.2
18.4 7.4
- -
18.4 34.6
0.0 12.7
0.0 2.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 12.6
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 27.8
0.0 (2.2)
0.0 25.6
0.0 25.6
1990
23.5
4.7
-
5.0
-
0.2
33.4
(2.0)
31.4
7.7
-
39.1
13.2
2.6
0.0
13.0
0.0
1.0
29.8
(1.0)
28.8
28.8
Projected
1991
58.5
11.6
-
15.0
-
1.0
86.1
(7.0)
79.1
10.0
10.0
99.1
33.1
6.6
0.0
0.0
1.5
41.2
0.0
41.2
41.2
1992
43.9
8.7
-
15.0
0.5
1.5
69.6
(7.0)
62.6
10.0
10.0
82.6
24.8
5.0
0.0
1.2
0.7
31.7
0.0
31.7
31.7
1993
29.3
5.8
-
15.0
2.5
1.5
54.1
(5.0)
49.1
10.0
10.0
69.1
16.5
3.3
0.0
3.8
0.4
24.0
0.0
24.0
24.0
1994
14.6
2.9
-
10.0
4.0
1.5
33.0
(2.9)
30.1
10.0
10.0
50.1
8.3
1.7
0.0
5.0
0.0
15.0
0.0
15.0
15.0
1995-1999(a)
-
0.0
4.0
1.0
5.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
25.0
20.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
25.0
0.0
25.0
25.0
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e., does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
(d) The extent to which Iowa will leverage between 1991 and 1994 is not yet known.
C-7
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Annual Funding for SRFs and Other State Programs by State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Kansas
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
§RF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Kentucky
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.2
0.0
17.2
0.0
10.7
27.9
1989
8.5
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.2
0.0
10.2
0.0
0.0
10.2
21.8
6.6
0.0
0.0
15.7
0.3
44.4
0.0
44.4
35.8
80.3
1990
8.8
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.6
0.0
10.6
0.0
0.0
10.6
17.7
3.5
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.6
22.9
0.0
22.9
36.4
59.3
Projected
1991
21.9
4.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
26.3
0.0
26.3
0.0
0.0
26.3
29.2
5.7
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.9
37.5
0.0
37.5
1.0
38.5
1992
16.5
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.8
0.0
19.8
0.0
0.0
19.8
21.9
4.3
0.0
0.0
3.1
1.3
30.6
0.0
30.6
1.0
31.6
1993
11.0
2.2
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
14.2
0.0
14.2
0.0
0.0
14.2
14.6
2.8
0.0
0.0
4.6
1.9
23.9
0.0
23.9
0.0
23.9
1994
5.5
1.1
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
7.6
0.0
7.6
0.0
0.0
7.6
7.3
1.4
0.0
0.0
5.9
2.5
17.1
0.0
17.1
0.0
17.1
1995-1999(a)
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
6.8
3.0
9.8
0.0
9.8
0.0
9.8
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e., does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
C-8
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Annual Funding for SRFs and Other State Programs by State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Louisiana
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Maine
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988 1989
12.0 10.5
2.4 2.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1
14.4 12.7
14.4 12.7
14.4 12.7
7.4
1.5
0.3
9.2
(2.0)
7.2
19.0
26.2
1990
10.8
2.2
0.1
0.2
13.3
13.3
13.3
7.5
1.5
0.3
9.3
(2.5)
6.8
21.0
27.8
Projected
1991
26.0
5.2
0.5
0.3
32.0
32.0
32.0
18.0
3.6
0.2
21.8
(4.0)
17.8
36.0
53.8
1992
18.0
3.6
2.0
0.4
23.9
23.9
23.9
13.5
2.7
0.3
16.5
(3.5)
13.0
31.0
44.0
1993
12.0
2.4
3.2
0.4
18.0
18.0
18.0
9.0
1.8
0.5
11.3
(2.7)
8.6
23.0
31.6
1994
6.0
1.2
5.3
0.4
12.8
12.8
12.8
4.5
0.9
1.5
6.9
(1.2)
5.7
11.0
16.7
1995-1999(a)
55.0
8.7
0.5
64.2
64.2
64.2
0.0
0.0
3.0
3.0
(0.7)
2.3
6.0
8.3
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e., does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
C-9
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Annual Funding for SRFs and Other State Programs by State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Maryland
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Massachusetts
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.6
2.0
5.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
120.0
67.0
187.0
1989
22.8
4.6
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.8
0.0
28.8
15.5
3.4
47.7
62.0
12.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
74.0
0.0
74.0
0.0
72.0
146.0
1990
23.6
5.0
0.3
26.6
0.2
0.1
55.8
(0.9)
54.8
15.5
3.5
73.8
65.0
13.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
78.0
0.0
78.0
0.0
77.0
155.0
Projected
1991
58.7
7.0
0.0
175.1
0.9
0.4
242.1
(17.6)
224.5
0.0
4.4
228.8
82.0
16.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
98.0
(75.0)
23.0
0.0
750.0
773.0
1992
44.0
8.8
0.0
101.4
0.9
0.2
155.3
(13.2)
142.1
0.0
0.0
142.1
61.0
12.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
73.0
(45.0)
28.0
0.0
450.0
478.0
1993
29.4
5.9
0.0
67.8
2.3
0.1
105.4
(8.8)
96.6
0.0
0.0
96.6
41.0
8.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
49.0
(40.0)
9.0
0.0
400.0
409.0
1994
\
14.6
2.9
0.0
33.6
2.0
0.1
53.3
(4.4)
48.9
0.0
0.0
48.9
20.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
25.3
0.0
25.3
0.0
(d)
25.3
1995-1999(a)
0.0
15.0
7.7
0.0
22.7
(1.9)
20.8
0.0
0.0
20.8
0.0
0.0
2.1
0.0
2.1
0.0
2.1
0.0
(d)
2.1
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e., does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
(d) Additional State authorizations will be needed for future year program needs.
C-10
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Annual Funding for SRFs and Other State Programs by State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Michigan
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Minnesota
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments(d)
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988 1989
40.5
8.1
0.1
-
-
-
48.7
-
48.7
0.0
0.0
48.7
0.0 17.3
0.0 3.5
0.2
45.4
0.0 66.3
0.0 (16.8)
0.0 49.6
23.0 24.0
6.8 9.8
29.8 83.4
1990
41.9
8.4
3.1
53.4
53.4
0.0
0.0
53.4
17.9
3.6
0.7
69.8
92.0
(17.3)
74.6
9.0
6.5
90.1
Projected
1991
83.8
16.8
-
-
-
-
100.6
100.6
0.0
0.0
100.6
44.0
8.8
0.0
65.0
117.8
(42.5)
75.3
15.0
11.8
102.1
1992
78.3
15.6
-
-
-
-
93.9
93.9
0.0
0.0
93.9
33.0
6.6
0.0
60.0
99.6
(31.7)
67.9
15.0
11.8
94.7
1993
52.2
10.4
-
-
-
-
62.6
62.6
0.0
0.0
62.6
22.0
4.4
0.0
48.0
74.4
(21.1)
53.3
15.0
11.8
80.1
1994
26.1
2.1
28.2
28.2
0.0
0.0
28.2
11.0
2.2
0.0
48.0
61.2
(10.5)
50.7
15.0
11.0
76.7
1995-1999(a)
0.0
48.0
48.0
0.0
48.0
15.0
2.0
65.0
(a) Annual average. Michigan did not provide funding projections for 1995 to 1999.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e., does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
(d) Minnesota's loan repayments are used to repay State bond issues.
