DRAFT
^.•r;tj
STATE REVOLVING FUND (SRF)
FINAL REPORT TO CONGRESS
Financial Status and Operations of Water Pollution
Control Revolving Funds
December 1990
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Municipal Pollution Control (WH-546)
Washington, DC 20460
TeL (202) 245-4059
Prepared Under Contract Number 68-C8-0023
HEADQUARTERS LIBRARY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
-------
». a
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SECTION ONE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1
1.1 Background 1-1
1.2 Status of SRF Program Implementation 1-1
1.3 Construction Needs of Wastewater Treatment 1-2
Projects
1.4 Total Funds Available in SRFs and Other 1-2
Programs
1.5 Comparison of Wastewater Treatment Needs 1-3
to Funds Available
1.6 SRF Program Operations 1-3
1.7 Administration of State SRF Programs 1-4
1.8 Impact of the SRF Program on User Fees 1-5
1.9 Impact of the SRF Program on Treatment 1-5
Plant Efficiency
1.10 Advantages of the SRF Program 1-6
1.11 Issues Associated with SRF Implementation 1-6
How Final Report Findings Differ from Interim Report Findings 1-8
SECTION TWO INTRODUCTION 2-1
2.1 Program Background 2-1
2.2 Purpose of the Report to Congress 2-1
2.3 Scope and Organization of This Report 2-2
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont)
SECTION TWO (cont.)
2.4 Status of Nationwide Implementation
2.5 Federal Funding
Page
2-3
2-6
SECTION THREE CONSTRUCTION NEEDS OF STATES FOR 3-1
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CLEAN WATER ACT
3.1 Compliance Related Needs
3.2 Additional SRF Eligible Needs
3-1
3-5
SECTION FOUR
AVATT.ABILITY OF SRF AND OTHER
FUNDING FOR ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
4.1 Availability of Funding from All Sources
4.2 Availability of SRF and Other State Program
Funding
4.3 Current and Anticipated Uses of SRF Assistance
4-1
4-1
4-4
4-7
SECTION FIVE
COMPARISON OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT 5-1
NEEDS TO AVAILABLE FUNDS
SECTION SIX SRF PROGRAM OPERATIONS
6.1 Structure of State SRF Programs
6.2 Special Programs for Small and/or Economically
Distressed Communities
6.3 Ensuring the Viability of the SRF Programs
6-1
6-1
6-7
6-7
u
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (coot)
age
SECTION SEVEN ADMINISTRATION OF SRF PROGRAMS
7.1 Agencies and Personnel Involved With SRF
Program Administration
7.2 Costs Associated With SRF Program Administration
7-1
7-1
7-3
SECTION EIGHT
POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE SRF PROGRAM
ON COMMUNITY USER FEES
8.1 Scope of the Analysis
8.2 Methodology
8.3 Comparison of User Fees Under SRF and Construction
Grants Programs
8.4 Impact of SRF Loan Interest Rate on Level of Subsidy
8.5 Summary of Key Findings
8-1
8-1
8-2
8-4
8-4
8-6
SECTION NINE
POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE SRF PROGRAM
ON FACILITY OPERATIONS
9.1 Anticipated Changes in Sizing, Design and Operation
and Maintenance Costs of New Facilities
9-1
9-1
SECTION TEN ADVANTAGES OF THE SRF PROGRAM
10.1 Federal Government
10.2 The States
10.3 Communities
10-1
10-1
10-1
10-2
SECTION ELEVEN
ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH SRF
IMPLEMENTATION
11-1
m
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont)
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A SRF Report to Congress Workgroup Members A-l
APPENDDC B Needs Associated with New SRF Program B-l
Funding Eligibilities and New
Enforceable Requirements
APPENDIX C Funds Available From SRF and Other State C-l
Programs by State
APPENDIX D Total Federal and State Funds Available by State D-l
APPENDDC E Distribution of Available Funds by Types of E-l
Assistance by State
APPENDDC F User Fee Calculation Model F-l
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
2-1 States with Approved SRF Programs in Order of First 2-4
SRF Grant Award Date
2-2 Federal Funding of SRFs 2-7
3-1 Construction Needs for Facilities in Significant Noncompliance 3-2
3-2 Category I to V Wastewater Treatment and Conveyance Needs 3-6
4-1 Federal and State Funding for Wastewater Projects 4-2
Aggregated for Forty-six States
4-2 Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State 4-5
Funding Aggregated for Forty-six States
4-3 Planned Uses of SRF Assistance Aggregated for 4-8
Forty-six States
5-1 Comparison of SNC Needs to Federal and State 5-2
Funds Available for Forty-six States
5-2 Comparison of Design Year Category I to V Wastewater 5-5
Treatment and Conveyance Needs, Federal and State Funds
Available, and Funds Needed for Forty-six States
6-1 Types of SRF Assistance and Administrative Costs Aggregated 6-3
for Forty-six States
6-2 SRF Loan Structures of Forty-seven Responding States 6-4
7-1 Employment in Administration and Operation of SRFs 7-2
in Forty-Eve States
7-2 Comparison of Estimated SRF Administrative Costs and 7-4
Administrative Expense Allowances for Forty-four States
8-1 User Charge Variables, Standard Values, and Range 8-3
8-2 Annual Household Wastewater Treatment Costs: Comparison 8-5
of State Revolving Fund and Construction Grants Financing
8-3 SRF Interest Rate and Construction Grant Equivalent 8-6
-------
LIST OF TABLES
C-l Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding by State
D-l Total Federal and State Funds for Wastewater Projects by State
E-l Types of SRF Assistance by State
Jage
C-l
D-l
E-l
-------
1
LIST OF FIGURES
3-1 SRF-Eligible Funding Needs of All States:
Documented and Undocumented
4-1 Total Federal and State Funding Available for Wastewater
Projects Aggregated for Forty-six States
4-2 Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
Aggregated for Forty-six States
3-8
4-3
4-6
Vll
-------
-------
SECTION ONE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Background
This Report to Congress describes the financial status and operations of State Revolving
Funds (SRFs) established pursuant to Title VI of the Clean Water Act (CWA) as amended by
the Water Quality Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-4). As funding under the CWA Title II construction
grants program is phased out, SRFs have become one of the principal funding sources for
wastewater treatment facilities, collection systems, and other water quality projects in most
States.
This report updates information contained in the Interim SRF Report to Congress.
Both reports address the informational requirements of Section 516(g) of the CWA. (Section
5l6(g) is summarized on page 2-1 of this report.) The interim report provided a national-level
overview of program implementation, and detailed information for nine States (Connecticut,
Georgia, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia).
This report provides specific information, as of late 1990, for nearly ,all States and presents an
updated overview of SRF program implementation at the national level.
The State specific information contained in this report is based on responses to an EPA
questionnaire that was mailed to all States. Forty-seven States submitted responses to the
questionnaire. Of these, forty-six provided quantitative data on available funding, and all forty-
seven provided descriptive information about their SRF programs.
1.2 Status of SRF Program Implementation
As of September 30, 1990, all fifty States and Puerto Rico had established SRF
programs and received capitalization grants from EPA. Twenty-seven States had received two
grants, twelve had received three grants, and two States had received four grants. A total of
$2.8 billion in Federal funds had been awarded to these programs. Nationwide as of September
30, 1990, SRFs had entered into approximately 400 binding commitments to provide assistance
for construction of wastewater treatment projects as well as for several nonpoint source
activities.
With capitalization of SRFs well under way, the current emphasis in implementing the
program is on assuring that the State programs are viable and well managed. Many of the
States with straightforward loan programs are exploring leveraging and other more sophisticated
financing techniques for possible modifications of their programs in future years. Using
program guidance developed by the Agency to assist in the conduct of annual reviews, EPA
Regional Offices have performed reviews of many SRFs. While the findings of these reviews
are generally positive, a number of minor operational problems have been reported. The
1-1
-------
Regional Offices are continually working with the States to improve program management on
both the Federal and State levels..
1.3 Construction Needs oF Wastewater Treatment Projects
Section 516(g) of the Act requires EPA to identify facilities in significant noncompliance
(SNC) with the Act and to develop estimates of the construction costs of bringing those
facilities into compliance. For the purposes of this report, EPA developed a definition of
"significant noncompliance" which is modified from the definition used in the enforcement
program (see Section 3.1). EPA identified a total of 4,909 facilities nationwide which met the
definition used in this report. The cost of construction necessary to bring these facilities back
into compliance is estimated to be $12.3 billion.
The above estimate of compliance-related construction needs, while responsive to the
statutory wording, does not include wastewater treatment and collection costs for facilities
currently in compliance, but which have major wastewater funding needs as documented in the
1988 Needs Survey.1 If all documented funding requirements in Categories I through V of the
1988 Needs Survey are included, a total of $83.0 billion will be needed to construct SRF-
eligible projects.2 Additionally, the SNC estimate does not include costs associated with new
funding eligibilities, replacement needs, and new enforceable requirements of the 1987 CWA
Amendments. These water quality activities, programs, and requirements, which include
nonpoint source control, sludge disposal, estuary protection, and storm sewer projects, will add
significantly to SRF-eligible costs. Documented estimates of the funding needs for these
activities, however, are not available.
1.4 Total Funds Available in SRFs and Other Programs
Based on data provided by forty-six States, Federal and State funds totaling
approximately $28.6 billion will be available from 1988 to 1999 to meet SRF-eligible needs.
This total includes Federal and State contributions to SRFs, EPA construction grants, other
'The Needs Survey is a biennial assessment of the cost of wastewater treatment and
collection systems required to meet the goals of the Clean Water Act. The survey divides
community wastewater treatment and collection needs into five categories.
Category I
Category n
Category IDA
Category HIE
Category IVA
Category IVB
Category V
Secondary Treatment
Advanced Treatment
Infiltration/Inflow Correction
Replacement/Rehabilitation of Sewers
New Collector Sewers
New Interceptor Sewers
Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO)
Includes documented needs for 50 States and Puerto Rico.
1-2
-------
(non-EPA) Federal grant and loan programs, other State grant and loan programs, and
repayments on SRF loans by local recipients.
Of the $28.6 billion in Federal and State funding for SRF-eligible needs in the forty-six
States from 1988 to 1999, $23.7 billion will be administered through State programs. Of this,
$17.0 billion will be available through the States' SRFs. Between 1990 and 1995, the amount of
SRF funding available annually in the forty-six States is projected by State officials to decrease
by about 40 percent. State funding in general does not appear to be increasing sufficiently to
offset the phase out of Federal SRF monies. Only fifteen of the forty-six States project further
capitalization or leveraging of their SRFs beyond 1994; of these, only nine project additional
annual funding for their SRFs in an amount equal to or greater than the annual average
provided by Federal capitalization grants from 1988 to 1994.
1.5 Comparison of Wastewater Treatment Needs to Funds Available
For the forty-six States which provided estimates of available funding, funds available
from Federal and State sources from 1988 to 1999 are projected to be sufficient to cover all
SNC needs in forty-three of the forty-six States and from 52 to 84 percent of the needs in the
remaining three States. However, it is methodologically inappropriate to compare the SNC-
related needs to the total funding available during 1988 to 1999. The SNC-related needs
represent a "snapshot" as of June 30, 1990. While it is not possible to quantify future SNC-
related needs, it is predictable that there will be additional significant violations through 1999
that will require construction to correct. The reasons for potential violations include population
growth which will generate flows and/or pollutant loadings in excess of design capacity. During
this period, some number of treatment plants will reach the end of their useful lives and face
the need for major rehabilitation or replacement. Finally, additional regulations in the area of
toxics control, stormwater management and sludge disposal will generate significant violations
that will require construction to correct.
It was possible, however, to make some additional comparisons of funding availability
and need using data contained in the 1988 Needs Survey. Federal and State funding covers an
average of only 35 percent of the 77.6 billion of Category I to V design year needs documented
for the forty-six States in the 1988 Needs Survey. The 65 percent gap between available
Federal and State funds and Category I to V needs represents the amount that may need to be
funded from local sources between 1988 and 1999 if all needs are to be met. Local sources
provided approximately 40 percent of the financing for such projects in the mid 1980s.
1.6 SRF Program Operations
All forty-seven States which responded to the SRF questionnaire offer SRF loans at
below-market interest rates. Loan repayments are used to fund additional loans (with the
exception of repayments used to retire SRF program debt). The key structural and operating
characteristics of the States' programs include:
1-3
-------
Method of Obtaining Matching Funds - States obtain matching funds in a variety
of ways. The most commonly used methods are State appropriations, State
general obligation bonds, and SRF program revenue bonds. Other approaches
include pledging the loan repayments of an existing wastewater treatment loan
program and obtaining the State match directly from the loan recipients.
Use of Leveraging - Over one quarter of the SRF programs currently borrow to
provide additional lendable funds. Additional States plan to consider some type
of leveraging in the future.
Types of Assistance - The States plan to provide assistance primarily in the form
of loans. States also plan to use a small portion of funds for refinancing existing
debt. States with leveraged programs will use some funds to secure bond issues.
Interest Rates - All of the State programs offer loans at below-market interest
rates, although two of the States offer some SRF loans at up to market rates.
Interest charges typically range from 2 to 5-1/2 percent. Approximately one third
of the States vary interest rates based on a community's ability to pay.
Type of Projects Funded - States used virtually all SRF funds for sewage
treatment and collection system projects through FY 1990. Several States intend
to use a portion of their SRF funds for nonpoint source control programs in the
future. One State, Wyoming, intends to use all of its SRF funds for nonpoint
source control activities from 1991 to 1994. A few States also plan to use a
small percentage of their SRF funds for estuarine activities.
Measures to Assure Fund Viability - States uniformly view the soundness of their
loan portfolios as the critical factor in assuring long-term viability of the SRFs.
States carefully scrutinize applicants to evaluate their creditworthiness. States
require communities to pledge revenues from a range of sources to assure loan
repayments. User fees and full faith and credit are commonly used as assurances
for repayment. In the event of default, several States reported that they can
intercept other State assistance to the recipient.
1.7 Administration of State SRF Programs
SRF program administration requires a mix of technical, financial, and general
administrative personnel. In the forty-five States that reported staffing figures, staff size varied
from 2 to 70 people in FYs 1989-1990. Most of the States anticipate significant staff expansion
over the next several years as personnel shift from the construction grants to the SRF programs
and the number of projects and the amount of money in the SRF programs increase.
The CWA restricts the cumulative total of SRF funds used for administrative expenses
to four percent of the amount of capitalization grant awards. The adequacy of the four percent
SRF administrative expense allowance varies significantly among the States. The majority of the
States should not have difficulty covering their projected administrative expenses during the
14
-------
1989 to 1994 time period. Sixteen States, however, do not expect to cover their administrative
costs with the four percent allowance during the 1989 to 1994 time period; over 75 percent of
administrative costs are covered in seven of these sixteen States. After the allotment of the
final Federal capitalization grants in 1994, States will have to rely primarily on alternative
funding sources or unused allowances "banked" from previous years to cover their administrative
expenses. States typically have not developed specific plans to fund these costs after 1994.
Many States currently charge loan closing fees or other types of fees to help pay their
administrative expenses. Several additional States plan to begin charging fees to help cover
their administrative costs in the future.
1.8 Impact of the SRF Program on User Fees
Very few facilities financed with SRF loans have been completed. Therefore, actual
data on the user fee impact of the SRF program are not available. For purposes of this report,
a financial model is used to assess the impact of SRF funding on user fees. The model
simulates the user fee impact of SRF funding versus construction grants funding for a range of
community sizes. In the analysis, user fees are assumed to cover all debt service and operation
and maintenance costs for a new wastewater treatment facility (excluding land).
The analysis shows that SRF loans generally provide less of a subsidy to communities
than construction grant funding. This occurs despite the expanded eligibility of project funding
under the SRF program. If SRF loans are issued at four percent interest, a common rate
charged for SRF loans, user fees are expected to be approximately 20 percent higher than
projects constructed with construction grants assistance. However, SRF loans still provide a
substantial subsidy. On average, user fees for treatment facilities constructed with a 4 percent
SRF loan will be approximately 14 percent lower than facilities constructed with market rate
financing.
1.9 Impact of the SRF Program on Treatment Plant Efficiency
Because wastewater treatment plants have only recently been funded with SRF program
assistance, there are no actual data available on the efficiency of SRF-financed treatment plants.
However, many State officials expect that SRF-fmancing will lead to lower-cost facilities because
communities must finance the entire cost of the facility. Most officials anticipate a reduction in
the use of innovative and alternative technologies because, unlike the construction grants
program, the SRF program offers no special incentives for such projects. The potential impact
of a shift toward lower-cost, non-innovative facilities on treatment plant efficiency is unclear.
However, State officials indicated that they expect no major changes in treatment plant
efficiency.
1-5
-------
1.10 Advantages of the SRF Program
The SRF program offers many financial and environmental advantages to Federal, State,
and local governments. The revolving nature of the SRFs creates a perpetual source of low
cost financing. The funds invested now for the capitalization of SRFs will work for many years
to assist communities in meeting their needs, providing more money for more communities than
would one-time loans or grants.
For the Federal government, the program furthers the long-standing national policy of
providing financial assistance for the construction of wastewater treatment facilities. SRFs also
facilitate the goal of transferring the responsibility for funding these activities back to the States
and municipalities. With this increased responsibility, the States also have increased flexibility
to design and operate their SRFs to address the water quality concerns most important to them
and their communities.
For communities receiving SRF assistance, below market interest rates are the single
most important advantage of the program. This reduced cost of capital enables some projects
to be completed that otherwise would not be affordable and reduces the level of user fees
required to repay project debt.
1.11 Issues Associated with SRF Implementation
The overall implementation of the SRF program has been smooth. The number of
issues associated with implementation has been reduced as people and institutions become more
familiar with program requirements. There do not appear to be any fundamental flaws in the
structure of the SRF program or any significant impediments to successful implementation that
have not been adequately managed.
State officials in the SRF programs identified a number of areas of concern that affect
their ability to implement their programs. Many of these concerns arise from Federal and State
statutes, regulations, and policies.
Of primary concern to most officials was Federal funding of the SRF program. The
States believe that funding the program at less than the full authorized levels will reduce their
ability to accomplish the goals of the CWA, including the 1987 Amendments. They also report
that uncertainty in the level of funding due to the appropriations process makes planning
difficult for them and their communities.
Several States mentioned that they anticipate difficulty in providing SRF assistance to
economically distressed communities because these communities may be unable to repay loans
even at very low interest rates. Many of these communities were unable to accept a grant
under the construction grants program because they could not finance the local share.
Similarly, they will not be able to repay a loan under the SRF program even at low interest
rates because the subsidy will be even less than it was under the construction grants program.
1-6
-------
The States report that the application of "cross-cutters" (i.e., Federal laws and authorities
that exist independently of the SRF program, but apply to certain activities undertaken under
the program) adds significantly to administrative and project costs. In addition, the States are
having difficulty monitoring and assuring compliance with cross-cutters because at any time,
Federal laws can be enacted that apply to the SRF program, and a permanent list of these
authorities cannot be identified. States recommend that Congress consider exempting the SRF
program from all Federal cross-cutters. As an alternative, some State officials recommend that
compliance with cross-cutters be based on the intent of law rather than specific requirements,
and be determined by the Governor of each State.
The States believe that Federally mandated Title II requirements on the SRF program
can also increase project costs. The most frequently mentioned requirement in this regard is
the Davis-Bacon Act.
The letter of credit (LOG) payment process was also cited as an impediment. Several
States expressed concern about the loss of interest earnings on Federal funds caused by the
LOG process. Also, States mentioned that the LOG process becomes cumbersome because
States have to comply with their own overlapping fiscal and accounting procedures which can
impede the quick transfer of funds. Thus, although the LOG itself as a method of payment is
not causing delays beyond the maximum of 36 hours necessary to make the electronic transfer
of funds, delays are occurring in some States due to State processing problems associated with
the cash disbursements.
Several States reported that the statutory restriction on the use of SRF funds for
administrative costs is an impediment to establishing effective SRFs. The CWA restricts the
amount of money in an SRF that can be used for administrative expenses to four percent of all
capitalization grant awards received by the fund. A number of States expect that the allowed
amount will be inadequate to cover the full costs of administering their funds during the period
of Federal capitalization. As discussed in Subsection 1.7 of this executive summary, quantitative
data show that twenty-eight of the responding States should be able to pay all of their
administrative expenses with the four percent allowance during the period of Federal
capitalization.
Land eligibility was also cited as an impediment. The purchase of land for a wastewater
treatment facility is not an eligible cost under the SRF program unless the land is integral to
the treatment process or used for sludge disposal. This statutory restriction means communities
must obtain separate financing for land.
The CWA also requires that recipients of SRF assistance provide a dedicated source of
revenue to cover loan repayments. Because of this, some States reported that it may be
difficult to fund nonpoint source and estuarine activities. To address this concern, EPA has
completed a case study guidebook that presents examples of how expanded use activities can be
funded under the SRF program.
1-7
-------
-------
How Final Report Findings Differ from Interim Report Findings
The State Revolving Fund Interim Report to Congress pointed out that the nine States
which it reviewed in detail should not be considered representative of all States. Many of the
findings in this final report, based on analyses of all of the States for which information is
available, are the same as those presented in the interim report; certain findings in this report,
however, differ from those presented in the interim report. The contrasts are summarized
below.
The relative contribution of leveraged monies to overall SRF funds is greater in this
final report than it was in the interim report. For the nine States reviewed in the interim
report, leveraged funds accounted for 23 percent of available SRF funds from 1988 to 1999.
For the forty-six States that provided funding estimates for this final report, leveraging accounts
for 37 percent of total SRF funds from 1988 to 1999. Loan repayments, which contributed 23
percent to available SRF funds from 1988 to 1999 in the interim report, contribute only 11
percent to total SRF funds during that time period for the forty-six States covered in this final
report. Loan repayments are often used to retire the debt from leveraged SRF program bonds.
In the interim report, the nine States projected that their SRF assistance would be used
to fund a higher percentage of wastewater treatment projects and a lower percentage of
wastewater collection and conveyance projects in the 1988 to 1999 time period than the forty-
six States in this final report project. The percentage of SRF assistance projected to be used
for nonpoint source control program activities is higher for the forty-six States in this final
report than for the nine States in the interim report. Additionally, the forty-six States project
that a small percentage of SRF assistance will be used for estuarine protection activities
whereas estuarine protection activities were not projected to receive SRF assistance by the nine
interim report States.
In the interim report, all nine States had a gap between available Federal and State
funding for wastewater projects from 1988 to 1999 and Category I to V design year wastewater
project needs as reported in the 1988 needs survey; in this final report, five States project
sufficient Federal and State funding to cover all of their Category I to V wastewater project
needs in the 1988 to 1999 time period.
In the interim report, staff size appeared to be related to the use of leveraging, with
leveraged programs reporting larger administrative staffs. In this final report, leveraging does
not appear significantly linked with staff size; some of the programs with the smallest staffs
leverage their funds. However, leveraging does appear to be related to administrative costs.
More than half of the States that operate leveraged programs estimated administrative expenses
exceeding the 4 percent administrative cost allowance in the 1989 to 1994 time period.
1-8
-------
-------
SECTION TWO
INTRODUCTION
2.1 Program Background
Title VI of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987
(P.L. 100-4), authorizes the Administrator of the EPA to make capitalization grants to States
for State Water Pollution Control Revolving Funds (SRFs). The SRF program is intended to
support a long-standing national policy to provide financial assistance for the construction of
publicly owned wastewater treatment works (POTWs). This new program, however, is
fundamentally different from the Title n construction grants program that has provided financial
assistance for many years and received its last appropriation in FY 1990.
Unlike the construction grants program under which EPA provides grant assistance
directly to municipalities for wastewater treatment projects, the SRF program is designed to give
individual States the responsibility for developing and operating their own programs, including
providing financial assistance for POTW construction and other eligible activities. Financial
assistance provided by SRFs can include loans and various forms of credit enhancements, but
not grants. A key element of SRFs is their "revolving" nature-most disbursements return to
the program to provide assistance to additional recipients. SRF assistance can be used for a
broader range of water quality management activities than construction grants assistance, such as
the implementation of nonpoint source management programs and the development and
implementation of conservation and management plans under the estuary protection program.
The SRF program is a significant step in the transfer of responsibility for financing
wastewater treatment facilities from the Federal government to the States and municipalities.
The CWA allows flexibility in the program; each SRF is designed and operated to address the
water quality needs in a particular State and its communities. EPA cooperates with and
provides technical assistance to States in establishing their programs.
2.2 Purpose of the Report to Congress
Section 516(g) of the CWA requires EPA to prepare a Report to Congress on the
financial status and operations of the State SRFs. In accordance with Section 516(g), the
report must provide:
(A) an inventory of the facilities that are in significant noncompliance with the
enforceable requirements of the CWA;
(B) an estimate of the cost of construction necessary to bring such facilities into
compliance with such requirements;
2-1
-------
(C) an assessment of the availability of sources of funds for financing such needed
construction, including an estimate of the amount of funds available for providing
assistance for such construction through September 30, 1999, from the water
pollution control revolving funds established by the States under Title VI of the
CWA;
(D) an assessment of the operations, loan portfolio, and loan conditions of such
revolving funds;
(E) an assessment of the effect on user fees of the assistance provided by such
revolving funds compared to the assistance provided with funds appropriated
pursuant to Section 207 of the CWA; and
(F) an assessment of the efficiency of the operation and maintenance of treatment
works constructed with assistance provided by such revolving funds compared to
the efficiency of the operation and maintenance of treatment works constructed
with assistance provided under Section 201 of the CWA.
The report was to be prepared in cooperation with the State water pollution control
planning and financing agencies. EPA formed a workgroup of State and EPA Regional Staff
directly involved in the SRF program to assist in the development of this report. The
workgroup participated in the development of the approach and commented on draft
questionnaires and a draft of the report. Workgroup participants are identified in Appendix A.
2.3
Scope and Organization of This Report
This report provides a national-level overview of SRF program implementation and
presents detailed information on the SRF programs in forty-seven States. This final report
addresses the informational requirements of Section 516(g) of the CWA, and updates
information contained in the Interim SRF Report to Congress.
The interim report contained detailed information on the SRF programs in nine States
(Connecticut, Georgia, Minnesota, New Jersey, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia)
as of June, 1989. To provide information for the interim report, each of the nine States
completed a program questionnaire; additionally, program officials were interviewed during EPA
site visits to each State. The information contained in this final report is based on
questionnaires received from forty-seven States, follow-up phone conversations with program
officials from many of those States, and the information collected for the interim report.
Information in this final report is based on the status of State programs as of iate 1990.
This report is organized to respond to Section 516(g) of the CWA and to provide
additional information that may be of use to Congress in evaluating the SRF program.
• Section Three estimates the cost of bringing facilities that are currently in
significant noncompliance into compliance with the enforceable requirements of
2-2
-------
the CWA and discusses new enforceable requirements and new funding
eligibilities of the CWA [responsive to Sections 516(g)(2)(a) and 5l6(g)(2)(b)].
Section Four discusses the funds available to address these needs from State
SRFs and other sources [responsive to Section 516(g)(2)(c)].
