SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Handbook on Coordinating
Funding for Water and
Wastewater Infrastructure
A Compilation of State Approaches
-------
Office of Water (4606M)
EPA816-R-03-018
October 2003
www.epa.gov/ow Q Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Contents
INTRODUCTION 1
WHAT is COORDINATED FUNDING? 5
WHAT FUNDING SOURCES CAN BE COORDINATED? 7
WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF COORDINATED FUNDING? 11
How CAN You GET STARTED? 13
WHAT CHALLENGES SHOULD You CONSIDER? 15
How CAN You OVERCOME THE CHALLENGES AND IMPLEMENT YOUR APPROACH? 17
How CAN You ASSESS YOUR EFFORTS? 21
APPENDIX A: STATE PROFILES AND SURVEY RESPONSES A-l
APPENDIX B: SAMPLE DOCUMENTS FROM SURVEYED STATES B-l
APPENDIX C: STATE COORDINATED FUNDING OVERVIEW C-l
-------
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATED FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
This page intentionally left blank
-------
/""'I tates and the federal government have funded billions of dollars' worth of improvements to drinking
''%!, water and wastewater infrastructure. Even so, drinking water and wastewater utilities across the
^,J' country still need to significantly increase their investments to upgrade aging and deteriorating
capital assets. In response to this need, utilities, states, and the federal government have recognized the
importance of making financial assistance easier to obtain. Many states have established approaches to
coordinate funding (see Appendix C). Because there are numerous ways to coordinate funding, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) surveyed six states Arizona, California, Montana, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Washington to identify the keys to the success of their coordinated funding ap-
proaches (see Appendix A). This handbook presents the lessons learned by these states so that other
states may understand the benefits and challenges of coordinating funding efforts.
'I Tic Need I'or I'uncling
Over the past several years, several studies have highlighted the need for substantial investment in the
nation's drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. Estimates of the cost of this investment vary, but
EPA's Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis1 estimated that the capital needs for clean
water from 2000-2019 will approach $388 billion, and the capital needs for drinking water during the same
period will be almost $274 billion. Given the significant size of this investment, the need for coordination
among funding assistance programs to get the biggest "bang for the buck" has never been greater.
Although most water infrastructure funding comes from user fees, state and federal aid compose a signifi-
cant portion of the nation's water infrastructure investment. From fiscal year (FY) 1991 through FY
2000, nine federal agencies made available approximately $44 billion for drinking water and wastewater
capital improvements.2 Four of the agencies EPA, the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Department of Commerce accounted for 98
percent of this funding, as shown in Figure 1.
EPA
USDA
HUD
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Rural Utilities Service
Community Development Block Grant
Commerce I Economic Development Administration
CWSRF
DWSRF
RUS
CDBG
EDA
57
28
10
1 U.S. EPA Office of Water, The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis, EPA-816-R-02-020, September 2002.
2 U.S. General Accounting Office, Financial Assistance for Water Infrastructure, GAO-02-134, November 2001.
-------
-... ,, , > iDiNAiiiNG FUNDING ion WAIIR AND WASH WAN i INI IRAS IIRUCIUKI
EPA provides the majority of the water and wastewater infrastructure funding from these four
agencies. However, most of the assistance from HUD and all of the assistance from RUS specifically
target disadvantaged systems, rural utilities, or other communities in need of financial and technical
assistance. Funding from HUD and RUS is critical to building, improving, and maintaining the
infrastructure of systems most in need of guidance those that may not be aware of, or have the
resources to apply for, funding assistance. The federal assistance not provided by the four agencies,
$1.1 billion over the last ten fiscal years, was provided by the Appalachian Regional Commission, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, and the Small Business Administration.
Over the past ten fiscal years, state governments provided nearly $25 billion for utilities to invest in
water infrastructure.3 The primary sources of state funding were legislative appropriations, dedi-
cated fees and taxes, and proceeds from the sale of general obligation and revenue bonds. Many
states allocated additional funds to provide financing through other state-sponsored programs. The
General Accounting Office (GAO) identified 120 such programs in 46 states that provide funding for
drinking water or wastewater infrastructure projects.4
The Need to (Coordinate
Clearly, there are many federal and state funding programs. These programs vary in the type and
amount of assistance they provide, the requirements they set for recipients, their application pro-
cesses, their funding schedules, and their goals. Some programs focus on public health and environ-
mental protection, some on small systems, and others on economic development. Navigating the
network of available state and federal funding sources can be time consuming, confusing, and over-
whelming for water systems, particularly small systems that often need help the most.
Recognizing the need to coordinate funding at the federal level, in 1997 EPA, HUD, and USDA
issued a joint memorandum on "Cooperation and Coordination on Jointly Financed Water and Waste-
water Activities" to encourage cooperation among federal, state, and local drinking water and waste-
water infrastructure-funding agencies (see page 8 for more information). Several states have already
been successful at efforts to coordinate funding at the state level. State programs are often best
positioned to understand, address, and prioritize the needs and challenges of water and wastewater
utilities within their borders. Therefore, state funding programs can coordinate with a focus on
alleviating the specific burdens faced by their utilities. Ultimately, efforts at the state level, where
programs are implemented, will determine the success of coordinated funding. States already have
the power, tools, and flexibility to coordinate their infrastructure assistance efforts. As the case
studies in this handbook show, this potential has already been realized by many states.
Efforts to coordinate funding can enhance communication between, and reduce administrative work
for, the funding agencies. Limited interaction between state and federal agencies can result in com-
petition and duplication of effort, wasting the limited resources (such as staff time) of utilities and
funding agencies. Coordination at the state and federal levels and increased communication between
state and federal agencies benefit those seeking assistance and those providing assistance.
3 U.S. General Accounting Office, Financial Assistance for Water Infrastructure.
4 Ibid.
-------
Using
This handbook provides information for states that are just beginning to coordinate and offers ideas
for states that have already implemented some form of coordinated funding. It first discusses the
elements of coordinated funding, the reasons to coordinate funding, and the benefits of coordinated
funding. The handbook also presents the approaches of six states that have successfully coordinated
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure-funding programs. Based on the lessons learned from
these six states, the handbook answers the following questions:
» How Can You Get Started?
» What Challenges Should You Consider?
» How Can You Overcome the Challenges and Implement Your Approach?
» How Can You Assess Your Efforts?
The six states featured in this handbook completed detailed surveys on their coordinated funding
efforts, which are included in Appendix A. Sample coordinating documents for the six states sur-
veyed, including a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and a pre-application screening form, can
be found in Appendix B. Appendix C includes a summary of the coordinated funding efforts of all
states.
-------
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
This page intentionally left blank
-------
oordinated funding is a means of improving public health and environmental quality by:
* Simplifying drinking water and wastewater utilities' search for funding.
Improving the match between available assistance and a system's specific needs.
* Enhancing communication among water infrastructure-funding agencies.
Creating a simplified, less redundant review process.
States can choose from a wide range of coordinated funding strategies tailored to best suit the needs
of their funding agencies and of their drinking water and wastewater systems. Coordinated funding
may evolve from a series of informal meetings into more formalized coordination, as was the case in
Arizona, Montana, and Washington. Coordinated funding efforts can target utilities that need addi-
tional assistance, as was done in California, or they can address funding needs state-wide, regardless
of an applicant's location, size, or financial condition, as happened in Arizona. The advice from
states that have attempted coordinated funding is: Don't be afraid to start small.
Funding Fairs & Websites
One-stop Meetings
Coordinated Technical
Assistance
Screening Form
Informal Review Meetings Regular Review Meetings
Share Project Information Coordinate Requirements
Informal
-------
Figure 2 shows examples of the forms that a coordinated funding program can take, from informal
cooperation to formal coordination. Funding agencies can work together to develop programs that
coordinate at any point in the assistance process. However, funding should be coordinated at a point
that suits the circumstances of each state or agency. If the funding agencies in your state generally
do not communicate with each other, your best strategy may be to start gradually with a carefully
planned process. As the goals of agencies harmonize, the level of coordination can increase.
The forms of coordinated funding employed by the six states surveyed for this handbook cover a
broad spectrum, as shown in Figure 3. Several of the states, including Arizona and Montana, have
integrated many aspects of all the major funding agencies. On the other hand, Pennsylvania's effort
primarily involves informal cooperation among agencies, except for the uniform environmental
review (UER), which is formally coordinated. Information on the survey responses of each state is
provided in Appendix A.
AZ
CA
MT
NY
PA
WA
-------
s noted previously, there are many federal and state drinking water and wastewater
' "; infrastructure funding programs. The primary federal drinking water and wastewater
*, A infrastructure funding sources are described below. Figure 4 summarizes the characteristics
of the primary federal funding sources.
Established by the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA), the DWSRF provides capitalization grants to states.
' v" States must match 20 percent of their annual capitalization grants. State
DWSRF programs provide low-interest loans or other assistance to public
water systems to finance infrastructure projects needed to maintain or
achieve compliance with the SDWA. As of June 30, 2002, the DWSRF
-''';''' program had provided water systems with $5.1 billion to fund more than
V*1 2,500 eligible projects. The FY 2003 federal appropriation for state capitali-
zation grants totaled $844.5 million.
Authorized by the 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water
Act (CWA), the CWSRF provides capitalization grants to states. States must
match 20 percent of their annual capitalization grants. State CWSRF pro-
- ' »' grams provide low-interest loans or other assistance to publicly owned waste-
, >iv ,"'. ,,, water systems and nonpoint source pollution control and estuary management
'" '' -f/'A,' projects. As of June 30, 2002, the CWSRF program had financed 12,500
4;;;',;'>! "',''>\ wastewater treatment, nonpoint source, and estuary management projects
,-, ;*;' totalling over $38.7 billion. The FY 2003 federal appropriation for state
capitalization grants totaled $1.34 billion.
'. u i - ,.» '-**; RUS provides infrastructure assistance for rural drinking
water and wastewater utilities through leadership, financial assistance, and
technical guidance. Its Water Programs Division (under the Water and Envi-
ronmental Programs) administers four grant and loan programs for the devel-
opment of safe and affordable water supply systems, sewage systems, and
other waste disposal facilities. In FY 2002, the Division awarded close to
$2.1 billion in direct or guaranteed loans and grants to rural communities for
the development of drinking water and waste disposal facilities. Between
-------
1985 and 2002, RUS water and wastewater obligations exceeded $17.4
billion. Approximately $1.3 billion in assistance was made available in FY
2003.
vi;. . ;. '.'',:. Since 1981, HUD has distributed block grants directly to
entitlement communities and to states for distribution to non-entitlement
communities, which include cities with populations of fewer than 50,000
and counties with populations of fewer than 200,000. Of the 50 states,
only Hawaii does not participate. HUD aims to provide decent housing,
healthy living conditions, and economic opportunities primarily for lower
income communities. Projects funded by block grants must either benefit
lower income people or help prevent or eliminate "slums and blight." Sys-
tems have used assistance from block grants to meet state and federal
regulations by developing new water sources, improving treatment, replacing
distribution system pipes, and taking other actions. Between FY 1985 and
FY 2001, HUD allocated over $62.8 billion in block grants to non-entitle-
ment and entitlement communities. In FY 2002, allocations totaled more
than $4.3 billion. Entitlement communities spent about 1.7 percent ($63.7
million) of their FY 2002 block grants on drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure improvements, while non-entitlement communities spent
about 33.6 percent ($423.9 million) improving drinking water and wastewa-
ter infrastructure.
' ' , EDA's mission is to "enhance community success in
attracting private capital investment and lucrative job opportunities." EDA
offers assistance to rural and urban areas where unemployment is high and
incomes are low. EDA grants can be used to underwrite the planning and
construction costs for projects in these areas that will lead to the creation of
jobs in the community. EDA's Public Works Program helps communities that
are in economic decline upgrade their physical infrastructure, including
drinking water and wastewater facilities. Total obligations for the Public
Works Program for FY 2002 were $249.9 million. From FY 1991 through
FY 2000, EDA provided communities with approximately $1.1 billion in
grants for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects.
-------
Drinking Water Funding
Wastewater Funding
Grants
Loans
Disadvantaged
Systems/Communities Only
Eligible Recipients
Annual Assistance Provided
1111
in
«rt^
ji'ii
' :
:. *»[*.
Publicly- and
Privately-owned
Community Water
Systems, Non-
Profit Non-
Community Water
Systems
$1.3 billion
(SPY 2002)
itfti
;
«w|y^
Jlffc
Publicly owned
treatment
works, non-
profit groups,
homeowners, &
farmers
$4.4 billion
(SPY 2003)
?f
c;--
i _,
Public entities,
non-profit
groups, &
federally
recognized
Indian Tribes
$2.1 billion
(FY 2002)
Designated
entitlement and
non-entitlement
communities &
insular areas
$487.6 million
(FY2002)
11
Rural or urban
economically
distressed areas
$249.9 million
(FY 2002)
Federal and state financing programs vary in their funding, their requirements for recipients, their applica-
tion processes, and their funding schedules. In 1997, EPA, HUD, and USDA issued a joint memorandum
on "Cooperation and Coordination on Jointly Financed Water and Wastewater Activities" to encourage
cooperation among federal, state, and local drinking water and wastewater infrastructure funding agencies.