C-ll
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Annual Funding for SRFs and Other State Programs by State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Mississippi
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Missouri
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.1
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.0
0.0
33.0
1989
15.2
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.3
0.0
18.3
0.0
0.0
18.3
25.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.0
0.0
30.0
26.0
0.0
56.0
1990
15.8
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
19.2
0.0
19.2
0.0
0.0
19.2
26.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.0
0.0
31.0
30.0
0.0
61.0
Projected
1991
18.1
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.2
22.6
0.0
22.6
0.0
0.0
22.6
52.0
10.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
162.0
(51.0)
111.0
19.0
0.0
130.0
1992
16.2
3.2
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.2
21.4
0.0
21.4
0.0
0.0
21.4
39.0
8.0
0.0
75.0
0.0
1.0
123.0
(38.0)
85.0
23.0
0.0
108.0
1993
10.8
2.2
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.2
16.2
0.0
16.2
0.0
0.0
16.2
26.0
5.0
0.0
70.0
34.0
2.0
137.0
(36.0)
101.0
6.0
0.0
107.0
1994
5.4
1.1
0.0
0.0
4.2
0.2
10.9
0.0
10.9
0.0
0.0
10.9
13.0
3.0
10.0
95.0
31.0
2.0
154.0
(48.0)
106.0
6.0
0.0
112.0
1995-1999(a)
1.8
0.0
6.4
0.2
8.4
0.0
8.4
0.0
0.0
8.4
10.0
120.0
33.4
2.4
165.8
(52.8)
113.0
6.0
0.0
119.0
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e., docs not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
C-12
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Annual Funding for SRFs and Other State Programs by State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Nebraska
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Nevada
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988
2.2
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1989
4.8
0.9
0.0
5.7
0.0
5.7
1.8
7.5
4.6
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.5
0.0
5.5
0.0
0.0
5.5
1990
4.9
0.1
5.0
0.0
5.0
1.2
6.2
4.7
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.7
0.0
5.7
0.0
0.0
5.7
Projected
1991
12.2
3.0
0.0
15.2
(0.3)
14.9
1.3
16.2
11.9
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.3
0.0
14.3
0.0
0.0
14.3
1992
9.1
4.0
0.2
0.0
13.3
(0.4)
12.9
0.3
13.2
8.9
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
11.6
0.0
11.6
0.0
0.0
11.6
1993
6.1
0.3
0.0
6.4
0.0
6.4
0.3
6.7
6.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
9.1
0.0
. 9.1
0.0
0.0
9.1
1994
3.0
0.5
0.0
3.5
0.0
3.5
0.3
3.8
3.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
6.1
0.0
6.1
0.0
0.0
6.1
1995-1999(a)
2.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
0.3
2.3
0.0
0.0
2.8
0.0
2.8
0.0
2.8
0.0
0.0
2.8
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e., does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
C-13
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Annual Funding for SRFs and Other State Programs by State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
New Hampshire
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
New Jersey
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988 1989
9.4
1.8
11.2
0.0
11.2
12.2 9.1
12.2 20.3
70.3 65.1
14.1 13.0
67.0 68.8
0.0 0.2
151.4 147.1
(14.1) (6.5)
137.3 140.6
0.0 19.6
56.6 44.4
193.9 204.6
1990
9.7
1.9
11.6
0.0
11.6
11.0
22.6
69.3
13.8
77.6
0.7
161.4
(7.9)
153.5
28.9
182.4
Projected
1991
23.0
4.8
27.8
0.0
27.8
12.3
40.1
93.1
19.4
104.9
2.1
219.5
(9.7)
209.8
209.8
1992
17.0
3.6
20.6
0.0
20.6
19.1
39.7
71.0
14.8
84.0
5.6
175.4
(7.4)
168.0
168.0
1993
11.5
2.4
13.9
0.0
13.9
17.0
30.9
46.1
9.6
61.0
10.1
126.8
(4.8)
122.0
122.0
1994
5.7
1.2
6.9
0.0
6.9
13.1
20.0
23.0
4.8
40.6
15.2
83.6
(2.4)
81.2
81.2
1995-1999(a)
10.0
10.0
25.4
25.4
50.8
0.0
50.8
50.8
(a) Annual average. New Hampshire did not provide SRF funding projection for 1995 to 1999.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e., does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
C-14
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Annual Funding for SRFs and Other State Programs by State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
New Mexico
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
New York
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments(d)
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988
5.6
1.1
1.7
0.0
8.4
0.0
8.4
4.2
0.2
12.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
38.6
0.0
38.6
1989
8.6
1.8
0.0
0.0
10.4
0.0
10.4
3.5
0.0
13.9
104.0
20.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
124.8
0.0
124.8
15.7
0.0
140.5
1990
8.6
1.1
0.0
0.1
9.8
0.0
9.8
1.0
0.0
10.8
108.0
21.6
0.0
207.9
0.0
1.1
338.6
(69.3)
269.3
16.0
0.0
285.3
Projected
1991
8.6
1.7
0.9
0.6
11.8
0.0
11.8
1.0
0.0
12.8
226.0
45.3
0.0
794.0
1.2
7.2
1,073.7
(264.6)
809.1
0.0
0.0
809.1
1992
8.6
1.7
0.3
1.0
11.6
0.0
11.6
0.5
0.0
12.1
199.0
39.8
0.0
620.0
4.2
10.1
873.1
(206.6)
666.5
0.0
0.0
666.5
1993
6.0
1.7
0.8
2.3
10.8
0.0
10.8
0.5
0.0
11.3
133.0
26.6
0.0
500.0
8.8
12.6
681.0
(166.7)
514.3
0.0
0.0
514.3
1994
3.0
0.6
1.4
3.1
8.1
0.0
8.1
0.5
0.3
8.9
66.0
13.2
0.0
500.0
20.2
13.2
612.6
(166.7)
445.9
0.0
0.0
445.9
1995-1999(a)
5.5
5.5
0.0
5.5
0.5
0.5
6.5
0.0
307.0
54.0
14.0
375.0
(102.0)
273.0
0.0
0.0
273.0
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e., does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
(d) Includes freed-up corpus allocation.
C-l 5
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Annual Funding for SRFs and Other State Programs by State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
North Carolina
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Oklahoma
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
3.1
3.6
9.3
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.1
0.0
11.1
1.2
8.6
20.9
1989
22.7
4.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.2
0.0
27.2
1.3
8.0
36.5
7.6
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.1
0.0
9.1
1.4
35.8
46.3
1990
33.0
6.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
39.6
0.0
39.6
0.2
1.3
41.1
7.9
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.4
0.0
9.4
2.0
23.0
34.4
Projected
1991
44.0
8.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
52.8
0.0
52.8
0.0
2.0
54.8
19.6
3.9
0.0
39.1
0.0
1.8
64.4
(3.9)
60.5
2.0
30.0
92.5
1992
33.0
6.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
39.7
0.0
39.7
0.0
2.0
41.7
14.7
2.9
0.0
68.3
0.8
1.3
88.1
(6.8)
81.3
2.5
35.0
118.8
1993
22.0
4.4
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
27.4
0.0
27.4
0.0
2.0
29.4
9.8
2.0
0.0
28.6
2.2
0.7
43.3
(2.9)
40.4
2.5
40.0
82.9
1994
11.0
2.2
0.0
0.0
3.3
0.0
16.5
0.0
16.5
0.0
2.0
18.5
4.9
1.0
0.0
5.8
5.1
0.4
17.2
(0.6)
16.6
2.5
45.0
64.1
1995-1999(a)
0.0
0.0
5.9
0.0
5.9
0.0
5.9
0.0
2.0
7.9
0.0
40.0
5.6
1.0
46.6
(3.0)
43.6
3.0
50.0
96.6
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e., docs not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
C-16
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Annual Funding for SRFs and Other State Programs by State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Oregon
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Pennsylvania
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs(e)
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
69.9
69.9
1989
14.0
2.8
16.8
16.8
2.0
18.8
37.4
7.5
0.9
0.0
0.0
45.7
0.0
45.7
292.9
338.6
1990
11.0
2.2
13.2
13.2
5.9
19.1
38.7
7.7
0.6
(d)
0.0
46.9
0.0
46.9
216.9
263.8
Projected
1991
27.4
5.5
32.9
32.9
13.0
45.9
63.5
12.7
0.0
(d)
2.3
78.5
0.0
78.5
167.3
245.8
1992
20.6
4.1
1.1
25.8
25.8
13.0
38.8
71.4
14.3
0.0
(d)
4.7
90.4
0.0
90.4
NA
90.4
1993
13.7
2.7
1.9
18.3
18.3
13.0
31.3
47.6
9.5
0.0
(d)
8.7
65.8
0.0
65.8
NA
65.8
1994
6.9
1.4
2.7
11.0
11.0
13.0
24.0
23.8
4.8
0.0
(d)
13.2
41.8
0.0
41.8
NA
41.8
1995-1999(a)
5.2
5.2
5.2
0.0
5.2
0.0
(d)
13.9
13.9
0.0
13.9
NA
13.9
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e., does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
(d) Leverage proposal under discussion.
(e) Includes Department of Commerce and Non-SRF loan funds. Loan fund projection not available after 1991.
C-17
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Annual Funding for SRFs and Other State Programs by State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Rhode Island
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
South Carolina
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988 1989 1990
6.6 6.8
1.3 1.4
7.9 8.1
0.0 0.0
7.9 8.1
0.0 7.9 8.1
0.0 22.9 19.1
0.0 4.6 3.8
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0 27.4 22.9
0.0 27.4 22.9
0.0 27.4 22.9
Projected
1991 1992 1993
16.3 12.2 8.1
3.2 2.4 1.6
19.5 14.6 9.8
0.0 0.0 0.0
19.5 14.6 9.8
19.5 14.6 9.8
20.5 18.5 12.3
4.2 3.7 2.5
0.0 4.3 5.2
24.7 26.5 20.0
24.7 26.5 20.0
24.7 26.5 20.0
1994 1995-1999(a)
4.1
0.8
4.9
0.0
4.9
4.9
6.1
1.2
5.9 10.4
13.3 10.4
13.3 10.4
13.3 10.4
(a) Annual average. Rhode Island did not provide funding projections for 1995 to 1999.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e., does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
C-18
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Annual Funding for SRFs and Other State Programs by State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
South Dakota
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings(b)
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves(c)
SRF Available(d)
State Grant Programs(e)
Other State Programs
TOTAL(f)
Tennessee
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(d)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(f)
Actual
1988
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.4
24.8
5.0
0.3
-
-
0.1
30.3
-
30.3
8.1
69.3
107.7
1989
4.7
0.9
0.0
5.6
(1.2)
4.4
0.6
1.2
6.2
15.2
3.0
-
-
-
0.5
18.7
-
18.7
7.9
9.6
36.2
1990
5.9
1.2
0.0
7.1
0.0
7.1
0.0
0.0
7.1
23.7
4.7
-
-
0.1
0.7
29.2
-
29.2
8.7
6.5
44.4
Projected
1991
11.8
2.4
0.4
14.6
0.0
14.6
0.0
0.0
14.6
29.1
5.8
-
-
1.0
1.0
36.9
-
36.9
4.3
6.5
47.7
1992
9.0
1.8
0.8
11.6
0.0
11.6
0.0
0.0
11.6
25.8
5.2
-
-
3.4
1.6
36.0
-
36.0
4.9
6.5
47.4
1993
5.9
1.2
1.6
8.7
0.0
8.7
0.0
0.0
8.7
17.2
3.5
-
-
6.6
2.0
29.3
-
29.3
6.6
6.5
42.4
1994
3.0
0.6
2.2
5.8
0.0
5.8
0.0
0.0
5.8
8.6
1.7
-
-
10.0
2.5
22.8
-
22.8
8.4
6.5
37.7
1995-1999(a)
4.3
4.3
0.0
4.3
0.0
0.0
4.3
-
-
18.2
4.0
22.2
-
22.2
10.0
6.5
38.7
(a) Annual average.
(b) Interest portion of repayments goes to repay South Dakota's State Match bonds and is thus not included as it is not available to the SRF.