Section Five compares available funds to the funding needs required for
compliance with the CWA [also responsive to Section 5l6(g)(2)(c)].
Sections Six and Seven describe the operation and administration of State SRFs
[responsive to Section 516(g)(2)(d)].
Section Eight provides an assessment of the impact of SRF funding on user fees
in comparison to construction grants funding [responsive to Section 5l6(g)(2)(e)].
Section Nine provides an assessment of the impact of SRF financing on the
efficiency of POTW operation and maintenance [responsive to Section
516(g)(2)(f)].
Section Ten describes the advantages of the SRF program to the Federal
government, States, and communities.
Section Eleven presents a discussion of the impediments States have encountered
in implementing their SRFs.
2.4 Status of Nationwide Implementation
To initiate an SRF program, States must apply for a capitalization grant from EPA.
The capitalization grant is the Federal seed money that the State uses to establish its revolving
loan fund. To qualify for the capitalization grant, the State must provide matching funds equal
to at least 20 percent of the grant and conform to the applicable Title VI program
requirements.
As of September 30, 1990, all fifty States and Puerto Rico had established SRF
programs and received capitalization grants from EPA. (The District of Columbia, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territories have been authorized by Congress to receive CWA
Title VI funds without having to establish an SRF.) Twenty-seven States had received two
grants, twelve had received three grants, and two States had received four grants (Table 2-1).
A total of $2.8 billion in Federal funds had been awarded to these programs. Nationwide as of
September 30, 1990, SRFs had entered into approximately 400 binding commitments to provide
assistance for construction of wastewater treatment projects as well as for several nonpoint
source activities.
It is clear that a successful transition has been made from the construction grants
program to the SRF program in most States. With capitalization of SRFs well under way, the
current emphasis in implementing the program is on assuring that the State programs are viable
2-3
-------
TABLE 2-1
States With Approved SRF Programs
In Orcer of First SRF Grant Award Date(a)
STATE
Tennessee(b)
Texas(b)
Georgia
i New Mexico
I
Utah
Virginia
Connecticut
Louisiana
New Jersey
Nebraska
South Carolina
Alaska
Arkansas
South Dakota
Oklahoma
Kentucky
North Carolina
Minnesota
Alabama
Florida
Kansas
Iowa
New Hampshire
Vermont
Mississippi
Maine
Illinois
Missouri
FIRST
SRF GRANT
AWARD DATE
March I988(c)
March I988(d)
April 1988(d)
May I988(c)
June 1988(d)
June 1988(d)
September 1988(d)
September 1988(d)
October 1988(d)
October 1988(e)
November 198 8(d)
November 1988(e)
December 1988(d)
March 1989(e)
March 1989(e)
March 1989(e)
March 1989(e)
April 1989(e)
April 1989(e)
April 1989(e)
April 1989(e)
May 1989(e)
May 1989(e)
May 1989(e)
June 1989(e)
June 1989(e)
June 1989(e)
June 1989(e)
Continued
2-4
-------
TABLE 2-1, continued
States With Approved SRF Programs
In Order of Firs: SRF Grant Award Date (a)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(0
FIRST
SRF GRANT
STATE AWARD DATE
Ohio June 1989(e)
California June 1989(d)
Michigan July 1989(e)
Idaho August 1989(e)
Maryland August 1989(e)
Colorado August 1989(e)
Wisconsin September 1989(e)
Pennsylvania September 1989(e) i
Massachusetts September 1989(e)
Indiana September 1989(0
Hawaii September 1989(e)
Nevada September 1989(e)
Puerto Rico September 1989(0
Oregon September 1989(e)
Washington September 1989(e)
New York March 1990(f)
North Dakota August 1990(f)
West Virginia August 1990(f)
Wyoming September 1990(f)
Montana September 1990(0
Rhode Island September 1990(0
Arizona September 1990(0
Delaware September 1990(0
Status as of September 30, 1990
Received the first grants in the program
State has received four capitalization grants
State has received three capitalization grants
State has received two capitalization grants
State has received one capitalization grant
2-5
-------
and well managed. Many of the States with straightforward loan programs are exploring
leveraging and other more sophisticated financing techniques for possible modifications of their
programs in future years. EPA, through its Regional Offices, is assisting the States in this
process through a mission support contract that provides SRF training and the advice and
support of financial and legal professionals.
Using program guidance developed by the Agency to assist in the conduct of these
reviews, the Regional Offices have performed reviews of many SRFs. While the findings of
these reviews are generally positive, a number of minor operational problems have been
reported. The Regional Offices are working with the States to address these problems and
make necessary improvements.
2.5 Federal Funding
Federal funding for State SRFs includes both Title VI allotments and Title II transfers
as authorized by Section 205(m). The latter category consists of funds transferred at State
discretion from the construction grants allotment to the SRF program. As of September 30,
1990, Federal funding for the SRF programs totaled $2.8 billion (see Table 2-2). All funds
committed in FY 1988 were Title II funds transferred at State discretion to their SRF
programs; Title VI funds were not authorized until FY 1989. Thus far, approximately 33
percent of Federal contributions to SRF programs have come from Title II transfers and
approximately 67 percent from Title VI allotments. Many States chose to transfer the
maximum allowable amount of their Title n funds to SRFs in FY 1989 and FY 1990.
2-6
-------
vn
_: < z
c ~ ~ •
* r^ w •
3:
-( c\ o O
~
UJ
u
u;
w
H
t™
w
1
H
f-
co
U
u.
oo
Z
ai
O
u
!^
Q
P-J
H
5
^
^
^
—
c
s
Z
s
o
H
<
00
p
oo
oo"
oo
Q
H
<
O
C9
O
u
0
STATE
G\oo'OmooooOf-
C^^C'-o^r^fNrr
_ VC —
^votn-^^ovc*
O^i^o^or^-oo— ^
_. 0 —
OTTO— — \O Is* CS
OrrO rfO^OCnO
oooooooo
oooooooo
1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1
^5^'C"t:"3"o o"S
<<<^w-, r- — ocsoerrr-mvo —
r^Jor^rf-^or". oc^j^r^f^if^
n- rr — — —
-------
I
__
=
^1
o
o
r-T
a
j
1
1
—
£ o
PS <2
<» S3
n- ,0
0 E
ao (U
-S c.
T3 WJ
T3 C
u c
& s
S
^
5^
- < Z
< a: <
r~ ~ —
>~> ,-s ,«,
>* ~ ^
k ?T" ' '
Jfl
•r-
Z
> S
~ >>
»J X
r~ ™^
r- <
C
1
Z
> 2
[rl H
- S
sT ^
{- <
co
o"
en ?*
= § s"
c: ti. -.
— to oe
L^ Art B
0£ QO
H '•*
a!
-- Q
Q LU
tU H
O O
— ! -r
< «
3 o
^- frl
« g
LU
&
i
CMr-, t-m^oo^-ao^^;,, r-OOm ^ tn m r> rJ CN ss !
m^n ws"— cr>J— ID""— r^r-4r-— — -T vdvotM —
i
,
i
i
i
ooct~-^r-r— Cvsot— \cr~OiOCOO v^Or-tsO — O
•55^,5.^..^).— ,_Tr[-.f^^-^j.r~,_aO.j2 vO C "9" TF "9" X~. 3 '
rJ v O — Ti — (*", — — •^ ^i '
f
]
tn — vooosOTTinss — o« — \Or--tm dr-'Ot— — »n
o-j rn O "^ vi *•* f**i ™* *"• ^ *™
I
1
j
i
i
oooooOmTtco — Orsroxroo ^oc^oor^CN— »!
rn o o ^? ^3 O ^r c*J O *** o c^ c\ rn O o o ••• o vi f^ oJ c^i \
^— c^J "^ CN ir*1! f^i r^ ~^ r1*- >
i
!
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOO — OtN
.S « «
•» c -S 2 « -o .s a
•s. & S' -^ ^ £ ^ „ "1 2 | 2 J «
^•^— 2"1""'^^'>" — — ^oS'^w^^otn^^S-a
"c
o
0
2-8
-------
o"
o\
•e u o
u <2 **>
c ^ fc
S o "c
§ «,|
.5 0,
t C 00
CN 3 <«-
a ~ o
— "« M
/W ha °*
5* ^J en
^- S c
t, ;=
•*i
t£-
(/
— < z
M» '-' S
r i ^™
i i 9
f~ <
g
s
r"
Z
> 1
T O
Lw* MiJ
•""• J
H <
0*
oo
OS
g-
ta rr, •
. 'T f/s aa
f- 2 ?»
*" 05 5
*" "a»
tt.
Sg
u] t-
fe <
o o
*™ SJ
ua O
06 Q
tu
^
p_,
\O T CN O — r-
O ^r C fi f^ «
^
r- o r^ -r r- tM
""" ^ "° i^ ^ ii
Ox
M3 >n t- ^ * o
" tn
o o o o o \o
.2
e .S
2 g?.S ce
•5 M . fe » e j
S | > o § <
— yj ^) y O E-^
U « *> :— >^ Q
>
I
}
yj
S
"J
^ '
—
_g
E-
b*
'O
Cfi
1. •
> "^
4) r^T
•S o
.£ f*"»
i c
- 5
« o
flj ^D
S s
B. *
£ d
x.2
1 8
S w
§ S
OO -o
S 1
11
01 Jj
•S ^
h* £
S
eb
1
I
0
**
u
3
T3
><
J£
^
t—
e
2-9
-------
-------
CTION THREE
CONSTRUCTION NEEDS OF STATES FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CLEAN WATER ACT
Sections 516(g)(2)(a) and (b) of the Act require EPA to prepare an inventory of
facilities currently in significant noncompliance with enforceable requirements of the Act and an
estimate of the cost of construction necessary to bring such facilities into compliance. Section
3.1 provides the required.inventory and cost estimates. Section 3.2 provides estimates of SRF-
eligible construction needs for all facilities regardless of their compliance status.
3.1 Compliance Related Needs
Significant noncompliance (SNC) is a term used by EPA to identify facilities covered
under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) which are in serious
and/or repeated violation of effluent limits, compliance schedule milestones, reporting
requirements or other administrative or judicial requirements. Facilities in significant
noncompliance may require construction or other corrective actions in order to come back into
compliance. This report deals with those SNC facilities which need construction in order to
return to compliance.
EPA's estimate of "significant noncompliance," as used in this report, represents facilities
needing construction to comply with the enforceable requirements of the CWA as of June 30,
1990. The estimates indicate the number of facilities in SNC that have outstanding construction
needs, and the cost of the construction needed to achieve compliance at those facilities.
To arrive at the SNC estimates, EPA prepared a list of facilities in significant
noncompliance (SNC) with outstanding construction needs as reported in its Permit Compliance
System (PCS) national database as of June 30, 1990. EPA also prepared a list of facilities in
PCS with a "resolved pending" (RP) enforcement status as of June 30, 1990. This second list
consists of facilities that had been, but are no longer, classified as SNC because they are on
enforceable construction schedules. These facilities were included in the construction cost
estimate because they were not yet back into compliance as of June 30, 1990.
The SNC and RP lists do not include facilities with flows of less than 1 million gallons
per day (mgd) unless there is a significant impact on water quality. Therefore, EPA has for the
purposes of this report expanded its definition of significant noncompliance to include facilities
with flows of less than 1 mgd with secondary treatment (Category I) and/or advanced treatment
(Category n) needs based on the 1988 Needs Survey. (See Section 1.3 for a definition of the
Needs Survey categories.)
Table 3-1 shows the number of facilities in the fifty States and Puerto Rico that meet
the SNC definition used in this report. The cost of construction needed to bring these facilities
into compliance is estimated to be $12.3 billion. The construction costs for each of the three
3-1
-------
I
2
U
CO
I
en
tu
J
ra
fS
u
S
«
I
o
o
o
2
S
C
.2?
K
c
">-!=£
a-g I J
U 2
II
# 5
8^
II
,» "»
O g
2 <*
eo O
e
2
ai
11
2 o
•IS
J5
1
•2
B9
2
1
w ts
I
g
I-. oo
tjTvT
vO
•>*• O> oo O
fn r^-
CN
oo ^j- CM »n —
m >n eo
rJ — n
O t-
^? O O CD O O
C5
,8
— -.00 — oooooooin — o — tMO—• — — ••
S°°8:
i O O *
'SJ^Si
— • r-
—"OOC^^f-^oo — -^
— n^or-o— '
— O
a IA .S O •
mill
.3 _ u t- ea o
««uu
J
•S
2
Q
3-2
-------
.5
"o.
E
o
o
§
4-^
a
o
£
'E
00
35
c
~M f*1^
o) m
— TT
_, o
t- 0
. oo oo — '
OJ oo eo —
oo r'l f^
— oo— • — oo
tN —-CM — * ^- ?s -^OO
OQQQOOOO
OOOr^O
32
'-' > > > ^
Hi W 43 O
zzzzzz
— >n — Tt — oo
8
tr
Tf
o
<2
oc
^
1
I
9)
13
J2
"o
C
in
S
TOTAL
3-3
-------
categories of SNC defined for this report are concentrated among a small group of States that
differs for each category. Eight States account for over 78 percent of SNC construction needs.
For RP facilities, more than 87 percent of the needs are concentrated in six States. Forty-eight
percent of the Categories I and II treatment needs for facilities with flows less than 1 MGD
occur in seven States. The total need for this latter category of facilities represents over 53
percent of the total SNC need as defined in this report; the number of facilities in this category
accounts for over 94 percent of the facilities inventoried. For the remainder of this report, the
aggregated construction needs for the three groups of facilities shown in Table 3-1 will be
referred to as "SNC needs."
While Table 3-1 provides an estimate of the cost of construction required to correct
significant violations (as required under Section 516(g) of the Act), States strongly assert that a
comparison of SNC-related needs with SRF funding availability is not a reasonable measure of
the ability of SRF programs to meet current and future municipal sewage treatment
construction needs.
The Agency developed the concept of "SNC11 as a method for setting priorities for its
enforcement effort. The reasons why certain types of violations are included in the definition
are based on enforcement considerations rather than on construction needs. Thus, repeated
failure to monitor or report effluent data is a significant violation but does not require
construction to correct. Conversely, major and legitimate construction needs exist independently
of significant violations. For example, Houston, Texas, is not considered to be in significant
violation, although it has been fined by the State and is under administrative order to correct its
stormwater overflow problems. Inclusion of Houston's construction needs would add about
$800 million to the estimate of Texas' SNC needs presented in Table 3-1. Further, the 1987
Amendments expanded eligibilities under the SRF program to include funding required for
compliance with new enforceable requirements of the Act (e.g., storm sewers) and for the
implementation of new programs (e.g., nonpoint source control programs). These potential
demands on SRF funds are also not included in the SNC cost estimates in Table 3-1.
Since the SNC-related needs shown in Table 3-1 represent a "snapshot" of needs as of
June 30, 1990, it would be methodologically inappropriate to compare these needs alone to the
total funding available during 1988-1999. While it is not possible to quantify future SNC-
related needs, it is predictable that there will be additional significant violations through 1999
that will require construction to correct. The reasons for potential violations include population
growth which will generate flows and/or pollutant loadings in excess of design capacity. During
this period, some number of treatment plants will reach the end of their useful lives and face
the need for major rehabilitation or replacement. Finally, additional regulations in the area of
toxics control, stormwater management and sludge disposal will generate significant violations
that will require construction to correct.
In order to provide additional perspective on the adequacy of SRF program funds, the
next section addresses SRF-eligible funding needs beyond those associated with the correction
of significant violations.
3-4
-------
3.2 Additional SRF Eligible Needs
As described above, many communities with major construction needs have not
experienced compliance problems in the past and are, therefore, not included on EPA's SNC or
RP lists. The Needs Survey, required by Section 205(a) and 5l6(b)(l) of the CWA, is a
biennial assessment of the cost of constructing all publicly-owned wastewater treatment works
necessary to meet the goals of the CWA regardless of compliance status. The 1988 Needs
Survey showed a design year1 need of S83.0 billion to satisfy all currently documented
needs2 nationwide through the year 2008 (see Table 3-2).3 The 1987 Amendments to the CWA
allow SRF's to fund certain activities not eligible under the construction grants program and not
included in the $83.0 billion needs cited above. Additionally, EPA has or will soon promulgate
rules related to new enforceable requirements as specified in the 1987 Amendments.
The major categories of new eligibilities are nonpoint source control and programs for
the protection of ground-water, estuaries and wetlands. The primary programs with new
enforceable requirements are those addressing stormwater, toxics discharges, and sludge use and
"'Design year" needs reflect the total needs for documented facilities to satisfy the design
year population. Year 2008 is used as the design year to better approximate a 20-year design
life for facilities in the Needs Survey.
To be incorporated into the Needs Survey, an estimate of construction needs must
conform to a number of criteria, including:
• The projects included in the needs estimate must address a documented public
health or water quality problem.
• The projects must be required to rectify a current problem (e.g., needs solely for
future growth requirements cannot be included). However, if a project has a
legitimate current need, the cost for meeting future growth needs is included in
the survey.
• The needs must be project-specific (e.g., needs for a county-wide problem are
not acceptable).
Wastewater treatment needs are reported in five categories in the 1988 Needs Survey.
Category I
Category n
Category ULA -
Category IVA -
Category IVB -
Category V
Secondary Treatment
Advanced Treatment
Infiltration/Inflow Correction
New Collector Sewers
New Interceptor Sewers
Combined Sewer Overflows
'Includes fifty States and Puerto Rico.
3-5
-------
TABLE 3-2
Category I to V Wastewater Treatment
and Conveyance Needs
STATE
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Puerto Rico
TOTALS
1988 Design
Year Needs
($ Millions, 1988)
781
221
979
370
6,539
196
1,392
127
6,186
1,007
413
124
2,958
1721
646
720
1,457
1,189
341
919
5,836
3,321
1,106
548
1,222
69
114
165
854
3,754
130
12,721
1,799
34
3579
476
1,273
1,644
408
684
87
1,467
4,975
583
209
957
2,685
976
1,399
18
1592
82,971
3-6
-------
disposal. The costs of meeting the needs for these new eligibilities and enforceable
requirements (which are discussed in more detail in Appendix B) as well as the costs for
maintaining compliance at existing facilities are not included in the 1988 Needs Survey. These
new eligibilities and other requirements, however, will add substantially to SRF-eligible needs.
Figure 3-1 shows that the SNC needs, described in Section 3.1, are only a part of the SRF
eligible financing requirements nationwide.
3-7
-------
Figure 3-1
SRF-Eligible Funding Needs of All States
Documented and Undocumented (a)
Undocumented
Toxics and Sludge
Estuaries, Wetlands
Ground Water
Nonpoint Source
Undocumented
Plant Renovation
Undocumented
Combined Sewer
Overflow (CSO)
.;!,-• {*~-'-&^^%.^sj;£'.'!J''','- ':i?:: " ' '-• :'" '-:
'••V '<
FJ Undocumented needs
Q Documented needs
Note: Figure is not to Scale.
(a) Includes fifty States and Puerto Rico.
3-8
-------
,T~
SECTION FOUR
AVAILABILITY OF SRF AND OTHER FUNDING FOR
ELIGIBLE PRO.TECTS
Funding for wastewater treatment, collection, and conveyance projects comes from a mix
of Federal, State, and local sources. Prior to the 1987 CWA Amendments, the construction
grants program provided the largest share of Federal funding for these projects. With the
phaseout of the construction grants program, SRFs will shift the relative contribution for
wastewater project funding away from Federal sources towards State and local sources. In
addition to changing the funding source mix for wastewater projects, the SRF program expands
the scope of wastewater and other water quality projects and activities eligible for CWA
financial assistance (see Section 3.4).
4.1 Availability of Funding from All Sources
Wastewater treatment, collection, and conveyance projects can receive funding from the
construction grants program, State SRF programs, other State programs, other (non-EPA)
Federal sources, and local sources. Other Federal sources include the Farmers Home
Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Economic
Development Administration. Local sources could include municipal appropriations, user fees,
impact fees, and debt financing.
Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1 show the total amount of funding for wastewater projects
coming from Federal and State sources, including CWA Titles II and VI, other Federal sources,
and other State sources in the forty-six States that provided funding data. SRF loan
repayments, which come from local sources and represent a portion of the total local source
funding contribution, are included in Table 4-1 under State funding. For the period 1988 to
1999, approximately $28.6 billion (1988 dollars) in Federal and State funding is projected to be
available for wastewater treatment and conveyance projects in the forty-five States. For the
States in aggregate, CWA Titles n and VI monies contribute approximately $9.5 billion from
1988 to 1999. Other Federal sources play a small but consistent role, contributing an additional
$2.2 billion during that time period. State funding, which declines from 1991 to 1994 and then
slightly increases, contributes approximately $16.9 billion from 1988 to 1999. It should be noted
that several States were unable to provide estimates of funding from a range of Federal and
State sources.
The funding provided by each source varies throughout the 1988 to 1999 time period.
CWA Titles E and VI funding for the forty-six States declines from $1.9 billion in 1988 to $517
million in 1994 (the last year of capitalization grants) to zero thereafter, based on the
authorizations specified in the 1987 CWA Amendments. State funding peaks at $2.9 billion in
1991 then declines to $1.5 billion in 1994 because most States plan to reduce their matching
fund contributions as Federal capitalization grant contributions decline. After 1995, funding
4-1
-------
O
£
U
a
CA
S
fc-
,o
to ^^.
J
CQ
fe 1
a 2
CQ
2
1 -
i £
M E-
c .
o i:
0 ~
i-H
2
(2
>-.
tj
OH
1
i
i
1 m
8 g;
'i? ""
£
•o
a
9
—
•3
H
U
oo
r— _
ts"
PM
OS
•>*
oo
^
-------
a
O
CC
w
0)
cC
0)
I ^ "en
TT CO I
&0 O
C fc
lo
fc,
CO
TJ
C
CO
CO
in
0)
b-
13
-i-j
O
E-
cu
^ bO
(L)
feO
C=.
-o
C
O
0)
.4-1
CO
u
e>
C
C
u
O
O.
Qfi
C.
ll
If
B
i
II
g" -2
C c
* g
B S
1 1
4-3
-------
from State sources increases slightly as higher levels of loan repayments flow back into the
SRFs and are available for relending. In general the States do not plan to provide additional
funding of SRFs to replace Federal capitalization grants after they are discontinued in 1994. It
should be noted, however, that fifteen States do plan to further capitalize their SRFs after the
Federal capitalization period. Of these, nine will provide future capitalization at a level
substantially greater than the average annual Federal capitalization of their fund from 1988 to
1984; the other six at a level less than one-half of average Federal capitalization (See State
specific funding data in Appendix C).
During the mid-1980s, local sources contributed approximately 40 percent of the
financing for wastewater treatment projects.1 Because nearly half of the States were unable to
project local source funding other than that provided by SRF loan repayments, and because
many States that did project local funding indicated that their projections were highly uncertain,
Table 4-1 does not include local funding projections. Section Five of this report provides
estimates of the amount of local funding that may be needed to meet wastewater collection and
conveyance needs in the forty-six States. Funding for wastewater projects from all sources for
each of the forty-six States is presented in Appendix D.
4.2 Availability of SRF and Other State Program Funding
Much of the available funding detailed in Section 4.1 is administered through State
programs including SRFs, non-SRF State loan programs, and State grants. Table 4-2 shows the
amount of actual and projected funding available through SRF and other State programs
aggregated for the forty-six States from 1988 to 1999. Figure 4-2 presents a graphic illustration
of these data. The States project that their programs will provide funding totalling $23.7 billion
(in 1988 dollars) from 1988 to 1999.
In most of the forty-six States, the SRF programs have or will become the predominant
source of State funding for wastewater projects. The States' SRFs are comprised of funds from
Federal capitalization grants (including Title n transfers), State match and overmatch monies,
SRF leveraging, loan repayments, and interest earnings. Collectively these sources are expected
to contribute approximately $19.5 billion to SRFs in the forty-six States from 1988 to 1999. Of
this, approximately $2.4 billion is projected to be held in debt service reserve accounts, leaving a
total of approximately $17.0 billion in SRF funds available for project assistance during that
time period.
Federal capitalization grants contribute to SRF capitalization through 1994 and, at
authorized levels, are projected to provide 35 percent of all SRF funds in the forty-six States
for the period 1988 to 1999. State match and overmatch monies together contribute about 16
percent of SRF funds available for this time period. Leveraging contributes about 37 percent
and loan repayments contribute about 11 percent to the 1988 to 1999 SRF total. The
percentage contributed by loan repayments increases rapidly throughout the time period,
however, rising to 33% for 1995-1999. Overall, available SRF and other State program funding
drops after 1994, the last year of Federal capitalization funding.
'U.S. EPA. Environmental Investments: The Cost of a Clean Environment. Office of
Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. December 1990.
4-4
-------
T3
3
CN
I
*s
B
I
«
S"
"•— '
a
S
f
•&>*
0
•S
1
ra
h*
cu
E
^•S**"
SO **
(^ U
Is.
S s
is
^1
£
•••i
•
u
i
|
GB
_Jj
X
0
0)
o
1
OS
10
3
.t!
«^
5
2
e
a
•S
Cfl
V
•S*
e 5
ff^ O
10 t-
B ,
O M
rj £
S Q
ON
a
o
^-
^.
^o^
n
Ox
2
i
ON
ON
ON
Ol
1 s
i2
s
cu
01
S
*""*
S
0
2
a ON
0 ~
*
__
OO
00
'^
. .
Q
FUNDING SOURi
Tl-
00
c^-
vO
r-
m
r-
o
in
t
VO
r-
_~
t—
oo
'""'
oo
NO
NO
ON
TM
2
O
d
o
ON
M
m
t—
^^
o
1
t—
8
VO
f»
CN
d
OO
OJ
«-^
VO
.0
«
CO
Ov Ol
Ov rn
oo —
— < r~
rn r^
ON Ol
-T 0
CN Ov
in in
00 Tt
Ol VO
*
•«* r-
ON r-
-^ r-
oo o
r-- m
— oo
r*^ ro
"* 01
_J"
r^ oo
Tf OO
VO
""•
v> i 5>
U > '•'•u
8h
svi,.
4)
O "* "" f
o 3i?
£ ^
& *
2 **
& *
CO -«5i
s. •*•
as
SO o f^,
(^ ^ ffV
VT
t>] m \o
o r** oo
r^i ^ oo
CSI
in oo -^
en cs «n
— — Vi
>n r- NO
ff\ vo t^*
— — 0>
•"•*
SK |
.
tn
S S |
X
CN ON 0
xr m »«<
n
^
»n S ^
p*
^
^^ ««H ''ctSE
In 5 5?
j> M.
***
"',
V,
''-''
"\J>
^i^
j.^J *
IA B) "
e E
2 2
c *^ -bfi
flB ^9 '^3*
0 » *g
0 V U
a ^ S
co O ,H
^>::
< 0
r .S
O (4
- 8 1
'51 ? S
O. °" i»
s 2 1
~ u s
S|S
1S1
111
•s s .s,
3 "3 f
M S C.
^ > ~
§•" -|
0 ? S
•Si S
ll!
ill
C •• S!
il |
S ""* u
— ^ ••« ca
J.l5
DOO 2
S * S
^ » 0
•351
in .