The memorandum suggested numerous ways to enhance coordination:
* Cooperation between SRF, CDBG, and USDA state programs and directors in the preparation of
the consolidated, operating, intended use, and strategic plans required by EPA, HUD, and USDA.
Elimination of obstacles in program regulation or state policy in order to coordinate funding cycles
or share information that would enable these agencies to work together.
Harmonization of environmental review documentation requirements so that only one environ-
mental document is needed per project.
* Regular meetings by funding agencies to determine which projects should be funded and by whom.
* Joint funding of projects where applicants meet the requirements of all funding agencies (if
efficient and reasonable).
Many states have taken steps to implement these approaches, thus enhancing coordination at the state
level. In addition, states have opportunities to coordinate funding among state sources. The results of
these efforts benefit participating funding agencies and systems in a number of key ways, as outlined in
the next section.
-------
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
This page intentionally left blank
-------
I'j'JJ
Removes barriers and improves
communication between agencies
with similar goals and purposes.
Provides staff with a forum to
discuss projects, matches applicants
with appropriate funding sources,
and resolves conflicts between
various funding program require-
ments.
i. i Avoids duplication of work by
agencies, thereby reducing adminis-
trative burden and maximizing
scarce resources.
L;..!] Reduces the likelihood that appli-
cants will switch to another funding
source during the process (i.e.,
venue shopping).
'1
x/,vJ Increases the ability to provide
technical assistance to applicants
from the beginning of the applica-
tion process to the completion of
construction.
i,,V_l Reduces administrative expenses.
&J Allows access to better information
','!,l
about the advantages and disadvan-
tages of all available funding oppor-
tunities.
L" I Accelerates the entire application
process.
rail Increases the likelihood that funding
will be secured so that necessary
infrastructure improvements will be
made, thus improving water quality
and public health protection.
i
Creates the most appropriate funding
packages for projects that address the
community's infrastructure need
(e.g., combining loans and grants) in
the most efficient way (in terms of
costs and timing).
Simplifies the application process,
reducing the burden on utility staff
and freeing more resources for plan-
ning and operations.
rail Reduces time spent venue shopping.
yj
It is important to remember that any reduction in administrative burden for state agencies or for
systems frees staff time and resources to provide increased public assistance and public health
protection. The following section provides a simple way to establish a coordinated funding approach
in your state. Where possible, the experiences of states that were surveyed are described.
-------
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATED FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
This page intentionally left blank
-------
""?,, To two states and no two funding programs are alike. How you get started will depend on
'" your specific situation. This section presents some general ideas on how to start a coordi-
. ' . '. nating initiative, but there is no one right way to begin. In states like New York, coordina-
tion starts in the Governor's office. More likely, coordination will begin as informal collaboration
among staff at various agencies. In Arizona, a CDBG program manager organized the first coordina-
tion meeting for interested agencies and groups statewide to discuss drinking water and wastewater
issues. One of Washington's coordinating committees began when staff from state and federal
agencies wanted to discuss shared funding and technical assistance issues. Here are a few ways to get
started:
including federal and local programs. You may already know of programs that are open to
cooperation, as well as some that are not. Although the ideal effort might coordinate all
funding programs in your state, such a far-reaching goal is often unrealistic, especially at
the outset. You can still create significant benefits even if you only coordinate with one
other agency. Think about starting with the "low-hanging fruit" to build momentum.
." .. -' '' " \ '" - These sources could include recognition of the types of projects
that each agency is most suited to fund, or it could be in the relationships that field staff
in regional offices have cultivated. Prior to creating their UER, Pennsylvania's infrastruc-
ture funding programs had interacted at planning meetings with water utilities. Therefore,
regional staff from most of the state agencies already had good working relationships and
understood each other's programs.
'.''. ' : .:' ' '.",.'. ,' ':,; '. '.,' ' v ; o ': . '.:',.. ,' ; ':,, Arizona agencies
coordinate because "available technical and financial resources are scarce and should be
maximized as much as possible" and "what is good for the community or system should be
the driving force." Washington, Arizona, and California launched coordinated efforts to
target small utilities because they generally had the fewest resources, the least awareness
of assistance programs, and the most problems with capacity. Programs in New York
wanted to provide a single point of contact for systems seeking infrastructure funding.
Coordinating to help a specific set of utilities may affect the coordinating tools you use
and the partners you seek. Program staff in Montana wanted to work together so that
each agency could better achieve its mission.
-------
'''..',-'/'''./// '.',;'/'' ' /'.."" ,'< '. ,'.'',;'"', .,.: .,";. to brainstorm oppor-
tunities for additional coordination. These meetings can be informal gatherings of col-
leagues, such as those held in Montana and Washington, or formal committees, such as the
one formed in Pennsylvania. At this stage, open communication between staff from all
agencies involved is essential to identifying "problem areas" in the state's funding net-
work. For example, programs may have different funding cycles or application require-
ments. The problems identified at this stage will shape the form(s) of coordination that
you choose.
.'.. v'.'.'' v* :..' '">'>'"''<': - .,>,/--.,'-'. sr :, , ..-,': '. Work with systems to iden-
tify the problems they have had, are having, or could have in navigating the available
funding opportunities. This initiative may identify problems that applicants face but of
which funding agencies are unaware. One of the coordinating committees in Washington
continually seeks input from utilities on how funding programs can better assist local
governments.
'''* ''.,'."' ' /,/" ..',,' '... '.'" Using the ideas generated by the agencies and applicants,
consider the form that coordinated funding efforts should take and the level of coopera-
tion your state aims to achieve. Every state will have a different strategy. It may be
helpful to develop a time line (especially if your strategy calls for a gradual move towards
coordination) or an MOU. Arizona decided that the easiest way to increase communica-
tion and assistance to systems was to hold monthly joint meetings with project applicants
to discuss their proposals. California decided to focus on simplifying the application and
documentation process for small systems. New York chose to create a formalized, coordi-
nated application review process to help applicants obtain the optimal funding package for
their projects. Pennsylvania began creating a UER to reduce the planning and design
overhead for utilities, as well as the confusion and delays caused by discrepancies among
programs.
-------
oordinating drinking water and wastewater funding programs may not be easy, but its benefits
can certainly make overcoming these obstacles worthwhile. Potential obstacles include:
Program Differences. The objectives of each program, and therefore the eligibility
requirements, may be different. Despite common goals among coordinating agencies, it
may be difficult or impossible to eliminate all differences in program requirements, fund-
ing cycles, etc., due to the specialized mandates and purposes of each agency. Most states
surveyed cited differences in program requirements as a barrier to cooperation.
Because of the large number of funding programs, understanding the requirements and the
focus of each one is daunting. Before substantial progress can be achieved in coordinating
these programs, however, this understanding needs to be developed. It is not expected,
and not necessarily desired, that any program should abandon its requirements or change
its focus. California decided to accept the differences and work around them. Staff in
New York decided to focus on commonalities rather than the differences that could
impede the development of a uniform application or a joint tracking database. Staff in
Pennsylvania were able to rely on relationships built from years of informal cooperation
and communication in creating their UER.
Lack of Time Resources, Coordinating funding among agencies may require
significant volunteer efforts by agency staff. For the first ten years of the effort in Mon-
tana, Commerce employees made up the coordinated funding committee's entire staff.
However, as the efforts expanded, the staffing burden became overwhelming, and the
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation and the Department of Health and
Environmental Science volunteered to share staffing of the coordinating effort. The
committee in Arizona has overcome the lack of resources by relying on volunteerism.
One agency has taken the lead in organizing meetings, creating agendas, fielding inquiries,
and following up on requests.
-------
COORDINATED FUNDING FOR INFRASTRUCTURE
of Agency staff members involved in coordi-
nated funding efforts will still have responsibilities to their agencies. It may be challeng-
ing to keep staff from focusing entirely on their own agency's needs, rather than on the
goal of coordinating funding. Forming sub-committees, as was done in Montana, is one
way to keep staff members engaged, communicating, and focused on coordination. Any
communication and regular contact between staff will help keep coordinated funding a
top priority.
-------
he presence of any of the challenges discussed in the previous section should not preclude
';' funding coordination. Even states with successful coordinated funding programs have
:'. faced obstacles and are still working to overcome them. Focusing on the needs of the
communities should help agency representatives overcome hurdles.
This section provides some ideas on how to think about overcoming challenges and implement-
ing a coordinated funding strategy. You may find that some or all may work in your state.
,.. '-V '' ' ' "'"'"' ''- '- '.'-';...' '. ' - '" - '. ' '.'' in terms of staff, budget, materials, and partnerships
f "':'!;','',,, '' with water industry organizations. In Montana and Washington, staff from the fund-
'".*,'/' v']; ing programs have volunteered to implement their approach. Programs trade off on
-''"' hosting the meetings, preparing the agendas, and keeping the minutes. Montana
convinced the state's engineering community to promote and support the coordinated
application process in the state. Utilities are more likely to participate when their
consultants and technical assistance providers urge them to attend state workshops and
meetings. California's efforts benefit from the support of the California Rural Water
Association and the Rural Community Assistance Corporation.
either informally through verbal agreements, as in Washington and
Pennsylvania, or formally through an MOU, as in Arizona, Montana, and New York.
Delegated duties may range from developing a joint application or environmental
review package to organizing workshops and funding fairs. While some duties may
require the input of all participating agencies, others will not. Consider forming sub-
committees to address each duty. Before forming sub-committees, Montana found
that volunteer members were not working on common problems between meetings,
which slowed progress. Subcommittees can ensure that:
Work takes place between formal meetings.
All agencies remain involved and focused on coordinating funding.
No single agency's staff is forced to do all of the work.
-------
:', .." !''.. ' ' "".,.' '': :, ;,. ' (... ,., in As part of their coordinating
effort, agencies in California identified the differences in their programs so they could
more clearly communicate those differences to applicants early in the process. Mon-
tana found that the best way to proceed with coordination was to focus on similarities
rather than the differences. This "common ground" eventually allowed Montana to
create a uniform application. In New York and Pennsylvania, each agency retains
independent decision-making authority to fund projects based upon its mission. If
your coordinating team is flexible, your programs may harmonize over time as coor-
dination increases. New York's committee is now trying to minimize the differences
between programs. Montana's Uniform Application Supplement has evolved to the
point where the state will soon drop the word "Supplement" from the title and allow
programs to ask systems for materials to supplement the "Uniform Application."
comrr... " r,,. , ^lli The partners in
Arizona's and New York's coordinating programs meet quarterly to discuss current
projects and anticipate future joint efforts. Pennsylvania's agencies informally solicit
input from each other prior to approving a funding request.
.';', '.",. ,' -' '" ,',">. ', '., j.i ' ..' ':.,' ',; "'. ' ,- i ''.",. :""»'.'.'. '',-'," ," In addition to
water utilities, you may include the legislature, agency administrators, and the public.
Education for systems could include:
" , , * ' r r Arizona hosts monthly meetings throughout
the state that allow utilities seeking funding to discuss assistance options with all
funding programs at once. California hosts funding fairs across the state that
bring all the funding programs "under one tent." Montana holds work shops in the
spring and fall of each year, varying the topics to match the funding cycles.
Washington has created a searchable database of funding sources that is now available
through a website. New York's committee created a website with a self-assessment
tool that allows utilities to determine the sources of funding for which they are eli-
gible.
* ,._._.,._,,,..., - , , , , , Montana's committee
developed an outreach video that it sends to local government officials who are inter-
ested in finding water infrastructure assistance. One committee in Washington created
an Infrastructure Assistance Directory for local governments.
In addition, each participating agency should promote the coordinated funding effort
-------
as part of its normal outreach program. This can increase awareness of coordinated
funding in your state with very little additional cost or effort. Staff members from
partner agencies in Arizona, California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington
discuss the coordination initiative at all meetings, conferences, trainings, and public
appearances. In addition, several states have worked with industry groups to get the
word out to utilities. Montana uses annual meetings of organizations such as Montana
Rural Water Systems, Inc., Montana League of Cities and Towns, and the Montana
Association of Counties to publicize its coordinated funding efforts. Similarly, New
York uses county planners, the Rural Community Assistance Program, and New
York Rural Water Association to inform communities of coordinated funding oppor-
tunities.
Keep in mind that coordinated funding is not intended to remove the entire burden on
applicants. Applicants are still responsible for assessing their own needs and securing
financing.
. ' ." , and match these projects with the funding sources in your state best
suited to fund them. At their meetings with systems, Arizona agencies informally
agree on which agency should fund each project. One of the committees in Washing-
ton uses a two-page screening application to determine the most appropriate source(s)
of funding. A state could decide to consolidate project lists so that all programs work
together to address systems in order of priority.