(c) South Dakota's debt service reserve funds are from a State appropriation.
(d) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e., does not include debt service reserve funds.
(e) The amount of South Dakota's State grant funds unknown after 1990.
(f) Totals vary due to rounding.
C-19
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Annual Funding for SRFs and Other State Programs by State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Texas
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Utah
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988
105.2
21.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
126.2
0.0
126.2
0.0
21.7
147.9
8.7
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.4
10.4
0.5
2.2
13.1
1989
82.7
16.6
66.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
165.4
0.0
165.4
0.0
20.2
185.6
7.1
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.5
8.5
0.5
2.5
11.5
1990
72.8
14.6
58.2
0.0
0.6
0.0
146.2
0.0
146.2
0.0
6.4
152.6
6.3
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.1
8.1
8.1
0.5
2.5
11.0
Projected
1991
107.7
22.0
0.0
0.0
3.2
0.0
132.9
0.0
132.9
0.0
36.8
169.7
12.1
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.1
15.3
15.3
0.5
2.0
17.8
1992
79.4
16.5
0.0
0.0
11.3
0.0
107.2
0.0
107.2
0.0
26.7
133.9
9.1
1.8
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.2
12.8
12.8
0.5
2.8
16.1
1993
51.3
11.0
0.0
0.0
17.4
0.0
79.7
0.0
79.7
0.0
26.7
106.4
6.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.3
10.1
10.1
0.5
3.4
14.0
1994
14.7
5.5
0.0
0.0
29.2
0.0
49.4
0.0
49.4
0.0
26.7
76.1
3.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
3.3
0.3
7.2
7.2
0.5
4.1
11.8
1995-1999(a)
0.0
0.0
35.0
0.0
35.0
0.0
35.0
0.0
10.0
45.0
0.0
0.0
4.3
0.3
4.6
4.6
0.5
4.4
9.4
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e., does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
C-20
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Annual Funding for SRFs and Other State Programs by State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Vermont
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Virginia
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
3.0
39.9
8.0
1.9
0.0
49.8
49.8
0.4
77.6-
127.8
1989
4.6
0.9
2.1
7.6
7.6
14.8
22.4
30.7
6.1
-
0.2
37.0
37.0
0.2
33.2
70.4
1990
4.8
0.0
4.8
4.8
4.4
9.2
27.0
6.0
20.0
1.8
54.8
54.8
0.2
80.0
135.0
Projected
1991
9.5
1.9
0.1
11.5
11.5
6.6
18.1
48.1
10.0
-
5.0
63.1
63.1
0.2
63.3
1992
8.9
1.8
10.7
10.7
5.0
15.7
36.1
7.2
2.8
6.6
52.7
52.7
0.2
52.9
1993
5.9
1.2
7.1
7.1
5.0
12.1
24.0
8.8
32.8
32.8
'
32.8
1994 1995-1999(a)
3.0
0.6
0.5
1.0
3.6 1.5
3.6 1.5
5.0 5.0
8.6 6.5
12.0
13.3 21.1
25.3 21.1
25.3 21.1
25.3 21.1
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e., does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
C-21
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Annual Funding for SRFs and Other State Programs by State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Washington
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
West Virginia
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988 1989
16.6
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.9
0.0
19.9
40.0 45.0
40.0 64.9
0.0 0.0
1990
16.7
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
20.0
45.0
65.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Projected
1991
42.0
8.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.4
0.0
50.4
45.0
95.4
47.8
1.0
48.8
48.8
48.8
1992
31.0
6.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
37.4
0.0
37.4
45.0
82.4
28.4
2.0
30.4
30.4
30.4
1993
21.0
4.2
0.0
0.0
25.2
0.0
25.2
45.0
70.2
18.9
4.0
22.9
22.9
22.9
1994
10.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
16.0
0.0
16.0
45.0
61.0
9.5
5.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
1995-1999(a)
0.0
0.0
7.4
7.4
0.0
7.4
45.0
52.4
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e., does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
\_--ij!
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Annual Funding for SRFs and Other State Programs by State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Wisconsin
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Wyoming
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988 1989
24.0
5.0
122.0
231.0
382.0
(151.0)
231.0
146.0 134.0
146.0 365.0
4.6
1.0
-
-
-
-
5.5
-
5.5
1.9 3.7
0.4 3.7
2.3 12.9
1990
25.0
5.0
121.0
231.0
382.0
(151.0)
231.0
152.0
383.0
4.8
1.0
-
-
-
-
5.8
-
5.8
2.1
0.9
8.8
Projected
1991
62.0
13.0
12.0
263.0
350.0
(87.0)
263.0
0.0
263.0
11.9
2.4
-
-
-
-
14.3
-
14.3
2.0
1.3
17.6
1992
47.0
10.0
6.0
191.0
254.0
(63.0)
191.0
0.0
191.0
9.0
1.8
-
-
5.0
0.2
15.9
-
15.9
2.5
0.3
18.7
1993
31.0
6.0
138.0
175.0
175.0
0.0
175.0
6.0
1.2
-
-
5.0
0.4
12.6
-
12.6
2.6
-
15.2
1994
16.0
3.0
144.0
163.0
163.0
0.0
163.0
3.0
0.6
-
-
5.0
0.7
9.3
-
9.3
3.0
-
12.3
1995-1999(a)
211.6
211.6
211.6
0.0
211.6
-
-
5.0
0.8
5.8
-
5.8
3.0
-
8.8
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e., does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
C-23
-------
-------
APPENDIX D
TOTAL ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDS
FOR WASTEWATER PROJECTS BY STATE
-------
-------
TABLE D-l
Total Annual Contributions of Federal and State Funds for Wastewater Projects by State(a)
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Alabama
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State (c)
TOTAL
Alaska
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal (d)
State (e)
TOTAL
Arizona
CWA Title H and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Arkansas
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State (f)
TOTAL
California
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal (g)
State
TOTAL
Colorado
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Connecticut
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Florida
CWA Title II and VI (h)
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Actual
1988 1989 1990
10.4 21.3 10.9
10.1 8.6 9.5
20.6 25.2
20.5 50.5 45.6
0.0 10.1 11.5
0.0 0.0 0.0
10.0 13.5 13.6
10.0 23.6 25.1
7.8 12.7 12.0
5.0 5.0 5.0
0.0 5.6 5.5
12.8 23.3 22.5
5.4 19.3 14.7
14.4 13.0 11.8
0.0 2.7 12.2
19.9 35.0 38.7
189.0 238.6 128.8
2.9 3.5 1.7
1.5 30.9 47.5
193.4 273.0 178.0
18.4 14.6 15.7
0.9 1.7 5.3
1.0 5.5 24.2
20.3 21.8 45.2
28.1 22.3 23.3
0.0 0.0 0.0
80.0 40.0 100.0
108.1 62.3 123.3
89.7 56.7 58.3
12.0 18.6 19.8
1.8 24.1 13.3
103.5 99.4 91.4
Projected
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995-1999(b)
20.7 15.6 10.4 5.2
9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5
40.1 21.1 20.1 19.0 18.0
70.3 46.2 40.0 33.7 27.5
12.1 10.9 7.3 3.6
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3.1 3.0 2.4 2.2 3.9
15.2 13.9 9.7 5.8 3.9
16.0 12.0 8.0 4.0
5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
12.0 8.0 4.0 2.0 2.0
33.0 25.0 17.0 11.0 7.0
15.9 11.9 7.9 4.0
11.8 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.8
16.9 16.0 15.2 14.5 13.7
44.6 39.7 34.9 30.3 25.5
188.6 150.2 96.8 48.4
8.5 7.5 5.0 3.5 3.3
76.8 49.9 53.0 52.5 53.3
273.9 207.6 154.8 104.4 56.6
19.0 14.3 9.5 4.8
3.9 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
21.6 16.1 11.5 7.2 6.1
44.5 34.0 24.7 15.7 9.8
29.9 22.3 14.9 7.4
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
65.2 68.2 74.2 78.7 90.9
95.1 90.5 89.1 86.1 90.9
62.0 58.0 39.0 19.0
15.3 15.7 16.2 16.7 18.4
18.4 28.6 29.7 28.1 37.8
95.7 102.3 84.9 63.8 56.2
Total
94.5
113.7
236.1
444.3
55.6
0.0
67.0
122.6
72.5
60.0
47.1
179.6
79.2
145.4
145.9
370.5
1040.4
49.1
578.6
1668.1
96.2
41.3
117.8
255.3
148.2
0.0
960.8
1109.0
382.7
206.3
333.0
922.0
Note: Most States project 1991 to 1994 Title VI funding at authorized levels.
(a) Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding information for this report.
(b) Annual average.
(c) Since all of the repayments from Alabama's SRF loans are used to retire SRF bonds during this period, none of the repayments
are anticipated to be available for wastewater project construction. Therefore, repayments are not included.
(d) This information is not available to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
(e) Grants are appropriated by Alaska's legislature annually. It is impossible to project these figures as they will depend on a
number of variables. Therefore, State grant projections are not included.
(f) Since all of Arkansas' SRF loan repayments and SRF investment earnings are used to retire SRF bonds during this period, none of
the repayments are anticipated to be available for wastewater construction. Repayments, therefore, are not included.
(g) Information on HUD funds spent for wastewater projects in California is not available; projections for future EDA program
funding also are.not available.
(h) Florida's FY 1991 SRF Capitalization Grant amount is based on 80% of the authorized appropriation. SRF Capitalization Grant
amounts for FY 1992-1994 are based on 100% appropriations.