2 s so »
8. 3 P S
8 8 °" s
5 •§ -2 «
5 K
S io ^ «
* S 1 8
|2ii
ill i
*s i j s
S «tt ? 3>
S JD 0 C
§ > O -C
o y • "**
1 "8 «2 1
Table excludes funds
VI funding at authoru
funding contributions
the future, and stated
3
8
•o
«
1
en
IS
|
00
•3
1
'>
g
o.
|
e
^
.0
0
a
Q
"v ^~i
fcj O
i i
s
CO
"O
B
are from loca
2
5
1
c
3»
U.
OS
CA
S
.2
'u
B.
.i
o
EC
-o
f
i
•3
u
c
<1
o
i
'a
5
£>
c
o
a.
of
M
"3
S
3
O
tf]
^«
i
u
1
O
ob
I
S
1
•o
B
1
3
75
1
W
X
"«
(»
o
w
c
.2
£
i
8
jr
the overmatc
1
8
s
Q.
S
e
3
Cfi
V)
-X-
4-5
-------
c=-
C en
~ v
w _J
C a!
—: ->->
£ W
Q; ^
i "•*
"£ M
5 I
CO >»
*- ~
o> o
J3 &•
O ^
c o
-c5"
fl V
Cti 0>
-^
fc, a
s
— w
—j »P"4
® CO
> CC
a 2
x
o
.*j
03
2
4)
-tJ
«
j-j
W
C
ffi
u
O
02
a
v
CO W
V
•3 u
3 V
C O
< i-,
~ Si
JD
"
o ^.
a. o
5 i
M
1-
» 3
3
T3 t. .£,
« j *
O u _j
"? A, O
•u
C
J_ *J
V as »)
t. c8 (-,
« C 3
^ v at
JS §P£
V » ..
Q J ®
CQ -rH
O fl OT
4-6
-------
As shown in Table 4-2, total SRF funds available annually for wastewater treatment and
conveyance are projected to decrease about 40 percent in nominal terms, from $2.4 billion to
$1.4 billion, between 1990 and 1995; due to inflation, the decrease will be greater. Total State
funding will decrease fay over 50 percent during that same time period. Although SRF loan
repayments will increase beyond 1995, this increase is not expected to be sufficient to offset the
phase-out of Federal SRF funds within the time frame of this analysis. Additional State
capitalization and/or leveraging may be necessary to maintain level funding for wastewater
treatment and conveyance. However, as reported in the SRF Report to Congress
Questionnaires, most States do not plan to provide increased assistance for wastewater
treatment projects after the end of the federal capitalization period. As discussed in Subsection
4.1, of the forty-six States, fifteen States projected future capitalization of the SRF at various
levels beyond 1994.
In addition to SRF assistance, many States will continue to provide financial assistance
using State grants and/or other non-SRF programs, although these programs will provide less
assistance as SRFs become more established. Appendix C shows the estimated amount of SRF
and other State program funding to be provided from 1988 to 1999 for each of the forty-six
States.
4.3 Current and Anticipated Uses of SRF Assistance
State SRF programs may provide assistance for wastewater treatment projects,
wastewater collection and conveyance projects (including CSO and storm water projects),
implementation of approved NPS and ground water control activities, and planning and
implementation of approved estuary protection activities. States must, however, use SRF funds
"in the fund as a result of capitalization grants" (i.e., the capitalization grant, repayments of the
first round of loans awarded from the grant, and the State match) for wastewater treatment
projects on the National Municipal Policy (NMP) list, or otherwise satisfy the "First Use"
requirements, before these funds can be used to provide assistance for any other projects or
activities. First use requirements are satisfied by a State when all NMP facilities are in
compliance, are on enforceable schedules, have enforcement actions filed, or have a funding
commitment during or prior to the first year covered in a State's most recent SRF Intended
Use Plan.
The forty-six States are using the majority of their SRF assistance for wastewater
treatment projects. Table 4-3 shows the actual and projected SRF funding used for the
different types of eligible projects and activities. In 1988, over 85 percent of SRF assistance
went to treatment projects. After 1995 the States estimate that treatment projects will account
for 61 percent of SRF assistance. Most of the remaining funds will be used for wastewater
collection and conveyance projects, including CSO and storm water projects. Wastewater
collection and conveyance projects account for 28.5 percent of projected SRF assistance for
1991 to 1994 and 31.9 percent for 1995 to 1999. Beginning in 1989, the States report that a
small percentage of SRF assistance will be used for NPS activities. One State, Wyoming,
intends to use all of its available SRF funds for NPS activities in the 1991 to 1994 time period.
The States project using only a very small percentage of SRF assistance for estuarine protection
activities.
4-7
-------
TABLE 4-3
Planned Uses of SRF Assistance Aggregated for Forty-six States(a)
(SMfflions)
TYPE OF PROJECT/ACTIVITY
Wastewater Treatment
Projects (Section 212)
(% of Total)
Wastewater Collection &
Conveyance (Section 212)
(% of Total)
Nonpoint Source & Ground
Water (Section 3 19)(b)
(% of Total)
Estuarine Activities
(Section 320)
(% of Total)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
398.9
85.4%
68.0
14.6%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
466.9
100%
1989
773.8
81.3%
176.6
18.6%
1.3
0.1%
0
0.0%
951.7
100%
1990
1,285.6
76.6%
389.9
23.2%
1.4
0.1%
0.04
0.0%
1,678.2
100%
1991-1994
Aggregated
7,387.1
69.0%
3,055.1
28.5%
200.6
1.9%
60.16
0.6%
10,703.1
100%
1995-1999
Aggregated
4,171.3
61.2%
2,174.6
31.9%
439^
6.4%
30.16
0.4%
6,814.3
100%
Note: Funds used for administrative expenses and debt service reserves are not included in this table. The
amount of money used for funding projects in individual years may differ from SRF funding available in
those years because project funding schedules are not necessarily tied to available funds year-by-year.
(a) Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding information for this report.
(b) Wyoming intends to use all of its available SRF funds for NFS activities in the 1991 to 1994 time period.
4-8
-------
SECTION FIVE
COMPARISON OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT NEEDS TO AVAILABLE FUNDS
This section compares the wastewater treatment and conveyance needs of the forty-six
States that provided funding data to the total projected funding available from Federal and State
sources in those States. The section also estimates the amount of local funding that may be
needed, in addition to Federal and State funding, to meet documented needs.
Table 5-1 compares the needs of SNC facilities in the forty-six States to funding available
during 1988-1999. The SNC needs data are derived from Table 3-1 as explained in Section 3.1.
Table 5-1 shows that SRF funds are adequate to cover SNC needs in forty-three of the States and
from 52 to 84 percent of the needs in the remaining three States. As pointed out in Section
Three, however, the SNC-related needs represent a "snapshot" as of June 30, 1990; there will be
additional significant violations through 1999 that will require construction to correct. Furthermore,
SRF funding extends far beyond the requirements of SNC facilities.
Table 5-2 compares the design year Category I through V wastewater treatment needs in
the forty-six States to funding available during 1988-1999. The design year needs data are derived
from the 1988 Needs Survey. The table shows the proportion of Category I to V design year
needs covered by Federal and State funds. The gap between Federal and State funding and
wastewater treatment needs, which represents the amount that may need to be funded by local
sources, is shown in the right hand column of Table 5-2.
For the forty-six States in aggregate, total Federal and State funding of $27.3 billion is
sufficient to cover 35 percent of all Category I to V design year needs, which total 77.6 billion.'
Local funding, therefore, may need to provide $50.3 billion or 65 percent of all Category I to V
needs. The proportion of design year needs covered by Federal and State sources varies widely
among the States. Five States project sufficient funding from Federal and State sources in the
1988 to 1999 time period to completely cover their Category I-V design year needs. Eight States
project available Federal and State funds to meet 75 to 99 percent of their design year needs. Five
States project coverage of 50 to 74 percent of their design year needs; Seventeen project coverage
of 24 to 50 percent of these needs. Eleven States project Federal and State funding to cover less
than 25 percent of their design year needs; of these, two project coverage of only 12 percent of
their design year needs. One of these two States, Michigan, did not provide 1995 to 1999 funding
data and would, therefore, show a smaller gap if more complete funding estimates were available;
the other State, Florida, provided more complete projections and thus appears to have needs in
excess of available funds as indicated in the table.
'In five States, available funds are sufficient to cover over 100 percent of Category I-V design
year needs. The $27.3 billion funding total is net of the funds that exceed design year needs in
those four States since it is assumed the funds exceeding Category I-V design year needs in those
States will not be available to meet design year needs in the other States.
5-1
-------
««•<
i
«o
m
j
m
•<
H
(L>
3
—
'rt
>
<
sa
•o
3
UL,
13 3 J*
L. «a c>
u £ ^ O\
"S a g ""
£ «» ^ s
a 1 -S S
o * a <*
H 3 -*
u.
5?
u.
"§ o*
t«
£s
•B O\
S "
I
*
i s
2 "S
0 £
11
6 M
s
Su
ex:
40
o
I*
I1
STATE
c^vo — oor~V5Tro\T— ••"rm — m^O'nCT* — oJ
^oomc\r4 — eoin-^o^oJO — •^•o>'*OrJ
rri__-(N*tcNoor~r- — "• r^r-f»-*<*>Tj-cJt--
.— mf-oamt-otsco — o — «s c*
— — tr> Ti-\ooooo2!!2
c»» OO> r- — jaj meoo eo 2
" " " 1
— QiK-i — u-ior--c>oo^-mcvi\oor^mooc>o\
invSoot^^-'VoS'^'O'nf^me^aeO'Nmr-
5«J c^—'ri^-r^-- M-itscs ram m
ovoinoo — osr-^mvoeommr-ox^o — ooo
g^^^ovoos-vos-orjm^om-;^
«J
iiiiliiifiiiiiiili}
<<<
-------
-o
3
c
O
e
E-
^
A
V
w
3
js
>
T3
C
(X
|
Hi ~ ^
*O ^ 23
£ ? .2
2 £!
« o 2
•rj [L
! *
U
to
t*_
o
to
'C
t
0
13 .0 os
S ., « Os
u JJ r3 O*
•g 3 g -
fc « < 2
*5 "§ w »
a s -S oo
0 « g Os
H 3 —
1
b
"S St
«3 C7v
'o* -2
ft* 00
F*4 QQ
I2
I
u
i- "«5
s ^
o w
1 I
o w
'o'
uT
i/i
U
^^ «M
g
1 ^
H
1
c*>i ^ os cs r™- v"i o ^ r^ o fi o
ooovor-ooonm — ooos
Os ^ oo cs O ^^ c-i cs ""^ t^ r^
— . — — pi
OOsosot~OOsOOs^irt»nt^
oor^^r^io^c^f^fS^^Oso
— . — rr -^
{SOcJm — eooi/-)oOTfoot~
oo cs in — -< — sow
O ^ f^ f*^ Os OO ^ Os ^"« *™< Os so
tSmoo>.i.>«
?#?#>-
,2ss3'i:*3«>«««>o»>o
SSSSSzzzzzzz
rr r» CJ oo so oo n
r- Os — so •** Os
r- so — rf oo r~ Os
•«• —
« -o J 2
« 'g J 2 .8 «
g > "S 5 a
-------
•o
4>
1
*-*
1
TABLE
15
cmj
•"5
%
^^
Cfl
•a
£
Cfl M
*o 5? /«^
*«3 >•> —
1^ C9
r? *S O
tt< | .S
2 •£* "
Sfl O 5
*X3 fe ••**
S *£,
ll
1
c. .
^
g
.2
1
o
U
w £ r= o>
••3 ^ a —••
t 53 ^ o
3 1 3 S
o * e o
£_ JJ «"^
e
Cfl
1
•a gj
S """
"s1-
ft. £
^o ^^
e«
*
!••
u 2
i!
II
I
CO
to •§
I2
w
s
£
"™"' r*^ C^J r^ oo
ff^ — ^M \c SO
"^
Tf t«- r-> oe —
(S ""
r** fs ^v oo c*)
CO f^l "^
r- r~ •* o *o
es o — * f~
CN — — VO
»
8
O
^* ?ii
1 1 1 1 i
SOO QS *tllir
fl f^l '"'1*
— ff^ — x£^
pJ oo"
~ ^ * 0.
^ oo
^*
°3a I
— S ^ S
^^
S 5 OT |
«
•5
'& .5 ec S
1 1 1 1
,
1
2
« C fc-
•o •£ S
0£ -«S
•2 "o 1
y 5
•s_ E *
•S -n
1 -d -S
fif
•Hi
B« *> _x
^ "
1 a s
^ S is
*"•§
38-i
eg v« —
'S 2 |
3> ^^ ^^
i=l
1 -2 S
|||
** "e ~
-D §^
1 ii
5 0 Ofi
ll"
"o C S
(S 8 §
<«
g
2
2
_, o.
a —
u 2
£-3
w i£
so ^
|Si
5 §
§ g
1 1
6 »
»rt l-
q <£
«= s
vailable tc
ng estimai
* 73
S, s
1 1
§ « to
•s •> 1
u&
-2o.
.1,3 a
M *\ fiC
s IT
|||
8 co S
" e
•3.1
«5 'y
«/3 C-
O.S
W? ™"3
ssl
(«-* QM
^_, CO
It
ft
>>3
ui C
"S
S ^
h
1 •-"
^— » y]
1!
* K
c 5
E 2 T3
i! s "*-
« .j3 s.
ill
4> . *3^
o o^
.a- s
«> S in
ii|
to <§ «2
'tr
^
1
CC
•3
3
O
•o
s
_w
O
H
§
^1
5-4
-------
TABLE 5-2
Comparison of Design Year Category I to V Wastewater Treatment and
Conveyance Needs, Federal and State Funds Available, and Funds Needed
For Forty-six(a) States
(SMillions, 1988)
Actual and Projected Funds(b)
1988 to 1999 Total Federal
Design
Year Needs(c)
STATE Cat. I-V SRF(d)
Alabama 781
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Alaska 221
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Arizona 979
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Arkansas 370
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
California 6,539
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
(f) Colorado 196
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Connecticut 1,392
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Florida 6,186
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Georgia 1,007
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Hawaii 413
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
(f) Idaho 124
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Illinois 2,958
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
251
32%
69
31 %
85
9%
71
19%
945
14%
149
76%
707
51%
490
8%
248
25%
101
24%
53
42%
532
18%
and State
Other Other Funds Available Funding
State Federal 1988 to 1999 Gap(e)
0
0%
32
14%
0
0%
100
27%
97
1%
9
5%
177
13%
17
0%
248
25%
0
0%
39
31%
484
16%
111
14%
5
2%
67
7%
128
35%
385
6%
57
29%
0
0%
252
4%
248
25%
1
0%
52
42%
208
7%
362
46%
106
48%
151
15%
298
81%
1,427
22%
215
110%
884
63%
759
12%
744
74%
101
25%
144
116%
1,223
41%
419
54%
115
52%
828
85%
72
19%
5,112
78%
(19)
-10%
508
37%
5,427
88%
263
26%
312
75%
(20)
-16%
1,735
59%
Continued
5-5
-------
TABLE 5-2, continued
Comparison of Design Year Category I to V Wastewater Treatment and
Conveyance Needs, Federal and State Funds Available, and Funds Needed
For Forty-six(a) States
(SMillions, 1988)
Actual and Projected Funds(b)
1988 to 1999 Total Federal
Design
Year Needs(c)
STATE Cat. I-V SRF(d)
Indiana 1,721
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Iowa 646
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Kansas 720
(%ofCat. I-V Need)
Kentucky 1,457
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Louisiana 1,189
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Maine 341
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Maryland 919
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Massachusetts 5,836
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Michigan 3,321
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Minnesota 1,106
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Mississippi 548
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Missouri 1,222
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
256
15%
229
35%
83
12%
205
14%
328
28%
59
17%
579
63%
220
4%
334
10%
482
44%
123
22%
769
63%
and State
Other Other Funds Available Funding
State Federal 1988 to 1999 Gap(e)
166
10%
0
0%
0
0%
80
5%
0
0%
142
42%
45
5%
1,682
29%
0
0%
222
20%
3
1%
151
12%
279
16%
84
13%
63
9%
111
8%
121
10%
0
0%
98
11%
80
1%
70
2%
146
13%
76
14%
157
13%
701
41%
313
48%
146
20%
395
27%
449
38%
201
59%
722
79%
1,982
34%
404
12%
849
77%
202
37%
1,077
88%
1,020
59%
333
52%
574
80%
1,062
73%
740
62%
140
41%
197
21%
3,854
66%
2,917
88%
257
23%
346
63%
145
12%
Continued
5-6
-------
TABLE 5-2, continued
Comparison of Design Year Category I to V Wastewater Treatment and
Conveyance Needs, Federal and State Funds Available, and Funds Needed
For Forty-six(a) States
(SMillions, 1988)
Actual and Projected Funds(b)
1988 to 1999 Total Federal
Design and State
Year Needs(c) Other Other Funds Available Funding
STATE Cat. I-V SRF(d) State Federal 1988 to 1999 Gap(e)
Nebraska
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Nevada
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
New Hampshire
(%ofCat. I-V Need)
New Jersey
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
New Mexico
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
New York
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
North Carolina
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
(f) Oklahoma
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Oregon
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Pennsylvania
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Rhode Island
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
South Carolina
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
114
165
854
3,754
130
12,721
1,799
476
1,273
1,644
408
684
48
42%
54
33%
79
9%
1,101
29%
81
62%
3,309
26%
196
11%
342
72%
119
9%
363
22%
56
14%
152
22%
8
7%
0
0%
115
13%
118
3%
14
11%
68
1%
27
2%
377
79%
50
4%
695
42%
0
0%
0
0%
48
42%
26
16%
39
5%
34
1%
15
12%
405
3%
167
9%
24
5%
101
8%
368
22%
27
7%
14
2%
105
92%
80
49%
234
27%
1,253
33%
110
85%
3,783
30%
390
22%
743
156%
271
21%
1,427
87%
83'
20%
167
24%
9
8%
85
51%
620
73%
2,501
67%
20
15%
8,938
70%
1,409
78%
(267)
-56%
1,002
79%
217
13%
325
80%
517
76%
Continued
5-7
-------
TABLE 5-2. continued
Comparison of Design Year Category I to V Wastewater Treatment and
Conveyance Needs, Federal and State Funds Available, and Funds Needed
For Forty-six(a) States
(SMillions, 1988)
Actual and Projected Fundsfb)
1988 to 1999 Total Federal
Design
Year Needs(c)
STATE Cat. I-V SRF(d)
South Dakota 87
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Tennessee 1,467
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Texas 4,975
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Utah 583
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Vermont 209
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Virginia 957
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
Washington 2,685
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
West Virginia 976
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
(f) Wisconsin 1,399
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
(f) Wyoming 18
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
TOTAL 77,570
(% of Cat. I-V Need)
59
68%
220
15%
845
17%
79
14%
44
21%
352
37%
170
6%
138
14%
1,802
129%
73
406%
17,049
22%
Other
State
2
2%
207
14%
177
4%
36
6%
56
27%
184
19%
424
16%
0
0%
413
30%
32
177%
6,696
9%
and State
Other Funds Available
Federal 1988 to 1999
24
28%
108
7%
294
6%
17
3%
23
11%
98
10%
91
3%
31
3%
122
9%
24
132%
4,899
6%
86
98%
535
36%
1,315
26%
132
23%
123
59%
634
66%
685
26%
169
17%
2,338
167%
129
715%
27,289 (g)
35%
Funding
Gap(e)
1
2%
932
64%
3,660
74%
451
77%
86
41%
323
34%
2,000
74%
807
83%
(939)
-67%
(111)
-615%
50,281
65%
Continued
5-8
-------
FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE 5-2
(a) Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding information
for this report.
(b) Funds available data are from Table D-l. All funds have been discounted to 1988
Dollars. Funds not considered available for wastewater project funding, including debt
service reserves and monies used to repay State bonds are excluded. Some of Virginia's
non-SRF funds included in their total funds figure have been targeted for wastewater
conveyance projects, and thus may not be available to fund treatment needs. Several
States were unable to provide Federal funding estimates for some non-EPA Federal programs
and non-SRF State programs.
(c) For a discussion of design year needs, see Footnote #1 and #2, Section 3.2.
(d) SRF monies include loan repayments from local sources. Loan repayments account
for 12% of SRF funds from 1988 to 1999. Michigan, New Hampshire, and Rhode
Island did not provide SRF funding projections for the 1995 to 1999 time period.
(e) Derived by subtracting actual and projected 1988 to 1999 SRF, other State, and Federal
funding from design year needs.
(f) State's available funds exceed Category I-V design year needs.
(g) Total equals sum of State and Federal funds for forty-one States whose Category I-V
design year needs exceed available funds, plus funds equaling design year needs in five
States whose funds exceed needs. Available funds in excess of design year needs in any
one State are assumed not to help meet needs in any other State.
5-9
-------
In the mid-1980s, localities typically provided approximately 40 percent of such funds.2
The approximate 65 percent local funding share for the forty-five States in aggregate therefore
represents an increase of over 50 percent in the level of local funding needed for wastewater
treatment and conveyance for the period covered. Further, localities will be responsible for
repaying SRF loans. Based oa the final composition of grant and loan funding, localities will
ultimately be responsible for paying well over 65 percent of the cost of wastewater treatment and
conveyance.
SRF-eligible needs in the forty-six States will greatly exceed the design year needs presented
in Table 5-2. New needs are expected to arise between 1988 and 1999 due to economic growth
and wastewater treatment plant renovation and expansion. The latter needs are likely to be
significant because many treatment plants built in the 1970's will be reaching their design capacity
during the 1990s. In addition, funding needs arising from the new funding eligibilities and new
enforceable requirements (e.g., toxics control, stormwater management, and sludge disposal) will
add substantially to the documented needs. Appendix B to this report discusses the new eligibilities
and new enforceable requirements.
*U.S. EPA. Environmental Investments: The Cost of a Clean Environment. Office of Policy,
Planning, and Evaluation. December 1990.
5-10
-------
^F>
t;¥^'
SECTION SIX
SRF PROGRAM OPERATIONS
This section discusses how the States operate their SRF programs. Program structure is
described in Section 6.1. Section 6.2 discusses special programs for small and economically
distressed communities, and Section 6.3 describes the mechanisms used to ensure the viability of
the States' SRFs.
6.1 Structure of the State SRF Programs
All of the forty-seven States that responded to the SRF questionnaire offer SRF loans
at below-market interest rates. Loan repayments, except for those required to retire program
debt, are used to fund additional loans. While the SRFs have some basic similarities, the
programs differ in several ways, including their manner of obtaining matching funds, their use of
leveraging, and their method of determining interest rates.
Method of Obtaining Matching Funds
The States have adopted several different approaches toward generating matching funds.
The most commonly used methods are State appropriations, State general obligation (G.O.)
bonds, and State or SRF program revenue bonds. Of the forty-six States that provided data on
their method of obtaining State matching funds, 21 obtained their match with State
appropriations, 12 with G.O. bonds, 5 with revenue bonds, and 1 with a combination of State
appropriations and revenue bonds. The remaining 7 States use a variety of other methods
which include pledging the loan repayments of existing wastewater treatment loan programs and
requiring SRF loan recipients to provide their own matching funds. One State, Washington,
obtains its State match through a tax on tobacco products.
The method a State uses to supply the match affects the amount of lendable funds in
the SRF in the long term. Funds provided by a State G.O. bond or appropriation generally do
not need to be paid back by the SRF. Therefore, when these funds are loaned by the SRF,
the repayments are available to fund additional loans. In cases where loans are made with
matching funds provided by SRF revenue bonds or similar debt instruments, less money will be
available to fund additional loans if SRF interest earnings are used to repay the SRF debt.
Leveraging
For most States, the SRF capitalization grant and the State match constitute all available
capitalization for program assistance. SRF programs in 13 of the forty-seven States that
responded to the questionnaire issue debt to provide additional lendable funds. Some of the
States that are not currently leveraging indicated that they intend to consider this option in the
future.
6-1
-------
Each of the leveraged SRF programs is different. States have designed leveraging
structures that best address theii particular needs and achieve their program goals. All of the
leveraged SRF programs developed to date, however, fit into one of two general categories:
reserve fund leveraging or blended rate leveraging.
The reserve fund approach, which is the most common of the two, uses some or all of
the capitalization grant and/or the State matching funds as a reserve fund within the SRF that
serves two purposes. First, these monies secure a revenue bond issue, the proceeds of which
are deposited into the SRF and lent to SRF assistance recipients. In addition, the reserve fund
produces investment interest earnings that are used along with loan repayments to pay debt
service on the bonds. It is this feature that allows the SRF to charge less interest on loans I
than it must pay on its bonds, effectively providing an interest rate subsidy to communities. I
An SRF program that leverages using the blended rate approach provides an interest
rate subsidy through a different mechanism. The SRF in this case also issues revenue bonds,
but secures the bonds through a traditional debt service reserve fund from bond proceeds and
lends the balance of the proceeds to recipients at the market interest rate of the bonds. The
capitalization grant and State matching funds are lent to the assistance recipient at zero percent
interest. Each recipient receives half of its loan assistance from capitalization and match funds
at zero percent and half of its loan assistance form bond proceeds at market rate. The
effective interest rate on the SRF loan produced by this "blending" is below market rates and
provides a subsidy to communities borrowing from the program.
Types of Assistance
Table 6-1 presents the estimated distribution of available funds among the various types
of SRF assistance. The data are aggregated for the forty-six States that provided information
on types of SRF assistance. (Appendix E provides these data for each of the forty-six States.)
The States intend to provide most of their financial assistance through loans. Twenty-two of
the States indicated that loans would be the only form of financial assistance provided. Twenty-
four States plan to use a small amount of program funds for refinancing. States that leverage
through revenue bonds will often use some funding to secure program indebtedness. As Table
6-1 shows, the portion of aggregate funds committed as revenue or security for SRF debt is
expected to increase beginning in 1991 as additional States implement leveraged SRFs. While
this shift leads to a corresponding decrease in the portion of funds used for loans the overall
impact of the increase in leveraging is a significant increase in the amount of funds lent.
Interest Rates
All States offer SRF loans at below market rates, although two of States reportedly
offer some of their SRF loans at up to market rates. The vast majority of SRF loans are
issued at interest rates of 2 to 5-1/2 percent. The range of interest rates and methods of setting
loan interest rates are presented b Table 6-2. Sixteen States report that they adjust their
interest rates based on the economic condition of the community (see discussion in Section 6.2).