.. v.v .'.i. . l :.;.-.'...:>. so that you can publicize your program's success. New York
created a common tracking database for all projects that go through the coordinated
funding process. Arizona gives annual awards to the best project, garnering positive
publicity for both the funding programs and the utility. You may want to promote
the success of your initiative with water utilities, state decision-makers (such as legisla-
tors), and federal agencies.
-------
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
This page intentionally left blank
-------
s you work to increase coordination, you will discover unexpected opportunities and chal-
' ' lenges. Your successful efforts may make reluctant programs more likely to agree to coordi-
nate. Your coordination tools may need some fine-tuning. How you assess and modify your
efforts will depend on your strategy, your partners, and your experiences. This section provides a few
ideas on how to assess your initiative.
with applicants that have been through the
coordinated funding process. These interviews can help you identify your program's
strengths and weaknesses. Are utilities finding the process easier to understand and less
burdensome to complete? Are projects being completed more quickly? Are staff in
funding programs saving time?
Host' flirt is;Vfl liJJl t'lOirt ilrtls;s;f'i irtP1 \A/lf'l°l in?irff'i'si|3?lfiilif?r £!f?i?; i*lC'aiis;S after the first few
months of coordination to discuss progress and identify any barriers. Continued commu-
nication between agencies is essential to successful coordination. Did your coordinated
efforts work as you had imagined? What were the barriers? How should the initiative be
changed?
of to ensure that the process is
functioning smoothly and to identify new opportunities for coordination. You may decide
to change your initiative or increase coordination. As noted earlier, agencies in Arizona
and New York meet quarterly to review projects and discuss new coordination issues. The
Montana committee has been meeting regularly to develop a common initial application, a
mutually acceptable method for determining hardship, and a uniform environmental
review document.
.", ' / .,: .. '," " "", ,',. - .'.,>',':,'., ,..''.'.'. -, '.v..,;, '>,.';,'-.;; i - ; to get
new ideas that may benefit your own program. For example, Montana has created an
outreach video that California is considering adopting.
-------
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATED FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
This page intentionally left blank
-------
ppendix A presents profiles of the coordinated funding approaches in Arizona,
/> California, Montana, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington and their responses to brief
surveys about their approaches. While a survey was sent to each state's DWSRF contact,
each respondent was asked to consult with, and incorporate the views of, their funding partners. The
responses to these surveys were used to better understand how each state's coordinated funding
program operates and, more broadly, to identify patterns and common themes in coordinated funding
efforts.
The experiences of these six states, as discussed throughout this handbook, highlight the diverse
forms that coordinated funding can take and the benefits that can result. These states are continually
working to improve their ability to help water and wastewater systems address their infrastructure
needs.
-------
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Arizona's Rural Water Infrastructure Committee
(RwIC) is composed of representatives from
various infrastructure loan and grant programs,
state lending authorities, technical assistance
providers, private banks, and engineering firms.
It was initiated by Arizona's CDBG Manager in
1990 to help small drinking water and wastewater
systems navigate the federal, state, and local
assistance programs and comply with all applicable
shopping" entity for communities and small water
RwIC's goals are to:
Regular members of RwIC:
Water Infrastructure Finance Authority
Rural Development, USDA
Arizona Small Utilities Association
Rural Community Assistance Corporation
Arizona State Environmental Training and
Technology Center
Greater Arizona Development Authority
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Arizona Departmen t of Commerce, CDBG
Program
Arizona Departmen t of Wa ter Resources
Border Environmen t Coopera tion Commission
North American Developmen t Bank
Website: www. wifa, sfate. az, us
regulations. It has evolved into a "one-stop
systems in need of assistance.
» Maximize the scarce resources available for infrastructure financing.
» Focus on communities and systems, rather than on competing state and federal bureaucracies.
» Provide "cradle to grave" assistance to projects, especially for small, rural systems that do not
have the resources to complete all the steps necessary to finance an infrastructure project.
With no governing statute or executive order, RwIC has considerable flexibility to deal with the needs
of each system. Owners and operators looking for infrastructure funding have all of their questions
answered at monthly RwIC meetings. Since RwIC provides both financial and technical assistance, it
is not uncommon for RwIC meetings to be followed up by on-site technical assistance visits and
reviews of existing design plans. The meetings also allow system representatives and elected officials
to meet with representatives of public and private funding sources to explore all available funding
options for their infrastructure projects.
RwIC has increased cooperation across various governmental agencies. It is now commonplace for
officials at one agency to coordinate with their counterparts in another agency to aid a system. Agen-
cies that run state funding programs also routinely publicize other funding programs during their
normal outreach efforts. In addition, the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona (WIFA)
one of the main sources of infrastructure funding in the state annually highlights utilities that
have successfully coordinated funding sources to improve their infrastructure. These profiles gener-
ate positive publicity for the systems and RwIC. RwIC has assisted approximately 200 systems in
Arizona. Two-thirds of their projects have been completed. In addition, RwIC's approach has
expedited assistance and funding for projects, even when only one agency is involved.
-------
Getting Started
A: A CDBG Manager in the Arizona Department of Commerce first started RwIC meetings in 1990
to discuss drinking water and wastewater issues among various interested agencies and groups state-
wide. Around 1996, senior staff from WIFA and from the Arizona USDA RD suggested ways for the
group to hold project meetings to implement technical and financial infrastructure assistance for
eligible jurisdictions and systems. The RwIC process has expanded from this initial concept.
A: The rationale behind RwIC continues to be multifaceted:
There is the recognition that available technical and financial resources are scarce and should
be maximized as much as possible.
We also recognize that what is "good for the community or system" should be the driving
force, rather than competition among federal, state, and local bureaucracies.
Another important consideration for coordination is the concept of "cradle to grave"
assistance for projects. We found that many small, rural systems do not have the resources to
prepare to receive funding in terms of system analysis, planning, and design, to name a few.
By offering technical assistance as well as financial assistance, RwIC has fostered many
infrastructure projects that might otherwise never have become ready for funding and
construction.
A: Our projects have had an estimated 66% success rate! The RwIC has become a highly effective
force in shepherding drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects to completion. In
reviewing our records, members of RwIC were surprised to note that two-thirds of the 150 to 200+
projects reviewed were funded and completed. This process sometimes takes about three years from
conception to completion for a major project. Often, a community will return for consultation with
RwIC several times before a project is completed. For example, they may seek technical assistance
and funding for planning and, when that is completed, return for financial assistance for the project
itself.
A: Since RwIC is informal and not funded, one of the problems and challenges is how to get the
paper work of RwIC accomplished. Our solution is volunteerism. From time to time, RwIC was
staffed by various individuals in participating agencies. Currently this is being handled by the
Arizona Small Utilities Association. They organize project meetings, send out agendas, field
inquiries, and follow-up on many requests. Because the work of the association is closely affiliated
with that of RwIC, this arrangement works well. One other challenge we have is how to interest
more private water systems in using RwIC as a resource. We believe it is not the RwIC process itself
that discourages participation, but the fact that there is really only one source of low-cost funding
WIFA. Here, coordinated funding is usually not required.
-------
Implementing the Approach
A: It is not that much of an issue in Arizona, and not many program requirements are jointly handled
by a procedure. Each project is handled on a case-by-case basis at RwIC project meetings. Our
philosophy of "What is best for the community" rules. We also have another rule, which is "If you
can qualify for a grant, go for it." When a project will ultimately be funded by RD because that is the
best course of action for the community (regardless of whether or not WIFA or other funding is
involved), then RD program requirements are the primary concern up-front. WIFA and RD have a
Memorandum of Understanding regarding environmental reviews (ERs). WIFA accepts RD's ER
whenever there is a joint financing. As far as priorities are concerned, WIFA and RD hold quarterly
meetings to review current projects and anticipate joint efforts. Otherwise, participation in RwIC
project meetings often establishes, on an informal basis, which agency(ies) may fund what projects.
A: All of the above and by every means available to its primary members. RwIC members routinely
advertise RwIC in their individual agency outreach efforts. Additional methods include Powerpoint
presentations, special events, publications, and networking.
Assessing the Approach
A: We have room for 4-5 project presentations per monthly project meeting. Sometimes a month is
skipped. Therefore, we handle 40-50 projects per year. Not all require coordinated funding. Ap-
proximately 10 to 20 percent end up with coordinated technical or financial assistance and/or
funding. Applicants appreciate the expedited assistance and funding they receive through our RwIC
process.
A: The RwIC has been extremely successful in expediting projects, not just coordinating funding.
The "One Stop Shopping" approach is effective and efficient. Most public jurisdictions are now
familiar with how RwIC works. We also make it a practice to hold our meetings throughout the
regions and be available to applicants in more remote locations.
A: We are open to improvements/enhancements. No improvements are underway at this time,
however, there is interest in pursuing joint environmental reviews more formally.
A: Federal acceptance and endorsement at top levels by EPA (SRFs), HUD, and RD to foster state
solutions to interagency infrastructure funding coordination would be appreciated. This objective is
currently being pursued through the Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities Small
Community Water Infrastructure Exchange group headed up by Ohio's Steve Grossman.
-------
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
This page intentionally left blank
-------
The California Financing Coordinating Committee
(CFCC) was created in 1998 by an MOU signed by
state and federal agencies that provide financial
assistance for infrastructure projects in California.
The CFCC is a formal committee that aims to:
CFCC members represent:
USDA RUS's Water Division
State Water Resources Control Board
California Department of Health Services
California Department of Housing and
Community Development
California Department of Water Resources
Infrastructure and Economic Development
Bank
Website: , ,
» Foster cooperation between agencies.
» Encourage more efficient use of funds.
» Reduce administrative costs for recipients and agencies.
» Provide a forum to resolve conflicts between state and federal program requirements.
Small, rural systems have the fewest resources and face the most problems, so the CFCC was created
mainly to help these systems obtain assistance. Subsequently, these systems were targeted for simpli-
fied forms and application processes to help them overcome the often difficult and expensive task of
applying for funding.
The CFCC uses a variety of tools to meet its goals. It has a common funding inquiry form that a
system can fill out to have its proposed project referred to the appropriate funding agency. The
CFCC sponsors funding fairs at which agencies explain their programs and make themselves available
to discuss specific plans; it also advertises at meetings held by individual member agencies. The
CFCC's Website has information about each agency's programs and documents explaining what joint
procedures are in place. The CFCC is considering creating a technical assistance video, similar to
videos produced in other states, to further its goals.
One of the biggest obstacles confronting the CFCC is the different requirements of the funding
agencies. To minimize possible confusion, the CFCC provides applicants with as much information
as possible about the requirements and priorities of the different programs. When the statutes and
regulations allow, the CFCC tries to find common ground between the programs.
The CFCC annually assists an estimated 200 to 500 applicants. The CFCC attributes this success to
matching project funding to specific applicant needs and providing additional technical assistance to
small, rural systems.
-------
Getting Started
A: It was either HUD or USDA's RD.
A: It was felt that the small, rural projects were the ones with the fewest resources and most prob-
lems. These systems needed simplified forms and application processes, as they would be frightened
off if things were too complicated, difficult, or expensive.
A: Probably the most significant would be the establishment of the Funding Fairs.
A: The biggest obstacle was the different requirements for the various agencies. These were not so
much overcome as simply recognized and eventually accepted.
Implementing the Approach
A: If there are differences in program requirements, then we acknowledge these and try to let the
applicants know of the differences up front. Where there are different priorities, we once again
acknowledge them but may try to reach a compromise if it is within the statutes, regulations, or
guidelines. But in general, where there are conflicting requirements or priorities, each funding agency
must follow its own requirements.
A: Funding Fairs are one of our main outreach/marketing methods. We also have been upgrading
our web page; see: http://www.cfcc.ca.gov.
Discussing the CFCC at other meetings is also an excellent way of advertising with the systems.
There is now a pretty extensive network throughout the state that discusses the CFCC and advertises
their meetings and Website; groups such as the California Rural Water Association and the Rural
Community Assistance Corporation are big proponents of the CFCC.
Assessing the Approach
A: We estimate that the CFCC reaches 200500 potential applicants each year.
-------
A: Yes, it has been successful, mainly because we are able to "fit" project funding to specific appli-
cants and their needs. The "co-funding" of projects also includes additional technical assistance to
the smaller rural projects.
A: We continue to make changes. We are considering doing a video similar to the one produced by
Montana.
A: The major need is to place the same requirements on each of the agencies that provide federal
subsidized funding. USDA, HUD, and EPA should all apply funding requirements in the same man-
ner (National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Minority-owned Business Enter-
prise/Woman-owned Business Enterprise, etc.).
It would also be helpful if those same agencies would allow more flexibility for providing funding for
small, rural communities.
-------
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
This page intentionally left blank
-------
1 III I IV"I III I
In 1982, an employee of the Montana
Department of Commerce began to orga-
nize professionals in key state agencies into
a group that would focus on drinking water
and wastewater financing. The result of
this initiative was the Water, Wastewater
and Solid Waste Action Coordinating Team
(W ASACT). The main goals of this group
were to coordinate emerging state funding
programs, help local governments take full
advantage of those programs, and facilitate
communication between program staff.