D-l
-------
TABLE D-l, continued
Total Annual Contributions of Federal and State Funds for Wastewater Projects by State(a)
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Georgia
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Hawaii
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Idaho
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Illinois
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal (c)
State
TOTAL
Indiana
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Iowa
CWA Title H and VI
Other Federal (d)
State
TOTAL
Kansas
CWA Title H and VI
Other Federal (e)
State
TOTAL
Kentucky
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Actual
1988 1989 1990
36.5 30.6 39.0
26.9 24.8 25.0
26.0 26.2 28.0
89.4 81.6 92.0
15.3 7.3
48.4 1.5
63.7 8.8
11.2 9.0 9.4
3.9 4.3 2.0
8.8 16.3 2.5
23.9 29.6 13.9
103.9 92.2 93.4
8.8 8.5 3.9
65.0 191.5 138.9
177.7 292.2 236.2
55.4 45.2 46.6
19.0 19.0 19.0
18.4 11.9 15.6
92.8 76.1 81.2
31.1 25.0 13.2
6.1 4.2 2.6
0.0 12.9 15.6
37.2 42.1 31.4
20.7 16.9 17.5
5.7 3.5 6.4
0.0 1.7 1.8
26.4 22.1 25.7
44.2 25.1 18.6
12.8 5.4 6.7
10.7 58.5 41.6
67.7 88.9 66.9
Projected
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995-1999(b)
40.6 30.7 20.3 10.1
25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0
29.9 31.2 33.9 36.1 39.5
95.5 86.9 79.2 71.2 64.5
11.8 8.9 5.9 3.0
2.4 1.8 1.2 1.7 2.5
14.2 10.7 7.1 4.7 2.5
11.9 8.9 5.9 2.9
4.8 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.1
5.7 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.6
22.4 16.5 13.7 10.6 7.7
100.0 75.0 50.0 25.0
3.5 NA NA NA NA
96.9 98.7 28.0 30.0 36.6
200.4 173.7 78.0 55.0 36.6
58.5 43.9 29.3 14.6
19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0
40.6 38.7 39.8 35.5 25.0
118.1 101.6 88.1 69.1 44.0
33.1 24.8 16.5 8.3
4.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 4.0
8.1 6.9 7.5 6.7 25.0
45.2 37.7 29.0 19.0 29.0
21.9 16.5 11.0 5.5
1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.6
4.4 3.3 3.2 2.1 2.0
28.1 21.6 16.0 9.4 3.6
32.6 21.9 14.6 7.3
7.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
9.3 9.7 9.3 9.8 9.8
49.4 39.6 31.9 25.1 17.8
Total
207.8
301.7
408.8
918.3
45.0
0.0
69.7
114.7
59.2
39.9
70.0
169.1
539.5
24.7
832.0
1396.2
293.5
228.0
325.5
847.0
152.0
51.9
182.6
386.5
110.0
31.0
26.5
167.5
164.3
96.4
197.8
458.5
Note: Most States project 1991 to 1994 Title VI funding at authorized levels.
(a) Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding information for this report.
(b) Annual average.
(c) Illinois' "Other Federal" includes EDA funding for both water and wastewater projects.
(d) Information is not available for FmHA, EDA, and other Federal programs in Iowa.
(c) Estimates were provided by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, not the Federal agencies providing the funds.
D-2
-------
TABLE D-l, continued
Total Annual Contributions of Federal and State Funds for Wastewater Projects by State(a)
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Louisiana
CWA Title II and VI ,
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Maine
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Maryland
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal (c)
State (d)
TOTAL
Massachusetts
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State (e)
TOTAL
Michigan
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Minnesota
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Mississippi
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Missouri
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Actual
1988 1989 1990
24.4 20.8 21.3
12.0 10.5 8.3
2.4 2.2 2.5
38.8 33.5 32.0
7.4 7.5
18.8 20.3
26.2 27.8
55.6 45.4 46.8
NA NA NA
5.6 24.9 50.2
61.2 70.3 97.0
80.0 62.0 65.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
187.0 84.0 90.0
267.0 146.0 155.0
0.0 113.5 41.9
8.2 11.5
0.0 121.7 53.4
42.2 34.4 35.5
8.6 9.1 9.9
29.8 66.1 72.2
80.6 109.5 117.7
22.8 17.7 16.8
5.6 4.8 4.2
3.1 3.1 3.4
31.5 25.6 24.4
64.0 51.0 52.0
8.0 4.0 7.0
33.0 31.0 35.0
105.0 86.0 94.0
Projected
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995-1999(b)
26.0 18.0 12.0 6.0
9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
6.0 5.9 6.0 6.8 64.2
41.0 32.9 27.0 21.8 73.2
18.0 13.5 9.0 4.5
35.8 30.5 22.6 12.2 8.3
53.8 44.0 31.6 16.7 8.3
58.7 44.0 29.4 14.6
NA NA NA NA NA
170.1 98.1 67.2 34.3 20.8
228.8 142.1 96.6 48.9 20.8
82.0 61.0 41.0 20.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
691.0 417.0 368.0 5.3 2.1
773.0 478.0 409.0 25.3 2.1
83.8 78.3 52.2 26.1
16.8 15.6 10.4 2.1
100.6 93.9 62.6 28.2 (f)
44.0 33.0 22.0 11.0
6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7
58.1 61.7 58.1 66.5 65.0
108.8 101.4 86.8 84.2 71.7
18.7 16.3 10.8 5.4
5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
4.5 5.2 5.4 5.5 8.4
28.5 26.8 21.5 16.2 13.7
52.0 39.0 26.0 13.0
4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0
78.0 69.0 81.0 99.0 119.0
134.0 112.0 111.0 115.0 123.0
Total
128.5
111.7
352.8
593.1
59.9
0.0
181.5
241 .4
294.4
0.0
554.7
849.2
411.0
0.0
1852.8
2263.8
395.8
0.0
64.6
460.4
222.1
87.9
737.5
1047.4
108.5
62.3
72.2
243.0
297.0
54.0
1021.0
1372.0
Note: Most States project 1991 to 1994 Title VI funding at authorized levels.
(a) Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding information for this report.
(b) Annual average
(c) Projections are not available for funding from "Other Federal" sources for Maryland.
(d) Projections are not available for funding from SRF Investment Earnings in 1995-1999, Grant Program(s) from 1991-1999, and
from other State programs from 1992-1999 in Maryland.
(e) Massachusetts reports that additional State authorizations will be needed for State program needs after 1993.
(f) Michigan did not provide projections for 1995-1999.
D-3
-------
TABLE D-l, continued
Total Annual Contributions of Federal and State Funds for Wastewater Projects by State(a)
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Nebraska
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Nevada
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
New Hampshire
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal (c)
State
TOTAL
New Jersey
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal (d)
State
TOTAL
New Mexico
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
New York
CWA Title II and VI (e)
Other Federal (f)
State (g)
TOTAL
North Carolina
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal (h)
State
TOTAL
Oklahoma
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Actual
1988 1989 1990
11.7 9.6 4.9
1.4 3.8 4.8
2.2 2.7 1.3
15.3 16.1 11.0
11.3 9.1 9.4
0.4 0.4 0.8
0.0 0.9 0.9
11.7 10.4 11.2
21.3 18.0 18.6
1.2 0.1 0.3
12.2 10.9 12.9
34.7 29.0 31.8
87.8 74.0 77.9
NA NA NA
123.6 139.5 113.1
211.4 213.5 191.0
10.6 8.6 8.6
1.0 1.0 1.5
7.2 5.3 2.2
18.8 14.9 12.3
229.0 197.0 203.0
NA NA NA
38.6 36.5 177.3
267.6 233.5 380.3
35.2 22.7 33.0
12.9 12.9 14.3
3.6 13.8 8.1
51.7 49.4 55.4
18.6 15.2 15.7
11.7 38.7 26.5
30.2 53.9 42.3
Projected
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995-1999(b)
12.2 9.1 6.1 3.0
3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4
4.0 4.1 0.6 0.8 2.3
19.6 16.6 10.1 7.2 5.7
11.9 8.9 6.0 3.0
0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
2.4 2.7 3.2 3.1 2.8
15.0 12.3 9.8 6.8 3.5
23.0 17.0 11.5 5.7
UNK UNK UNK UNK UNK
17.1 22.7 19.4 14.3 10.0
40.1 39.7 30.9 20.0 10.0
93.1 71.0 46.1 23.0
NA NA NA NA NA
116.7 97.0 75.9 58.2 50.8
209.8 168.0 122.0 81.2 50.8
8.6 8.6 6.0 3.0
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
4.2 3.5 5.3 5.9 6.5
13.8 13.1 12.3 9.9 7.5
226.0 199.0 133.0 66.0
NA NA NA NA NA
583.1 467.5 381.3 379.9 273.0
809.1 666.5 514.3 445.9 273.0
44.0 33.0 22.0 11.0
14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0
10.8 8.7 7.4 7.5 7.9
68.8 55.7 43.4 32.5 21.9
19.6 14.7 9.8 4.9
72.9 104.1 73.1 59.2 96.6
92.5 118.8 82.9 64.1 96.6
Total
56.6
40.6
27.0
124.3
59.6
7.9
27.0
94.5
115.1
1.6
159.5
276.2
472.9
NA
978.0
1450.9
54.0
12.5
66.1
132.6
1253.0
0.0
3429.2
4682.2
200.9
166.0
99.4
466.3
98.5
869.2
967.7
Note: Most States project 1991 to 1994 Tide VI funding at authorized levels.
(a) Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding information for this table.
(b) Annual average.
(c) Projections for FmHA and HUD funding for New Hampshire are unkown at this time. Funding projections for "Other Federal"
programs are not available.
(d) Funding projections for "Other Federal" programs are not available for New Jersey.
(e) New York's FY 1991 SRF Capitalization Grant amount is based on 80% of the authorized appropriation. SRF Capitalization
Grant amounts for FY 1992-1994 are based on 100% appropriations.
(f) Funding projections for "Other Federal" programs are not available for New York.
(g) New York's SRF Loan Repayments projections include freed-up corpus allocation.