In setting interest rates for SRF loan recipients, States must set rates low enough to
make the program attractive to communities, but high enough to ensure the Song term viability
of the fund. The differing approaches used by the States reflect their perception of this
6-2
-------
TABLE 6-1
Types of SRF Assistance and Administrative Costs
Aggregated for Forty-six States(a)
(SMillions)
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
(% of Total)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
(% of Total)
(^^•itee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
(% of Total)
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
(% of Total)
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
(% of Total)
Administrative Expenses
(max. 4% of cap grant)(b)
(% of Total)(c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
428.2
88%
37.9
8%
0.0
0%
14.1
3%
0.0
0%
7.4
2%
487.6
100%
1989
939.0
92%
26.3
3%
0.0
0%
33.1
3%
0.0
0%
18.4
2%
1,016.8
100%
1990
1,533.2
82%
152.8
8%
0.0
0%
135.5
7%
0.0
0%
40.2
2%
1,861.7
100%
1991-1994
Aggregated
9,153.0
72%
1,486.5
12%
0.0
0%
1,808.7
14%
0.0
0%
206.0
2%
12,655.1
100%
1995-1999
Aggregated
5,914.6
80%
765.1
10%
0.0
0%
640.3
9%
0.0
0%
79.6
1%
7,399.5
100%
Total
17,967.9
77%
2,468.6
11%
0.0
0%
2,631.6
11%
0.0
0%
351.7
2%
23,420.7
100%
(a) Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio, did not provide funding information for this report.
(b) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization
rant awards received by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is
lited to 4% of all grant awards minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(c) Note that this figure is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
6-3
-------
r
v»
£
u
(N
i
n
o
V)
1
D.
on
c
-------
•
co
•
i
c
f
£:>
I
(4.1
o
1
o
o
"
vo
pa 9
J
<
H
cu
>0
S2
-8
§
1
8.
•5
I
•s
oe
a
1
S.
•a
S
1
8.
i
o.
o
8.
.2
a.
2.
£
D
2
I
I
1
"
§
•g
§
efi
a
I
O
6-5
-------
trade-off. Some States reported that the high cost of program requirements (described in detail
in Section Eleven) had to be offset by very low interest rates to make the SRF program
attractive in their State. Various analyses have estimated that an interest rate subsidy of 2-3%
to loan recipients (compared to the rate they can obtain in the market) is necessary to offset
these costs.
The low, subsidized interest rates offered by SRF programs, however, reduce the level
of funding available in the SRF in future years. After initial capitalization, SRFs will rely to a
large extent on loan repayments to provide capital from which to make additional loans. While
the initial SRF capitalization funds will be maintained by the principal portion of the
repayments, the growth or decline of the fund depends directly on the rate of interest charged
to recipients. In general, to maintain a level amount of actual project purchasing power, an
SRF would have to charge an average interest rate equal to the inflation rate (which since 1982
has averaged 4.5 percent per year for State and local government purchases1). There would be
some fluctuation in the amount available for loans each year, based on the repayment
schedules, but an SRF charging interest at the inflation rate would, over time, provide a steady
source of loan assistance.
An SRF with a loan portfolio that has an average interest rate below the inflation rate
will lose purchasing power without additional State capitalization. In addition to inflation, SRF
program expenses such as the purchase of local debt insurance, allowable administrative costs,
and SRF loan defaults, could diminish lendable SRF funds over time in the absence of
adequately high interest charges or further capitalization. Therefore, a State that makes a
policy decision to provide loans below the inflation rate will need to make the financial
commitment to provide further capitalization if it desires to maintain the fund in real terms. If
a State desires to increase the size of the fund in real terms, it must provide further
capitalization, charge interest rates in excess of inflation, or both. It appears that the policies
adopted by many States will not maintain or increase the fund. As noted in Subsection 4.1,
only fifteen States plan to provide further capitalization of their SRF through leveraging or
"overmatch" beyond 1994. Of these, nine will provide future capitalization at a level
substantially greater than the average annual Federal capitalization of their fund from 1988 to
1994; the other six at a level less than one-half of average Federal capitalization. And Table 6-
2 indicates that many SRF programs make loans at interest rates below reasonably expected
rates of inflation.
The determination of interest rates is left exclusively to each State. All of the States
have incorporated some interest rate subsidy into SRF program design. About 20% of the
States have set current interest rates that can be expected to be significantly below inflation
rates. However, some of these States have already established policies for additional
capitalization of their SRFs that will offset such subsidies. EPA is currently assessing
capitalization levels necessary to maintain various fund values for all the States. As part of the
SRF annual review process, EPA will monitor the impact of various interest rate structures on
the financial condition of SRFs.
on U.S. Department of Commerce News. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analyses.
BEA 90-33. July 27, 1990.
6-6
-------
States that issue bonds to leverage their SRFs would have another concern in protecting
the long term viability of their funds. If loans are made at a rate less than that at which the
bonds are issued, loan repayments will not be adequate to repay the bonds. Additional funds
will have to be provided to make up the difference. Some States use investment earnings from
their debt service reserve funds for this purpose. While leveraging an SRF provides a
significantly greater amount of loan assistance in the early years of the program than does an
unleveraged fund, the use of loan repayments to retire leverage bond debt will limit the capital
growth of the fund, as well as the long-term balance of lendable funds. Additional State
capitalization in future years will be necessary if the State wants to expand its leveraged
amount.
6.2 Special Programs for Small and/or Economically Distressed Communities
State officials reported that many economically distressed communities throughout the
country cannot afford SRF loans even at very low interest rates. These communities include
the colonias2 in Texas, Indian lands, and some very small communities in Minnesota, among
others. Many States take the needs of these communities into account in developing and
operating the SRF and related programs. Sixteen States consider the economic condition of the
community in setting interest rates for SRF loans. Ten of these States indicated that they may
offer zero interest SRF loans to economically distressed communities. An eleventh State,
Wyoming, offers zero interest on all SRF loans, including loans to economically distressed
communities.
In addition to offering special interest rates, several States operate other loan or grant
programs that provide additional subsidies to economically distressed communities. Of the forty-
five States that responded to questions regarding small and economically distressed communities,
twenty-six indicated they provide State grant funding to help small and/or economically
distressed communities meet their wastewater project needs. While several of these State
programs provide substantial assistance, the principal form of subsidy for wastewater treatment
in small and/or economically distressed communities in many States is the low rate of interest
offered under the SRF program.
6.3 Ensuring the Viability of the SRF Programs
All of the States plan to operate their SRF programs through 1999 and beyond. In
their responses to the questionnaire, States primarily approach the viability of their SRFs in
terms of securing reliable loan repayment streams. It appears that most States intend to ensure
the long-term viability of their programs through sound management of their loan portfolios.
*In the area immediately adjacent to the international boundary with Mexico, there are
over 200,000 people living in small communities known as "colonias". These communities are
economically distressed and either have inadequate water and sewage service or lack these
services altogether. In the Agency's appropriation for fiscal year 1990, Congress authorized the
State of Texas to establish a special revolving fund to serve residents of these communities.
The special revolving fund has been capitalized from the construction grant allotment for Texas.
6-7
-------
The CWA requires that all SRF loan recipients specify a dedicated source of revenue to repay
the loan. The States employ several other measures to assure the long term viability of their
SRFs.
All of the States give careful consideration to affordability before issuing a loan under
the SRF program. All States either review credit information or undertake their own financial
review of applicants before issuing loans. States uniformly view the soundness of their loan
portfolio as the most important factor in the long-term viability of their programs.
In addition to financial review, States use some combination of community pledges
and/or assurances to secure loans. All States require communities to pledge user fees, the full
faith and credit of the community, or both, before issuing a loan. Some States require
communities to pledge both user fees and full faith and credit (the "double barrel" pledge) for
every loan.
Some States purchase insurance on their SRF debt to help protect the long term
viability of their programs. (Note that this insurance is for SRF program debt such as leverage
or match bonds. This is different from the purchase of insurance for local debt obligations as a
form of SRF assistance as presented in Table 6-1.) While these insurance policies add to
program costs, they also lower the interest rates charged on the bonds by providing an
additional level of protection to the fund and the holders of SRF program bonds. At least one
State requires loan recipients to maintain a loan repayment reserve.
An important aspect of loan portfolio management is the reduction of potential losses
through late payments and loan defaults. There are several common elements in State plans
for anticipating and reacting to problems with loans:
• States typically plan to review annual audited statements and/or community user
fees to ensure that communities are operating in a fiscally sound manner and are
charging sufficient fees to cover their indebtedness.
• When potential problems are spotted, States will work with the community to
rectify the problem and prevent a default. The State may encourage an increase
in user fees. Many States indicated that they would consider restructuring or
refinancing in the event of serious problems.
• States will, in general, use all recourse allowed under State law in the event of a
default. This recourse typically includes suing the community, seeking a court
order to require the community to raise user fees, and withholding state-shared
tax revenues or other State funding to the community.
Because the program is so new, it is not possible to provide any statistics concerning the
frequency of late payments, default, or other loan problems. None of the States report any
problems, as yet, with their current loans.
6*8
-------
SECTION SEVEN
ADMINISTRATION OF SRF PROGRAMS
At the time information was being collected for this report, the States were still making
the transition from the construction grants program to the SRI7 program. In some States
construction grants personnel were in the process of taking on the duties associated with the
SRF program; some individuals divided their time between the two programs. As a result, cost
accounting for time spent on the construction grant versus SRF program was difficult for some
States. As the number of SRF projects and the amount of money in the SRFs increase, most
States project increasing SRF staff size and escalating administrative costs. This section
summarizes the States' estimates of the number and type of personnel and the associated cost
of administering the SRF program over the next several years.
7.1 Agencies and Personnel Involved With SRF Program Administration
Administering the SRF program requires a mix of administrative, technical, accounting,
and financial personnel. Table 7-1 shows the number and type of staff working in SRF
programs in forty-five States that reported staffing figures for FYs 1989 and 1990. For the
forty-five States, 48 percent of SRF personnel worked in technical support, 20 percent in
financial management, 29 percent in general administration, and the remainder in other
capacities. States' technical and financial experts often work in separate agencies. Thirty-four
States have two or three different agencies involved in running their SRF programs. Seven
States have more than three agencies involved in SRF administration. Only four States
reported that all aspects of their SRF program are handled through a single agency.
The total number of personnel involved In SRF programs during FYs 1989 and 1990
varies considerably among the forty-five States, ranging from 2 to 70 (see Table 7-1). For the
forty-five States reviewed in this analysis, the amount of SRF funding still appears to be a
important factor, but leveraging does not appear to be as significant in determining staff size.
Two of the ten States that reported having the largest staffs operate leveraged programs, yet
two of the ten States that reported the smallest staffs also leverage. Some States did, however,
report that they anticipated future staffing increases due to increased leveraging activity.
Thirty-four States anticipate modest to substantial increases in both technical and
financial personnel as the number of SRF projects and the amount of money in the SRFs
increase. Seven States reported that they expect staffing needs to remain relatively constant.
7-1
-------
TABLE 7-1
Employment in Administration and Operation of SRFs
In Forty-five States(a)
FY 1989-1990
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
(b) West Virginia
Wisconsin
(c) Wyoming
TOTAL
(% of Total)
Annual Full Time Employee Equivalents
Staff Function
Admin.
6
0.5
0.75
10
7.2
2.4
4
9
3
3
1.03
1
5
1.5
2
6
5
Technical
Support
4
0.7
0.75
7
18.4
1.65
12
19
6
6
1.22
2
20
2.5
0.2
6
5
3 3.5
6.5
9
4.5
7.2
2.5
1.1
1.07
2
23.5
2
22.38
6
3.1
2.02
5
0
3.7
1
3.95
7.2
1
0.91
6.8
1.3
1.6
9
1.5
206.21
29%
9
25
11.5
14
1
1
0.75
4
33
1
23.25
24
1.8
0.1
10
3
9.87
2.5
5.5
14.8
3
0.97
10.5
7.4
2.2
7
3
345.06
48%
Financial Management
Accounting
3
0.1
0
1
4.3
0.15
5
4.5
1
1
0.25
1.1
6
1
0.2
0
2
2
3
3
2
1.2
0.5
0.5
0.75
1
8
1.25
10
1
0
0.1
2
0
1.4
1
1.25
2.9
1
0.34
1.5
0.25
1
0.05
1
78.59
11%
Finance
6
0.2
0
1
0
2.2
1
2.5
0.25
0.5
0.5
0.1
0
0.5
3
1
2
2
2
2
4
1.1
0
0.5
0
1
6
0
4.25
1
0.4
0.1
3
1
1
1
0.25
2.4
0
1.3
3
1.5
1
2
1
63.55
9%
Other
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0.25
0
0
0
0
0
13
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0.2
0.1
0
0
0
5.5
0.2
0
0
0
1.5
0
0
0
0
27.75
4%
Total
19
1.5
1.5
19
29.9
6.4
23
35
10.25
10.75
3
4.2
31
5.5
5.4
26
16
10.5
20.5
39
22
23.5
4
3.1
2.57
8
70.5
4.25
59.88
36
5.5
2.42
20
4
15.97
11
11.15
27.3
5
3.52
23.3
10.45
5.8
18.05
6.5
721.16
100%
(a) Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide employment
data for this report.
(b) West Virginia's figures represent projected FY 1991 staffing.
(c) Wyoming's figures represent projected FY 1991 staffing.
7-2
-------
After the equivalency requirements1 of the last capitalization grant are met, States may change
the nature and number of SRF program staff if the workload decreases. States that begin to
leverage may need to add staff with financial expertise.
7.2 Costs Associated With SRF Program Administration
Annual administrative expenses for 1989 to 1995 for forty-four States that provided cost
projections are presented in Table 7-2. Included in each State's estimates are all direct and
indirect costs associated with SRF program administration. Also shown are each State's SRF
administrative expense allowances. The allowances for 1989 and 1990 are an amount equal to
four percent of the actual capitalization grants awarded. The allowances for 1991 to 1994 are
estimated based on the authorized capitalization grant.2 Program requirements limit the amount
of SRF funds spent on administrative expenses in a given year to four percent of the
cumulative capitalization grant amount, less previous expenditures of SRF funds on
administration. States can accumulate or "bank" any unused portion of their expense allowance
for use in future years.
The table shows that the cumulative SRF administrative expense allowance will be
adequate in some States and not in others. Based on State estimated administrative expenses
and SRF capitalization grant awards at authorized amounts, twenty-eight States are expecting to
have sufficient allowances from their capitalization grants to cover their projected administrative
costs for the 1989 to 1994 time period. Of the sixteen States, highlighted in Table 7-2, that are
projected to experience shortfalls between their expected administrative expenses and the four
percent capitalization grant allowance, over 75 percent of the administrative costs are covered
in seven States, from 50 to 75 percent of costs are covered in six States, and less than 50
percent of costs are covered in the remaining three States.
While leveraging does not appear to have a significant impact on staff size, it does
appear to increase program administration expenses. Nearly half of the States projected to
experience administrative expenses in excess of their four percent administrative cost allowance
between 1989 and 1994 operate leveraged programs.
It is important to note that no funds from capitalization grants are shown for 1995 or
subsequent years. After the final Federal grant allotment, States will have to rely on alternative
funding sources or banked allowances to cover their administrative expenses. Projected
administrative expenses for 1995 are shown in Table 7-2.
TTie equivalency requirements are 16 statutory CWA Title n requirements included in
Section 602(b)(6) that cover wastewater treatment projects constructed in whole or in part with
funds "directly made available by" Federal SRF capitalization grant awards. These incorporate
requirements regarding the type of technologies, analyses, and issues which must be taken into
account by such projects. After States have committed funds equal to the total amount of
capitalization grant awards, additional SRF-funded wastewater treatment projects are not subject
to these requirements.
2Where States projected capitalization grants at less than authorized amounts, the
allowances are based on four percent of the amount of capitalization grant funding which they
project.
7-3
-------
TABLE 7-2
Comparison of
Estimated SRF Administrative Costs And
Administrative Expense Allowances(a) For Forty-four(b) States
($ Thousands)
1989 to
1994 Projected
TOTAL
Alabama
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Alaska
120 140 203 340
Estimated Admin. Costs
inistrative Allowance
88 118 219 267
California
Estimated Admin. Costs
0 1,626 2,862 3,142 3,268 3,398 14296
6,944 5,208
'
^ V-5 * * i ^ ^
i Admin
Vdministratjve Allowance
Continued
7-4
-------
TABLE 7-2, continued
Comparison of
Estimated SRF Administrative Costs And
Administrative Expense Allowances(a) For Forty-four(b) States
($ Thousands)
Actual
Projected
STATE
1989
1990
1991 1992 1993 1994
1989 to
1994 Projected
TOTAL 1995
Hawaii
Estimated Admin. Costs(d) 0 303 309 324 341 358 1,634
Administrative Allowance 292 292 472 356 236 120 1,768
376
Idaho
Estimated Admin. Costs 0 60 150 220 300 350 1,080
Administrative Allowance 180 188 476 356 236 116 1,552
400
Illinois
Estimated Admin. Costs 63 430
Administrative Allowance 2,000 2,000
1,229 1,668 2,554 3,234 9,178
4,000 3,000 2,000 1.000 14,000
3,532
Iowa
Estimated Admin. Costs 0 165 200 220 242 266 1,093
Administrative Allowance 508 528 1,324 992 660 332 4,344
293
Kansas
Estimated Admin. Costs(e) 160 340 873 655 436 218 2,682
Administrative Allowance 340 352 876 660 440 220 2,888
325
Kentucky
Estimated Admin. Costs 18 301 450 690 850 1,070 3,379
Administrative Allowance 872 708 1,168 876 584 292 4,500
1,190
Maryland
Estimated Admin. Costs 200 684
Administrative Allowance 912 944
773 1,417 1,351 1,172 5,597
2,348 1,760 1,176 584 7,724
762
Continued
7-5
-------
TABLE 7-2, continued
Comparison of
Estimated SRF Administrative Costs And
Administrative Expense Allowances(a) For Forty-four(b) States
($ Thousands)
Actual
Projected
1989 to
1994
STATE
1989
1990
1991 1992 1993 1994 TOTAL
Projected
1995
Michigan
Estimated Admin. Costs 0 400
Administrative Allowance 1,620 1,676
1,000 1,100 1,150 1,200 4,850
3,352 3,132 2,088 1,044 12,912
1,250
* 15,590,
Missouri
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
0 66
1,000 1,040
490 700 900 1,100 3,256
2,080 1,560 1,040 520 7,240
1,200
>"'&'#«--XSV *&r
Nevada
Estimated Admin. Costs 0 0 46 320 350 390 1,106
Administrative Allowance 183 190 477 357 238 119 1,564
430
Mew Mexico
Estimated Admin. Costs 0 75 240 280 320 360 1,275
Administrative Allowance 344 344 344 344 240 120 1,736
404
New York
Estimated Admin. Costs(i) 0 3,770
Administrative Allowance 4,160 4,320
5,551 5,877 6,213 6,504 27,915
8,680 7,960 5,320 2,640 33,080
6,886
Continued
7-6
-------
TABLE 7-2, continued
Comparison of
Estimated SRF Administrative Costs And
Administrative Expense Allowances(a) For Forty-four(b) States
($ Thousands)
Actual
STATE
North Carolina
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Oklahoma
E$tJmate3:Admcu Costa .
•. AjJmcalstratiVe Allowance
Oregon
Estimated Admin. Costs(j)
Administrative Allowance
Pennsylvania
Estimated Admin. Costs
f Administrative Allowance
Rhode Island
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
South Carolina
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Sooth Dafcpta- ^- - 'Is.^*^ V<
T ''^^BinSrtSSrSSfl^
J* *8C0-'--
Tennessee
Estimated Admin. Costs(k)
Administrative Allowance
Texas
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
Utah
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
1989
17
908
:• 21
* - '304
0
561
100
1,494
50
264
491
914
> ^&&X1 ,
*||S8r
"^ ""^scX "* ?^fcr ,/"
-^x-^wlSS"
f
147
608
880
3,308
128
284
1990
181
1,320
371
314
50
441
462
1,546
75
271
611
765
-, "'t-'
%$3#
o Z&1 v^ft^*^"
, w J^S^fff
^*w<
286
948
1,424
2,912
180
252
1991
519
1,760
• 304
784
200
1,096
1,070
2,538
250
652
685
820
" ' ' -
^'T^olr
j-» t f e^. ^ ^-v*
< - 473-'
600
1,164
2,104
4,308
225
484
Projected
1992
905
1,320
' 314
5*8
400
824
1,700
2,856
300
489
567
739
'- ,,"-*
??S;
•^ ** **% •$"** \3
'^**3fiJ
f *jf-i-r>^
758
1,034
2,984
3,176
300
364
1993
1,162
880
-
- SQQ,
. 392
470
548
2,590
1,904
350
326
690
493
"' ~ \ ,
^'400-'*
» i •" V4">$ ^ •?
1^24fi^.
930
689
3,634
2,052
300
240
1994
1,331
440
',
, 900
-196
490
276
3,360
952
350
163
713
245
s t" v" Jn
H^4
v/% 'v^M^J^
*•** ""XZQ
^*p*r
1,138
344
3,967
588
250
120
1989 to
1994 Projected
TOTAL 1995
4,114
6,628
-
2,710
2,578
1,610
3,745
9,282
11,290
1,375
2,165
3,757
3,976
-• * ,
t," '2,060 '
i" ' " •. i *• '
612 -
9 **
3,858
4,787
14,993
16,344
1,383
1,744
1,747
1,000
510
3,970
500
725
••
:-, 400
^
v s
1,428
4,223
150
l Continued
7-7
-------
TABLE 7-2, continued
Comparison of
Estimated SRF Administrative Costs And
Administrative Expense Allowances(a) For Forty-four(b) States
($ Thousands)
Actual
Projected
STATE
1989
1990
1991 1992 1993 1994
1989 to
1994
TOTAL
Projected
1995
Vermont .;.; v ,
Estimated Admin. Costs
Arfmkiistratjve Allowance
^183
192
487
380
588
s,
356
74S 2,644
750
Virginia
Estimated Admin. Costs 560 600 600 800 800 800 4,160
Administrative Allowance 1,228 1,080 1,924 1,444 960 480 7,116
800
Washington
Estimated Admin. Costs 0 232 390 490 800 800 2,712
Administrative Allowance 664 668 1,680 1,240 840 400 5,492
980
West Virginia
Estimated Admin. Costs
Administrative Allowance
0
0
100
800
400 600
1,912 1,136
800
756
1,000
380
2,900
4,984
1,000
2,400
Wyoming
Estimated Admin. Costs 0 0 200 240 260 260 960
Administrative Allowance 183 194 477 358 238 119 1,570
260
Note: The administrative allowance is based on actual capitalization grants awarded for FY 1989 and 1990, and on
4 percent of the authorized capitalization grant funding for 1991 to 1994 for most states. For states that
projected capitalization grant funding at less than authorized amounts, the allowance is based on four
percent of the projected amount. Shaded States project administrative costs exceeding the 4% allowance in
the 1989 to 1994 time period.
(a) Administrative expense allowance represents the total Federal source of funds available for administering SRFs.
(b) Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide
administrative cost estimates for this report.
(c) 1989 administrative costs for five months.
(d) 1990 administrative costs for three months.
(e) In fiscal year 1989 many "start up" costs were paid with proceeds from the State Match Revenue Bond issue.
(0 Excludes bond issuance costs paid from bond proceeds.
(g) 1990 administrative costs for ten months.
(h) New Jersey's administrative costs are estimated based on 1988 cost and staffing data, and staff increase
projections, supplied by New Jersey DEP. New Jersey's 1988 costs cover most, but not all, SRF employees.
Actual costs may be higher than those estimated here.
(i) 1990 administrative costs for nine months.
(j) 1990 administrative costs for nine months.
(k) 1988 administrative costs for three months.
7-8
-------
SRF program representatives made recommendations regarding the short-term (up to
FY 1995) and long-term (after FY 1995) funding of administrative costs. For the short term,
19 States recommended increasing the four-percent ceiling or allowing four percent of the
authorized, rather than the appropriated amount. While this would allow additional SRF funds
to be used for administrative expenses, it is neither normal practice nor prudent to pay the
operating costs of a revolving loan program with its capital funds. Doing so can jeopardize the
fiscal integrity of the capital account because it is an open-ended, consumptive use of funds.
As an effective alternative, representatives from ten States recommended that their SRF
programs charge a loan closing or similar fee. Two States recommended a separate Federal
grant for administrative costs.
For the long term, States suggested a variety of funding methods, although they have
not yet developed specific plans. Twenty-one States recommended instituting a closing or other
type of fee to cover administrative costs. Ten States have already implemented a loan closing
fee. It should be noted that any such fees collected must be kept out of the SRF itself so that
they will not be counted towards or limited by the four-percent ceiling. Several States
recommended the following administrative cost funding mechanisms, some of which (marked by
an asterisk) are not currently allowed or viable in the SRF program:
• using State appropriations;
• using fund reserves';
• transferring unused 205(g) funds (Federal grant funds for States to implement
certain Title II program management activities);
• using a portion of the debt service payments'; and
• having the Federal government provide funds matching State appropriations for
administrative costs on a dollar for dollar basis (up to 10 percent of the actual
loans made).
7-9
-------
-------
v.
SECTION EIGHT
POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE SRF PROGRAM ON COMMUNITY USER FEES
As explained in Section Six, SRF programs offer loans at below-market rates for eligible
projects. By contrast, the construction grants program generally provided a 55 percent grant for
the eligible cost of projects1 coupled in many cases with a State grant. This section examines
the impact on user fees of a shift from construction grants funding to SRF funding for a typical
facility. Because the SRF programs have been operating only a short time and data are not
yet available on SRF-financed facilities, an analytical modeling approach is used to assess the
impact of the SRF program on user fees. The sections that follow describe the scope and
methodology of the analysis and present the analytical results.
8.1 Scope of the Analysis
This analysis assesses the incremental financial burden placed on households resulting
from SRF loan financing of wastewater treatment facilities compared to construction grant
funding. It is based on theoretical typical facilities and compares user fees for identical facilities
built with SRF assistance versus construction grant funding. Although some changes in design
may occur as the source of funding assistance changes from construction grants to SRF loans,
interviews with State officials suggest these changes will be minor. One possible change is more
construction of reserve capacity.2 Reserve capacity was not eligible under the construction
grants program after 1984 except in certain grandfathered phased or segmented projects.
Reserve capacity is eligible for funding with SRF monies. As a result of the differing
eligibilities of reserve capacity, the analysis assumes that a slightly higher percentage of costs are
eligible under SRF financing in comparison to construction grants financing.
Land costs, except for those to acquire land that is an integral part of the treatment
process or used for sludge disposal, are ineligible under both the SRF and construction grants
programs. Since there will be no change in a community's ability to finance land costs with the
switch to SRF funding, this item is not included in the analysis. The costs assessed here are
limited, therefore, to construction and operation and maintenance (O&M) of the wastewater
treatment facilities.
Under the construction grants program, States have typically provided a 10 to 15 percent
State grant to municipalities. Under the SRF, States must provide a 20 percent match to
receive a capitalization grant from EPA. It is not anticipated that many States will provide
grants to municipalities as a general rule in conjunction with an SRF loan. However, some
States anticipate the continuation of separate grant programs for special circumstances, such as
'Innovative or alternative projects could receive a 75 percent grant.
2Extra treatment capacity built into treatment plants and interceptor sewers to
accommodate flow increases due to future population growth.
8-1
-------
communities which are economically distressed. As a result, the user fee impact analysis
presented here assumes no State grants under the SRF program.
There is no provision in the analysis for existing debt, which can vary significantly from
one community to the next. The incremental cost calculated here for the new facility could
represent all of the financial burden for wastewater treatment in a community, or only a
fraction of that burden.