Given the large geographical area that
needed to be covered, increasing communi-
cation among agencies, especially at the
regional office level, was paramount.
W ASACT was also intended to serve as a
forum through which federal program
representatives could talk about their
various projects. W ASACT has no legisla-
tive mandate or executive order and receives no
representatives from state, federal, and non-gov
assistance.
W,ASACTmembers include:
Bureau of Reclamation
HUD - Montana Field Office Helena
Department of Commerce - EDA
EPA
Rural Develop men t, RUS
Midwest Assistance Program
Montana Assoc. of County Water and Sewer Systems
Montana Association of Counties
Montana League of Cities and Towns
Montana Rural Development Partners
Mon tana Rural Wa ter Systems, Inc.
CDBG
Community Technical Assistance Program
Public Wa ter Supply Section
INTERCAP Program
Local Government Center
Local Government Services Bureau
Montana Water Center
Municipal Wastewa ter Assistance Program
Renewable Resources Grant and Loan Program
Community Services Bureau
State Drinking Water Revolving Fund
State Wastewater Revolving Fund
Treasure State Endowment Program
Technical and Financial Assistance Bureau
Website:
." , - -
funding for staff. Its membership is composed of
ernmental agencies with a stake in infrastructure
In 1997, W ASACT finalized a uniform application supplement for infrastructure funding programs.
It was prompted by the MOU between RUS, EPA, and HUD declaring that uniform applications were
acceptable and valuable to local governments. The supplement contains core technical information
common to all infrastructure funding program applications, including a project summary, proposed
funding package, budget, system information, and a preliminary engineering report. Entities seeking
funding still must fill out specific applications for certain programs, but the uniform application
supplement has reduced the overall burden of applying for funds.
W ASACT also created Project Planning Grants to assist cash-strapped communities. These grants,
matched dollar-for-dollar by local governments, assist communities in hiring engineers and other
technical assistance providers. Many communities in need of infrastructure improvements do not
have enough money to assess their needs and plan a major project. The Project Planning Grants
address this problem and enable communities to apply for grants and loans to improve their infra-
structure. Thanks to the uniform application supplement, nearly all drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure projects in Montana are using the coordinated approach.
-------
'r'l . 'DBOOK G: ] ' \ "'<\:\<\' IATINC FUNDING FOR '' 11 I!" AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
W2ASACT has also streamlined accounting, environmental assessments, and supplemental contracts.
Its Website has a master list of projects to help facilitate the tracking of resources and projects. In
addition, W2ASACT publishes technical assistance manuals, distributes a technical assistance video,
and holds workshops throughout the state. These workshops provide technical assistance to local
governments as well as information on where to find additional technical, financial, regulatory, and
managerial assistance.
W2ASACT also operates as an "advisory body" for legislative change. It works to identify opportuni-
ties for state policy changes, including metering all users, providing more money for preliminary
assessments, creating more regional systems, and improving coordination between programs through
statutory changes. Some of the suggested statutory reforms have reduced the redundancy of pro-
grams and eliminated the contradictions in requirements between programs. W2ASACT acts as an
intermediary between different organizations if problems arise or if projects are delayed by proce-
dural hurdles.
Currently, W2ASACT conducts much of its business through the following subcommittees:
» Tribal Interests
» Accounting Assistance
» Project Administration Coordination
» Technical Assistance
» Internet Website
« W,ASACT Video
2
* Standard Documents
» Environmental
,*,»
"? /\ J
;./ >-J
> ''''
-------
Getting Started
A: The Department of Commerce initiated the concept of W2ASACT in 1982. At that time, the
Legislature had created the Water Development Program (WDP) in the Department of Natural
Resources and Conservation. WDP initiated both a grant program and a loan program that would
finance drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects. The Farm Home Administration was
also a key funding source for rural communities. In addition, the Department of Health and Envi-
ronmental Sciences had the Construction Grants Program, funded by EPA, which also provided
regulatory oversight for communities. Staff level professionals agreed that by working together,
every program could better achieve its goals.
Rather than establish a formal group under an executive order or through legislation, it was the
program staff that committed to working together. By taking a "low key" approach, programs were
not threatened by the coordination process. Instead, staff professionals who had been "stepping on
each other's toes" on specific projects saw the opportunity to work together and coordinate their
activities.
A: Initially, the motivation was simply to communicate. Montana is a large state with few residents.
Separately, the financial resources available were insufficient for many projects to proceed. By
working together, the staff realized their programs could bring success to projects that had been
languishing.
A: The most significant changes to W2ASACT occurred in the early 1990s. By this time the
W2ASACT group had grown to include new programs and technical assistance providers. However
the Department of Commerce and their staff still bore the entire burden of hosting the coordinating
meetings, preparing the agendas, and keeping track of the minutes. In 1994, the agencies from the
Department of Commerce, Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, and the DHES
volunteered to share the burden of coordinating W2ASACT. A new, enthusiastic, and organized
chair, Barb Neuworth, was appointed from DHES. Additionally, the group agreed to form subcom-
mittees to work on specific issues between the bi-monthly meetings. Without staff for the program,
W ASACT members were not working on common problems between meetings, which slowed
progress. The subcommittees decided to become more organized and began to seriously discuss
common funding applications.
A: The biggest challenge was keeping program staff focused on coordination as opposed to returning
to their agency and business as usual for the 2 months between meetings. As mentioned above, the
formation of subcommittees and assigning specific tasks to be accomplished between meetings was
the key to success.
-------
Implementing the Approach
A: We handle differences from the bottom up. Rather than trying to change national or state policy,
the first thing we have tried to do is identify what we have in common. Focusing on similarities, not
differences, has been key. We all fund infrastructure projects, we all request funding information
from applicants, and we all require engineering and environmental reports.
The best example of this is the Uniform Application Supplement. Notice the word "Supplement";
initially, that is how we saw the project. Agencies would have their application and then it would be
supplemented by the "uniform" information. In practice this has reversed itself. Applicants fill out
the Uniform Application Supplement and then submit specific program information to add to the
common engineering, environmental, and financial information contained in the Uniform Application
Supplement. Most programs refer to the document as the Uniform Application and W2ASACT will
eventually drop "Supplement" from the name. For the SRF programs, the Uniform Application
Supplement is the loan application.
A: W2ASACT holds workshops in the spring and fall of each year. Workshop topics vary according to
program funding cycles. For example, we may focus on how to hire an engineer in the fall and on
how to fill out the Uniform Application Supplement in the spring. These meetings are advertised
through direct mail to local governments throughout the state. Also, the engineering community has
identified these as key meetings for their clients and for the firms themselves. W2ASACT workshops
are highly attended because that is where you want to start when you seek state and federal financial
assistance for infrastructure improvement projects. Annual meetings of organizations like Montana
Rural Water Systems, Inc., Montana League of Cities and Towns, and Montana Association of Coun-
ties are another way that W2ASACT agencies get the word out.
Three years ago, W2ASACT agencies funded the development of a video aimed at local government
officials trying to get started on funding needed infrastructure improvements. The video is made
available at all workshops and meetings, and we have sent many out to local governments and engi-
neering firms.
W2ASACT also has a Webpage and, in the upcoming year, we hope to make this page easier to find
and to improve the information that is available. Project tracking lists, lists of agencies and links,
and a description of W2ASACT are the basics of the Website today. In the near future, we hope to
have more interactive "PowerPoint" type presentations and more technical assistance opportunities
available.
-------
Assessing the Approach
A: By adoption of the Uniform Application Supplement by all W2ASACT agencies, nearly all drinking
water and wastewater infrastructure projects are using the coordinated approach in Montana. The
exceptions are the smaller and simpler projects that may need only one grant or loan source. The
vast majority of projects require multiple funding sources, and the Uniform Application Supplement
makes applying to more than one program much easier. Therefore, most applicants share the same
financial, project, and environmental information with the key financial providers.
A: Yes. The key was the Uniform Application Supplement. In the past, local governments may have
had to fill out as many as five different applications that often asked for the same, or similar, infor-
mation. This made the entire process inefficient for the local governments. Today, the Uniform
Application Supplement greatly reduces the cost of applying for financial assistance.
Another key step was the institution of Project Planning Grants. W2ASACT identified the lack of
grant funds to assist local governments in paying for professional engineering as a key obstacle to
addressing need. Mayors and council members were reluctant to take limited cash balances and hire
engineers. Often rates were kept so low that the utility did not have the money to pay for an engi-
neer. By funding Project Planning Grants, matched dollar-for-dollar by local governments, communi-
ties have received engineering and technical assistance to identify system problems, develop alterna-
tive solutions, discuss environmental impacts, and identify funding sources. Over 100 planning
grants were given to local governments in the last year. Many of these have resulted in grant and
loan applications for construction.
A: Yes, constantly. W2ASACT is working on a common supplement to the Montana Bid Specifica-
tions to give engineers and contractors a single target concerning the financial requirements associ-
ated with the bid specs. W2ASACT is working on improving its Website, and a subcommittee is
working on common environmental review procedures.
A: Most importantly, true commitment by HUD, EPA, and Rural Development. W2ASACT-type
agencies are where the "rubber meets the road." We can accomplish a lot at that level. If agencies at
a national level would get excited about working together, not by forming new policies or legislation,
but by meeting and working on drinking water and wastewater together like state coordinating
groups, there could be great progress. Communication is the key to coordination. Oh, more money
would help too.
-------
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Members of the Co-funding Initiative repre-
sent:
CWSRF
CWSRF Hardship Assistance
DWSRF
DWSRF Hardship Assistance
Appalachian Regional Commission Area
Development Program
Small Cities CDBG
RUS Water and Wastewater Disposal Loan
and Grant Program
Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act
Website: wwwjg/co^^
On February 18, 2002, Governor George Pataki
announced the creation of the Water and Sewer
Infrastructure Co-funding Initiative to improve water
infrastructure through enhanced state and local
government partnerships. The Initiative's main goal
is to streamline and expedite the funding process by
helping communities locate sources and procure
funding for their infrastructure improvement
projects. The Initiative hopes to become the central source and single contact for systems wishing to
obtain information on and assistance with the application process. To this end, the Initiative main-
tains a Website that has information on the funding programs available to communities, a self-
assessment tool for communities to determine their eligibility for each program, and instructions on
how to apply for funding.
The Initiative includes a steering committee and various subcommittees composed of staff from each
funding agency. The steering committee meets bi-monthly to review overall progress, determine
courses of action, and hear status reports from the subcommittees. Sub-committees address the
development of specific areas, such as:
» Establishing procedures for the joint review of applications for co-funding.
» Exploring the development of a joint application.
» Developing a common initial application for the SRFs and the Rural Development Grant
Program.
» Developing shared databases.
The Initiative was formalized in an MOU signed by New York's Department of Health, Department
of State, Environmental Facilities Corporation, Governor's Office for Small Cities, Department of
Environmental Conservation, and USDA's Rural Development Office. The MOU recognizes the
common goal of these organizations funding drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects
and outlines ways for the organizations to work together. In addition, the Initiative actively in-
forms communities about available funding sources through workshops and brochures. New York
has created the position of Co-funding Coordinator to administer its coordinated funding initiatives.
It is estimated that representatives from more than 1,000 communities have heard about the Co-
funding Initiative.
-------
Getting Started
A: The Co-funding Initiative was created under the direction of Governor Pataki in response to his
Quality Communities Task Force Report, which called for streamlining environmental infrastructure
funding processes. The initiative is a collaborative inter-agency effort between the New York State
Environmental Facilities Corporation, State Department of Health, Governor's Office for Small
Cities, Department of State, State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture's Rural Development, Rural Utilities Services.
A: The rationale behind establishing the Co-funding Initiative was to provide a central source and
single contact for obtaining information on and assistance with the application processes. The
Initiative was also formed to formalize a coordinated application review process to help applicants
obtain the maximum funding package for their projects.
A: Milestones include the creation of the following:
Memorandum of Understanding between Co-funding agencies.
Co-funding Website that features a self-assessment tool to determine which funding programs
a project may be eligible for.
Co-funding brochure.
Co-funding workshop that includes a Powerpoint presentation.
Database of project information.
Co-funding Coordinator title.
A: The Co-funding Initiative continues to develop. Specific challenges that we have encountered to
date include:
Working with the specific requirements of each funding program. The Co-funding Steering
Committee is working on identifying common requirements and flexibilities with different
requirements.
Developing a database of project information that all co-funding partners can use. A
subcommittee was formed to develop database tools, and progress is ongoing.
Individual funding application. A subcommittee was formed to explore the feasibility of
developing a single funding application. The subcommittee is working on an initial common
application between two funding programs, the State Revolving Funds and the Federal Rural
Development Water/Wastewater Grant Program, which will be submitted prior to the commu-
nity submitting a full application.