(h) Projections for FmHA grant and loan funds for North Carolina represent funding for wastewater facilities only.
D-4
-------
TABLE D-l, continued
Total Annual Contributions of Federal and State Funds for Wastewater Projects by State(a)
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Oregon
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Pennsylvania
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal (c)
State (d)(e)
TOTAL
Rhode Island
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
South Carolina
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
South Dakota
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State (g)
TOTAL
Tennessee
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Texas
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Utah
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Actual
1988 1989 1990
13.7 29.9 23.4
6.3 6.3 4.2
0.3 4.8 8.1
20.3 41.0 35.7
91.0 74.3 76.6
30.1 30.1 35.2
69.9 301.3 225.2
191.0 405.7 337.0
15.4 12.3 13.2
1.3 1.4
15.4 13.6 14.6
6.8 22.9 20.1
0.0 4.6 3.8
6.8 27.4 23.9
11.3 9.3 7.9
0.8 0.5 0.9
0.4 1.5 1.2
12.5 11.3 10.0
38.4 22.0 27.7
17.6 17.6 21.5
82.8 21.0 20.7
138.8 60.7 69.8
165.3 96.0 72.8
23.1 23.1 23.1
42.7 102.9 79.8
231.1 222.0 175.7
12.1 8.6 9.5
1.0 1.0 1.0
4.4 4.4 4.7
17.5 14.0 15.2
Projected
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995-1999(b)
36.9 20.6 13.7 6.9
5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.3
18.5 18.2 17.6 17.1 5.2
61.1 44.5 37.0 29.7 10.5
63.5 71.4 47.6 23.8
35.2 35.2 35.2 35.2
182.3 19.0 18.2 18.0 13.9
281.0 125.6 101.0 77.0 13.9
16.3 12.2 8.1 4.1
3.2 2.4 1.6 0.8
19.5 14.6 9.8 4.9 (f)
28.0 18.5 12.3 6.1
4.2 8.0 7.7 7.2 10.4
32.2 26.5 20.0 13.3 10.4
11.8 9.0 5.9 3.0
0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.5
2.8 2.6 2.8 2.8 4.3
15.5 12.5 9.6 6.7 4.8
29.1 25.8 17.2 8.6
4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
18.6 21.6 25.2 29.1 38.7
52.3 52.0 47.0 42.3 43.3
107.7 79.4 51.3 14.7
23.1 23.1 23.1 23.1 23.3
62.0 54.5 55.1 61.4 45.0
192.8 157.0 129.5 99.2 68.3
12.1 9.1 6.0 3.0
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
5.7 7.0 8.0 8.8 9.4
18.8 17.1 15.0 12.8 10.4
Total
145.1
66.1
110.5
321.6
448.2
236.3
903.5
1588.0
81.6
0.0
10.7
92.4
114.7
0.0
87.4
202.1
58.2
8.3
35.6
102.1
168.9
98.1
412.5
679.4
587.2
278.2
683.4
1548.8
60.4
12.0
89.9
162.3
Note: Most States project 1991 to 1994 Title VI funding at authorized levels.
(a) Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding information for this report.
(b) Annual average.
(c) "Other Federal" funding for Pennsylvania for 1995-1999 is unknown.
(d) Projections for the SRF Leveraged Portions are not provided for 1990-1999, a leverage proposal is under discussion in Pennsylvania.
(e) Projections for Non-SRF Loan Program funding are not available for 1992-1999.
(f) Rhode Island did not provide projections for 1995-1999.
(g) Excludes funds considered not available for wastewater project funding, including debt service reserves and monies used to repay
State bonds.
D-5
-------
TABLE D-l, continued
Total Annual Contributions of Federal and State Funds for Wastewater Projects by State(a)
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Vermont
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Virginia
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal (c)
State
TOTAL
Washington
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal (d)
State
TOTAL
West Virginia
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Wisconsin
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Wyoming
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Actual
1988 1989 1990
11.2 9.1 9.5
0.8 0.9 1.4
3.0 17.8 4.4
15.0 27.8 15.3
48.3 42.4 27.0
14.7 12.0 12.5
87.9 39.7 108.0
150.9 94.1 147.5
42.0 32.6 33.7
2.8 2.9 6.3
40.0 48.3 48.3
84.8 83.8 88.3
17.6 9.7 25.0
17.6 9.7 25.0
37.0 92.0 47.0
146.0 341.0 358.0
183.0 433.0 405.0
5.2 13.6 6.5
0.0 0.2 0.0
2.3 8.3 3.9
7.5 22.2 10.4
Projected
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995-1999(b)
9.5 8.9 5.9 3.0
8.6 6.8 6.2 5.6 6.5
18.1 15.7 12.1 8.6 6.5
48.1 36.1 24.0 12.0
12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 NA
15.2 16.8 8.8 13.3 21.1
75.8 65.4 45.3 37.8 21.1
42.0 31.0 21.0 10.0
7.6 NA NA NA NA
53.4 51.4 49.2 51.0 52.4
103.0 82.4 70.2 61.0 52.4
47.8 28.4 18.9 9.5
1.0 2.0 4.0 5.5 6.3
48.8 30.4 22.9 15.0 6.3
62.0 47.0 31.0 16.0
201.0 144.0 144.0 147.0 211.6
263.0 191.0 175.0 163.0 211.6
18.2 9.0 6.0 3.0
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
5.6 9.8 9.2 9.3 8.8
24.3 19.1 15.6 12.7 9.2
Total
57.1
3.1
84.9
145.1
237.9
89.2
395.2
722.3
212.3
19.6
603.6
835.5
156.9
0.0
43.8
200.7
332.0
0.0
2539.0
2871.0
61.4
3.8
92.3
157.5
Note: Most States project 1991 to 1994 Tide VI funding at authorized levels.
(a) Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding information for this report.
(b) Annual average.
(c) Projections are not available for funding from "Other Federal" sources for Virginia.
(d) Projections are not available from FmHA for 1992-1999 for Washington.
D-6
-------
APPENDIX E
DISTRIBUTION OF AVAILABLE FUNDS BY
TYPES OF ASSISTANCE BY STATE
-------
-------
TABLE E-l
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
Alabama
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
• — -
1989
28.43
( 74.1%)
2.30
( 6.0% )
7.20
( 18.8%)
0.42
( 1.1%)
38.35
( 100% )
1990
26.58
( 63.4%)
4.53
( 10.8%)
10.40
( 24.8% )
0.44
( 1.0%)
41.95
( 100% )
1991-1994
112.40
( 65.4% )
12.00
( 7.0%)
45.50
( 26.5% )
2.07
( 1.2%)
171.97
( 100% )
1995-1999
113.00
( 65.0% )
12.00
( 6.9% )
45.60
( 26.2% )
3.13
( 1.8%)
173.73
( 100% )
Alaska
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
12.05
( 99.8%)
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.03
( 0.2% )
12.08
( 100% )
1990
4.40
( 63.9% )
2.40
( 34.8%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.09
( 1.3%)
6.89
( 100% )
1991-1994
35.80
( 85.6%)
5.00
( 12.0%)
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.00
( 2.4% )
41.80
( 100% )
1995-1999
17.00
( 81.0%)
3.00
( 14.3% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.00
( 4.8%)
21.00
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
E-l
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
Arizona
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Exp'enses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
1989
12.00
( 58.8%)
8.20
( 40.2% )
0.20
( 1.0%)
20.40
( 100% )
1990
12.00
( 58.8% )
8.20
( 40.2% )
0.20
( 1.0%)
20.40
( 100% )
1991-1994
52.00
( 55.3% )
41.00
( 43.6% )
1.00
( 1.1%)
94.00
( 100% )
1995-1999
3.00
( 100% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
3.00
( 100% )
Arkansas
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 100% )
1990
0.40
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.40
( 100% )
1991-1994
131.10
( 95.9%)
4.00
( 2.9%)
1.60
( 1.2%)
136.70
( 100% )
1995-1999
8.30
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
8.30
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recicvcd by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant
awards minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
E-2
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
California
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
1989
75.50
( 100.0%)
75.50
( 100% ) •
1990
24.40
( 93.8% )
1.60 (b)
( 6.2%)
26.00
( 100% )
1991-1994
679.90
( 85.8%)
100.00
( 12.6%)
12.70 (b)
( 1.6%)
792.60
( 100% )
1995-1999
228.00
( 66.9% )
100.00
( 29.3%)
13.00 (b)
( 3.8% )
341.00
( 100% )
|
Colorado
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed |
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 100% )
1989
19.38
( 55.3%)
4.40
( 12.6% )
11.00
( 31.4%)
0.24
( 0.7% )
35.02
( 100% )
1990
3.20
( 9.1%)
20.00
( 56.9%)
11.50
( 32.7% )
0.43
( 1.2%)
35.13
( 100% )
1991-1994
91.60
( 65.6%)
0
( 0.0% )
45.80
( 32.8%)
2.18
( 1.6%)
139.58
( 100% )
1995-1999
26.50
( 66.7% )
0
( 0.0%)
13.25
( 33.3% )
0
( 0.0% )
39.75
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) A total of $27,200,000 is estimated to be available for administration of the SRF from the four percent amount.
(c) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
E-3
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
Connecticut
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
86.50
( 99.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.84
( 1.0%)
87.34
( 100% )
1989
50.90
( 98.3% )
0
( 0.0%)'
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.87
( 1.7%)
51.77
( 100% )
1990
98.70
( 98.9% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.14
( 1.1%)
99.84
( 100% )
1991-1994
281.80
( 99.7% )
0.80
( 0.3% )
282.60
( 100% )
1995-1999
364.00
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
364.00
( 100% )
Florida
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
54.90
( 99.1%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.50
( 0.9%)
55.40
( 100% )
1990
84.60
( 94.8% )
3.00
( 3.4% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.60
( 1.8%)
89.20
( 100% )
1991-1994 (c)
253.30
( 87.8%)
25.00
( 8.7%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
10.20
( 3.5%)
288.50
( 100% )
1995-1999
161.30
( 86.6% )
25.00
( 13.4% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
186.30
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recievcd by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
(c) Florida's estimates are based on receiving 80% of appropriations authorized in the Clean Water Act in FY 1991, and 100% of
authorized amounts thereafter.