8.2 Methodology
To assess the impact of user fees under the SRF program, a model which simulates user
fees was developed. The model is structured to simulate user fees under the construction
grants program and under the SRF program. The variables which the model uses to derive the
user fees are identified in Table 8-1. The first column in Table 8-1 lists each of the different
variables. The second column presents the value for each variable most commonly found under
both the construction grants and SRF programs. The values in the second column were used
to calculate the user fees presented in this chapter. The third column presents the range of
values for the variables depending on particular conditions in a State.
Based on the input variables in Table 8-1 the model calculates other values used in the
analysis. These calculated values include facility capital cost, daily flow rate, and the number of
hook-ups. Output from the model includes the annual cost of capital financing (assuming level
debt service), the annual O&M cost, and the total annual user fees per household under the
construction grants and SRF programs. The user fee calculated by the model represents the
annual incremental costs of construction and O&M for a new facility; it does not include land
costs or costs of existing debt service.
Appendix F contains a sample input-output page from the model, the formulas used in
the model and a description of the standard variable values and their sources, including a
detailed description of the capital and O&M cost curves and their derivations. The model
presented in Appendix F is designed so the user can input any of the variables presented in
Table 8-1 and calculate the impact on user fees. The capital cost curve is an inflated version of
EPA's Construction Costs for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants: 1973-1978. developed
to describe construction grants-funded projects.3 The O&M cost curve is derived from a user
fee survey of 161 construction grants-funded projects in EPA Region IE. EPA is currently
undertaking a comprehensive national survey of user fees and O&M costs.
JCost curves reflect the capital cost of the components of a secondary treatment facility for
all community size categories.
8-2
-------
TABLE 8-1
User Charge Variables, Standard Values, and Range
VARIABLE
STANDARD
VALUE
ESTIMATED
RANGE
SRF interest rate:
Market interest:
Persons/household:
Gallons/person/day:
Loan period:
Percent total costs
eligible under a 55%
construction grant:
Percent total costsb
funded by State grant
under construction
grants program:
Percent total costs
eligible under SRF:
Percent total costs funded
by State grant in con-
junction with SRF loans:
Population served
by facility:
4%
8%'
Fixed at 2.64
90-110 depending on
community size
20 vrs
90%
15%
100%
0%
Fixed at one of the
following:
1,000; 2,500;
10,000; 100,000
0-9%
7-11%
90-110 depending on
community size
5-20 yrs
75-100%
0-25%
0-50%
•Recent cost of borrowing funds in the municipal bond market.
''Applies to all eligible costs.
8-3
-------
8.3 Comparison of User Fees Under the SRF and Construction Grants Programs
The results of a comparison of user fees under SRF and construction grants Gnancing
for facilities serving five community population sizes are presented in Table 8-2. The results
reflect the standard values displayed above in Table 8-1.
In Table S-2. user fees are calculated as the household's proportional share of two cost
components: the annualized cost of the capital expenditure and the annual operation and
maintenance cost. The SRF and construction grants programs subsidize only the capital
expenditure portion. But as Table 8-2 illustrates, it is the second cost, O&M. that often drives
the user fees. The O&M costs account for approximately 60 percent of user fees under the
SRF program and about 73 percent of user fees under the construction grants program.
Table 8-2 also shows that the size of the community served by a facility has a substantial
impact on user fees under both the SRF program and the construction grants program. User
fees for facilities serving communities with a population of 1,000 are over 3 times greater than
user fees for facilities serving communities of 100,000. This disparity in user fees across
community sizes is not altered significantly under the SRF loan program, due in part to the
predominance of O&M costs in the overall user fee.
Table 8-2 indicates that user fees are higher under the SRF program than under the
construction grants program. The difference in user fees under a 4 percent loan compared to a
55 percent construction grant ranges from $72 annually for facilities serving communities of
1,000 to $22 annually for facilities serving communities of 100,000. This represents a 21
percent increase for a community of 1,000 and a 19 percent increase for a community of
100,000.
8.4 Impact of SRF Loan Interest Rate on Level of Subsidy
The interest rate charged on SRF loans has a significant impact on user fees. One way
of quantifying the value of the SRF loan subsidy is by expressing the loan interest rate in terms
of a "grant equivalent" For example, a 4 percent SRF loan, a common rate charged for SRF
loans, is equivalent to a grant subsidy of 16 percent under the construction grant program
(assuming a 15 percent State grant is provided along with the construction grant). A zero
interest SRF loan is equivalent to a 42 percent construction grant, while a 6 percent interest
SRF loan is equivalent to a 1 percent construction grant Table 8-3 shows various SRF loan
interest rates and their construction grant equivalents.
Another way to quantify the value of the SRF loan subsidy is to compare projected user
fees for facilities constructed with SRF loans to facilities constructed with market rate financing.
A facility designed to serve a community of 1,000 constructed with an SRF loan using a 4
percent interest rate would have an annual user fee of $351, whereas the same facility financed
with a market rate loan charging 8 percent interest would have an annual user fee of $407.
Thus, the SRF reduces annual user fees by 14 percent For a facility designed to serve a
community of 100,000, annual user fees would be $116 with a 4 percent SRF loan compared
with $134 for a market rate loan, a savings of 13 percent
8-4
-------
a
>1 >S; j£ ga
~] — cl —
a! C. 2 '£• '
>
u
c/
O =P
« c
1 =
Q. s
S 5
.9 ^
=c S «
tn
o C
i = a
*j t-* ""^
is
Annual House
i *= '•
£ - !
>^ »v ,,;
d ~ 5C '
17! — > i "i 31 T n
y = », •- ! ' " "
U« "™* r-« -^
55 E '£.
5) G 2"
coSSg
s s; 3 E b.
^ ^^
UJ <5
tn Q ^ tr*
^3 ^J (T> FT! **•
o o U^ B *
S = 3 ES2,
t_
to
8
S
aX
^3
C
CAPITAL CAPITAL
FINANCING FINANCING
COST (SRF) COST (CO)
z
Q>
P ffl >
5 Q C
^S k— r*
[J W ^j
5>* !^ r %
pu cc \j
o S <
0- GO fc.
P^ w~l -T CJ
c-. r> t- *r
r- T vo CN
r< M —
— ••« — ^c
u^ C — —
r**. fl r-J —
^ T rl O
S 00 fN t—
rvt ^^ ^*
>n n m TT
r- \o TT fs
« cs a* r-
T tS 00 T
•w* *-^
S 8 i §
S vi ® Q
^> * —»" ^<^
- M S S
1
•3
r2
"*
1
s
>,
I
c
r fee for a new wastewater treatmt
alues:
u >
vt
y u
« -g
•£ •—
a 2
S -2
1 n
si -3
e, S
« a
a v>
*— • 79
^
•3
:>•,
'c
•z
C
s c
S T
« 3 0
•1 £g
s cs —
U CO
SRF Interest Rate: 4%
Market Interest Rale: 8%
Gallons/Person/Day: 90-110 (dep
Loan Period: 20 years
Eligible Cost SRF: 100%
Eligible Cost CG: 90%
State Grant In Conjunction with
Slate Grant Under CG Program:
8-5
-------
TABLE 8-3
SRF Interest Rate and Construction Grant Equivalent*
SRF Interest
Rate
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
Construction"
Grant
Equivalent
42%
36%
29%
23%
16%
9%
1%
"Ineligible costs financed at an 8% market rate.
This number represents the construction grant equivalent (assuming construction grants are
coupled with a 15% State grant) necessary to achieve the same subsidy as an SRF loan at the
interest rate shown in the same row.
8.5 Summary of Kev Findings
Key findings of this theoretical analysis include:
• For facilities serving the community sizes examined in this analysis, the household
user fee under a 4 percent SRF loan is approximately 20 percent greater than
the user fee under a 55 percent construction grant.*
• The absolute dollar difference in user fees under a 4 percent SRF loan
compared to a 55 percent construction grant* ranges from about $22 annually
for a community of 100,000 to about $72 for a community of 1,000.
•Assuming a 15 percent State grant is provided along with the construction grant.
8-6
-------
A 4 percent SRF loans, a common rate charged for SRF loans, provides the
same financial subsidy as a construction grant* that funds 16 percent of eligible
cost.
Even at zero percent interest. SRF loans cannot provide the same financial
subsidy as a 55 percent construction grant.* Therefore, user fees will generally
be higher under the SRF program than the construction grants program.
Community size has a substantial impact on user fees under both the SRF
program and the construction grants program. Because of economies of scale,
total user fees to cover operation and maintenance in addition to capital costs
are estimated to be about three times as great for a community of 1,000
compared to a community of 100,000.
While SRF loans provide less of a subsidy than construction grants, SRF loans
still provide a substantial subsidy. User fees for facilities constructed with SRF
loans charging 4 percent interest will be approximately 14 percent lower on
average than facilities constructed with market rate financing.
"Assuming a 15 percent State grant is provided along with the construction grant.
8-7
-------
-------
SECTION NINE
POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE SRF PROGRAM ON FACILITY OPERATIONS
This section summarizes the opinions of State SRF officials on whether the SRF
program will lead to changes in the operation of wastewater treatment facilities. Because the
SRF is a new program, program officials had minimal information about the impact of SRF
funding on facility operation. Anticipated changes in facility sizing, design, and operating
efficiency are discussed below.
9.1 Anticipated Changes in Sizing. Design^and Operation and Maintenance Costs of New
Facilities
Because communities have to pay for a larger portion of project capital costs under the
SRF program than under the construction grants program, there is an incentive to construct
lower cost facilities to minimize the impact of capital costs on user fees. Of forty-three SRF
program officials who expressed opinions on facility costs under the SRF program, nineteen
expect that costs will decrease, twenty-one expect no change, and three expect cost increases.
SRF officials expressed divergent views on the effect of SRF financing on facility sizing.
SRF officials in thirteen States expect that facilities will be smaller; most of the twelve expected
that facility size would decrease because communities must repay the loans and will, therefore,
tend to keep the size and costs of projects to a minimum. Twenty-six States expect no change
in facility sizing. Six States anticipate that facilities will actually be larger because, according to
four of the six, the SRF can be used to fund reserve capacity projects that were ineligible
under the construction grants program. In some cases, increased facility size may result from
the expansion of existing facilities rather than the construction of larger new facilities. Two
States anticipate that new construction will become less common, with municipalities favoring
phased improvements over new construction.
The SRF program provides less incentive for the use of innovative and alternative
technologies than the construction grants program. While several States require innovative and
alternative technology projects be considered during the planning phase of project development,
few States offer any direct incentive for innovative or alternative technology projects.1 As many
States pointed out, this is a change from the construction grants program which provided direct
incentives for innovative and alternative technology projects (e.g., 75 percent grants rather than
55 percent).
'Consideration of innovative and alternative treatment technologies is one of the CWA
Title n equivalency requirements (described in Footnote 3, Section 7.1). Therefore, in all
States, projects subject to equivalency requirements must evaluate innovative and alternative
technologies.
9-1
-------
Thirty of the forty-five States that expressed opinions felt that the number of innovative
and alternative projects undertaken would decrease, twelve expected no change, and three
expected an increase. Because the SRF is a loan program, communities assume a greater
financial risk. The added risk and uncertainty associated with innovative technologies may
discourage their use. Proven alternative technologies will still be chosen, however, and might
be preferred if they have lower overall costs.
Most SRF program administrators view the O&M requirements under the construction
grants program as constructive and integral to the successful operation of facilities. In their
questionnaires, thirty-seven States said they did not expect O&M requirements to change under
the SRF program. Nine States said that O&M requirements wouid change. Five of these
States indicated that O&M programs would be more rigorous under their SRF programs. The
other four States indicated that they would not apply certain construction grant O&M
requirements within their SRF programs.
The majority of the State program officials anticipate little or no change in the O&M
costs of facilities built with SRF funds. While the increased debt service costs under the SRF
program are expected to increase pressure to keep O&M expenditures down, municipalities may
also wish to spend more on O&M to prolong plant life. Twenty-six States reported that they
expect O&M costs to remain about the same under the SRF program as they were under the
construction grants program. The other eighteen States that expressed an opinion on O&M
costs were split, with nine expecting cost decreases and ten expecting increases.
9-2
-------
SECTION TEN
ADVANTAGES OF THE SRF PROGRAM
The SRF program offers benefits to all levels of government concerned about water
quality. These benefits are both financial and environmental, helping responsible agencies and
officials to use their limited resources to achieve the goal of clean water.
10.1 Federal Government
The SRF program provides a mechanism for the Federal government to further the
long-standing national policy of providing financial assistance for wastewater treatment and
other water quality management activities. At the same time, the program facilitates the goal of
transferring the responsibility for financing water quality construction and management from the
Federal government to State and local governments.
The "revolving" nature of the SRFs developed under this program allows the limited
amount of Federal funds available to buy out many more water quality needs than they would
with direct grants or one-time loans.
10.2 The States
The primary benefit of the SRF program to the States is that it allows flexibility in
providing financial assistance. Each State designs its SRF to address the particular water quality
concerns of that State and its communities. States can structure their SRF to meet a broad
range of needs or to focus on a limited number of needs of major concern. By varying the
types and terms of SRF assistance, States can reach "target" types of communities or projects.
Also, States can integrate or coordinate the SRF with other State programs to develop a
comprehensive system for financing water quality management, tailoring the level of subsidy to
the varying needs of their communities. The SRF loan repayment stream provides a continuing
source of funding which is not subject to annual appropriations and therefore allows for more
certain projections of the availability of funds for assistance.
Expanded eligibilities under the SRF program further increase its flexibility. In addition
to the new types of activities and facilities that can be funded, SRFs, in comparison to
construction grants, can fund a larger portion of the costs of traditional types of treatment
works. Fewer Federal requirements apply to SRF assistance than to construction grants, and
certain of the SRF funds carry none of the requirements of Title II. This reduction in
requirements can reduce the cost of facilities.
10-1
-------
10.3 Communities
Low interest rates are the single most important benefit to communities mentioned by
the States. Due to the Federal grant and State match (and in some cases leveraged funds) that
capitalize SRFs and because of the funds' fiscal strength, loan recipients can obtain interest
rates lower than they could get on their own. This reduced cost of capital enables some
projects to be completed that otherwise would not be affordable and reduces the level of user
fees required to repay project debt.
An example is provided by using the model presented in Section Eight of this report to
calculate the debt service costs for a community with a population of 10,000 people, building a
wastewater treatment plant with a capital cost of $4.56 million and borrowing the entire
amount. With a 20-year, four percent SRF loan the annual capital cost per household would
be $89. If the community borrowed the funds at a market interest rate of eight percent, the
annual capital cost per household would be $123, or 38 percent higher than capital cost per
household with an SRF loan.
Some States, such as Minnesota and Virginia, charge no interest on SRF loans during
the construction period, providing even more savings in the cost of capital. Most SRFs do not
charge closing costs, providing an additional savings over market financing for loan recipients.
Even in States that charge closing costs or administrative fees, communities experience
savings because the administrative burden of capital financing is centralized at the State level,
realizing economies of scale. State governments are more likely than municipalities to have the
management and financial institutions and expertise necessary to access the public finance
market at the most advantageous time and at the lowest cost. These reductions in financing
costs can result in significant overall savings to a community and the beneficiaries of its water
quality projects and activities.
Other benefits to communities mentioned by the States include starting construction
more quickly than under the construction grants program (with resultant savings in capital cost
inflation), fewer eligibility constraints, no maximum or minimum assistance amount (unless
imposed by the State), and efficient disbursements for incurred costs.
Communities also benefit from many features of the SRF program discussed above as
benefits to the States. State-specific SRF program design and expanded eligibilities allow more
communities to meet their particular needs. The variety of assistance types (i.e., credit
enhancements) broadens the scope of the program to include communities that do not require
direct grant or loan assistance. Also, fewer Federal requirements and restrictions on the
assistance provided can reduce administrative complexities, costs, and time delays.
Finally, the SRF provides a long-term funding program to meet the water quality
management needs of many communities. The revolving nature of the fund creates a perpetual
source of affordable financing. The funds invested now for the capitalization of SRFs will work
for many years to assist communities in meeting their needs, providing more money for more
communities.
10-2
-------
SECTION ELEVEN
ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH SRF IMPLEMENTATION
Officials of the States' SRF programs identified a number of areas of concern that affect
their ability to effectively implement their programs. Some of these impediments arise from
Federal and State statutes, regulations, and policies while others are inherent in a new financial
assistance program such as the SRF. This section presents the major concerns expressed by the
States and discusses the realized or potential impact of each on the program.
Federal Funding
Many State officials expressed serious concern regarding the Federal funding of the SRF
program. The FY 1989 and 1990 appropriations for Clean Water Act Title II (funds of which
can be transferred to the SRF program) and Title VI were less than the authorized amounts, as
were FY 1991 Title VI amounts. State officials believe that future appropriations will also fall
short of the authorized levels.
State officials also expressed concern about uncertainty as to what the Federal funding
level will be from year to year. Because the States must provide matching funds based on the
capitalization grant amount, such uncertainty makes planning difficult for both the States and
communities. In many States the budget process is not coordinated with that of the Federal
budget. If an SRF fails to obtain an appropriation or bond authorization for its match because
the State legislature goes out of session before the necessary amount can be determined,
significant delays in program implementation can occur.
Ability to Reach Communities With Assistance
A few States mentioned that they anticipate difficulty in providing SRF assistance to
particular communities. Some economically distressed communities cannot afford to pay back a
loan even at a 0 percent interest rate. States will have to work closely with communities that
have financial capability problems to structure an assistance package that provides adequate,
affordable funding to meet water quality objectives and regulations. As discussed in Subsection
6.2, such an assistance package may need to incorporate funding from other State aid programs
in addition to the SRF. To be effective, financial assistance for small, economically distressed
communities should also be coordinated with technical assistance outreach programs.
Cross-Cutting Federal Laws and Authorities
The States report that the application of other (non-CWA) Federal laws and authorities
(e.g. National Historic Preservation Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, Executive Orders
11625 and 12138, Women's and Minority Business Enterprize) to the SRF program leads to a
11-1
-------
I
number of difficulties. These "cross-cutters" apply to projects funded in whole or in part by
"funds directly made available" by the Federal capitalization grant The States are unsure of
their responsibilities for monitoring and assuring compliance with the cross-cutters; therefore, it
is difficult to build the appropriate procedures into their SRFs. This concern arises because at
any time, Federal laws can be enacted that apply to the SRF program, and a permanent list of
these authorities cannot be identified. (The Agency is now examining twenty-four cross-cutting
Federal authorities and will soon distribute a handbook describing their application in the SRF
program.) In addition, once the State responsibilities and procedures are developed, the
administrative costs of the program will increase as State officials ensure compliance. Cross-
cutting authorities that apply to assistance recipients may also increase project costs and delay
project completion, according to State officials. The States are also concerned about EPA's
role in reviewing State project-specific compliance actions.
In order to facilitate compliance with other Federal laws and authorities, EPA is
working with the appropriate Federal agencies to develop programmatic agreements for major
cross-cutters that outline the roles and responsibilities of the various government entities
involved. Several States and their representatives have recommended another approach to
managing compliance with cross-cutters. They urge that compliance be "as determined by the
Governor" of each State and that the focus should be on certifying compliance with the intent
of law rather than adherence to project-specific requirements. These States would prefer,
however, that the SRF program be exempted entirely from cross-cutters by Congress.
Effect of Program Requirements on Project Costs
Several States expressed the view that the Title VI Federal requirements associated with
the SRF program add substantially to project costs as well as administrative costs. In particular.
the Title n "equivalency requirements" for treatment works, which apply only to "funds directly
made available" by Federal capitalization grants, are said to reduce the program's attractiveness
to communities. Texas and New Jersey officials estimate cost increases of up to 20 percent in
some communities due to Federal requirements.
Tennessee SRF officials assert that prevailing wage rates mandated under the Davis-
Bacon Act (one of the equivalency requirements) alone could increase project costs by as much
as 30 percent. Five other States also said that the Davis-Bacon requirements increase project
costs. Studies reviewed by EPA show a wide variety of project cost increases due to Davis-
Bacon. A 1983 study by the Federal Highway Administration estimates an impact of two to
four percent, while a 1982 study by Oregon State University estimates cost increases of 26 to 38
percent in rural areas of the country. For water and sewerage systems in Utah, a 1986 study by
the State of Utah reports construction bids averaging 17.5 percent higher for projects subject to
the Davis-Bacon Act compared to those not subject to Federal wage rates. As these studies
suggest, the impact of Davis-Bacon wage rate requirements varies considerably based on local
socioeconomic and market conditions and State prevailing wage rate laws.
Some States have chosen to apply the Federal requirements discussed above to all
projects funded by their SRFs, not only to those projects funded by an amount equal to the
"funds directly made available" by their capitalization grants ("equivalency projects"). Although
11-2
-------
not a Clean Water Act or EPA requirement, States are using this practice to facilitate the
handling of projects and to provide for equal treatment to all assistance recipients.
Letter of Credit Process
Payment of capitalization grants to an SRF occurs through a Federal letter of credit
(LOG). No cash is transferred to the fund until the SRF requests a cash draw, up to the
amount available in the LOG, generally as costs are incurred. Many States indicated that this
process is an impediment to the implementation of the SRF program for a number of reasons.
Tennessee and New Mexico point out, for instance, that lack of immediate cash
payments to the SRF prevents the State from earning interest on the Federal funds. Those
interest earnings would help the fund grow and increase the amount available for assistance.
But, in an effort to ease the pressure of program outlays on the Federal budget deficit, the
LOG payment process was instituted to coordinate outlays with the actual expenditure of
Federal funds. This process complies with provisions of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act
(31 USC 6501; Pub. L. 97-258) which require Federal agencies to "schedule the transfer of
grant money to minimize the time elapsing between transfer of the money from the Treasury
and the disbursement by a State."
The LOG process was cited by several States as particularly cumbersome in regard to
the refinancing of projects. The States report that the LOG payment and cash draw provisions
generally do not correspond well with the timing of the financial procedures of refinancing
existing local debt. In order to facilitate the refinancing of some projects, EPA has provided
for the immediate cash draw of a portion of each capitalization grant for this purpose.
Another concern of some of the States is that the LOG adds one more level of
complexity to their programs. Under a cash payment system, cash would be available for
disbursement as costs are incurred. With the LOG payment system, however, a request for a
cash draw from the LOG must be made before that cash is available for disbursement. The
cash draw may take up to 36 hours, usually considerably less, as the funds are transferred to the
SRF.
There have been reports that the "LOG process" can take several weeks. States must
comply with their own overlapping fiscal and accounting procedures which can impede the quick
transfer of funds. Thus, although the letter of credit itself as a method of payment is not
causing delays beyond the maximum of 36 hours necessary to make the electronic transfer of
funds, delays are occurring in some States due to State processing problems associated with the
cash disbursements.
11-3
-------
Administrative Expenses
The CWA restricts the amount of money in an SRF that may be used for administrative
expenses to four percent of all capitalization grant awards received by the fund. The amount
available each year to cover administrative costs is four percent of all awards received up to and
including that year minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the fund in previous
years.
A number of States expressed concern that the allowed amount would be inadequate to
pay the full costs of administering their fund. This appears to be especially true of leveraged
funds because of the additional financial operations and management they require. While
States have expressed this concern, the data presented in Section Seven indicate that twenty-
eight of forty-four responding States should be able to fund their administrative costs with the
four percent allowance through FY 1994. The States expressed particular concern about the
administration of the SRFs after FY 1994, when capitalization grants are scheduled to end.
SRF program representatives made recommendations regarding the short-term (up to
FY 1995) and long-term (after FY 1995) funding of administrative costs. For the short term,
nineteen States recommended increasing the four-percent ceiling or allowing four percent of the
authorized, rather than the appropriated, amount, changes that would require legislative action.
While this would allow additional SRF funds to be used for administrative expenses, it is
neither normal practice nor prudent to pay the operating costs of a revolving loan program with
its capital funds. Doing so can jeopardize the fiscal integrity of the capital account because it is
an open-ended, consumptive use of funds. As an effective alternative, representatives from ten
States recommended that their SRF programs charge a loan closing or similar fee. Two States
recommended a separate Federal grant for administrative costs.
For the long term, States suggested a variety of funding methods. Twenty-one States
recommended instituting a closing or other type of fee to cover administrative costs. Ten States
have already implemented a loan closing fee. It should be noted that any such fees collected
should be kept out of the SRF itself so that they will not be counted towards or limited by the
four-percent ceiling. Several study States recommended the following administrative cost
funding mechanisms, some of which (marked by an asterisk) are not currently allowed or viable
in the SRF program:
• using State appropriations;
• using fund reserves";
• transferring unused 205 (g) funds (Federal grant funds for States to implement
certain Title II program management activities)*;
• using a portion of the debt service payments*; and
• having the Federal government provide funds matching State appropriations for
administrative costs on a dollar for dollar basis (up to 10 percent of the actual
loans made).
11-4
-------
Eligibility of Land
The purchase of land for a wastewater treatment facility is not an eligible cost under the
SRF program unless the land is integral to the treatment process or used for sludge disposal.
Several States recommended that this restriction be lifted because it makes the SRF less
attractive as a source of financing. Since land upon which to build a facility must often be
purchased, a community seeking assistance from an SRF may have to finance land acquisition
through another source. This increases total financing costs for the project, especially since the
land financing is unlikely to be at a subsidized interest rate. Minnesota mentioned that this
restriction is especially problematic for small communities.
The restriction on the use of SRF funds for the purchase of land is statutorily imposed
by the CWA. Therefore, legislative action would be necessary to expand the eligibility of land
under the SRF program.
Identification of Repayment Revenue Source
The CWA requires that recipients of SRF assistance provide a dedicated source of
revenue to cover repayments. While nonpoint source, ground water, and estuarine programs
are a high water quality priority in many States and are eligible for assistance under the SRF
program (see Section 3 and Appendix B), the activities associated with such "expanded uses" do
not typically provide a source of revenue to repay loans. Because of this, some States reported
that it may be difficult to provide SRF assistance for expanded use activities. At least twelve
States, however, currently fund or plan to fund expanded use activities through their SRFs.
Although the revenue to repay SRF loans may not be derived directly from the funded
activities themselves, repayment sources are available. An assistance recipient can dedicate the
proceeds of fees (e.g., permit fees, inspection fees, impact fees), taxes (e.g., property taxes, sales
taxes, pollution taxes), or fines and penalties to the repayment of an SRF loan. EPA has
prepared a case study guidebook to present examples of how expanded use activities may be
funded under the SRF program.
Financial and Legal Aspects of the Program
A number of States commented that SRFs involve more financial and legal complexity
than construction grants and many other funding programs. States and communities have an
increasing need for expertise in public finance and bond and tax law to effectively utilize SRFs.
While these added complexities can increase costs, they also are the elements of the program
that increase the available forms of assistance (i.e., credit enhancements) and the amount of
funds available (i.e.( leveraging). Each State should determine whether or not its water quality
needs are such that its SRF should incorporate various financial complexities.