-------
Implementing the Approach
A: As stated in the MOU, each program retains separate and independent decision-making functions
for determining the projects that it funds. Program requirement differences are being reviewed by
various subcommittees, and ideas on minimizing these differences are being discussed. Regarding
priorities, the Project Review Sub-committee meets on a quarterly basis to discuss applicants and
issues, such as readiness for construction and environmental review status, that could impact the
project's priority as viewed by each agency.
A: Agency staff members regularly give Co-funding presentations and participate in panel discus-
sions at a variety of conferences and training programs around the state.
The Co-funding Website at www.nycofunding.org.
Other service providers such as county planners, the Rural Community Assistance Program,
and New York Rural Water Association help make communities aware of this initiative.
A Co-funding brochure distributed at conferences and included in mailings.
A press release issued by the Governor announcing the Initiative.
Assessing the Approach
A: Through various outreach efforts previously noted, it is estimated that representatives from more
than 1,000 communities have heard about the Co-funding Initiative. Since the announcement of the
Co-funding Initiative a year ago, 30 communities have sought funding through the Co-funding Initia-
tive.
A: New York State has been effectively co-funding projects informally for many years. It is expected
that by formalizing such activities through the Co-funding Initiative, more communities will be aware
of co-funding and even more projects will be co-funded. This formalized approach is relatively new
and, for the most part, developing according to expectations.
A: The Co-funding Initiative remains an on-going effort, and it is expected that new developments
will continue to be incorporated. We are exploring the feasibility of developing a single Co-funding
application for all funding programs. In the meantime, we are working on developing a common
initial application between the State Revolving Fund and the federal Rural Development funding
programs. We are also working on developing a mutually acceptable method for determining hard-
ship and on creating a single environmental review document for all funding programs.
-------
A: We are currently reviewing the program requirements of the various agencies in an effort to
identify specific areas where changes at the federal level would simplify the overall application
process. Coordinated programmatic processes between the federal funding agencies, common re-
quirements, or flexibility in program requirements, (such as accepting requirements already met for
other funding program applications), would be extremely helpful in simplifying and streamlining the
process.
-------
Programs and agencies participating in the UER
process:
Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund
(PENNVEST, DEP, EPA)
Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund
(PENNVEST, DEP, EPA)
RUS' Waste Disposal Grant and Loan Program
(USDA-RD)
CDBG Program (DCED, HUD)
Other Federal Funding Efforts (EPA)
Website:
The Uniform Environmental Review (UER) process,
initiated by the local RUS office, was finalized in July
2001. It standardizes the process for documenting the
environmental effects of proposed drinking water and
wastewater infrastructure projects that seek financial
assistance from state or federal funding sources in
Pennsylvania. It was designed to complement existing
planning and permitting programs by streamlining environmental reviews and avoiding duplication of work by
multiple agencies. The UER will also reduce delays and confusion caused by discrepancies between various
programs' requirements.
Prior to the UER, PENNVEST (Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority) had been informally
coordinating with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), local planning officials,
and other funding sources. In addition, PENNVEST staff met with staff from RUS, CDBG, and other funding
agencies to help ensure the success of various water, sewer, and stormwater projects throughout the state. The
UER grew out of that existing cooperation. It is expected that each UER will be prepared to satisfy all techni-
cal documentation required by the DEP for permit or planning approval. This may include Preliminary Engi-
neering Reports or Planning and Feasibility Studies. A UER should include:
» Project description and need.
Summary of alternatives considered.
» Environmental consequences of the selected alternative.
Summary of mitigation.
» Evidence of public participation.
» Any related exhibits.
Applicants for funding are encouraged to coordinate efforts with the DEP and relevant funding agencies before
project planning begins.
At the outset the UER process experienced some turf battles. However, these were quickly overcome as
agencies reconciled the various requirements of their programs. An official from PENNVEST attributed the
agencies' ability to overcome their differences to the relationships that had previously been cultivated by the
regional staff of the various funding programs. As a result of the UER creation process, agency staff better
understand the mechanisms, requirements, and procedures of their counterparts in other funding agencies.
Both PENNVEST and DEP have Websites that provide information to applicants and allow them to interact
with the agencies. In addition, "How to Apply" sessions are held each spring by PENNVEST. Other public
meetings are also held throughout the year to disseminate information and collect feedback.
Because of these efforts, all of the approximately 200 PENNVEST applicants per year are aware of the
coordination between the various funding agencies.
-------
Getting Started
A: The UER effort had been ongoing in various stages for several years. We finally formed a work
group that involved many stakeholders and worked through the bulk of the issues through the efforts
of the PA DEP and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's RUS offices.
Prior to this formalization, PENNVEST had established a planning consultation protocol in 1988
that required all applicants to participate in a planning meeting with DEP, PENNVEST, local plan-
ning officials, and other potential funding sources. This resulted in a cooperative effort and allowed
a more coordinated allocation of limited resources. In addition, PENNVEST regional staff routinely
meet with regional U.S. Department of Agriculture's RUS staff, county CDBG administrators, and
other funding agencies as appropriate. PENNVEST staff also provided input to the statewide
CDBG funding office, EDA, and ARC. These efforts are crucial to the success of the water, sewer,
and storm water projects under consideration throughout the Commonwealth, regardless of the
funding source.
A: The legislation that created PENNVEST included a rural system focus. Pennsylvania has a large
number of water/sewer systems, and many of the small, distressed systems seem to have not had
access to funding sources. PENNVEST strives to fill that gap. The UER is a step to help applicants
reduce the overhead involved in completing the planning and design required in order to be ready for
a funding offer. The missions of many of the funding agencies (both state and federal) are signifi-
cantly different from each other, and, therefore, a uniform application did not seem to be realistic at
the time. In fact, we could not persuade the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to buy into the UER
process, even though they duplicate much of the effort on projects that are jointly funded.
A: Applicants can now complete one environmental review that will be accepted by all potential
funding sources except the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
A: A certain level of turf protection was experienced but was quickly dissipated with the realization
of the benefits that can be garnered by the applicants. The relationships that had been cultivated by
regional staff members helped the different agencies accept the process. Input from the consulting
community and administrators also helped develop a workable process that would satisfy the regula-
tory aspects while addressing cost and other concerns of applicants. We were never able to obtain
acceptance from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
-------
Implementing the Approach
A: We provide or solicit input to or from other agencies in order to consider differences prior to the
decision to fund a project. When conflicts rise to the surface, the funding agency can decide how to
act based upon their mission. For instance, we have found that, in some cases, PENNVEST has a
more conservative view of Agricultural Land Preservation and land use than some of the other
funding agencies, including the USDA. Since PENNVEST requires a sign-off by local planning and
agriculture preservation boards prior to funding a project that may have land use impacts,
PENNVEST could potentially not fund a project that could later be funded by the USDAs RUS,
because RUS does not require the same level of local review and input. This is a position that
PENNVEST has taken based upon its mission and the impact that drinking water and sewer funding
may have on local land use. Obtaining local sign-off ensures PENNVEST funded projects are
consistent with local land use and agricultural preservation efforts.
Each project that PENNVEST considers for funding is ranked and evaluated by either PA DEP for
public health, environmental, and technical issues or by the PA Department of Community and
Economic Development (DCED) for economic development, private investment, and job creation
considerations. PENNVEST combines these rankings, develops a comprehensive list of projects in
priority order, and makes funding recommendations to its Board of Directors based upon this infor-
mation.
A: Pennsylvania has a number of outreach efforts. PENNVEST has four regional project specialists
that cover different areas of the state providing basic information and consultation services. Each
Regional PA DEP office has staff that work with PENNVEST and local community leaders to
disseminate information as well. The PA DCED, DEP, and PENNVEST participate in a large
number of statewide association meetings that involve the Commonwealth's local and county gov-
ernments as well as investor-owned utilities. The Commonwealth has also been very aggressive in
marketing services through the Internet. PENNVEST and DEP have interactive Websites that can
be used to access information, ask questions, and begin a dialogue. In addition, we conduct annual
"how to apply" sessions each spring and a series of information exchange meetings each fall that are
used to disseminate, as well as collect, information as to how the program is working.
Assessing the Approach
A: Each of the 150 to 200 new applications that PENNVEST receives each year is cognizant of the
coordinated funding efforts.
A: Coordinated funding is critical to funding projects in Pennsylvania. It allows projects to proceed
to construction that would otherwise languish in the sea of red tape. Utilizing the tools available
-------
and maximizing the limited resources that are available to various agencies, we are able to mix and
match different funding sources to develop a package that will best suit the particular project. The
icing on the cake is that all (or most) is completed up front in order to ensure adequate funding as
early in the process as possible.
A: We continue to monitor our efforts and make modifications as appropriate.
A: Our main suggestion is to allow maximum flexibility of available funds so that states may be able
to develop funding packages that relate to a specific project. Federal money should consider state
and local priorities before committing project funds. The U.S. Army Corps should also accept the
UER process for their projects.
-------
' f ><,),<
Two main bodies in the State of Washington coordi-
nate funding for drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure projects. The Washington Community
Economic Revitalization Team (WA-CERT) has
been active since 1993. It was created to respond to
locally defined needs focusing mainly on rural
counties and the tribes within those counties with
a program that is flexible and innovative. WA-CERT
is an information clearinghouse of technical and
financial assistance provided by federal, state, and
other sources to prioritized local and tribal projects.
It is a partnership involving ten federal agencies,
three state agencies, tribal governments, local gov-
ernments, public ports, economic development
councils, not-for-profits, and lending institutions
whose members are appointed by the governor.
WA-CERT's accomplishments include:
Developing a single point of entry for federal and
state programs serving designated, rural, natural
resource impact areas.
<> Creating a seamless service delivery that maxi-
mizes partnerships.
* Providing training to rural communities through
the WA-CERT Rural Communities Symposium
and other avenues.
* Investing over $300 million in local priority projects
VV-VM HOMO'S; PAKTNi:\-
WA-CERT members:
Office of Trade and Economic Development
(OTED)
Small Business Administra tion
USDAs Rural Developmen t
OTEDs Community Economic Assistance
Center
HUD
WA Departmen t of Ecology
WA Department of Health
Indian Health Service
EDA
Community Economic Revitalization Board
Website: :n' r-ot "an,,*- *{* '>r>;7i^ ,>,
IACC members:
Department of Community, Trade and
Economic Development (CTED)
USDAs Rural Developmen t
Conservation Commission
WA Department of Ecology
US Army Corps of Engineers
NW Small Cities Services
WA Departmen t of Transporta tion
WA Department of Health
WA Emergency Managemen t Division
US Department of Energy
Indian Health Service
EPA
Bureau of Reclamation
Office of State Treasurer
Association of WA Cities
WA Departmen t of General Administra tion
Website: www.infrafunding.wa.gov
since 1994.
Washington's Infrastructure Assistance Coordination Council (IACC) was established in the mid-
1980s as an information clearinghouse of technical and financial assistance. The non-profit organi-
zation is composed of 40 volunteer voting members who represent numerous federal, state, and local
government associations as well as non-profit technical assistance firms and universities. IACC is
not directly linked to any governmental agency, though its members often speak for their respective
organizations during IACC meetings.
-------
'DBOOK O ' " " 'RDINATING FlJNDl > , I" '!' WATER AND WASTE' 1II I I \'l F;v:; | F;|, I.'
lACC's main goal is to improve the delivery of technical and financial infrastructure assistance to
local governments. It grew out of the desire to have staff at the various funding agencies regularly
set aside time to talk to each other, share information, and network. IACC maintains an updated and
searchable database of more than 215 state and federal programs. It has also started to provide free
or low-cost software to local governments and other jurisdictions to aid in their search and applica-
tion for funds. Finally, IACC sponsors a conference that brings together funding agencies and techni-
cal assistance providers that aid individual systems. This conference is held once every two years. It
provides an opportunity for local governments and other jurisdictions to find funding sources and
technical assistance and for lending agencies to coordinate funding and streamline the lending pro-
cess.
IACC decided against creating a single application for the various infrastructure lending programs.
Members believed that any unified application would be so long and cumbersome it would make the
process harder and discourage local governments from applying for funding. Instead, IACC has been
able to unify limited elements of various applications, promote the best features of all the applica-
tions, and advocate for unifying the funding cycles of all lending programs.
-------
Getting Started
A: IACC: The ad hoc group originally known as the Intergovernmental Public Facilities Finance
Committee (IPFFC) was initiated in 1986 by staff representatives from state and federal agencies
who wanted to provide an opportunity to discuss shared issues and coordinate funding and technical
assistance to communities.
TIMBER TEAM: was established as a comprehensive approach to interagency coordination involv-
ing human services, education, retraining, and community and economic development programs, that
focused on service delivery to targeted individuals and communities.
WA-CERT: was created in 1993 by Presidential order and included federal agencies, EPA, and
Governor-appointed local elected officials. WA-CERT assumed the Timber Team budget in 1999.
A: IACC (or IPFFC) as an "approach" initially came out of the desire by state and federal staff to
share program and common project information in order to better serve Washington's communities.