E-4
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
Georgia
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
26.00
( 95.9% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.10
( 4.1%)
27.10
( 100% )
1989
29.00
( 96.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
1.20
( 4.0% )
30.20
( 100% )
1990
32.80
( 83.5%)
5.00
( 12.7%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
1.50
( 3.8%)
39.30
( 100% )
1991-1994
68.70
( 65.0% )
33.00
( 31.2%)
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
4.00
( 3.8%)
105.70
( 100% )
1995-1999
67.50
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0%)
67.50
( 100% )
Hawaii
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
1989
1990
41.26
( 99.3%)
0.30
( 0.7%)
41.56
( 100% )
1991-1994
29.60
( 92.8%)
-fv30
( 4.1%)
31.90
( 100% )
1995-1999
12.70
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
12.70
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
E-5
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
Idaho
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
ff
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
5.30
( 96.4% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0.20
( 3.6% )
5.50
( 100% )
1990
5.50
( 96.5%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.20
( 3.5%)
5.70
( 100% )
1991-1994
34.00
( 97. 1 % )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.00
( 2.9%)
35.00
( 100% )
1995-1999
46.00
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
46.00
( 100% )
Illinois
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
24.70
( 99.8%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.06
( 0.2%)
24.76
( 100% )
1990
91.30
( 99.5% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.43
'( 0.5%)
91.73
( 100% )
1991-1994
290.00
( 97.1%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
8.60
( 2.9%)
298.60
( 100% )
1995-1999
180.00
( 97.3% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
4.90
( 2.7% )
184.90
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
rccicvcd by the fund. The amount of SRF money available eacli year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
E-6
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
Indiana
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
— —
0
( 100% )
1989
15.00
( 54.3%)
5.00
( 18.1%)
6.70
( 24.3% )
0.90
( 3.3% )
27.60
( 100% )
1990
60.00
( 62.7% )
7.50
( 7.8%)
27.07
( 28.3%)
1.13
( 1.2%)
95.70
( 100% )
1991-1994
390.00
( 67.7% )
10.60
( 1.8%)
164.29
( 28.5%)
—
11.01
( 1.9%)
575.90
{ 100% )
1995-1999
200.00
( 95.2% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
10.00
( 4.8% )
210.00
( 100% )
Iowa
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1990
30.13 (c)
( 99.5%)
0
( 0.0% )
•
0.17
( 0.5%)
30.29 (d)
( 100% )
1991-1994
110.85
( 99.2%)
0
( 0.0% )
0.93
( 0.8%)
111.78
( 100% )
1995-1999
123.45
( 98.8%)
0
( 0.0% )
1.55
( 1.2%)
125.00
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
(c) Loans made in 1990 include FY 1989 and FY 1990 SRF funds.
(d) Totals vary due to rounding.
E-7
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
Kansas
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)(a)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (d)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
No Program
0.16 (c)
( 100.0%)
0.16
( 100% )
1989
0
( 0.0% )
0.34
( 100.0%)
0.34
( 100% )
1990
19.50
( 98.3%)
0.34
( 1.7%)
19.84
( 100% )
1991-1994
63.00
( 96.6%)
2.18
( 3.3% )
65.20 (e)
( 100% )
1995-1999
10.00
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% ) •
10
( 100% )
Kentucky
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
[max. 4% of cap. grant) (d)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0.69
( 100.0%)
0.69
( 100% )
1989
13.50
( 93.9%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0.88
( 6.1%)
14.38
( 100% )
1990
7.60
( 91.4%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.71
( 8.6%)
8.31
( 100% )
1991-1994
103.50
( 92.2%)
5.70
( 5.1%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
3.00
( 2.7% )
112.20
( 100% )
1995-1999
123.00
( 95.3%)
6.00
( 4.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
129.00
( 100% )
(a) Direct loans are the only type of financing practiced by the Kansas SRF.
(b) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
rccieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(c) From State Bond revenues.
(d) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
E-8
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
Louisiana
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
13.94
( 96.8%)
0.46
( 3.2%)
( 100% )
1989
12.14
( 96.7% )
0.42
( 3.3% )
12.56
( 100% )
1990
15.08
( 96.7% )
0.52
( 3.3%)
15.60
( 100% )
1991-1994
59.52
( 96.0% )
2.48
( 4.0% )
62.00
( 100% )
Maine
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
^oans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
1995-1999
44.59
( 44.8%)
55.00
( 55.2% )
99.59
( 100% )
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
1989
8.47
( 92.5%)
0.40
( 4.4% )
0.29
( 3.2% )
9.16
( 100% )
1990
9.03
( 96.8% )
0.30
( 3.2% )
9.33
( 100% )
1991-1994
43.20
( 96.0% )
1.80
( 4.0% )
45.00
( 100% )
1995-1999
15.00
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
15.00
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b)
Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
E-9
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
Maryland
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.91
( 100.0% )
0.91
( 100% )
1990
90.00
( 85.8% )
5.00
( 4.8% )
0
( 0.0% )
9.00
( 8.6% )
0
( 0.0% )
0-.94
( 0.9% )
104.94
( 100% )
1991-1994
436.00
( 85.3%)
25.00
( 4.9% )
0
( 0.0% )
44.00
( 8.6%)
0
( 0.0% )
5.87
( 1.1%)
510.87
( 100% )
1995-1999
93.00
( 85.1%)
7.00
( 6.4% )
0
( 0.0% )
9.30
( 8.5%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
( 100% )
Massachusetts
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1990
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 100% )
1991-1994
306.40
( 76.8%)
76.60
( 19.2% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
16.00
( 4.0%)
399.00
( 100% )
1995-1999
36.00
( 80.0% )
9.00
( 20.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
45.00
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
rccievcd by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
E-10
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
Michigan
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
1.80
( 81.8%)
0.40
( 18.2% )
2.20
( 100% )
1990
38.00
( 97.4% )
1.00
( 2.6% )
39.00
( 100% )
1991-1994
261.00
( 96.2% )
10.40
( 3.8%)
271.40
( 100% )
Minnesota
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
[nsurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt (d)
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
1995-1999 (a)
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
47.00
( 70.9%)
1.80
( 2.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
16.80
( 25.3%)
0
( 0.0% )
0.70
( 1.1%)
66.30
( 100% )
1990
73.90
( 80.4% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
17.30
( 18.8%)
0
( 0.0% )
0.70
( 0.8%)
91.90
( 100% )
1991-1994
200.00
( 64.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
105.80
( 34.2% )
0
( 0.0%)
3.50
( 1.1%)
309.30
( 100% )
1995-1999
250.00
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
250.00
( 100% )
(a) Michigan did not provide projections for 1995-1999.
(b) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
(d)
me WWA restricts tne amount ot i>Kh money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
In addition to the Debt Service Reserve Fund, loan repayments are also pledged to bond holders as a moral obligation of the State.
E-ll
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
Mississippi
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed (a)
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
11.00
( 99.3%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.08
( 0.7% )
11.08
( 100% )
1990
25.00
( 97.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.58
( 2.3%)
25.58
( 100% )
1991-1994
58.60
( 95.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
2.61
( 4.3%)
61.21
( 100% )
1995-1999
30.00
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
30.00
( 100% )
Missouri
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1990
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.07
( 100.0%)
0.07
( 100% )
1991-1994
340.00 (d)
( 65.9%)
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
173.00
( 33.5%)
0
( 0.0% )
3.10
( 0.6% )
516.10
( 100% )
1995-1999
660.50 (d)
( 70.9% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
264.10
( 28.3%)
0
( 0.0% )
7.30
( 0.8% )
931.90
( 100% )
(a) Existing direct loan program. If leveraging is implemented, figures may be substantially higher.
(b) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
rccievcd by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(c) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
(d) Includes loan funds from repayments of short-term loans.
E-12
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
Nebraska
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
1989
5.54
( 96.7% )
0.19
( 3.3%)
5.73
( 100% )
1990
5.73
( 96.6%)
0.20
( 3.4%)
5.93
( 100% )
1991-1994
34.50
( 96.6%)
1.21
( 3.4% )
35.71
( 100% )
1995-1999
14.50
( 100.0% )
14.50
( 100% )
Nevada
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
1989
1990
1991-1994
32.00
( 89.4% )
2.70
( 7.5%)
1.10
( 3.1%)
35.80
( 100% )
1995-1999
12.50
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
12.50
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
E-13
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
New Hampshire
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1989
11.20
( 96.6%)
0.39
( 3.4%)
11.59
( 100% )
1990
11.30
( 96.7% )
0.39
( 3.3% )
11.69
( 100% )
1991-1994
69.60
( 96.7% )
2.40
( 3.3%)
72.00
( 100% )
1995-1999 (a)
New Jersey
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
134.00
( 88.9%)
14.10
( 9.4% )
2.70
( 1.8%)
150.80
( 100%, )
1989
128.50
( 93.4% )
6.50
( 4.7%)
2.60
( 1.9%)
137.60
( 100% )
1990
199.20
( 94.6% )
7.90
( 3.8%)
3.50
( 1.7%)
210.60
( 100% )
1991-1994
581.00
( 94.1%)
24.30
( 3.9%)
12.10
( 2.0% )
617.40
( 100% )
1995-1999
254.20
( 100.0% )
254.20
( 100% )
(a) New Hampshire did not provide projections for 1995-1999.