EPA is aware of the potential delays and problems that financial and legal complexities
may present to the program. In an effort to assist States to develop and implement effective
11-5
-------
SRFs, the Agency has put in place a mission support contract for use by EPA Headquarters,
Regional Offices, and, through the Regions, States. The contract team has provided training
and the advice and support of financial managers, investment bankers, and bond attorneys
during the development and establishment of many SRFs.
Many SRFs issue bonds to raise State match, overmatch, or leverage funds. Some
programs purchase, refinance, or provide security for local bonds issued for wastewater
treatment projects. In order to minimize the cost of capital, States and municipalities may use
tax-exempt financing in these situations. By doing so, however, SRFs become subject to the
many provisions of Federal tax laws and regulations that affect tax-exempt bonds. The statutory
and regulatory framework surrounding tax-exempt financing is very complex and cannot be
covered in this report.
Although none of the tax laws or regulations prevent a State from developing an SRF
and making use of the financial mechanisms allowed under the CWA, they do restrict the
flexibility of the States in structuring their SRFs. These provisions can increase the costs of
providing assistance and administering the program. Arbitrage tracking, for example, can be an
intricate and costly process. Delays can occur during program development and implementation
as State officials and bond counsel ensure that the program follows the applicable laws and
regulations. This diligence is necessary to safeguard the tax-exempt status of SRF-related
bonds.
The overall implementation of the SRF program has been smooth. As with any new
program, especially one like the SRF which involves fundamental changes in the roles and
responsibilities of the Federal, State, and local governments, some operational difficulties have
arisen. However, EPA and the States have worked closely and successfully to develop solutions
that are enabling SRFs to become effective State financing programs.
The number of issues associated with implementation, such as those discussed above, has
been reduced as people and institutions become more familiar with program requirements.
There do not appear to be any fundamental flaws in the structure of the SRF program or any
significant impediments to successful implementation that have not been adequately managed by
the States and EPA.
11-6
-------
APPENDIX A
SRF REPORT TO CONGRESS WORKGROUP MEMBERS
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
SRF REPORT TO CONGRESS WORKGROUP MEMBERS
State Members
C.R. Miertschin
Construction Grants Division
Texas Water Development Board
P.O. Box 13231 - Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711-3231
512-463-7853
David Hanna
Wastewater Construction Grants
Environmental Improvement Division
1190 St. Francis Dr.
Harold Runnels Bldg.
Santa Fe, NM 87504-0968
505-827-2812
Fred Esmond
Division of Construction Management
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Room 438
Albany, NY 12233
518-457-6252
Paul Zugger, Chief
Surface Water Quality Division
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30038
Comer of Pine and Allegan
Lansing, MI 48909
517-373-1949
Doug Garrett
Department of Natural Resources
Water Pollution Control Program
205 Jefferson St.
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65101
314-751-5723
Alternate for Doug Garrett:
Susan Hoppei
Nebraska Department of Environmental
Control
301 Central Mall South
Lincoln, NE 68508
402-471-2182
Regional Members
Roger Janson
Region I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Rm. 2203
Boston, MA 02203
617-565-3580; 8-835-3580
Lee Murphy
Region in
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(3WM-20)
841 Chestnut St.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215-597-3847; 8-597-3847
Richard Hoppers
Region VI
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Ave., 12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
214-655-7110; 8-255-7110
Mike Muse
Region DC
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
215 Fremont St
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-974-8341; 8-454-8341
A-l
-------
-------
r •
APPENDIX B
NEEDS ASSOCIATED WITH NEW SRF PROGRAM FUNDING ELIGIBILITIES AND
NEW ENFORCEABLE REQUIREMENTS
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
NEEDS ASSOCIATED WITH NEW SRF PROGRAM FUNDING ELIGIBILITIES
AND NEW ENFORCEABLE REQUIREMENTS
This Appendix describes the potential impact of new funding eligibilities and new
requirements under the CWA on the need for SRF financing. The discussion considers these
issues primarily from a qualitative, national perspective rather than a quantitative, State-specific
one. This approach is necessary because the cost implications of many of the new requirements
are either not available or, when available, are very preliminary.
B.I New Funding Eligibilities
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Congress specified in the 1987 Amendments to the CWA that States prepare
Assessment Reports to identify the significant impact that nonpoint source (NFS) pollution can
have on water bodies. These reports should identify waters unlikely to achieve water quality
standards without NFS controls as well as the sources causing the water quality impairment. In
addition, Section 319 of the CWA requires States to develop Management Programs to address
these impairments.
All States have submitted their Assessment Reports and Management Programs. EPA
has approved or partially approved management programs for all jurisdictions. EPA and State
agencies will identify funds available to cany out the activities necessary for meeting water
quality standards. Funding is authorized in the CWA to implement these NPS control activities,
and includes grants under Section 319 and Section 201(g)(l)(B) and assistance from the SRF
program.
To be eligible for SRF financing, NPS activity must meet three threshold requirements:
the State must have SRF-authorizing legislation which makes Section 319 activities eligible for
SRF assistance, the activity must be included in the State's approved NPS Management
Program, and the activity must be on the State's SRF Intended Use Plan (IUP). Twelve States
have indicated they plan to fund NPS activities through the SRF program in the future. One
of the twelve, Wyoming, plans to use all of its available SRF funds for NPS projects from 1991
to 1994.
Estuarine Protection
Section 320 of the CWA established the National Estuary Program to ensure protection
of estuarine areas "threatened by pollution, development, or overuse." The program calls for
the development and implementation of Comprehensive Conservation Management Plans
(CCMPs) to achieve this protection.
B-l
-------
As of July 1990, 17 estuaries had been accepted for participation in the National
Estuary Program:
Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts
Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island
Long Island Sound, Connecticut and New York
Puget Sound, Washington
San Francisco Bay, California
Santa Monica Bay, California
Albemarle/Pamlico Sounds, North Carolina
New York/New Jersey Harbor, New York and New Jersey
Delaware Bay, Delaware and New Jersey
Delaware Inland Bay, Delaware
Sarasota Bay, Florida
Galveston Bay, Texas
Casco Bay, Maine
Massachusetts Bay, Massachusetts
Indian River, Florida
Tampa Bay, Florida
Barataria-Terrebonne, Louisiana
In coordination with the States, EPA convenes management conferences to develop
CCMPs for estuaries included in the National Estuary Program. Conference planning activities
and actions needed to implement the CCMPs are eligible for funding under the SRF program.
Since most of the management conferences are still assessing the status of their estuaries, final
CCMPs have yet to be developed. Consequently, comprehensive cost estimates for CCMP
implementation activities are not available at this time.
The State of Washington reported that its SRF provided funding for CCMP activities in
FY 1990. Two other States, California and Pennsylvania, indicated that they intend to fund
CCMP activities through their SRFs in the future, Additionally, Connecticut reported that it
intends to make loans for wastewater treatment and CSO projects that will help protect Long
Island Sound; these activities may overlap with activities identified in that estuary's CCMP.
Ground-Water Protection
Section 319 of the CWA emphasizes ground-water protection by encouraging States to
assess the impact of NPS problems on ground-water quality and by authorizing grants for
ground-water protection activities related to nonpoint source problems. As an ongoing effort
under Section 106 of the CWA, EPA provides grant money to States to support the
development of State Ground-Water Protection Strategies. Most States have submitted
Ground-Water Protection Strategies to EPA. The Agency encourages States to keep the
Strategies current and is now starting an initiative to help the States move from strategies to
the development of Comprehensive State Ground-Water Protection Programs.
B-2
-------
The CWA provides a mechanism for using SRF monies for ground-water protection
under the NFS program. For ground-water protection activities to be eligible, they must be
identified in the State's EPA-approved NPS Management Program through direct identification
or incorporation by reference to the State's Ground-Water Protection Strategy. State Ground-
Water Protection Strategies do not generally include cost estimates. Therefore, it is not
possible at this time to determine the extent to which ground-water protection activities will add
to the total cost of SRF-eligible water pollution control activities.
Wetlands Protection
EPA encourages states to coordinate planning and implementation of programs for
nonpoint source pollution control, ground-water protection and estuarine protection. Although
no new program efforts were established for wetlands protection in the 1987 Amendments,
wetlands protection is also a priority concern. Implementation of wetlands protection activities
is SRF-eligible to the extent that the activities are included as part of approved State Nonpoint
Source Management Programs or estuary CCMPs.
Maintaining Permit Compliance
Traditional Needs Surveys have not captured the needs associated with wastewater
treatment facilities which are compliant at the time of the survey, but in need of near term
improvements, because they are at a design capacity, near retirement, or in an area where
stream standards will be upgraded. This is particularly critical in areas which are experiencing
population growth. These needs are eligible for funding from SRFs and will add substantially
to States' total needs for wastewater funding.
B.2 New Enforceable Requirements
Separate Storm Sewers
The 1987 Clean Water Act Amendments expand the permitting program for discharges
from municipal separate storm sewers to include comprehensive storm water quality
management programs to reduce the discharge of pollutants. Section 402(p) of the CWA
provides deadlines for EPA to establish permit application requirements for discharges from
large municipal separate storm sewer systems (systems serving a population of 250,000 or more)
and discharges from medium municipal separate storm sewer systems (systems serving a
population between 100,000 and 250,000). EPA is to study discharges from other municipal
separate storm sewers and issue regulations based on the results of these studies.
On November 16, 1990, EPA published a final rule on permit application requirements
in the Federal Register. The rule covers permit application requirements for discharges from
large and medium municipal separate storm sewers. The requirements are sufficiently flexible
to allow the development of site-specific permit conditions. Under the proposed requirements,
B-3
-------
municipal applicants will be required to submit proposed storm water management programs as
part of their permit application.
The municipal stormwater management programs that municipal permittees will be
required to develop and implement as permit conditions will address a wide range of structural
and nonstructural controls. Structural controls include the removal of illicit connections,
regional storm water management basins, retention and infiltration basins, and other retrofit
projects. Nonstructural controls include developing and implementing an ordinance to control
construction site runoff, street sweeping, operation and maintenance improvements, public
education programs, and waste collection programs to discourage illegal dumping.
Structural improvements to municipal separate storm sewer systems qualify for assistance
from Federal funds authorized after FY 1990 for the SRF program. Activities for storm water
pollution control are also eligible for SRF assistance if they are part of approved Section 319
State Nonpoint Source Management Programs or Section 320 estuary Comprehensive
Conservation Management Plans. Structural improvements and control activities for storm
sewers that are part of these programs will, therefore, increase SRF-eligible needs. Estimates
of the dollar amount of the increase are not yet available. Initial cost estimates should be
available after municipal applicants submit cost analyses of implementing municipal storm water
management programs. These cost analyses are required as part of the permit application for
large and medium-sized municipal systems.
Discharge of Toxic Pollutants
Section 304(1) of the CWA requires EPA and the States to address the reduction of
toxics from point source discharges. EPA promulgated requirements to implement Section
304(1) in June 1989. Section 304(1) required States to prepare lists of water bodies not meeting
water quality standards because of point source discharges of one or more of the 126 priority
toxic pollutants. Section 304(1) also required States to prepare lists of point sources discharging
these pollutants and to develop control strategies to reduce these discharges.
As of July 1990, the States and EPA had identified 193 municipal facilities and 53 CSOs
or storm water drains that are discharging toxic pollutants into impaired waters. To comply
with new, more stringent limits on toxic pollutants, the treatment facilities will have to choose
between either enforcing more stringent pretreatment requirements or installing more advanced
technology within the facility. Communities with CSO and storm sewer problems will have a
choice of adopting either nonstructural (e.g., street cleaning) or structural (e.g., separation of
sanitary and storm sewers) controls. With certain restrictions, these options are eligible for
assistance from SRFs.
EPA and the States have completed identifying impaired waters and point sources of
toxic discharges and are now completing control strategies. After public comment, additional
water bodies and facilities have been added to States' lists, while others have been deleted.
After the control strategies become incorporated into final permits, facilities will have three
years to comply with their new effluent limits. Because most facilities have yet to determine
B-4
-------
necessary treatment modifications, it is not possible to assess the cost of these new controls at
this time.
Sludge Use and Disposal Regulations
Sludge is a byproduct of the wastewater treatment process. Treatment facilities bear the
responsibility for disposing of sludge, which can contain toxic components. The 1987 CWA
Amendments require EPA to identify toxic pollutants of concern in sludge, establish numerical
limits for each pollutant, and determine appropriate use and disposal practices to protect human
health and the environment.
EPA proposed regulations in February 1989 that address five sludge use and disposal
practices: incineration, land application, monofill (sludge-only), distribution and marketing, and
surface impoundments. These new requirements may generate additional costs for treatment
facilities. SRF programs can provide financial assistance for the capital costs of POTW
investments. Eligible capital costs might include upgrades for an existing treatment process,
hardware purchases for sludge disposal (e.g., a truck to transport the material to a landfill), or
engineering costs associated with a capital investment project.
As part of its regulatory development process, EPA prepared a regulatory impact
analysis estimating the costs to treatment works of complying with the proposed regulations.
Data in the record provide a basis for estimating capital costs. The total capital costs (including
engineering costs) associated with POTW compliance with the proposed sludge regulations are
estimated to be $408.3 million (1988 dollars). The methodology used to estimate the cost of
compliance with the proposed regulation wfll change, however, based on new data gathered
from a national sewage sludge survey. Thus, this cost estimate may change. Furthermore, this
cost estimate is for the proposed regulation; the cost associated with the final regulation may
differ substantially.
Ocean Dumping Ban Act
The Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988 affects the State Revolving Fund program in
New York and New Jersey. The Act requires these states to commit ten percent of their
capitalization grants awarded for fiscal years 1990 and 1991, and ten percent of their State
match associated with those grants, to provide assistance authorized under Title VI for
identifying, developing, and implementing alternatives to ocean dumping of sewage sludge.
Summary
Sludge use and disposal, new toxics requirements, separate storm water sewers, NPS
pollution control, and ground-water, estuary, and wetlands protection activities all could add
substantially to SRF-eligible costs. With the exception of the estimated $408 million for
compliance with proposed sludge use and disposal regulations, comprehensive estimates of the
financing needs for these new eligibilities and requirements are not available. It is anticipated
B-5
-------
that needs associated with new funding eligibilities and new requirements will substantially
exceed the Category I through V needs estimated in the 1988 Needs Survey.
B-6
-------
APPENDIX C
FUNDS AVAILABLE FROM SRF AND OTHER
STATE PROGRAMS BY STATE
-------
-------
TABLE C-l
Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
By State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
'Alabama
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments(b)
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(c)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(d)
^•ka
^^RF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(c)
State Grant Programs(e)
Other State Programs
TOTAL(d)(f)
Actual
1988
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
0.0
10.0
1989
10.6
2.1
25.7
38.4
(7.2)
31.2
-
—
31.2
10.1
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
12.6
0.0
12.6
n.o
0.0
23.6
1990
10.9
2.2
31.0
44.1
(8.0)
36.1
36.1
5.8
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
7.4
0.0
7.4
12.0
0.0
19.4
Projected
1991
20.7
4.1
50.0
74.8
(14.0)
60.8
60.8
12.1
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
15.2
0.0
15.2
0.0
15.2
1992
15.6
3.1
25.0
43.7
(7.0)
36.7
36.7
10.9
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.4
. 0.5
13.9
0.0
13.9
0.0
13.9
1993
10.4
2.1
25.0
37.5
(7.0)
30.5
30.5
7.3
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
9.7
0.0
9.7
0.0
9.7
1994
5.2
1.0
25.0
31.2
(7.0)
24.2
24.2
3.6
0.7
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.5
5.8
0.0
5.8
0.0
5.8
1995-1999(a)
25.0
25.0
(7.0)
18.0
i
18.0
0.0
0.0
3.4
0.5
3.9
0.0
3.9
0.0
3.9
(a) Annual average.
(b) Alabama's SRF loan repayments are used to retire SRF bonds during the time period, and are thus not available to fund projects.
(c) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(d) Totals vary due to rounding.
a's State Grants are appropriated annually. Projections after 1990 are not possible.
does not include Alaska's State Grant funding after 1990.
C-l
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
By State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Arizona
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Arkansas
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments(d)
SRF Interest Earaings(e)
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs(f)
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1989
6.4
1.2
10.8
18.4
(6.4)
12.0
12.0
13.6
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.4
0.0
16.4
0.0
0.0
16.4
1990
6.5
1.3
10.7
18.5
(6.5)
12.0
12.0
13.9
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.7
0.0
16.7
0.1
9.3
26.1
Projected
1991
16.0
2.4
21.6
40.0
(12.0)
28.0
28.0
15.9
3.2
0.0
26.4
0.0
0.0
45.5
(26.4)
19.1
0.3
13.5
32.8
1992
12.0
1.6
0.0
14.4
28.0
(8.0)
20.0
20.0
11.9
2.4
0.0
15.3
0.0
0.0
29.5
(15.3)
14.3
0.2
13.5
27.9
1993
8.0
0.8
7.2
16.0
(4-0)
12.0
12.0
7.9
1.6
0.0
11.4
0.0
0.0
20.9
(11-4)
9.5
0.2
13.5
23.1
1994
4.0
0.4
3.6
8.0
(2.0)
6.0
6.0
4.0
0.8
0.0
7.6
0.0
0.0
12.4
(7.6)
4.8
0.2
13.5
18.5
1995-1999(a)
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
!
j
2.0
m
0.0 ^
0.0
0.0
3.5
0.0
0.0
3.5
(3.5)
0.0
0.2
13.5
13.7
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
(d) Arkansas's SRF loan repayments are used to retire SRF bonds during the time period, and are thus not available to fund projects.
(e) Arkansas's SRF interest earnings are used to retire SRF bonds during the time period, and are thus not available to fund projects.
(f) Arkansas Soil & Water Conservation Commission Loan Program.
C-2
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
By State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
California
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs(c)
Other State Programs(d)
^fcjTAL(e)
^^ W_M™MMMM™_--«W«B.
Colorado
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(e)
Actual
1988
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.5
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
1989
127.6
25.5
-
-
-
-
153.1
-
153.1
-
5.4
158.5
11.6
0.9
0.0
6.9
0.0
0.0
19.4
(3-1)
16.3
0.8
0.0
17.1
1990
119.8
24.0
-
-
-
-
143.8
-
143.8
2.0
21.5
167.3
12.1
3.5
0.0
36.0
0.1
0.0
51.7
(16.0)
35.7
0.6
0.0
36.3
Projected
1991
173.6
34.7
-
-
-
-
208.3
-
208.3
5.0
37.1
250.4
19.0
3.4
0.0
34.0
0.3
0.0
56.6
(17.0)
39.6
1.0
0.0
40.6
1992
130.2
26.0
-
-
10.9
-
167.1
-
167.1
10.0
3.0
180.1
14.3
2.5
0.0
24.0
0.5
0.1
41.3
(12.0)
29.3
1.0
0.0
30.3
1993
86.3
17.4
-
-
24.6
-
128.8
-
128.8
8.0
3.0
139.8
9.5
1.7
0.0
16.0
0.8
O.I
28.0
(8.0)
20.0
1.0
0.0
21.0
1994
43.4
8.7
-
-
40.8
-
92.9
-
92.9
0.0
3.0
95.9
4.8
0.8
0.0
8.0
1.3
0.1
15.0
(4.0)
11.0
1.0
0.0
12.0
1995-1999(a)
0.0
0.0
-
-
50.3
-
50.3
-
50.3
0.0
3.0
53.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
1.4
0.1
6.5
(1-4)
5.1
1.0
0.0
6.1
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) California's Small Community Grant Program
nia's Water Quality Control Fund loan program and Water Reclamation Loan Program.
vary due to rounding.
C-3
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
By State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
! Connecticut
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Florida
SRF Cap. Grant(d)
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments(e)
SRF Interest Eamings(e)
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988
28.1
5.6
52.8
0.0
86.5
0.0
86.5
21.6
108.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.1
1.8
1989
22.3
4.4
23.2
0.0
49.9
0.0
49.9
12.4
62.3
56.7
11.8
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
72.0
0.0
72.0
2.6
6.2
80.8
1990
23.3
4.6
70.8
0.0
98.7
0.0
98.7
24.6
123.3
58.3
12.1
(0.1)
0.0
0.0
0.2
70.5
0.0
70.5
0.9
0.2
71.6
Projected
1991
29.9
6.0
35.2
5.2
76.3
0.0
76.3
18.8
95.1
62.0
12.9
(0.9)
0.0
0.0
4.0
78.0
0.0
78.0
1.9
0.5
80.4
1992
22.3
4.4
37.6
8.2
72.5
0.0
72.5
18.0
90.5
58.0
12.2
(0.2)
0.0
10.5
5.1
85.6
0.0
85.6
0.5
0.5
86.6
1993
14.9
3.0
38.0
14.2
70.1
0.0
70.1
19.0
89.1
39.0
8.1
0.9
0.0
16.2
4.0
68.2
0.0
68.2
0.0
0.5
68.7
1994
7.4
1.5
41.3
18.7
68.9
0.0
68.9
17.2
86.1
19.0
4.1
(3-0)
0.0
22.5
4.0
46.6
0.0
46.6
0.0
0.5
47.1
1995-1999(a)
41.9
30.9
72.8
0.0
72.8
18.1
90.9 41
~^B
0.0
0.0
33.3
4.0
37.3
0.0
37.3
0.0
0.5
37.8
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
(d) Florida's capitalization grant for 1991 projected at 80% of authorized amount.
(e) Indicates year obligated, not year earned.
C-4
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
By State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Georgia
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match(b)
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(c)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
dfc)TAL(d)
Hawaii
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988 1989 1990
28.0 30.6 39.0
0.0 0.2 2.0
28.0 30.8 41.0
28.0 30.8 41.0
6.0 6.0 6.0
20.0 20.0 20.0
54.0 56.8 67.0
7.3 7.3
1.5 1.5
46.9
55.7 8.8
55.7 8.8
55.7 8.8
Projected
1991 1992 1993
40.6 30.7 20.3
3.9 5.2 7.9
44.5 35.9 28.2
44.5 35.9 28.2
6.0 6.0 6.0
20.0 20.0 20.0
70.5 61.9 54.2
11. 8 8.9 5.9
2.4 1.8 1.2
14.2 10.7 7.1
14.2 10.7 7.1
14.2 10.7 7.1
1994 1995-1999(a)
10.1
10.1 13.5
20.2 13.5
20.2 13.5
6.0 6.0
20.0 20.0
46.2 39.5
3.0
0.6
0.5 1.3
0.6 1.3
4.7 2.5
4.7 2.5
4.7 2.5
(a) Annual average.
(b) Georgia's State match is from non-SRF loans dedicated for repayment into the SRF. Repayments on the State match loans are included
with SRF loan repayments.
(c)tepresents SRF funds available to finance projects during the tune period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
vary due to rounding.
:)^^pre
d^Pals
C-5
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
By State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Idaho
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Illinois
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAUc)
Actual
1988
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.8
0.0
8.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
65.0
0.0
65.0
1989
4.5
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.5
0.0
5.5
9.8
5.5
20.8
50.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
60.1
0.0
60.1
181.4
0.0
241.5
1990
4.7
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.7
0.0
5.7
1.5
0.0
7.2
50.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
60.6
0.0
60.6
128.3
0.0
188.9
Projected
1991
11.9
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
14.6
0.0
14.6
3.0
0.0
17.6
100.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.6
122.4
0.0
122.4
74.5
0.0
196.9
1992
8.9
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.1
11.4
0.0
11.4
2.0
0.0
13.4
75.0
15.0
0.0
0.0
8.6
0.6
99.2
0.0
99.2
74.5
0.0
173.7
1993
5.9
1.2
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.1
8.5
0.0
8.5
2.0
0.0
10.5
50.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
17.4
0.6
78.0
0.0
78.0
0.0
0.0
78.0
1994
2.9
0.6
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.1
5.5
0.0
5.5
2.0
0.0
7.5
25.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
24.4
0.6
55.0
0.0
55.0
0.0
0.0
55.0
1995-1999(a)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.1
2.6
0.0
2.6
2.0
0.0
4.6 (|
^
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
36.0
0.6
36.6
0.0
36.6
0.0
0.0
36.6
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
C-6
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
By State
($ Millions)
1
FUNDING SOURCE:
Indiana
I
! SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
| Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
^fc)TAL(c)
^jgp •••••• -
Iowa
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds(d)
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
18.4
-
18.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1989
22.7
4.5
-
-
-
-
27.2
0.0
27.2
7.4
-
34.6
12.7
2.5
0.0
12.6
0.0
0.0
27.8
(2.2)
25.6
25.6
1990
23.5
4.7
-
5.0
0.2
33.4
(2.0)
31.4
7.7
-
39.1
13.2
2.6
0.0
13.0
0.0
1.0
29.8
(1.0)
28.8
28.8
Projected
1991
58.5
11.6
-
15.0
-
1.0
86.1
(7.0)
79.1
10.0
10.0
99.1
33.1
6.6
0.0
0.0
1.5
41.2
0.0
41.2
41.2
1992
43.9
8.7
-
15.0
0.5
1.5
69.6
(7.0)
62.6
10.0
10.0
82.6
24.8
5.0
0.0
1.2
0.7
31.7
0.0
31.7
31.7
1993
29.3
5.8
-
15.0
2.5
1.5
54.1
(5.0)
49.1
10.0
10.0
69.1
16.5
3.3
0.0
3.8
0.4
24.0
0.0
24.0
24.0
1994
14.6
2.9
-
10.0
4.0
1.5
33.0
(2.9)
30.1
10.0
10.0
50.1
8.3
1.7
0.0
5.0
0.0
15.0
0.0
15.0
15.0
1995-1999(a)
-
0.0
4.0
1.0
5.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
25.0
20.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
25.0
0.0
25.0
25.0
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
extent to which Iowa will leverage between 1991 and 1994 is not yet known.