With local governments facing increasing public facility needs and limited financial assistance, shar-
ing information and coordinating efforts seemed a way to improve the investment of financial and
technical resources. It began as an informal gathering and expanded to be a more structured organi-
zation. But, it is still dependent on the volunteer efforts of state and federal staff. The initial "deci-
sion" was for staff to take the initiative to begin regularly setting aside time to talk to each other,
share information, and network.
This IACC organization has supported several "approaches" through the years. A basic activity has
been to offer a conference to bring local governments and engineers together with the funding and
regulatory agencies to network and coordinate their various forms of assistance. Another basic
activity has been the creation of the Infrastructure Assistance Directory to provide a single resource
guide for local governments. IACC also tried to establish a system of coordinating technical assis-
tance teams for local projects, but this was too difficult to sustain, and the need was somewhat met
by the WA-CERT approach.
IACC has supported several other activities through the years. The basic rationale has always been
that public facility assistance is not keeping up with the need. Therefore, IACC seeks to answer the
question: How can the state and federal funding providers make the best use of resources, and how
can we assist local governments in accessing financial and technical assistance?
The Timber Team provided targeted and coordinated technical assistance to individuals, communi-
ties, and businesses impacted by the curtailment of the federal timber harvest. In 1992, the Timber
Team began a "seamless service delivery" approach, with the philosophy that it is the job of state
and federal program staff to find the best mix of programs to help a community address a priority
need.
-------
WA-CERT's process continued the one-stop shopping approach, pioneering the concepts of scoping
agents and technical teams a bottom-up (community driven) approach to coordination, teaching
project development techniques to other staff and communities through a variety of training work-
shops and WA-CERT Rural Communities Symposium.
A: Rural Development, Community Development Block Grant, and the Department of Ecology
will accept each other's environmental work, if coordinated early.
Offering infrastructure assistance conferences.
» Creation of lACC's searchable Infrastructure Assistance Directory.
Establishment of non-profit status (state).
WA-CERT's two-page project proposal form, scoping agents, technical team approaches, web-based
application process, and Symposium.
A: Staff continue to address various challenges/obstacles. The challenge for any sustained coordi-
nated effort is having the authorization to work in a collaborative way.
Implementing the Approach
A: Due to the decline in levels of certain funding for community and economic development pro-
grams, coordination is even more important. Some information is shared between programs (e.g.,
community income status information between Rural Development and Community Development
Block Grant, environmental review information between the Department of Ecology, Community
Development Block Grant, and Rural Development), though differences in program requirements and
priorities among the various funding sources are not really "handled."
A: IACC Conference; www.infrafunding.wa.gov; fact sheets; and, training events. Thirty-one counties
and 26 tribes prioritize projects through the WA-CERT system. The state and federal agency staff
scan those lists of projects identifying those that fit their priorities, funding programs, etc.
Assessing the Approach
A: We are unable to estimate the total number of applicants that are reached by our coordination
efforts.
-------
A: Yes. A good example of these efforts are agency staff that coordinate to assist small, rural com-
munities that are simultaneously struggling with economic vitality and compliance with health and
environmental regulations.
A: New ideas are always being considered.
Q: Wfcif cl r ai the federal level do
A: Giving applicants fewer federal requirements to meet.
-------
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
This page intentionally left blank
-------
ppendix B provides sample documents used by the six profiled states. The documents
include:
Arizona's Project Information Form used to gather basic system and project information.
California's Common Funding Inquiry Form used to route potential applicants to the appro-
priate funding agency(ies).
A sample of Montana's Project Tracking Tables, which track the progress of each project
funded through W2ASACT.
The Memorandum of Understanding that created the Co-funding Initiative in New York.
Flowcharts created by PENNVEST to show how drinking water and wastewater systems
move through the application and funding processes in Pennsylvania.
A "snapshot" of lACC's Web site, which allows systems to identify available sources of
funding in Washington.
-------
RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
PROJECT INFORMATION FORM
(To be utilized by all project applicants within the State of Arizona)
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Name of Community/Facility/System: 2.County:,
3. Previous name of Facility/System, if applicable:
4. Type of Organization: Municipality () Special/Domestic District () Investor Owned () Co-op () Other ( )
If other, please explain:
5. Total Population Served: 6. Number of Connections:,
7. Contact Person: 8. Telephone Number:
Title: 9. Fax Number:
10. Address 11.E-Mail Address
(If Applicable):
12. Type of Project (Please Check): Water ( ) Wastewater ( ) Solid Waste ( )
I. DEMOGRAPHIC AND SERVICE AREA INFORMATION
13. Population of Project Service Area: 14. Number of Service Connections or users:.
Complete the following (If you do not have accurate study data, please provide an estimate):
15. Median Income of Service Area: 16. % Poverty Level of Service Area:
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND APPLICABLE BACKGROUND INFORMATION
17. Provide a description of the problem.
18. (a) Estimated Project Cost: $ 16. (b) Estimated By: (Date).
19. Describe the proposed solution.
-------
20. Please check all that apply to resolving the problem.
Not Certain of How and Where to Begin
Public Is Unaware of the Problem
Need Qualified Consultants
Lack financial Options
Environmental Issues
. Lack Organization/Cooperation
. Lack Public Support for Solution
. Experiencing Technical Problems
Regulatory Problems
Other:
If Environmental or Other Issues are applicable, please explain:
21. Have you contacted any agencies or lending sources about funding? Please Check: Yes ( ) No ( )
BECC ( ) CDBG ( ) GADA( ) USDA - Rural Development ( ) WIFA ( ) Other i
If Other, please identify:
22. Have you received on-site Technical Assistance? Please check: Yes ( ) No ( )
Check source(s) of Technical Assistance Received:
ASETT Center ( ) RCAC ( ) ASUA ( ) Other ( ) If Other, please identify:
IV. FINANCIAL RATE, COLLECTION AND FUND INFORMATION
23. Rates: Monthly/Quarterly/Other
Service
Water
Wastewater
Solid Waste
Residential Rates
Base:
Use:
Base:
Use:
Base:
Use:
Commercial Rates
Base:
Use:
Base:
Use:
Base:
Use:
Date of Last increase
22. Are water and wastewater separate funds?
23. Please complete budget information.
Annual Budget
Total Collections
Operation/Maintenance/Replacement
Annual Debt Service
Reserve/Sinking Fund Balance
Available/Uncommitted Balances
Water Fund
Wastewater Fund
Rates by "Uses" - e.g. $1.00 gallons beyond base of 5,000 gallons
24. Please provide the latest summary of your revenues and expenditures. (If you have audited financ
statements , there will bea section entitled "Combined Statement of Revenues and Expenditures".
-------
APPENDIX B: SAMPLE DOCUMENTS FROM SURVEYED STATES
CA - CFCC Common Funding Inquiry
CALIFORNIA FINANCING COORDINATING COMMITTEE
COMMON FUNDING INQUIRY FORM
Instructions: An electronic copy of this form can be obtained at htip.//www cfcc.ca gov/
Please provide the information below and e-mail the completed form to: rcristia@commerce.c3.gov
If completing a hard copy of this form, attach responses where applicable and fax to Rorna Cristia-Plant at (916) 322-6314.
Name of Applicant or Official System Name:
County:
Check the box that best describes the applicant's organization:
O Municipal entity D Private entity, for profit
Private entity, nonprofit
Project OR Problem Description: (Describe the problem or the need for the project, the purpose of the project, the basic design features of
the project and what the project will accomplish. Attach documentation, if available)
Estimated Project Schedule: (Provide a timeline that illustrates the estimated start and completion dates for each major phase or milestone of
project development, construction and/or acquisition (including, for example, feasibility study, land acquisition, preliminary engineering, environmental
review, final design and construction commencement and completion.)
Financing Is Needed For: (check ail that apply)
D Feasibility Study D Rate Study
O Land Acquisition O Environmental
D Administration D Other, specify:
D Engineering/Architectural
O Project Construction
Estimated Total Project Costs: $
Multiple Funding Sources Anticipated:
Estimated Funding Requested: $
D Yes D No
For wat&r/sew&r projects only:
System ID No.:
Service Area Population:
Number of Service Connections:
Population of City, County or Benefit Area:
fdfy it city iipnlicunl, county i! county npflictint, hcilc/il tin>u for nil tilhcr^i
Estimated Median Household Income of Service Area
or Project Benefit Area: $
All correspondence regarding this inquiry will be sent to the individual named below. You will receive a written acknowledgement of the receipt of this
inquiry form and be contacted by staff of the appropriate CFCC member agencies to pursue additional assistance.
Printed Name of Inquirer
Mailing Address
Phone Number
( )
Title
City
FAX Number
( )
Date
Zip code
E-mail
For CFCC Use Only:
ttf Kc/ierrat M CJPCC M
Date Keaptinti^d to Inquiry:
CFCC 02-18-03
-------
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
This page intentionally left blank
-------
I ill
Status: PE = Preliminary Engineering; F = Obtaining Financing; D = Final Design; C = Construction; X = Project Completed
by the funding source. A question mark in pat
vcflT witti fl "ncstj^n msrlr In p^rcnth^s^s 'nr
owing the amount denotes that the applicant has submitted an application to the funding source and is awaiting a funding
intheses denotes that the applicant has indicated in an application to another funding source that it is planning to submit
icating that the applicant has definite plans to apply or re-submit an application in that year.
Other Funding Soutce Notations: CDBG = Community Development Block Grant Program; DNRC = Department of Natural Resources and Conservation;
EPA Environmental Protection Agency; EDA Economic Development Agency; STAG = State and Tribal Assistance Grant; Unknown = Funding has been
APPLICANT
PROJECT
Status
Solid Waste
Hebgen Basin- West
Yellowstone Refuse
District
Lake County Solid
Waste District
Total Solid Waste
Composting facility
for municipal solid
waste
Transfer station
D
F
CDBG Grant
YEAR
$
Waste Water
Arlee W&S District,
Lake Co.
Ashland W&S District,
Rosebud Co.
Big Sky (Phase III)
East Missoula
Florence W&S District,
Ravalli County
Virginia City
Total Waste Water
New wastewater
system
New treatment plant
Treatment
improvements
New collection system
& connect to
Missoula
New wastewater
system
New treatment plant
D
D
C
C
F
D
$ 500,000
$ 385,500
$ 400,000
$ 500,000
$ 500,0j|p
$ 2,285, 5(TRi
Water
Blackfeet Tribe
Clyde Park
Eureka
Lacasa Grande Estates
W&S District, Lewis &
Clark Co.
Lockwood W&S
District, Yellowstone
Co.
Phillips burg
Total Water
New source and
treatment plant to
provide water to Easf$
Glacier and Bio\vilsf?'
&,<
New well and , (' ,
distribution ":
improvements
Supply and treatment
improvements
New water system
Treatment
improvements
Source improvements
*
%
..,,»«H!
--C .'
C
C
F
C
»T vr,i'-
1 ;%
| """
$ 335,000
$ 400,000
$ 735,000
YEAR
00
01
99
«#
4f
'f>02
\EAR
K
\ -t
H, ' '
^
(?)
98
DNRC
Grant
YEAR
$ 99,425
$ 100,000
$ 199,425
$ 100,000
$ 100,000
4
$ loo.ooW
*%
*: 100,000
TTX
$ >.''ifi«,000
t
$,
$ 100,000
$ 100,000
$ 30,000
$ 230,000
99
(02)
YEAR
01
If
a
a«^
Hto
\
W
01
YEAR
01
01
98
DNRC
Loan
YEAR
$
,1
>, fii
\^
s
^,es^
'^H
$
$
YEAR
§?-'«
f
y^
mL
^f»i
k.
^
YEAR
INTERCAP Loan
(non-interim)
YEAR
$ 640,182
$ 640,182
2K
w
f m,
S&G
*te^'
$ 16,325
$ 30,325
$
(?)
YEAR
99
99
YEAR
RD Grant
YEAR
$
$ 1,517,800
$ 940,000
$ 2,170,000
$ 4,627,800
$ 4,637,415
$ 721,000
$ 5,358,415
YEAR
99
00
(?)
YEAR
01
01
Water & Sewer YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR
Cols trip
Libby
Upper/Lower River
Road, Cascade Co.
Total Water & Sewer
Distribution &
collection
Water & wastewater
extension of services
Connect to City of
Great Falls
C
F
F
$
$ 100,000
$ 100,000
$ 200,000
(02)
(02)
$
$ 241,275
$ 241,275
(?)
$
-------
HANDBOOK ON COORDINATING FUNDING FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
decision. The amount indicated is onl
an application to this funding source.
f an estimate and the amount if awarded could be
A que$^^n mfli'lr ^pitlioiif T»fl*°£titheses denotes
ligher or lower
hat funding is a
The year without parentheses den
uthorized, but funding is not yet comj
otes the year the pro ect was funded
Tutted. Note that CDBG may have a
RD = Rural Development; SRF = State Revolving Fund; TSEP = Treasure State Endowment Program; IHS = Indian Health Service; B1A = Bureau of Indian Affairs;
anticipated from a particular funding source, but the application was unsuccessful and a new source has not been identified.