(b) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
rccicvcd by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(c) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
E-l 4
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
New Mexico
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
[nsurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
2.80
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
2.80
( 100% )
1989
16.00
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
16.00
( 100% )
1990
9.30
( 95.9%)
0.40
( 4. 1 % )
9.70
( 100% )
1991-1994
33.80
( 97.1%)
1.00
( 2.9%)
34.80
( 100% )
1995-1999
27.40
( 95.8%)
1.20 (b)
( 4.2% )
28.60
( 100% )
New York
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt (d)
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses' (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 100% )
1989
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1990
109.30
( 39.3%)
97.60
( 35.1%)
0
( 0.0% )
69.30
( 24.9%)
0
( 0.0% )
1.80
( 0.6% )
278.00
( 100% )
1991-1994
1299.90
( 39.5% )
1161.80
( 35.3% )
0
( 0.0% )
804.70
( 24.5% )
0
( 0.0% )
20.70
( 0.6%)
3287.10
( 100% )
1995-1999
816.90
( 48.6%)
544.10
( 32.4% )
0
( 0.0% )
308.00
( 18.3%)
0
( 0.0% )
10.60
( 0.6% )
1679.60
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) New Mexico anticipates that it may bank a portion of its 4% of capitalization grant administrative allowance for use after 1995.
(c) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
(d) Funds committed are equal to three times the amount deposited for security. Aggressive leveraging and full appropriations are
assumed.
E-15
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
North Carolina
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
21.80
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
.0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
21.80
( 100% )
1990
31.70
( 99.4% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.20
( 0.6% )
31.90
( 100% )
1991-1994
136.50
( 97.2% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
3.90
( 2.8% )
140.40
( 100% )
1995-1999
29.70
( 79.8% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
7.50
( 20.2% )
37.20
( 100% )
Oklahoma
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
[max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
1989
1990
11.10
( 96.8%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.37
( 3.2% )
11.47
( 100% )
1991-1994
202.05
( 88.0%)
11.10
( 4.8% )
0
( 0.0% )
14.13
( 6.2% )
0
( 0.0% )
2.22
( 1.0%)
229.50
( 100% )
1995-1999
200.00
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
200.00
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
rccieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
E-16
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
Oregon
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
1989
14.25
( 84.8%)
2.00
( 11.9%)
0.56
( 3.3%)
16.82 (c)
( 100% )
1990
10.79
( 81.5%)
2.00
( 15.1%)
0.44
( 3.3%)
13.23
( 100% )
1991-1994
52.80
( 83.9% )
8.00
( 12.7% )
2.10
( 3.3% )
62.90
( 100% )
1995-1999
27.60
( 87.3% )
4.00
( 12.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
31.60
( 100% )
Pennsylvania
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
43.43
( 96.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0%)
1.50
( 3.3% )
44.93
( 100% )
1990
45.39
( 96.7%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.55
( 3.3% )
46.94
( 100% )
1991-1994
247.48
( 96.8%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
8.25
( 3.2%)
255.73
( 100% )
1995-1999
140.00
( 99.2% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.20
( 0.8% )
141.20
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
E-17
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
Rhode Island
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
1989
5.61
( 70.8% )
2.00
( 25.2% )
0.32
( 4.0% )
7.92 (d)
( 100% )
1990
7.80
( 96.0% )
0.33
( 4.0%)
8.13
( 100% )
1991-1994
51.02
( 100.0% )
51.02
( 100% )
1995-1999 (a)
South Carolina
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
20.70
( 97.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.49
( 2.3%)
21.19
( 100% )
1990
20.61
( 97.1%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0.61
( 2.9%)
. 21.23 (0
( 100% )
1991-1994
71.40
( 96.4% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
2.70
( 3.6%)
74.10
( 100% )
1995-1999
52.00
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
UNK (e)
52.00
( 100% )
(a) Rhode Island did not provide projections for 1995-1999.
(b) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
rccicvcd by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(c) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
(d) Totals vary due to rounding.
(e) Unknown.
(i) Totals vary due to rounding.
E-18
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
South Dakota
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 100% )
1989
5.70
( 96.6% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0.20
( 3.4%)
5.90
( 100% )
1990
7.10
( 97.3%)
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.20
( 2.7% )
7.30
( 100% )
1991-1994
39.60
( 94.7%)
1.00
( 2.4% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.20
( 2.9%)
41.80
( 100% )
1995-1999
22.70
( 91.9%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
2.00
( 8.1%)
24.70
( 100% )
Tennessee
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation (d)
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security 1
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
19.15
( 96.7% )
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.66
( 3.3% )
19.81
( 100% )
1989
17.63
( 96.7% )
0.61
( 3.3%)
18.24
( 100% )
1990
27.50
( 96.7% )
0.95
( 3.3%)
28.45
( 100% )
1991-1994
93.63
( 96.7% )
3.23
( 3.3%)
96.86
( 100% )
1995-1999
94.96 (c)
( 96.4% )
3.53
( 3.6% )
98.49
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
(c) Does not include loans from non-SRF State loan program.
(d) Refinancing may be done through loans under Tennessee's SRF law.
E-19
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
Texas
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for'SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
100.50
( 79.6% )
25.70
( 20.4% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
126.20
( 100% )
1989
165.40
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
165.40
( 100% )
1990
145.60
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
145.60
( 100% )
1991-1994
308.10
( 96.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
12.70
( 4.0% )
320.80
( 100% )
1995-1999
175.00
( 95.3% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
8.70
( 4.7% )
183.70
( 100% )
Utah
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
10.40
( 96.7% )
0.36
( 3.3% )
10.76
( 100% )
1989
8.50
( 96.7% )
•
0.29
( 3.3% )
8.79
( 100% )
1990
8.00
( 96.9% )
0.26
( 3.1%)
8.26
( 100% )
1991-1994
43.60
( 97.3% )
1.21
( 2.7% )
44.81
( 100% )
1995-1999
23.30
( 100.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
23.30
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
E-20
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
Vermont
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
1989
5.70
( 98.4% )
0.10
( 1.6%)
5.80
( 100% )
1990
5.80
( 98.5% )
0.09
( 1.5%)
5.89
( 100% )
1991-1994
15.89
( 71.1%)
5.00
1.47
( 6.6%)
22.36
( 100% )
1995-1999
25.11
( 100.0% )
25.11
( 100% )
Virginia
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
34.90
( 73.4% )
12.20
( 25.6%)
0.48
( 1.0%)
47.58
( 100% )
1989
34.90
( 93.7% )
1.50
( 4.0% )
0.83
( 2.2% )
37.23
( 100% )
1990
60.00
( 98.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.80
( 1.3%)
60.80
( 100% )
1991-1994
136.00
( 97.1%)
0
( 0.0% )
4.00
( 2.9%)
140.00
( 100% )
1995-1999
0
( 100% )
0
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
E-21
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
Washington
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
[nsurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
1989
18.80
( 91.1%)
1.15
( 5.6%)
0.69
( 3.3%)
20.64
( 100% )
1990
19.40
( 96.6% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.68
( 3.4%)
20.08
( 100% )
1991-1994
120.50
( 97.2% )
3.50
( 2.8%)
124.00
( 100% )
1995-1999
52.00
( 91.2%)
5.00
( 8.8%)
57.00
( 100% )
West Virginia
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1990
10.00
( 97. 1 % )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.30
( 2.9% )
10.30
( 100% )
1991-1994
115.00
( 96.6% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
4.00
( 3.4% )
119.00
( 100% )
1995-1999
25.84
( 96.2%)
1.03
( 3.8%)
26.87
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
rccicved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
E-22
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
Wisconsin
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989 1990 1991-1994 1995-1999
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
1.00
( 100.0% )
1.00
( 100% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.00
( 100.0% )
1.00
( 100% )
995.00
( 99.4% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
6.00
( 0.6% )
1001.00
( 100% )
1058.00
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0%)
1058.00
( 100% )
Wyoming
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988 1989 1990 1991-1994 1995-1999
41.30
( 96.0% )
1.70
( 4.0% )
43.00
( 100% )
50.00
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
50.00
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
E-23
-------
-------
APPENDIX F
USER FEE CALCULATION MODEL
-------
-------
APPENDIX F
USER FEE CALCULATION MODEL
Variable List and Description
Community size: This is a basic input whose value for each model run is set at either 1,000,
2,500, 10,000 or 100,000, by the user.
SRF interest rate: Another critical input that the user adjusts for each model run. The value
can vary between zero and the market rate. The base value is four percent, a "typical" value
for existing SRF programs.
Market interest rate: This variable changes with time and financial market conditions. Also,
different States define market rate differently in their Capitalization Grant Applications. The
base value used in the analysis, eight percent, is the value that best reflects recent costs of
borrowing capital in the municipal bond market.
Persons/Household: This is an integral part of the analysis since we are attempting to assess
impacts on households in a community, not on individuals. The number included here, 2.64, is
the national average value released by the Bureau of the Census in the Spring of 1989. It is
the best information available.
Gallons/Person*Day: Analyses of this type usually assume a value of about 100. The value
varies somewhat depending on geographical location (rural versus urban), age and condition of
the system (which affects losses because of leaks), and, most importantly, community
population. This analysis assumes a value 90 for communities sizes 0-1,000; 100 for 1,000-
5,000; and 110 for 5,001+.
Loan period: This is the maximum loan period allowed under SRF regulations. Most States
have indicated they intend to make 20-year loans, so this analysis assumes a base loan duration
of 20 years.
Cost eligible SRF(%): This is the percentage of total capital costs eligible for loans under the
SRF program. Since this analysis ignores land costs, typically the largest ineligible cost, and
since the flexibility of the SRF program allows expanded eligibility, the analysis assumes all
costs (100 percent) are SRF-eligible.
Cost eligible CG (%): This is the percentage of total capital costs eligible for grants under the
Construction Grant program. EPA staff familiar with the Construction Grants program
recommended a base value of 90 percent.