C-7
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
By State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Kansas
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Kentucky
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.2
0.0
17.2
0.0
10.7
27.9
1989
8.5
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.2
0.0
10.2
0.0
0.0
10.2
21.8
6.6
0.0
0.0
15.7
0.3
44.4
0.0
44.4
35.8
80.3
1990
8.8
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.6
0.0
10.6
0.0
0.0
10.6
17.7
3.5
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.6
22.9
0.0
22.9
36.4
59.3
Projected
1991
21.9
4.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
26.3
0.0
26.3
0.0
0.0
26.3
29.2
5.7
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.9
37.5
0.0
37.5
1.0
38.5
1992
16.5
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.8
0.0
19.8
0.0
0.0
19.8
21.9
4.3
0.0
0.0
3.1
1.3
30.6
0.0
30.6
1.0
31.6
1993
11.0
2.2
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
14.2
0.0
14.2
0.0
0.0
14.2
14.6
2.8
0.0
0.0
4.6
1.9
23.9
0.0
23.9
0.0
23.9
1994
5.5
1.1
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
7.6
0,0
7.6
0.0
0.0
7.6
7.3
1.4
0.0
0.0
5.9
2.5
17.1
0.0
17.1
0.0
17.1
1995-1999(a)
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
2.0 fl
n
0.0
0.0
6.8
3.0
9.8
0.0
9.8
0.0
9.8
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
C-8
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
By State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
| Louisiana
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
I^POTAL(C)
Maine
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988 1989
12.0 10.5
2.4 2.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1
14.4 12.7
14.4 12.7
14.4 12.7
7.4
1.5
0.3
9.2
(2.0)
7.2
19.0
26.2
1990
10.8
2.2
0.1
0.2
13.3
13.3
13.3
7.5
1.5
0.3
9.3
(2-5)
6.8
21.0
27.8
Projected
1991
26.0
5.2
0.5
0.3
32.0
32.0
32.0
18.0
3.6
0.2
21.8
(4.0)
17.8
36.0
53.8
1992
18.0
3.6
2.0
0.4
23.9
23.9
23.9
13.5
2.7
0.3
16.5
(3.5)
13.0
31.0
44.0
1993
L2.0
2.4
3.2
0.4
18.0
18.0
18.0
9.0
1.8
0.5
11.3
(2.7)
8.6
23.0
31.6
1994
6.0
1.2
5.3
0.4
12.8
12.8
12.8
4.5
0.9
1.5
6.9
(1.2)
5.7
11.0
16.7
1995-1999(a)
|
55.0
8.7
0.5
64.2
64.2
64.2
0.0
0.0
3.0
3.0
(0.7)
2.3
6.0
8.3
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
C-9
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
By State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Maryland
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Massachusetts
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
•Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988
0.0
0.0
c.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.6
2.0
5.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
120.0
67.0
187.0
1989
22.8
4.6
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.8
0.0
28.8
15.5
3.4
47.7
62.0
12.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
74.0
0.0
74.0
0.0
72.0
146.0
1990
23.6
5.0
0.3
26.6
0.2
0.1
55.8
(0.9)
54.8
15.5
3.5
73.8
65.0
13.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
78.0
0.0
78.0
0.0
77.0
155.0
Projected
1991
58.7
7.0
0.0
175.1
0.9
0.4
242.1
(17.6)
224.5
0.0
4.4
228.8
82.0
16.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
98.0
(75.0)
23.0
0.0
750.0
773.0
1992
44.0
8.8
0.0
101.4
0.9
0.2
155.3
(13.2)
142.1
0.0
0.0
142.1
61.0
12.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
73.0
(45.0)
28.0
0.0
450.0
478.0
1993
29.4
5.9
0.0
67.8
2.3
0.1
105.4
(8.8)
96.6
0.0
0.0
96.6
41.0
8.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
49.0
(40.0)
9.0
0.0
400.0
409.0
1994
14.6
2.9
0.0
33.6
2.0
0.1
53.3
(4.4)
48.9
0.0
0.0
48.9
20.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
25.3
0.0
25.3
0.0
(d)
25.3
1995-1999(a)
0.0
15.0
7.7
0.0
22.7
(1.9)
20.8
0.0
0.0
20.8 fl|
~^
0.0
0.0
2.1
0.0
2.1
0.0
2.1
0.0
(d)
2.1
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
(d) Additional State authorizations will be needed for future year program needs.
C-10
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
By State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Michigan
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
•oTAUc)
Minnesota
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments(d)
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988 1989
40.5
8.1
0.1
-
-
-
48.7
-
48.7
0.0
0.0
48.7
0.0 17.3
0.0 3.5
0.2
45.4
0.0 66.3
0.0 (16.8)
0.0 49.6
23.0 24.0
6.8 9.8
29.8 83.4
1990
41.9
8.4
3.1
53.4
53.4
0.0
0.0
53.4
17.9
3.6
0.7
69.8
92.0
(17.3)
74.6
9.0
6.5
90.1
Projected
1991
83.8
16.8
-
-
-
-
100.6
100.6
0.0
0.0
100.6
44.0
8.8
0.0
65.0
117.8
(42.5)
75.3
15.0
11.8
102.1
1992
78.3
15.6
-
-
-
-
93.9
93.9
0.0
0.0
93.9
33.0
6.6
0.0
60.0
99.6
(31.7)
67.9
15.0
11.8
94.7
1993
52.2
10.4
-
-
-
-
62.6
62.6
0.0
0.0
62.6
22.0
4.4
0.0
48.0
74.4
(21.1)
53.3
15.0
11.8
80.1
1994
26.1
2.1
28.2
28.2
0.0
0.0
28.2
11.0
2.2
0.0
48.0
61.2
(10.5)
50.7
15.0
11.0
76.7
1995-1999(a)
0.0
48.0
48.0
0.0
48.0
15.0
2.0
65.0
(a) Annual average. Michigan did not provide funding projections for 1995 to 1999.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
a's loan repayments are used to repay State bond issues.
C-ll
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
By State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Mississippi
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Missouri
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1983
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.1
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.0
0.0
33.0
1989
15.2
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.3
0.0
18.3
0.0
0.0
18.3
25.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.0
0.0
30.0
26.0
0.0
56.0
1990
15.8
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
19.2
0.0
19.2
0.0
0.0
19.2
26.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.0
0.0
31.0
30.0
0.0
61.0
Projected
1991
18.1
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.2
22.6
0.0
22.6
0.0
0.0
22.6
52.0
10.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
162.0
(51.0)
111.0
19.0
0.0
130.0
1992
16.2
3.2
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.2
21.4
0.0
21.4
0.0
0.0
21.4
39.0
8.0
0.0
75.0
0.0
1.0
123.0
(38.0)
85.0
23.0
0.0
108.0
1993
10.8
2.2
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.2
16.2
0.0
16.2
0.0
0.0
16.2
26.0
5.0
0.0
70.0
34.0
2.0
137.0
(36.0)
101.0
6.0
0.0
107.0
1994
5.4
1.1
0.0
0.0
4.2
0.2
10.9
0.0
10.9
0.0
0.0
10.9
13.0
3.0
10.0
95.0
31.0
2.0
154.0
(48.0)
106.0
6.0
0.0
112.0
1995-1999(a)
1.8
0.0
6.4
0.2
8.4
0.0
8.4
0.0
0.0
,4J
^
10.0
120.0
33.4
2.4
165.8
(52.8)
113.0
6.0
0.0
119.0
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
C-12
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
By State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Nebraska
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
^^pOTAL(c)
Nevada
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988
2.2
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1989
4.8
0.9
0.0
5.7
0.0
5.7
1.8
7.5
4.6
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.5
0.0
5.5
0.0
0.0
5.5
1990
4.9
0.1
5.0
0.0
5.0
1.2
6.2
4.7
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.7
0.0
5.7
0.0
0.0
5.7
Projected
1991
12.2
3.0
0.0
15.2
(0-3)
14.9
1.3
16.2
11.9
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.3
0.0
14.3
0.0
0.0
14.3
1992
9.1
4.0
0.2
0.0
13.3
(0.4)
12.9
0.3
13.2
8.9
i.8
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
11.6
0.0
11.6
0.0
0.0
11.6
1993
6.1
0.3
0.0
6.4
0.0
6.4
0.3
6.7
6.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
9.1
0.0
9.1
0.0
0.0
9.1
1994
3.0
0.5
0.0
3.5
0.0
3.5
0.3
3.8
3.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
6.1
0.0
6.1
0.0
0.0
6.1
1995-I999(a)
2.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
0.3
2.3
0.0
0.0
2.8
0.0
2.8
0.0
2.8
0.0
0.0
2.8
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
C-13
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
By State
($ Millions)
I
FUNDING SOURCE:
New Hampshire
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
New Jersey
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988 1989
9.4
1.8
11.2
0.0
11.2
12.2 9.1
12.2 20.3
70.3 65.1
14.1 13.0
67.0 68.8
0.0 0.2
151.4 147.1
(14.1) (6.5)
137.3 140.6
0.0 19.6
56.6 44.4
193.9 204.6
1990
9.7
1.9
11.6
0.0
11.6
11.0
22.6
84.8
17.7
94.3
0.7
197.5
(8.8)
188.7
188.7
Projected
1991
23.0
4.8
27.8
0.0
27.8
12.3
40.1
93.1
19.4
104.9
2.1
219.5
(9.7)
209.8
209.8
1992
17.0
3.6
20.6
0.0
20.6
19.1
39.7
71.0
14.8
84.0
5.6
175.4
(7.4)
168.0
168.0
1993
11.5
2.4
13.9
0.0
13.9
17.0
30.9
46.1
9.6
61.0
10.1
126.8
(4.8)
122.0
122.0
1994
5.7
1.2
6.9
0.0
6.9
13.1
20.0
23.0
4.8
40.6
15.2
83.6
(2.4)
81.2
81.2
1995-1999(a)
10.0
10.0 fl
1
25.4
25.4
50.8
0.0
50.8
50.8
(a) Annual average. New Hampshire did not provide SRF funding projection for 1995 to 1999.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
C-14
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
By State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
New Mexico
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
^POTAL(C)
New York
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments(d)
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988
5.6
1.1
1.7
0.0
8.4
0.0
8.4
4.2
0.2
12.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
38.6
0.0
38.6
1989
8.6
1.8
0.0
0.0
10.4
0.0
10.4
3.5
0.0
13.9
104.0
20.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
124.8
0.0
124.8
15.7
0.0
140.5
1990
8.6
1.1
0.0
0.1
9.8
0.0
9,8
1.0
0.0
10.8
108.0
21.6
0.0
207.9
0.0
1.1
338.6
(69.3)
269.3
16.0
0.0
285.3
Projected
1991
8.6
1.7
0.9
0.6
11.8
0.0
11.8
1.0
0.0
12.8
226.0
45.3
0.0
794.0
1.2
7.2
1,073.7
(264.6)
809.1
0.0
0.0
809.1
1992
8.6
1.7
0.3
1.0
11.6
0.0
11.6
0.5
0.0
12.1
199.0
39.8
0.0
620.0
4.2
10.1
873.1
(206.6)
666.5
0.0
0.0
666.5
1993
6.0
1.7
0.8
2.3
10,8
0.0
10.8
0.5
0.0
11.3
133.0
26.6
0.0
500.0
8.8
12.6
681.0
(166.7)
514.3
0.0
0.0
514.3
1994
3.0
0.6
1.4
3.1
8.1
0.0
8.1
0.5
0.3
8.9
66.0
13.2
0.0
500.0
20.2
13.2
612.6
(166.7)
445.9
0.0
0.0
445.9
1995-1999(3}
5.5
5.5
0.0
5.5
0.5
0.5
6.5
0.0
307.0
54.0
14.0
375.0
(102.0)
273.0
0.0
0.0
273.0
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
frccd-up corpus allocation.
C-15
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
By State
(S Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
North Carolina
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Oklahoma
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
3.1
3.6
9.3
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.1
0.0
11.1
1.2
8.6
20.9
1989
22.7
4.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.2
0.0
27.2
1.3
8.0
36.5
7.6
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.1
0.0
9.1
1.4
35.8
46.3
1990
33.0
6.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
39.6
0.0
39.6
0.2
1.3
41.1
7.9
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.4
0.0
9.4
2.0
23.0
34.4
Projected
1991
44.0
8.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
52.8
0.0
52.8
0.0
2.0
54.8
19.6
3.9
0.0
39.1
0.0
1.8
64.4
(3.9)
60.5
2.0
30.0
92.5
1992
33.0
6.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
39.7
0.0
39.7
0.0
2.0
41.7
14.7
2.9
0.0
68.3
0.8
1.3
88.1
(6.8)
81.3
2.5
35.0
118.8
1993
22.0
4.4
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
27.4
0.0
27.4
0.0
2.0
29.4
9.8
2.0
0.0
28.6
2.2
0.7
43.3
(2.9)
40.4
2.5
40.0
82.9
1994
11.0
2.2
0.0
0.0
3.3
0.0
16.5
0.0
16.5
0.0
2.0
18.5
4.9
1.0
0.0
5.8
5.1
0.4
17.2
(0.6)
16.6
2.5
45.0
64.1
1995-1999(a)
0.0
0.0
5.9
0.0
5.9
0.0
5.9
0.0
2.0
7.9 f
|
0.0
40.0
5.6
1.0
46.6
(3.0)
43.6
3.0
50.0
96.6
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
C-16
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
By State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Oregon
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
^^OTAL(c)
Pennsylvania
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs(e)
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.0"
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
69.9
69.9
1989
14.0
2.8
16.8
16.8
2.0
18.8
37.4
7.5
0.9
0.0
0.0
45.7
0.0
45.7
292.9
338.6
1990
11.0
2.2
13.2
13.2
5.9
19.1
38.7
7.7
0.6
(d)
0.0
46.9
0.0
46.9
216.9
263.8
Projected
1991
27.4
5.5
32.9
32.9
13.0
45.9
63.5
12.7
0.0
(d)
2.3
78.5
0.0
78.5
167.3
245.8
1992
20.6
4.1
1.1
25.8
25.8
13.0
38.8
71.4
14.3
0.0
(d)
4.7
90.4
0.0
90.4
NA
90.4
1993
13.7
2.7
1.9
18.3
18.3
13.0
31.3
47.6
9.5
0.0
(d)
8.7
65.8
0.0
65.8
NA
65.8
1994
6.9
1.4
2.7
11.0
11.0
13.0
24.0
23.8
4.8
0.0
(d)
13.2
41.8
0.0
41.8
NA
41.8
1995-1999(a)
5.2
5.2
5.2
0.0
5.2
0.0
(d)
13.9
13.9
0.0
13.9
NA
13.9
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
vcrage proposal under discussion.
ncludes Department of Commerce and Non-SRF loan funds. Loan fund projection not available after 1991.
C-17
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
By State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Rhode Island
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
South Carolina
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988 1989 1990
6.6 6.8
1.3 1.4
7.9 8.1
0.0 0.0
7.9 8.1
0.0 7.9 8.1
0,0 22.9 19.1
0.0 4.6 3.8
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0 27.4 22.9
0.0 27.4 22.9
0.0 27.4 22.9
Projected
1991 1992 1993
16.3 12.2 8.1.
3.2 2.4 1.6
19.5 14.6 9.8
0.0 0.0 0.0
19.5 14.6 9.8
19.5 14.6 9.8
20.5 18.5 12.3
4.2 3.7 2.5
0.0 4.3 5.2
24.7 26.5 20.0
24.7 26.5 20.0
24.7 26.5 20.0
1994 1995-1999(a)
4.1
0.8
4.9
0.0
4.9
4.9 £
™
6.1
1.2
5.9 10.4
13.3 10.4
13.3 10.4
13.3 10.4
(a) Annual average. Rhode Island did not provide funding projections for 1995 to 1999.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
C-18
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
By State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
South Dakota
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earoings(b)
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves(c)
SRF Available(d)
State Grant Programs(e)
Other State Programs
TOTAL(f)
Tennessee
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(d)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(f)
Actual
1988
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.4
24.8
5.0
0.3
-
-
0.1
30.3
-
30.3
8.1
69.3
107.7
1989
4.7
0.9
0.0
5.6
(1-2)
4.4
0.6
1.2
6.2
15.2
3.0
-
-
-
0.5
18.7
-
18.7
7.9
9.6
36.2
1990
5.9
1.2
0.0
7.1
0.0
7.1
0.0
0.0
7.1
23.7
4.7
-
-
0.1
0.7
29.2
-
29.2
8.7
6.5
44.4
Projected
1991
11.8
2.4
0.4
14.6
0.0
14.6
0.0
0.0
14.6
29.1
5.8
-
-
2.0
0.0
36.9
-
36.9
9.3
6.5
52.7
1992
9.0
1.8
0.8
11.6
0.0
11.6
0.0
0.0
11.6
25.8
5.2
-
-
3.2
0.0
34.2
-
34.2
4.5
6.5
45.1
1993
5.9
1.2
1.6
8.7
0.0
8.7
0.0
0.0
8.7
17.2
3.5
_
-
5.8
0.0
26.4
-
26.4
6.2
6.5
39.1
1994
3.0
0.6
2.2
5.8
0.0
5.8
0.0
0.0
5.8
8.6
1.7
-
-
8.8
0.0
19.1
-
19.1
7.9
6.5
33.5
1995-1999(a)
4.3
4.3
0.0
4.3
0.0
0.0
4.3
-
-
14.4
0.0
14.4
-
14.4
9.6
6.5
30.5
(a) Annual average.
(b) Interest portion of repayments goes to repay South Dakota's State Match bonds and is thus not included as it is not available to the SRF.
c) South Dakota's debt service reserve funds are from a State appropriation.
1) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(e) The amount of South Dakota's State grant funds unknown after 1990.
(f) Totals vary due to rounding.
C-19
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
By State
(S Millions)
1
FUNDING SOURCE:
Texas
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Utah
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1983
105.2
21.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
126.2
0.0
126.2
0.0
21.7
147.9
8.7
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.4
10.4
0.5
2.2
13.1
1989
82.7
16.6
66.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
165.4
0.0
165.4
0.0
20.2
185.6
7.1
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.5
8.5
0.5
2.5
11.5
1990
72.8
14.6
58.2
0.0
0.6
0.0
146.2
0.0
146.2
0.0
6.4
152.6
6.3
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.1
8.1
8.1
0.5
2.5
11.0
Projected
1991
107.7
22.0
0.0
0.0
3.2
0.0
132.9
0.0
132.9
0.0
36.8
169.7
12.1
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.1
15.3
15.3
0.5
2.0
17.8
1992
79.4
16.5
0.0
0.0
11.3
0.0
107.2
0.0
107.2
0.0
26.7
133.9
9.1
1.8
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.2
12.8
12.8
0.5
2.8
16.1
1993
51.3
11.0
0.0
0.0
17.4
0.0
79.7
0.0
79.7
0.0
26.7
106.4
6.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.3
10.1
10.1
0.5
3.4
14.0
1994
14.7
5.5
0.0
0.0
29.2
0.0
49.4
0.0
49.4
0.0
26.7
76.1
3.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
3.3
0.3
7.2
7.2
0.5
4.1
11.8
1995-1999(a)
Q.O
0.0
35.0
0.0
35.0
0.0
35.0
0.0
10.0
45.0 ^
^
0.0
0.0
4.3
0.3
4.6
4.6
0.5
4.4
9.4
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
C-20
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
By State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Vermont
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
^TOTAL(c)
t^^r-
Virginia
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
3.0
39.9
8.0
1.9
0.0
49.8
49.8
0.4
77.6
127.8
1989
4.6
0.9
2.1
7.6
7.6
14.8
22.4
30.7
6.1
-
0.2
37.0
37.0
0.2
33.2
70.4
1990
4.8
0.0
4.8
4.8
4.4
9.2
27.0
6.0
20.0
1.8
54.8
54.8
0.2
80.0
135.0
Projected
1991
9.5
1.9
0.1
11.5
11.5
6.6
18.1
48.1
10.0
-
5.0
63.1
63.1
0.2
63.3
1992
8.9
1.8
10.7
10.7
5.0
15.7
36.1
7.2
2.8
6.6
52.7
52.7
0.2
52.9
1993
5.9
1.2
7.1
7.1
5.0
12.1
24.0
8.8
32.8
32.8
32.8
1994 1995-1999(a)
3.0
0.6
0.5
1.0
3.6 1.5
3.6 1.5
5.0 5.0
8.6 6.5
12.0
13.3 21.1
25.3 21.1
25.3 21.1
25.3 21.1
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
C-21
-------
TABLEC-1, continued
Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
By State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Washington
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
West Virginia
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988 1989 1990
16.6 16.7
3.3 3.3
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
19.9 20.0
0.0 0.0
19.9 20.0
40.0 45.0 45.0
40.0 64.9 65.0
0.0 0.0 20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
1991
42.0
8.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.4
0.0
50.4
45.0
95.4
47.8
1.0
48.8
48.8
48.8
1992
31.0
6.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
37.4
0.0
37.4
45.0
82.4
28.4
2.0
30.4
30.4
30.4
Projected
1993
21.0
4.2
0.0
0.0
25.2
0.0
25.2
45.0
70.2
18.9
4.0
22.9
22.9
22.9
1994
10.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
16.0
0.0
16.0
45.0
61.0
9.5
5.5
15.0
15.0
15.0
1995-1999(a)
0.0
0.0
7.4
7.4
0.0
7.4
45.0
52.4 4!
1
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
C-22
-------
TABLE C-l, continued
Estimated Availability of SRF and Other State Funding
By State
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Wisconsin
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
^^•XDTAL(c)
Wyoming
SRF Cap. Grant
State Match
Overmatch
Leveraged Funds
Loan Repayments
SRF Interest Earnings
SRF Sub-Total
SRF Debt Service Reserves
SRF Available(b)
State Grant Programs
Other State Programs
TOTAL(c)
Actual
1988 1989
24.0
5.0
122.0
231.0
382.0
(151.0)
231.0
146.0 134.0
146.0 365.0
4.6
1.0
_
5.5
-
5.5
1.9 3.7
0.4 3.7
2.3 12.9
1990
25.0
5.0
121.0
231.0
382.0
(151.0)
231.0
152.0
383.0
4.8
1.0
-
5.8
-
5.8
2.1
0.9
8.8
Projected
1991
62.0
13.0
12.0
263.0
350.0
(87.0)
263.0
0.0
263.0
11.9
2.4
-
14.3
-
14.3
2.0
1.3
17.6
1992
47.0
10.0
6.0
191.0
254.0
(63.0)
191.0
0.0
191.0
9.0
1.8
-
5.0
0.2
15.9
-
15.9
2.5
0.3
18.7
1993
31.0
6.0
138.0
175.0
175.0
0.0
175.0
6.0
1.2
-
5.0
0.4
12.6
-
12.6
2.6
15.2
1994 1995-1999(a)
16.0
3.0
144.0 211.6
163.0 211.6
163.0 211.6
0.0 0.0
163.0 211.6
3.0
0.6
-
5.0 5.0
0.7 0.8
9.3 5.8
-
9.3 5.8
3.0 3.0
12.3 8.8
(a) Annual average.
(b) Represents SRF funds available to finance projects during the time period covered, i.e. does not include debt service reserve funds.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
C-23
-------
-------
APPENDIX D
TOTAL FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDS AVAILABLE BY STATE
-------
-------
TABLE D-l
Total Federal and State Funds for Wastewater Projects by State(a)
(S Millions)
r
FUNDING SOURCE:
1 Alabama
CWA Tide II and VI
Other Federal
State (c)
TOTAL
i Alaska
CWA Title II and VI
i Other Federal (d)
: State (e)
TOTAL
Arizona
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
! Arkansas
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State (f)
TOTAL
California
' CWA Title II and VI
m Other Federal (g)
W State
TOTAL
Colorado
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Connecticut
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Florida
CWA Title II and VI (h)
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Actual
1988 1989 1990
10.4 21.3 10.9
10.1 8.6 9.5
20.6 25.2
20.5 50.5 45.6
0.0 10.1 11.5
0.0 0.0 0.0
10.0 13.5 13.6
10.0 23.6 25.1
7.8 12.7 12.0
5.0 5.0 5.0
0.0 5.6 5.5
12.8 23.3 22.5
5.4 19.3 14.7
14.4 13.0 11.8
0.0 2.7 12.2
19.9 35.0 38.7
189.0 238.6 128.8
2.9 3.5 1.7
1.5 30.9 47.5
193.4 273.0 178.0
18.4 14.6 15.7
0.9 1.7 5.3
1.0 5.5 24.2
20.3 21.8 45.2
28.1 22.3 23.3
0.0 0.0 0.0
80.0 40.0 100.0
108.1 62.3 123.3
89.7 56.7 58.3
12.0 18.6 19.8
1.8 24.1 13.3
103.5 99.4 91.4
Projected
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995-1999(b)
20.7 15.6 10.4 5.2
9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5
40.1 21.1 20.1 19.0 18.0
70.3 46.2 40.0 33.7 27.5
12.1 10.9 7.3 3.6
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3.1 3.0 2.4 2.2 3.9
15.2 13.9 9.7 5.8 3.9
16.0 12.0 8.0 4.0
5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
12.0 8.0 4.0 2.0 2.0
33.0 25.0 17.0 11.0 7.0
15.9 11.9 7.9 4.0
11.8 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.8
16.9 16.0 15.2 14.5 13.7
44.6 39.7 34.9 30.3 25.5
188.6 150.2 96.8 48.4
8.5 7.5 5.0 3.5 3.3
76.8 49.9 53.0 52.5 53.3
273.9 207.6 154.8 104.4 56.6
19.0 14.3 9.5 4.8
3.9 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
21.6 16.1 11.5 7.2 6.1
44.5 34.0 24.7 15.7 9.8
29.9 22.3 14.9 7.4
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
65.2 68.2 74.2 78.7 90.9
95.1 90.5 89.1 86.1 90.9
62.0 58.0 39.0 19.0
15.3 15.7 16.2 16.7 18.4
18.4 28.6 29.7 28.1 37.8
95.7 102.3 84.9 63.8 56.2
Total
94.5
113.7
236.1
444.3
55.6
0.0
67.0
122.6
72.5
60.0
47.1
179.6
79.2
145.4
145.9
370.5
1040.4
49.1
578.6
1668.1
96.2
41.3
117.8
255.3
148.2
0.0
960.8
1109.0
382.7
206.3
333.0
922.0
Note: Most States project 1991 to 1994 Title VI funding at authorized levels.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(h)
Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding information for this report.
Annual average.
Since all of the repayments from Alabama's SRF loans are used to retire SRF bonds during this period, none of the repayments
are anticipated to be available for wastewater project construction. Therefore, repayments are not included.
This information is not available to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
Grants are appropriated by Alaska's legislature annually. It is impossible to project these figures as they will depend on a
number of variables. Therefore, State grant projections are not included.
Since all of Arkansas' SRF loan repayments and SRF investment earnings are used to retire SRF bonds during this period, none of
the repayments are anticipated to be available for wastewater construction. Repayments, therefore, are not included.
Information on HUD funds spent for wastewater projects in California is not available; projections for future EDA program
funding also are not available.
Florida's FY 1991 SRF Capitalization Grant amount Is based on 80% of the authorized appropriation. SRF Capitalization Grant
amounts for FY 1992-1994 are based on 100% appropriations.