RDLoan
YEAR
$
$ 742,100
$ 2,053,200
$ 2,170,000
$ 4,965,300
$ 1,545,805
$ 429,000
$ 1,974,805
$
YEAR
99
00
(?)
YEAR
01
01
YEAR
SRF Loan
YEAR
$ 4,136,000
$ 4,136,000
$ 116,750
$ 7,000,000
$ 724,000
$ 7,840,750
$ 619,000
$ 650,000
$ 643,828
$ 241,000
$ 2,153,828
$ 2,617,000
$ 792,000
$ 3,409,000
02
YEAR
01
02
02
YEAR
/ml
|
02
(02)
(?)
98
YEAR
(02)
(?)
TSEP Giant
YEAR
$ 500,000
$ 500,000
$ 500,000
$ 500,000
$ 500,000
$ 500,000
$ 500,000
$ 500,000
$ 3,000,000
JP
3 ^500,000
A.,, .^silbi?
$ 369,000
$ 500,000
$ 500,000
$ 121,900
$ 1,990,900
$ 500,000
$ 500,000
$ 1,000,000
(02)
YEAR
99
01
(02)
97
01
01
YEAR
1
&
*H»tr«3
f
01
99
(02)
99
YEAR
(02)
(03)
LOCAL
FUNDING
$ 159,058
$ 1,056,818
$ 1,215,876
$ 11,338
$ 28,750
$ 2,500,000
$ 298017
^ f
l, >
\t, H*
"ft
$ rt$*
$, 9,981
111*880,324
$ 5,026,555
$ 514,500
$ 4,950
$ 15,000
$ 7,496
$ 5,568,501
$ 700,000
$ 20,000
$ 2,023,200
$ 2,743,200
Source
(",V »'>"'/!
S&KTiiM^ff^lHlllll) ,'t )
MDEQ Pknn^Glant i|tt?45)
7X 7" """'
lM|t, Plannm^ijjurf^l II 1
A^OUJ imping
^ItttfiisrtiV'.V.,
/ '.'-« ""'?£ ,
*O Pinitt^4te^
*^,>
MDEQ SjAng Cunt (til 925j
EP \Sant ($241,835)
Vi* r*f
"^jSfy. Planning Grant (16.325)
MQjta^lanmm, Grant ($10,000)
Ha^fc ($2,000,000)
MDEQ Planning Grant ($9,981)
Source
TSEP/Browning ($500,000)
State
CDBG/Browning($500,000)
EPA ($720,000)
NAHASDA ($1,500,000)
TSEP/East Gkcier ($306,555)
EDA ($1,500,000)
CDBG Planning Grant ($4,500)
DNRC Planning Grant ($10,000)
Unknown ($500,000)
MDEQ Planning Grant
DNRC Planning Grant ($10,000)
TSEP PER Grant ($5,000)
CDBG Planning Grant
Source
MT Coal Board
DNRC Planning Grant ($10,000)
CDBG Planning Grant ($10,000)
DNRC ($10,000) DEQ/SRF &c
DOC/CDBG ($13,200)
STAG ($2,000,000)
YE\R
!.'%
,f
r-tii
02
01
99
YEAR
97
(00)
98
00
(01)
YEAR
02
TOTAL
PROJECT
COST
$ 4,394,483
$ 2,297,000
$ 6,691,483
$ 2,814,833
$ 1,437,500
$ 19,059,013
$ 4,556,977
$ 7,472,650
$ 1,857,441
$ 37,198,414
$ 11,709,775
$ 1,783,500
$ 1,083,920
$ 1,254,950
$ 1,723,555
$ 1,144,519
$ 18,700,219
$ 3,717,000
$ 1,261,275
$ 3,426,000
$ 8,404,275
COUNTY
Gallatin
Lake
Lake
Rosebud
Gallatin
Missoula
Ravalli
Madison
Glacier
Park
Lincoln
Lewis &. Clark
Yellowstone
Granite
Rosebud
Lincoln
Cascade
-------
New York: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
COORDINATION OF WATER AND SEWER FUNDING ACTIVITIES
This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) is by and between the New York State
Department of Health (DOH), an agency of the State of New York, the New York State Department of
State (DOS), an agency of the State of New York, the New York State Environmental Facilities
Corporation (EFC), a New York State public benefit corporation, the New York State Governor's Office
for Small Cities (GOSC), a unit of the New York State Housing Trust Fund Corporation, the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), an agency of the State of New York, and the
United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development (USDA RD). (Such entities individually
sometimes referred to as a "Government Agency" and collectively, "Government Agencies").
A. WHEREAS, the Government Agencies entering into this MOU each have funding programs that assist
communities, including small and rural communities, to finance projects that have water and/or sewer
needs (""projects""). These Government Agencies operate separately and independently from each other,
and each Government Agency has separate and independent decision-making functions for determining the
projects it funds.
B. WHEREAS, such projects may be eligible to receive funding from any or all of the Government
Agencies. In order for a project to receive funding from the Government Agencies, an applicant must apply
to each Government Agency separately. Coordinating this application process, while retaining each
Government Agency's separate and independent decision-making responsibilities, will simplify the
application process for potential applicants and enhance customer service.
C. WHEREAS, projects may be eligible to receive funding from any or all of the Government Agencies.
Cooperation and communication between such Government Agencies is necessary to ensure optimum
funding potential and assistance. A formal funding coordination process will ensure that applicants have the
opportunity to receive funding from the most appropriate funding source(s), and that the Government
Agencies are using available funds as effectively as possible.
D. WHEREAS, this MOU addresses key recommendations in Governor Pataki's Quality Communities
Interagency Task Force Report dated January 2001, which calls for Government Agencies to study
community growth in New York State and develop means to assist communities in implementing effective
land development, preservation and rehabilitation strategies that promote both economic development and
environmental protection. The Quality Communities Interagency Task Force also made recommendations
for agencies to review current policies and practices concerning state funding to local governments and to
stream line the state funding application process.
NOW, THEREFORE, in cooperation of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the
Government Agencies agree as follows:
A. The Government Agencies enter this joint MOU to formalize the coordination of water and sewer
financing activities for the purpose of improving service to communities seeking project financing. The
water and sewer funding programs addressed by this MOU are as follows:
(i) Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC): Administered by DOS, this program provides funding to the 14
Southern Tier counties in the Appalachia region of New York State. ARC financial assistance to projects in
all Appalachian counties are only a small catalytic part of a larger package of state and federal investments
for particular infrastructure efforts and are almost always co-funded with such funds.
-------
(ii) Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF): Administered by EFC and DEC, CWSKF provides reduced
rate financing to recipients for municipally owned water quality protection projects.
(Hi) Community Devebpment Block Grant (CDBG) Small Cities Program: Administered by the GOSC, the HUD
CDBG Small Cities Program provides grants to eligible cities, towns and villages with a population under
50,000 persons and counties under 200,000 for projects principally benefitting low and moderate income
persons by revitalizing neighborhoods, expanding affordable housing and economic opportunities, and/or
improving community facilities.
(iv) Drinking Water State KevolvingFund (DWSRF): Administered by DOH and EFC, the DWSRF provides
reduced rate financing and grants for municipally and privately owned public water systems to undertake
needed drinking water infrastructure projects.
(v) 1996 Clean Water/Clean Air'Bond Act Administered by DEC, the Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act
provides grants to municipalities or entities designated by municipalities for the implementation of water
quality improvement projects including wastewater treatment improvement, aquatic habitat restoration and
non-point source abatement and control
(vi) USDA KD: Provides loans, grants and loan guarantees for drinking water, sanitary sewer, solid waste
and storm drainage facilities in rural areas and cities and towns with a population of 10,000 or less. Public
bodies, non-profit organizations and recognized Indian tribes may qualify for assistance.
B. To enhance customer service, simplify the application process and formalize the coordination of jointly
financed water and sewer funding activities, the Government Agencies each acknowledge and agree to:
(i) Promptly establish a permanent Water and Sewer Co-funding Committee (Co-funding Committee)
consisting of representatives from each of the Government Agencies who are a party to this MOU, in order
to carry out the tasks needed to achieve the MOU objectives (as described above in paragraphs B and C)
and to meet on a regular basis for the purpose of monitoring and evaluating actions toward achieving the
objectives of this MOU;
(ii) Cooperate in preparing and distributing a common screening mechanism that enables potential funding
recipients to determine if they may be eligible for funding offered by the different Government Agencies;
(iii) Cooperate in developing an efficient mechanism and process to obtain fundamental information that
each government agency requires of an applicant to minimize the applicant's duplication of effort;
(iv) Facilitate the exchange of information among the Government Agencies to maximize the delivery of
resources to communities in need of infrastructure improvements;
(v) Jointly finance projects whenever feasible and appropriate;
(vi) Provide the support to coordinate jointly financed water and sewer financing activities; and
(vii) Provide training outreach on government water and sewer financing programs to inform potential
recipients of funding opportunities for which they may be eligible.
C. The list of contacts for each of the Government Agencies who are a party to this MOU is attached as
Appendix A.
D. This agreement will commence when executed by the last of the Government Agencies identified in this
MOU and remains in effect until terminated by any party giving to the others not less than sixty (60) days
written notice that on or after a date therein specified, this agreement shall be terminated and canceled.
-------
FLOW CHART - DRINKING WATER
PENNSYLVANIA INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AUTHORITY
APPLICATION FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Applicant
Joint Action
Obtains application from PENNVEST;
meeeting with DEP Project Manager
DEP Project Manager
Prepares Planning Consultation Report, Prepar
sends to applicant.
Applicant
Arranges Preapplication Conference with DEP ]
Applicant
DEP for processing.
ing Consultation
Applicant
es Planning and Feasibility
ort and Designs Project.
Joint Action
'reapplication Conference
PENNVEST
1
Applicant and PENNVEST Applicant, DEP and Contractor
Applicant
Start Construction
Construction Meeting 1
1
-------
FLOW CHART -WASTEWATER
PENNSYLVANIA INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AUTHORITY
APPLICATION FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Applicant
DEP Project Manager
Prepares Planning Consultation Report;
sends to applicant.
Joint Action
Obtains application from PENNVEST;
arranges Planning Consultation meeeting with
DEP Project Manager
Planning Consultation
Meeting
Application
Submits NPDES, Part I,
Permit Application to DEP
DEP Project Engineer
Reviews Application and, if appropriate,
issure Part I Permit
Joint Action
Pre-Design meeting.
Applicant
_ . Designs Project
Submits Water Quality Management Part II, Permit
Application
DEP Project Engineer
Reviews Application and, if
appropriate, issues Part II
Permit.
Applicant
Completes application and sends to Authority
and DEP for processing.
PENNVEST
PENNVEST Board Meeting
~l
Applicant & PENNVEST Applicant, DEP and Contractor
1
Loan Closing
Applicant
Start Construction
-------
APPENDIX B: SAMPLE DOCUMENTS FROM SURVEYED STATES
WA-IACC Website
M«lllf.M«IIIH»lll-.llMI«
/nfrasfrucfureDATABASE is your resource for locating infrastructure
funding or technical assistance in Washington State. This site is brought
to you by the Infrastructure Assistance Coordinating Council (IACC).
Choose the Type of data that interests you:
Type off Assistance:
All
Category:
[Water Quality
Eligible Organization:
Local Government jj
Match Required:
No
IACC Conference
2003
"Harvesting
Resources"
Coming Soon
Calendar of
Events
Best viewed with :
This site maintained
by the
Transportation
Improvement Board.
Get Results
Check out the useful areas in the left column including other funding or
technical assistance opportunities. Information on writing grant
applications is also available.
For more information contact IACCHeIp@TiB.wa.gov
Home | Calendar | Current Opportunities | Maintenance | Partners
I Subscribe
Current
Infrastructure
Opportunities
PuMielfarhBnunt
-------
ppendix C provides a summary table of the coordinated funding efforts for all states. The
> information summarized in the table was gathered from research conducted by EPA on each
. ' . ' state. The information is focused primarily on the states' implementation of EPA's SRF
programs. After the initial research was completed, each state's SRF program was contacted to verify
its information and to make changes as necessary. While the information presented was accurate at
the time it was gathered, some of the information may change due to the dynamic nature of state
coordinated funding programs.