State grant (%): The State grant is the percentage of total capital costs funded through a State
construction grant program. It is independent of any Federal financial assistance. The base
value is zero for the SRF program and 15 percent for the Construction Grants program.
F-l
-------
Flow rate fmgd'); In millions of gallons per day, it equals the number of persons in the
community multiplied by the daily water usage per person.
Capital cost; Derived according to updated EPA construction cost curves. The original cost
curve comes from EPA's Construction Costs for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants:
1973-78. The curve in this document was updated according to EPA's inflation index for
construction of wastewater treatment plants. The costs in EPA's report were January 1979
dollars. These were assumed to be the same as March 1979 dollars (the EPA inflation index is
keyed to March each year). A factor of 1.602 was used to bring March 1979 dollars up to
March 1989 dollars.
Eligible; The total capital cost multiplied by the percent eligible under SRF.
Ineligible; The total capital cost less the eligible costs. This is the amount of funds the
community must raise from the State or from other sources outside the SRF.
O&M cost; Derived from composite data provided by EPA Region III staff who had done a
rate study of 161 wastewater treatment plants built under the Construction Grants program.
The curve was assumed to flatten out at either end, beyond the range of the composite data.
The cost curve derived from the data was inflated using the GNP deflator from the Economic
Report of the President. The shape of the curve was compared with that of an O&M cost
curve developed by EPA in 1981 to confirm that the economies of scale implied by the model's
O&M cost curve are reasonable. Also to ensure reasonableness, the values derived from the
model's cost curve were compared with unit, average values calculated in studies undertaken by
California and Pennsylvania. A comprehensive national study of user charges and O&M costs
is now underway at EPA; the results of this study will provide an updated source for O&M
costs.
Number of hookups: The number of households served by the wastewater treatment plant. It
is equal to the community population divided by the number of persons per household.
F-2
-------
MODEL OUTPUT ILLUSTRATING THE EFFECTS OF
CERTAIN VARIABLES ON USER FEES
-------
-------
'USER CHARGE CALCULATION MODEL*
*******1NPUT SECTION***
I. USER SUPPLIED INPUTS
Community Size:
SRF Interest Rate:
Market Intrst Rate:
Persons/Household:
Gallons/Person * Day:
1,000
4.0
8.0
2.64
90
Loan Period:
Cost Eligible SRF(%):
Cost Eligible CG(%):
State Grant/SRF (%):
State Grant/CG (%):
20
100
90
0
15
II. MODEL CALCULATED INPUTS
Flow Rate (mgd):
Number of Hookups:
Capital Cost:
Eligible:
Ineligible:
Annual O & M Cost:
0.090
379
$752,427
$752,427
$0
$77,427
'OUTPUT SECTION'
I. CAPITAL COST FINANCING
No grant or loan:
With SRF Loan:
With 55% CG:
With SRF Loan
and State Grant:
With 55% CG
and State Grant:
Cost of financing
capital portion
per household
$202
$146
$102
$146
$75
II. O & M COST FINANCING
Cost of financing
O & M portion
per household:
Savings realized
using program
option
N/A
28%
50%
28%
63%
$204
F-3
-------
III. TOTAL ANNUAL COST FINANCING
Total annual cost
of financing
per household
Savings realized
using program
option
No grant or loan:
With SRF Loan:
With 55% CG:
With SRF Loan
and State Grant:
With 55% CG
and State Grant:
$407
$351
$307
$351
$279
N/A
14%
25%
14%
31%
A Construction Grant that equaled 31 % of eligible costs would
provide savings equivalent to those provided by the SRF loan (this
does not include the effects of any state grant)
A Construction Grant that equaled 31 % of eligible costs would
provide savings equivalent to those provided by the SRF loan (this
does include the effects of any state grant)
A Construction Grant, after including the effects of a Construction
Grant State Grant, that equaled 16% of eligible costs would
provide savings equivalent to those provided by the SRF loan (this
does not include the effects of any SRF state grant)
A Construction Grant, after including the effects of a Construction
Grant State Grant, that equaled 16% of eligible costs would
provide savings equivalent to those provided by the SRF loan (this
does include the effects of any SRF state grant)
F-4
-------
CONTENTS OF USER CHARGE MODEL CELL BY CELL
-------
-------
The user charge model runs on Lotus 123 software
A2:
A5:
A7:
A9:
B9:
09:
E9:
A10:
B10:
D10:
E10:
A11:
B11:
D11:
E11:
A12:
B12:
D12:
E12:
A13:
813:
D13:
E13:
E14:
E15:
A16:
E16:
A18:
818:
C18:
E18:
A19:
B19:
A20:
B20:
A21:
B21:
D21:
A22:
822:
D22:
A23:
823:
023:
B25:
A26:
A28:
830:
D30:
831:
D31:
B32:
D32:
A34:
834:
D34:
A36:
B36:
D36:
A38:
838:
D38:
A40:
A41:
841:
D41:
A43:
A44:
844:
044:
A46:
B48:
B49:
B50:
C50:
A53:
855:
055:
856:
W191
CW19]
[W193
[W193
CW19]
**********************USER CHARGE CALCULATION MODEL*
*******INPUT SECTION***********
I. USER SUPPLIED INPUTS
Community Size:
(,0) [W15] 1000
CW21] 'Loan Period:
20
[W19] 'SRF Interest Rate:
(F1) [W15] 4
CW21] 'Cost Eligible SRF(%):
(FO) 100
[W193 'Market Intrst Rate:
[W153 9
'Cost Eligible CG(%):
'Persons/Household:
2.64
'State Grant/SRF (%):
(F1)
[W213
90
[W193
[W15]
[W21]
10
[U19] 'Gallons/Person*Day:
[W153 aiF(B9<1001,90,aiF(B9<5001,100,110))
[W21] 'State Grant/CG (%):
15
(H) +E11/100
(H) ((100-E11)+(0.45*E11))/100
[W193 MI. MODEL CALCULATED INPUTS
(H) <(100-E11)-K0.45*E11)-(E13*5/0.68-(0.0018*C18),1.189*C18"-0.342))*365000*B18
(H) [W213 aiF(D22>0,D22,0)
(CO) [W153 '
[W19] '*******OUTPUT SECTION**********
[W19] 'I. CAPITAL COST FINANCING
[W153 'Cost of financing
[W213 ' Savings realized
£W153 'capital portion
CW213 ' using program
[W15] 'per household
[W213 ' option
[W193 ' No grant or loan:
(CO) [W15] (aPMT(B20,B11/100,E9)/B9)*Bl2
[W213 "N/A
[W193 ' With SRF Loan:
(CO) CU15] ((aPMT(B22,B11/100,E9)+aPMT(B21,B10/100IE9))/B9)*B12
(PO) [W213 (B34-B36)/B34
[W193 ' With 55% CG:
(CO) CW153 (aPMT(B20*E15,B11/100,E9)/B9)*B12
(PO) CW213 (B34-B38)/B34
[W193 ' With SRF Loan
CW193 ' and State Grant:
(CO) [W153 ((aPMT(D23,BH/100,E9)+aPMT(D21,BlO/100,E9))/B9)*Bl2
(PO) [W213 (+B34-B4D/B34
[W193 ' With 55% CG
[W193 ' and State Grant:
(CO) [W153 (aPHT(B20*E16,Bl1/100,E9)/B9)*B12
(PO) [W213 (+B34-B44)/B34
[U19] 'II. 0 & M COST FINANCING
[W15] 'Cost of financing
[W15] '0 & M portion
[W15] 'per household:
(CO) (B23/B9)*B12
[W19] 'III. TOTAL ANNUAL COST FINANCING
[W153 'Total annual cost
CW21] ' Savings realized
CW15] 'of financing F-5
-------
B57: CW15] 'per household
D57: [W21] ' option
A59: [W19] ' No grant or loan:
859: (CO) W15] +B34+C50
D59: PJ21J "N/A
A61: EW19] ' With SRF Loan:
861: (CO) [W15] +C50+B36
D61: (PO) CW21] (B59-B6D/B59
A63: W19] ' With 55X CG:
B63: (CO) [W15] +B38+C50
D63: (PO) [W21] (B59-B63)/B59
A65: CW19] ' With SRF Loan
A66: [W19] ' and State Grant:
B66: (CO) CW15] +B41+C50
D66: (PO) [W21J (B59-B66)/B59
A68: CW19] ' With 55% CG
A69: [W193 ' and State Grant:
B69: (CO) [W153 +B44+C50
D69: (PO) IW21] (B59-B69)/B59
A71: [W193 'A Construction Grant that equaled
C71: (PO) +D36/(E11/100)
D71: [W21] ' of eligible costs would
A72: CW19] 'provide savings equivalent to those provided by the SRF loan (this
ATS: CW19] 'does not include the effects of any state grant)
ATS: [W191 'A Construction Grant that equaled
C75: (PO) +041/(E11/100)
075: [W21] ' of eligible costs would
A76: W193 'provide savings equivalent to those provided by the SRF loan (this
ATT: '[W19] 'does include the effects of any state grant)
A79: [W19] 'A Construction Grant, after including the effects of a Construction
A80: CW19] 'Grant State Grant, that equaled
C80: (PO) (D36-(E13*E14)/100)/(E11/100)
080: CW213 ' of eligible costs would
A81: [W19] 'provide savings equivalent to those provided by the SRF loan (this
A82: CW19J 'does not include the effects of any SRF state grant)
A84: [W19] 'A Construction Grant, after including the effects of a Construction
A85: CW191 'Grant State Grant, that equaled
CSS: (PO) (D41-(E13*E14)/100)/(E11/100)
D85: CW21] ' of eligible costs would
A86: [W19] 'provide savings equivalent to those provided by the SRF loan (this
A87: [W193 'does include the effects of any SRF state grant)
F-6
*U.S. Government Printing Office : 199L - 312-014/40010
------- |