-------
Coordinate
Selection of
Systems
Uniform
Application
Packages
Uniform
Environmental
Reviews
MOU
Conferences/
Workshops/
Funding Fairs
Other (specify)
Yes
Quarterly
Yes
Quarterly
Yes
Quarterly
general
meetings and
monthly project
meetings
Project of the
Year Award
Community
Chare ties
Rural Water
Infrastructure
Committee (RwlC)
www.wifa.state.az.us
Yes
Uniform Pre-
Application
Monthly
Water and Wastewater
Advisory Committee
www.1800arkansas.com/WWAC/Preface.asp
Yes
California
Finance
Coordinating
Committee
(CFCC)
www.cfcc.ca.gov
www.swrcb.ca.gov/cwphome/mss/cfccfr.htm
www.dhs.cahwnet.gov/org/ps/ddwem/SRF/
SRFindex.htm
Yes
Separate
MOUs with
Depts. of Local
Government,
the Water
Quality Control
Division of CO
Dept. of
Health, and
the CO Water
Conservation
Board
Quarterly
Discussion of
pooling funds
Funding Coordination
Committee
www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/
Drinking_Water/Financial_Assistance.htm
Yes
Possible, but
has not yet
happened
Possible, but
it is untested
since no
projects have
actually been
co-funded
Possible, but it
is untested
since no
projects have
actually been
co-funded
Occasionally if
needed, but
nothing on a
routine basis
-------
: ll ;
If ;
ill
' l| ;
;^1! >
si i»' fetf i*ti
lifSlsiw ill ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^M
I II sii* B:i ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^M
^>!:.L!.UM>:^:MMMMMMMMMMMM vamMm
1 MSI III 111 I Eli I
i SliEpiS^ltHHiH.Kii:!!:!;!;! f '-.£'/ $:t f'^fl RIS i: B!' i'l|i: fci i *<' ll||l?
nilHWipip'iitilfilSfi'll J ''*' Xi.V' M. ' "" ' '
'"''' ' i:'!fcjs'!i'i*S"" ' ' :iii/ "
/ ( Coordinate Uniform Uniform Meetings Conferences/ '' '" "" "-'''
/ : Selection of Application Environmental MOU (Indicate how Workshops/ Other (specify)
/ : Systems Packages Reviews often) Funding Fairs
1)1
M
G.A
Ml
\
IA
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Coordinate
informally
with
USDA/RD
Under
Develop-
ment
With State-
funded loan
program
No, but
generally
accept other
agencies'
«/*
Uniform Pre-
application
only
No, but
environmental
coordinated
Quarterly
Quarterly
Semi-annual
Expo through
DelTech
Community
College and
annual events:
DE RWA; DE
Inst. for Local
Government
Leaders, etc.
FL's annual
SRF
Workshop
includes all
drinking water
and
wastewater
funding
agencies
GEFA attends
annual
meetings of
non-profits
Uniform
Payment
Disbursement
Request
Developing
clearinghouse
website
Developing
coordinated
marketing and
application
assistance
Florida Rural Water
Association
www.gefa.org/
Quarterly
Quarterly
Monthly
Monthly
*/
Annual
workshop
with
consulting
engineers
Advantage
Handbook
DWSRF funds
may
complement
other grants
(e.g., CDBGs)
Advantage Group
Infrastructure Funding
Coordinating
Committee
Environmental
Infrastructure Working
Group, headed by the
Indiana Rural
Development Council
www.idoc.state.id.us/idcomm/comdev/
index.html
www.IN.gov/irdc/tasks/
www.state.ia.us/government/dnr/organiza/
e pd/wtrs u p ly/s rf/s if. h tm
-------
ilyf i''r's*js if!1?"?
'l;i* ':" : ;ii i'S;i;^.|^'.4'^'
'. «* - ' ! !*;.
1
:! 'i 1
" ,:! |ii
.Jf'ckriiLiiirg^lii i
'i r.;>i E'i 7': i !! ij C'li'&C.''1
jfjiTjlLi!:! jjllf i
.i ^.:^l!i .: '. \'; LVt^'^.l^i
111
'If 8 1!IFJ-I
|& 1i.i1;i;i!; ^:.>'i
!!$(!«! iliaN &llilli8£iii&i|i8 iiiiiiiiiii^il-lii^.^ ifc.|i! .§ lii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
i i ili^st^fftr1?'' 'ff.nm e \i'!?» *zfi'A-t-f, xirf*iitii.i:f"vsij ".i^.*;.' "'f/^fi'f."/
M«;S»lCMfl a*fWi>S ^ftftftisi ' \
^K ! ' "'Xil-'v^l.J'^^ V''1''"*1" ''*""'' LMi '«'"' \
Coordinate Uniform Uniform Meetings Conferences/ ;v
-------
.'! 1 |i
j 1 l\
1 It!
VS
.VtO
M
N
SV
IIR i 1ft 111 1
I » SilB i
1 , »ili1!'i -i
11 Coordinate
si:
| Selection of
| Systems
Yes |
Coordina-
tion with
USDA/RD
and CDBG
Yes
C
Yes p
t
Project must
be on the
DWSRF
Project
Priority List
to be
eligible for
Yes state grant.
Systems use
DWSRF
ran king as
part of their
project
documenta-
tion.
'ill Si 1 ill HUM! 1 J'ii4: : ji
||lf 111 1 ill |
! 111!
i : ililltflkii
iiite III iteitoiiiiWta^^ iffi;«ll iiJyil Aiifell
Uniform Uniform Meetings Conferences
Application Environmental MOU (Indicate how Workshops/
Packages Reviews often) Funding Fair
Under
development
/
ommon Adopt other
re-applica- agencies'
on reviews
Environmental
reviews not
performed for
non-federally
funded
projects in
accordance
with NEPA.
DWSRF has
NEPA-like
process
approved by
EPA.
f
Monthly %/'
Bimonthly y/
.. ... Held
Monthly .
' separately
As part of
ongoing
AWWA,
Quarterly Nevada Rura
Water
Association,
and others
II tii-KSifMiiS'^iii1 i
il isilisifi^lt i
! y!'-K.^''i:'|;i i>
1 \ l ' ' ! l
Other (specify) i
? i
Other grants
may be used to
complement
DWSRF loans. Water and Wastewater
Also, DWSRF Review Committee
program
provides
interim loans.
Water, Wastewater,
. ,. , and Solid Waste
Video ,.
Action Coordinating
Team
DWSRFand
CWSRF ... . ... .
Water Wastewater
".,... Advisory Committee
provide interim '
financing
., . ,. , Infrastructure for
Waterlmes ,
. Nevada Communities
newsletter ,,M^> , . , ,
. , (INC), coordinated by
provides n .' '
r, .. Rural Community
information on ... ' .
, Assistance Corporation
assistance and .,,.,,,
(RCAC)
funding sources
ilill
11 : ill tli 1 iiij:|ii '1 i: ll fjflilp
1
www.dnrc.state.mt.us/cardd/wasact.htm
www.rcac.org/pubs/WL/2002/Fall-lnsert.pdf
www. rcac.o rg/pu bs/WL/2 00 1 /
Fall2001inst.pdf
-------
Coordinate
Selection of
Systems
Uniform
Application
Packages
Uniform
Environmental
Reviews
MOU
Meetings
(Indicate how
often)
Conferences/
Workshops/
Funding Fairs
Other (specify)
Yes
Quarterly
Some
seminars on
"Funding
Options" are
worked into
the yearly
Drinking
Water Trade
Show
No
Yes
In progress
Quarterly one-
stop-shop
meetings
NM
Infrastructure
Finance
Conference,
Association of
Counties
Annual
Conference,
Municipal
League
Annual
Conference,
Rural Water
Conference,
and DFA
Local
Government
Budget
Conference
Rural Water
Association
Rural Community
Assistance Corporation
(RCAC)
Yes
Bimonthly
steering
committee
meetings
Funding self-
assessment
tool
Water and Sewer
Infrastructure Co-
Funding Initiative
www.nycofunding.org
Yes
No
As needed
-------
Coordinate
Selection of
Systems
Uniform
Application
Packages
Uniform
Environmental
Reviews
MOU
Meetings
(Indicate how
often)
Conferences/
Workshops/
Funding Fairs
Yes
Coordinating Committee works to
streamline interagency funding provisions.
Finance Committee coordinates financial
resources for small communities.
Technology Transfer Committee identifies
and develops new or underutilized
technologies for small communities.
Quarterly
Curriculum
Committee
offers
workshops for
local officials
on water and
wastewater
systems
Small Communities
Environmental
Infrastructure Group
www.sceig.org
Yes
Monthly
Funding Agency
Coordinating Team
www.state.ok.us/~owrb/forms/fa/fact.html
Yes
www.ohd.hr.state.or.us/dwp/srlf.cfm
www.econ.state.or.us/safe wtr.htm
Yes
www.dep.state.pa.us
www.pennvest.state.pa.us
No
Yes
No
Possible, but
has not yet
happened
Funding
agencies
coordinate
environmental
reviews so
that there is
little or no
duplication of
effort
Occasionally if
needed, but
nothing on a
routine basis
Atlantic States
Rural Water
works with the
State and
suggests co-
funding
opportunities if
a borrower can
benefit from it
Atlantic State Rural
Water Association
-------
isrhl t
BlBlM!:
itMJ
il|jl :i:
mm
1 !<
) ill
tii '$ f Sfffffl I
111 1 fi|:B|fij:l|H :1II
J|l I !'>i?;l:flTiltf|S) 'f|l.
If;
1111
(.' ft?; ft*| f
|/!Sll:Ni;!iiII 11 f] ft j:| Itllll :
H|'JEj;₯ii!i|iS'lll|S'lti liflipi'ffliilli^^Bi^ iKl'WillS^^^HI^Il'l'FFfcf.: '.
'.?'5'^ . ':cl' '^S'c^-^S'^c"?" ' Coordind.tG L^niform Uniform MGGtinss ConfGTGncGS/ ' ^'^'^f^^-^^-S^'-A^^,- ,^'i'j,c'^!'K<''^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^&i'i'^f^ ;
'i<'i '$J' .'C^Affififfl*^^ : Sp/pff/on of Annl'iCfttion Fnvironmpntftl M(~)i 1 (InciiCfttp how Worlds/ions/ (~)thfT fcnpcifv) ''^^f^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^S^i.-t.^y'^'^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^&S'^' '
S "I
IN
IX
1 ! 1
\-'
Y
4/
With Rural
Yes Utilities
Service
Yes
Yes
r A- i No/
Coordinate ,
. , .. beer
.. informally
Yes ... ' cons
with ,
USDA/RD and
a po
No, but
environmental
reviews
coordinated
/
3ut has
i
idered
remains
ssibility
With ORCA
(HUD Funds)
for
Economically
Distressed
Areas Projects
*
Quarterly with
USDA/RD
Annual
events: TN
As needed Municipal
League
Conference
As needed
As needed
Quatrter'y Biannual
meetings to .
° . . Engineers
review pro ect .., , ,
' ' Workshop
status p
Cooperate with
Dept. of
Transportation
to coordinate
road, water,
and
wastewater
projects
Publications
(Finding Money
IN)
Numerous
grants and
loans
administered
through Texas
Water
Development
Board
The Water
Development
Coordinating Council
Engineers
Liaison
Committee
meets quarterly Vermont Dept. of Env.
and deals with Conservation and
general issues USDA/RD
pertaining to
funding
programs
www.state.sd.us/denr/DFTA/WWFunding/
wwfprg.htm
www.twdb.state.tx.us/
www.twdb.state.tx.us/assistance/financial/
financial main. htm
www.d rinkingwater.utah .gov
-------
jlllsi-s:-; ,!!
jifjs. r'- '[.[.
!!*₯,.?,. ,::
III III
;|l Jlij tffi
«.'..!!. <^EJf S|l
1 1
|>;j
ill
<1
I
nil i
i;>H|f {iS:s!I *
III
ill
'
l!i|,
liSii'
-i£.
ll^lc -.
'fjl.
II
^f!
; I
.: Hi PltlMW
. 11*1; W,HiKlf ..-
fi^ jifs Lasy*;!
;:|!»i| flffl
i Coordinate Uniform Uniform Meetings Conferences/ .in HI,-.,
.' Selection of Application Environmental MOU (Indicate how Workshops/ Other (specify)
; Systems Packages Reviews often) Funding Fairs
VA
VVA
vvv
w«
VVY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
%/
*/
/
/
Pre-applicati-
/
Each agency
generally
accepts the
others'
reviews, and a
formal process
is almost
complete
/
At least
quarterly
*/
Monthly
Semi-monthly
Bi-monthly
Project
specific
Small Business
Institute
presentation.
Other
agencies
encouraged to
attend VA
Dept. of
Health
workshops.
«/
/
/
/
Funding
Database
Project
Affordability
Worksheet
Funding
Sources
Handbook
Regular
interagency
discussions and
coordination
efforts
Funding Partners
(not a formal name)
Washington
Community Economic
Revitalization Team
(WA-CERT)
Washington's
Infrastructure
Assistance
Coordination Council
(IACC)
WV Infrastructure and
Jobs Development
Council
Drinking Water and
Wastewater Funding
Sources
www. i n f raf u n d i n g .wa .gov/
www.wvi nf rastructu re .co m
www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cfa/
cfindex.html
http://deq.state.wy.us/
index.asp?pageid = 129
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Tr-? c/W:, V
ist/y
to go for
Visit the EPA Office of Water Funding website at
www.epa.gov/water/funding.html
Office of Water (4606M)
www.epa.gov/safewater
Printed on Recycled Paper
EPA-816-R-03-018
October 2003
------- |