D-l
-------
TABLE D-l, continued
Total Federal and State Funds for Wastewater Projects by State(a)
($ Millions)
I
FUNDING SOURCE:
Georgia
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Hawaii
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Idaho
CWA Title 11 and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Illinois
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal (c)
State
TOTAL
Indiana
CWA Title H and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Iowa
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal (d)
State
TOTAL
Kansas
CWA Title H and VI
Other Federal (e)
State
TOTAL
Kentucky
CWA Title n and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Actual
1988 1989 1990
36.5 30.6 39.0
26.9 24.8 25.0
26.0 26.2 28.0
89.4 81.6 92.0
15.3 7.3
48.4 1.5
63.7 8.8
11.2 9.0 9.4
3.9 4.3 2.0
8.8 16.3 2.5
23.9 29.6 13.9
103.9 92.2 93.4
8.8 8.5 3.9
65.0 191.5 138.9
177.7 292.2 236.2
55.4 45.2 46.6
19.0 19.0 19.0
18.4 11.9 15.6
92.8 76.1 81.2
31.1 25.0 13.2
6.1 4.2 2.6
0.0 12.9 15.6
37.2 42.1 31.4
20.7 16.9 17.5
5.7 3.5 6.4
0.0 1.7 1.8
26.4 22.1 25.7
44.2 25.1 18.6
12.8 5.4 6.7
10.7 58.5 41.6
67.7 88.9 66.9
Projected \
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995-1999(b)
40.6 30.7 20.3 10. 1
25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0
29.9 31.2 33.9 36.1 39.5
95.5 86.9 79.2 71.2 64.5
11.8 8.9 5.9 3.0
2.4 1.8 1.2 1.7 2.5
14.2 10.7 7.1 4.7 2.5
11.9 8.9 5.9 2.9
4.8 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.1
5.7 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.6
22.4 16.5 13.7 10.6 7.7
100.0 75.0 50.0 25.0
3.5 NA NA NA NA
96.9 98.7 28.0 30.0 36.6
200.4 173.7 78.0 55.0 36.6
58.5 43.9 29.3 14.6
19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0
40.6 38.7 39.8 35.5 25.0
118.1 101.6 88.1 69.1 44.0
33.1 24.8 16.5 8.3
4.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 4.0
8.1 6.9 7.5 6.7 25.0
45.2 37.7 29.0 19.0 29.0
21.9 16.5 11.0 5.5
1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.6
4.4 3.3 3.2 2.1 2.0
28.1 21.6 16.0 9.4 3.6
32.6 21.9 14.6 7.3
7.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
9.3 9.7 9.3 9.8 9.8
49.4 39.6 31.9 25.1 17.8
Total
207.8
301.7
408.8
918.3
45.0
0.0
69.7
114.7
59.2
39.9
70.0
169.1
539.5
24.7
832.0
1396.2
293.5
228.ik
32H
847^1
152.0
51.9
182.6
386.5
110.0
31.0
26.5
167.5
164.3
96.4
197.8
458.5
Note: Most States project 1991 to 1994 Title VI funding at authorized levels.
(a) Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding information for this report.
(b) Annual average.
(c) Illinois' "Other Federal" includes EDA funding for both water and wastewater projects.
(d) Information is not available for FmHA, EDA, and other Federal programs in Iowa.
(e) Estimates were provided by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, not the Federal agencies providing the funds.
D-2
-------
TABLE D-l, continued
Total Federal and State Funds for Wastewater Projects by State(a)
($ Millions)
r
FUNDING SOURCE:
Louisiana
CWA Tide H and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
i Maine
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Maryland
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal (c)
State (d)
TOTAL
Massachusetts
CWA Tide H and VI
Other Federal
State (e)
TOTAL
Michigan
^ CWA Tide II and VI
• Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Minnesota
CWA Tide II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Mississippi
CWA Tide II and VI
Odier Federal
State
TOTAL
Missouri
CWA Tide II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Actual
1988 1989 1990
24.4 20.8 21.3
12.0 10.5 8.3
2.4 2.2 2.5
38.8 33.5 32.0
7.4 7.5
18.8 20.3
26.2 27.8
55.6 45.4 46.8
NA NA NA
5.6 24.9 50.2
61.2 70.3 97.0
80.0 62.0 65.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
187.0 84.0 90.0
267.0 146.0 155.0
0.0 113.5 41.9
8.2 11.5
0.0 121.7 53.4
42.2 34.4 35.5
8.6 9.1 9.9
29.8 66.1 72.2
80.6 109.5 117.7
22.8 17.7 16.8
5.6 4.8 4.2
3.1 3.1 3.4
31.5 25.6 24.4
64.0 51.0 52.0
8.0 4.0 7.0
33.0 31.0 35.0
105.0 86.0 94.0
Projected
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995-1999(b)
26.0 18.0 12.0 6.0
9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
6.0 5.9 6.0 6.8 64.2
41.0 32.9 27.0 21.8 73.2
18.0 13.5 9.0 4.5
35.8 30.5 22.6 12.2 8.3
53.8 44.0 31.6 16.7 8.3
58.7 44.0 29.4 14.6
NA NA NA NA NA
170.1 98.1 67.2 34.3 20.8
228.8 142.1 96.6 48.9 20.8
82.0 61.0 41.0 20.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
691.0 417.0 368.0 5.3 2.1
773.0 478.0 409.0 25.3 2.1
83.8 78.3 52.2 26.1
16.8 15.6 10.4 2.1
100.6 93.9 62.6 28.2 (f)
44.0 33.0 22.0 11.0
6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7
58.1 61.7 58.1 66.5 65.0
108.8 101.4 86.8 84.2 71.7
18.7 16.3 10.8 5.4
5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
4.5 5.2 5.4 5.5 8.4
28.5 26.8 21.5 16.2 13.7
52.0 39.0 26.0 13.0
4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0
78.0 69.0 81.0 99.0 119.0
134.0 112.0 111.0 115.0 123.0
Total
128.5
111.7
352.8
593.1
59.9
0.0
181.5
241.4
294.4
0.0
554.7
849.2
411.0
0.0
1852.8
2263.8
395.8
0.0
64.6
460.4
222.1
87.9
737.5
1047.4
108.5
62.3
72.2
243.0
297.0
54.0
1021.0
1372.0
Note: Most States project 1991 to 1994 Title VI funding at authorized levels.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(0
Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding information for this report.
Annual average
Projections are not available for funding from 'Other Federal* sources for Maryland.
Projections are not available for funding from SRF Investment Earnings in 1995-1999, Grant Program(s) from 1991-1999, and
from other State programs from 1992-1999 in Maryland.
Massachusetts reports that additional State authorizations will be needed for State program needs after 1993.
Michigan did not provide projections for 1995-1999.
D-3
-------
TABLE D-l, continued
Total Federal and State Funds for Wastewater Projects by State(a)
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Nebraska
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Nevada
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
New Hampshire
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal (c)
State
TOTAL
New Jersey
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal (d)
State
TOTAL
New Mexico
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
New York
CWA Title II and VI (e)
Other Federal (f)
State (g)
TOTAL
North Carolina
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal (h)
State
TOTAL
Oklahoma
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Actual
1988 1989 1990
11.7 9.6 4.9
1.4 3.8 4.8
2.2 2.7 1.3
15.3 16.1 11.0
11.3 9.1 9.4
0.4 0.4 0.8
0.0 0.9 0.9
11.7 10.4 11.2
21.3 18.0 18.6
1.2 0.1 0.3
12.2 10.9 12.9
34.7 29.0 31.8
87.8 74.0 93.4
NA NA NA
123.6 139.5 103.9
211.4 213.5 197.3
10.6 8.6 8.6
1.0 1.0 1.5
7.2 5.3 2.2
18.8 14.9 12.3
229.0 197.0 203.0
NA NA NA
38.6 36.5 177.3
267.6 233.5 380.3
35.2 22.7 33.0
12.9 12.9 14.3
3.6 13.8 8.1
51.7 49.4 55.4
18.6 15.2 15.7
11.7 38.7 26.5
30.2 53.9 42.3
Projected ]
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995-1999(b)
12.2 9.1 6.1 3.0
3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4
4.0 4.1 0.6 0.8 2.3
19.6 16.6 10.1 7.2 5.7
11.9 8.9 6.0 3.0
0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
2.4 2.7 3.2 3.1 2.8
15.0 12.3 9.8 6.8 3.5
23.0 17.0 11.5 5.7
UNK UNK UNK UNK UNK
17.1 22.7 19.4 14.3 10.0
40.1 39.7 30.9 20.0 10.0
93.1 71.0 46.1 23.0
NA NA NA NA NA
116.7 97.0 75.9 58.2 50.8
209.8 168.0 122.0 81.2 50.8
8.6 8.6 6.0 3.0
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
4.2 3.5 5.3 5.9 6.5
13.8 13.1 12.3 9.9 7.5
226.0 199.0 133.0 66.0
NA NA NA NA NA
583.1 467.5 381.3 379.9 273.0
809.1 666.5 514.3 445.9 273.0
44.0 33.0 22.0 11.0
14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0
10.8 8.7 7.4 7.5 7.9
68.8 55.7 43.4 32.5 21.9
19.6 14.7 9.8 4.9
72.9 104.1 73.1 59.2 96.6
92.5 118.8 82.9 64.1 96.6
Total
56.6
40.6
27.0
124.3
59.6
7.9
27.0
94.5
115.1
1.6
159.5
276.2
488.4
NA
968.8
1457,2
54.0
12.51
66. H
132.6
1253.0
0.0
3429.2
4682.2
200.9
166.0
99.4
466.3
98.5
869.2
967.7
Note: Most States project 1991 to 1994 Tide VI funding at authorized levels.
(a) Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding information for this table.
(b) Annual average.
(c) Projections for FraHA and HUD funding for New Hampshire are utikown at this time. Funding projections for "Other Federal"
programs are not available.
(d) Funding projections for "Other Federal" programs are not available for New Jersey.
(e) New York's FY 1991 SRF Capitalization Grant amount is based on 80% of the authorized appropriation. SRF Capitalization
Grant amounts for FY 1992-1994 are based on 100% appropriations.
(0 Funding projections for "Other Federal" programs are not available for New York.
(g) New York's SRF Loan Repayments projections include freed-up corpus allocation.
(h) Projections for FmHA grant and loan funds for North Carolina represent funding for wastewater facilities only.
D-4
-------
TABLE D-1, continued
Total Federal and State Funds for Wastewater Projects by State(a)
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Oregon
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
| Pennsylvania
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal (c)
State (d)(e)
TOTAL
Rhode Island
| CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
South Carolina
CWA Tide II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
South Dakota
L CWA Tide H and VI
• Other Federal
W State (g)
TOTAL
Tennessee
CWA Tide II and VI
Odier Federal
State
TOTAL
Texas
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Utah
CWA Tide H and VI
Odier Federal
State
TOTAL
Actual
1988 1989 1990
13.7 29.9 23.4
6.3 6.3 4.2
0.3 4.8 8.1
20.3 41.0 35.7
91.0 74.3 76.6
30.1 30.1 35.2
69.9 301.3 225.2
191.0 405.7 337.0
15.4 12.3 13.2
1.3 1.4
15.4 13.6 14.6
6.8 22.9 20.1
0.0 4.6 3.8
6.8 27.4 23.9
11.3 9.3 7.9
0.8 0.5 0.9
0.4 1.5 1.2
12.5 11.3 10.0
38.4 22.0 27.7
17.6 17.6 21.5
82.8 21.0 20.7
138.8 60.7 69.8
165.3 96.0 72.8
23.1 23.1 23.1
42.7 102.9 79.8
231.1 222.0 175.7
12.1 8.6 9.5
1.0 1.0 1.0
4.4 4.4 4.7
17.5 14.0 15.2
Projected
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995-1999(b) Total
36.9 20.6 13.7 6.9
5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.3
18.5 18.2 17.6 17.1 5.2
61.1 44.5 37.0 29.7 10.5
63.5 71.4 47.6 23.8
35.2 35.2 35.2 35.2
182.3 19.0 18.2 18.0 13.9
281.0 125.6 101.0 77.0 13.9
16.3 12.2 8.1 4.1
3.2 2.4 1.6 0.8
19.5 14.6 9.8 4.9 (f)
28.0 18.5 12.3 6.1
4.2 8.0 7.7 7.2 10.4
32.2 26.5 20.0 13.3 10.4
11.8 9.0 5.9 3.0
0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.5
2.8 2.6 2.8 2.8 4.3
15.5 12.5 9.6 6.7 4.8
29.1 25.8 17.2 8.6
4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
23.6 19.3 21.9 24.9 30.5
57.3 49.7 43.7 38.1 35.1
107.7 79.4 51.3 14.7
23.1 23.1 23.1 23.1 23.3
62.0 54.5 55.1 61.4 45.0
192.8 157.0 129.5 99.2 68.3
12.1 9.1 6.0 3.0
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
5.7 7.0 8.0 8.8 9.4
18.8 17.1 15.0 12.8 10.4
145.1
66.1
110.5
321.6
448.2
236.3
903.5
1588.0
81.6
0.0
10.7
92.4
114.7
0.0
87.4
202.1
58.2
8.3
35.6
102.1
168.9
98.1
366.8
633.7
587.2
278.2
683.4
1548.8
60.4
12.0
89.9
162.3
Note: Most States project 1991 to 1994 Title VI funding At authorized levels.
(a) Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, and Ohio did not provide funding information for this report.
(b) Annual average.
(c) "Other Federal" funding for Pennsylvania for 1995-1999 'a unknown.
(d) Projections for the SRF Leveraged Portions are not provided for 1990-1999, a leverage proposal is under discussion in Pennsylvania.
(e) Projections for Non-SRF Loan Program funding are not available for 1992-1999.
(f) Rhode Island did not provide projections for 1995-1999.
(g) Excludes funds considered not available for wastcwatcr project funding, including debt service reserves and monies used to repay
State bonds.
D-5
-------
TABLE D-l, continued
Total Federal and State Funds for Waste water Projects by State(a)
($ Millions)
FUNDING SOURCE:
Vermont
CWA Tide II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Virginia
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal (c)
State
TOTAL
Washington
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal (d)
State
TOTAL
West Virginia
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Wisconsin
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Wyoming
CWA Title II and VI
Other Federal
State
TOTAL
Actual
1988 1989 1990
11.2 9.1 9.5
0.8 0.9 1.4
3.0 17.8 4.4
15.0 27.8 15.3 j
48.3 42.4 27.0
14.7 12.0 12.5
87.9 39.7 108.0
150.9 94.1 147.5
42.0 32.6 33.7
2.8 2.9 6.3
40.0 48.3 48.3
84.8 83.8 88.3
17.6 9.7 25.0
17.6 9.7 25.0
37.0 92.0 47.0
146.0 341.0 358.0
183.0 433.0 405.0
5.2 13.6 6.5
0.0 0.2 0.0
2.3 8.3 3.9
7.5 22.2 10.4
Projected ^
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995-1999(b)
9.5 8.9 5.9 3.0
8.6 6.8 6.2 5.6 6.5
18.1 15.7 12.1 8.6 6.5
48.1 36.1 24.0 12.0
12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 NA
15.2 16.8 8.8 13.3 21.1
75.8 65.4 45.3 37.8 21.1
42.0 31.0 21.0 10.0
7.6 NA NA NA NA
53.4 51.4 49.2 51.0 52.4
103.0 82.4 70.2 61.0 52.4
47.8 28.4 18.9 9.5
1.0 2.0 4.0 5.5 6.3
48.8 30.4 22.9 15.0 6.3
62.0 47.0 31.0 16.0
201.0 144.0 144.0 147.0 211.6
263.0 191.0 175.0 163.0 211.6
18.2 9.0 6.0 3.0
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
5.6 9.8 9.2 9.3 8.8
24.3 19.1 15.6 12.7 9.2
Total
57.1
3.1
84.9
145.1
237.9
89.2
395.2
722.3
212.3
19.6
603.6
835.5
156.9
0.0
43.8
200.7
332.0
Q.
-------
r^fcr
APPENDIX E
DISTRIBUTION OF AVAILABLE FUNDS BY
TYPES OF ASSISTANCE BY STATE
-------
-------
TABLE E-l
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
Alabama
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
j Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
1989
28.43
( 74.1%)
2.30
( 6.0% )
7.20
( 18.8%)
0.42
( 1-1%)
38.35
( 100% )
1990
26.58
( 63.4% )
4.53
( 10.8% )
10.40
( 24.8% )
0.44
{ 1.0%)
41.95
( 100% )
1991-1994
112.40
( 65.4% )
12.00
( 7.0% )
45.50
( 26.5% )
2.07
( 1.2%)
171.97
( 100% )
1995-1999
113.00
( 65.0% )
12.00
( 6.9% )
45.60
( 26.2% )
3.13
( 1.8%)
173.73
( 100% )
^
Alaska
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 100% )
1989
12.05
( 99.8% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.03
( 0.2% )
12.08
( 100% )
1990
4.40
( 63.9% )
2.40
( 34.8%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.09
( 1-3%)
6.89
( 100% )
1991-1994
35.80
( 85.6% )
5.00
( 12.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.00
( 2.4% )
41.80
{ 100% )
1995-1999
17.00
( 81.0%)
3.00
( 14.3% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.00
( 4.8%)
21.00
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization giant awards
recicved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
F-1
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
I
Arizona
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
1
j
1989
12.00
( 58.8%)
8.20
( 40.2%)
0.20
( 1.0%)
20.40
( 100% )
| 1990
12.00
( 58.8% )
8.20
( 40.2%)
0.20
( 1.0%)
20.40
( 100% )
1991-1994
52.00
( 55.3% )
41.00
( 43.6%)
1.00
( I.I*)
94.00
( 100% )
1995-1999
3.00
( 1007. )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
3.00
{ 100% )
-— -
Arkansas
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed ^^B
Federal Fiscal Year(s) ^^
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1990
0.40
( 100.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0.40
( 100% )
1991-1994
131.10
( 95.9% )
4.00
( 2.9% )
1.60
( 1.2* )
136.70
( 100% )
1995-1999
8.30
( 100.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
8.30
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant
awards minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
(S Millions)
California
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
1989
75.50
{ 100.0%)
75.50
( 100% )
1990
24.40
( 93.8%)
1.60 (b)
( 6.2% )
26.00
( 100% )
1991-1994
679.90
( 85.8% )
100.00
( 12.6% )
12.70 (b)
( 1.6%)
792.60
( 100% )
1995-1999
228.00
( 66.9% )
100,00
( 29.3% )
13.00 (b)
( 3.8%)
341.00
( 100% )
^
1 Colorado
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.056 )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
19.38
( 55.3%)
4.40
( 12.6% )
11.00
( 31.4%)
0.24
( 0.7%)
35.02
( 100% )
1990
3.20
( 9.1%)
20.00
( 56.9% )
11.50
( 32.7% )
0.43
( 1-2%)
35.13
( 100% )
1991-1994
91.60
( 65.6%)
0
( 0.0% )
45.80
( 32.8% )
2.18
( 1-6%)
139.58
( 100% )
1995-1999
26.50
( 66.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
13.25
{ 33.3% )
0
( 0.0% )
39.75
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) A total of $27,200,000 is estimated to be available for administration of the SRF from the four percent amount.
(c) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
(S Millions)
Connecticut
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988 1989
36.50
{ 99.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.84
( 1.0%)
87.34
( 100% )
50.90
( 98.3%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
{ 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.87
( 1-756)
51.77
( 100% )
1990
98.70
( 98.9%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
{ 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
{ 0.0%)
1.14
( 1.1%)
99.84
( 100% )
1991-1994
281.80
( 99.7% )
0.80
( 0.3% )
282.60
( 100% )
1995-1999
364.00
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
364.00
( 100% )
Florida
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed ^^H
Federal Fiscal Year(s) ^^|
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
54.90
( 99.1%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.50
( 0.9% )
55.40
( 100% )
1990
84.60
( 94.8% )
3.00
( 3.4% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
1.60
( 1.8%)
89.20
( 100% )
199 1- 1994 (c)
253.30
( 87.856)
25.00
( 8.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
10.20
( 3.5% )
288.50
( 100% )
1995-1999
161.30
( 86.6% )
25.00
( 13.4% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
186.30
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of ajj grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not« percentage of capitalization grant awards.
(c) Estimates based on receiving 80% of appropriations authorized in the Clean Water Act in FY 1991.
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
1
! Georgia
JTYPE OF ASSISTANCE
| Loans (i.e., new loans)
! Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4 % of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988 ! 1989 | 1990
26.00
( 95.9%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.10
( 4.1%)
27.10
( 100% )
29.00
( 96.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.20
( 4.0% )
30.20
( 100% )
32.80
( 83.5%)
5.00
( 12.7%)
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.50
( 3.8%)
39.30
( 100% )
1991-1994 1995-1999
68.70
( 65.0% )
33.00
{ 31.2% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
4.00
( 3.8% )
105.70
( 100% )
67.50
( 100.0% )
° i
( 0.0% ) I
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% ) |
0 j
( 0.0% )
67.50
( 100% )
^
^^ Hawaii
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
1989
1990
41.26
( 99.3% )
0.30
( 0.7% )
41.56
( 100% )
1991-1994
29.60
( 92.8% )
1.30
( 4.1%)
31.90
( 100% )
1995-1999
12.70
( 100,0% )
0
{ 0.0% )
12.70
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recteved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
E-5
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
(S Millions)
Idaho
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
{ 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0,0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
5.30
( 96.4% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0.20
( 3.6% )
5.50
( 100% )
1990
5.50
( 96.5%)
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.20
{ 3.5%)
5.70
( 100% )
1991-1994
34.00
( 97.1%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.00
( 2.9% )
35.00
( 100% )
1995-1999
46.00
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
{ 0.0% )
0
{ 0.0% )
46.00
( 100% )
-*-
Illinois
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds*
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed ^^B
Federal Fiscal Year(s) ^^
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
24.70
( 99.8% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.06
( 0.2% )
24.76
( 100% )
1990
91.30
( 99.5% )
0
{ 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.43
{ 0.5% )
91.73
( 100% )
1991-1994
290.00
( 97.1%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
8.60
( 2.9%)
298.60
( 100% )
1995-1999
180.00
{ 97.3% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
{ 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
4.90
( 2.7% ) j
184.90
( 100% ) i
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
(S Millions)
Indiana
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub- State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
15.00
( 54.3%)
5.00
( 18.1%)
6.70
( 24.3% )
0.90
( 3.3%)
27.60
( 100% )
1990
60.00
( 62.7% )
7.50
( 7.8%)
27.07
( 28.3%)
1.13
( 1.2%)
95.70
( 100% )
1991-1994
390.00
( 67.7% )
10.60
( 1.8% )
164.29
( 28.5% )
11.01
( 1-9%)
575.90
( 100% )
1995-1999
200.00
( 95.2% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
— __
10.00
( 4,8% )
210.00
( 100% )
At
m
H^ Iowa
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
{ 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1990
30.13 (c)
( 99.5% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.17
{ 0.5%)
30.29 (d)
( 100% )
1991-1994
110.85
( 99.2% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.93
( 0.8% )
111.78
( 100% )
1995-1999
123.45
( 98.8% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.55
( 1-2% )
125.00
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
(c) Loans made in 1990 include FY 1989 and FY 1990 SRF funds.
Totals vary due to rounding.
E-7
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
(S Millions)
Kansas
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)(a)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (d)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
No Program
0.16 (c)
( 100.0%)
0.16
( 100% )
1989
0
( 0.0% )
0.34
( 100.0%)
0.34
( 100% )
1990
19.50
( 98.3% )
0.34
( 1-7%)
19.84
( 100% )
1991-1994
63.00
( 96.6% )
2.18
( 3.3% )
65.20 (e)
( 100% )
1995-1999
10.00
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
10
( 100% )
_
Kentucky
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
max. 4% of cap. grant) (d)
TOTAL
Funds Committed fl^H
Federal Fiscal Year(s) ^^
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.69
( 100.0%)
0.69
( 100% )
1989
13.50
( 93.9% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.88
( 6.1%)
14.38
( 100% )
1990
7.60
( 91.4%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
{ 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.71
( 8.6% )
8.31
( 100% )
1991-1994
103.50
( 92.2% )
5.70
( 5.1%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
3.00
( 2.7%)
112.20
( 100% )
1995-1999
123.00
( 95.3% )
6.00
( 4.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
129.00
( 100% )
(a) Direct loans ore the only type of financing practiced by the Kansas SRF.
(b) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(c) From State Bond revenues.
(d) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
(e) Totals vary due to rounding.
P-S
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
(S Millions)
Louisiana
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
I
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
13.94
( 96.8% )
0.46
( 3.2% }
14.40
( 100% )
1989
12.14
( 96.7% )
0.42
( 3.3%)
12.56
{ 100% )
1990
15.08
( 96.7% )
0.52
( 3.3%)
15.60
( 100% )
1991-1994
59.52
( 96.0% )
2.48
( 4.0% )
62.00
( 100% )
1995-1999
44.59
( 44.8% )
55.00
( 55.2% )
99.59
( 100% )
^
Maine
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
1989
8.47
( 92.5% )
0.40
( 4.4% )
0.29
( 3.2%)
9.16
( 100% )
1990
9.03
( 96.8% )
0.30
( 3.2% )
9.33
( 100% )
1991-1994
43.20
( 96.0% )
1.80
( 4.0% )
45.00
( 100% )
1995-1999
15.00
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
15.00
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
E-9
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
(S Millions)
Maryland
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
[TYPE OF ASSISTANCE 1988 1989
0
Loans (i.e., new loans) ( 0.0% )
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.91
( 100.0%)
0.91
( 100% )
1990
90.00
( 85.8% )
5.00
{ 4.8% )
0
{ 0.0% )
9.00
( 8.6%)
0
( 0.0% )
0.94
( 0.9% )
104.94
( 100% )
1991-1994
436.00
( 85.3% )
25.00
( 4.9% )
0
( 0.0% )
44.00
{ 8.6% )
0
( 0.0%)
5.87
( 1.1*)
510.87
( 100% )
1995-1999
93.00
( 85.1%)
7.00
( 6.4% )
0
( 0.0% )
9.30
( 8.5% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
109.30
( 100% )
.
Massachusetts
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed ^^M
Federal Fiscal Year(s) ^^
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( C.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
{ 100% )
1989
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( ' 100% )
1990
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
{ 100% )
1991-1994
306.40
{ 76.8% )
76.60
( 19.2% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
16.00
( 4.0% )
399.00
( 100% )
1995-1999
36.00
( 80.0% )
9.00
( 20.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
45.00
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
F-10
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
! Michigan
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
i
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
i Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
(max. 4 % of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
1.80
( 81.8%)
0.40
( 18.2% )
2.20
( 100% )
1990
38.00
( 97.4% )
1.00
( 2.6% )
39.00
( 100% )
1991-1994
261.00
( 96.2% )
10.40
( 3.8% )
271.40
( 100% )
1995-1999 (a)
L
^ Minnesota
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt (d)
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
47.00
( 70.9% )
1.80
( 2.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
16.80
( 25.3%)
0
( 0.0% )
0.70
( 1.1%)
66.30
( 100% )
1990
73.90
( 80.4% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
17.30
( 18.8% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.70
( 0.8% )
91.90
( 100% )
1991-1994
200.00
( 64.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
105.80
( 34.2% )
0
( 0.0% )
3.50
( 1-1%)
309.30
( 100% )
1995-1999
250.00
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
250.00
( 100% )
(a) Michigan did not provide projections for 1995-1999.
(b) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(c) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
In addition to the Debt Service Reserve Fund, loan repayments are also pledged to bond holders as a moral obligation of the State.
F-11
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
(S Millions)
Mississippi
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
(max, 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed (a)
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
11.00
( 99.3% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0,0% )
0.08
( 0.7%)
11.08
( 100% )
1990
25.00
( 97.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.58
( 2.3% )
25.58
( 100% )
1991-1994 | 1995-1999
58.60
( 95.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
2.61
( 4.3% )
61.21
( 100% )
30.00
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0,0%)
0
( 0.0% )
30.00
( 100% )
Missouri
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
[max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed ^B[
Federal Fiscal Year(s) ^^
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
19 89
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
{ 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1990
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.07
( 100.0%)
0.07
( 100% )
1991-1994
340.00 (d)
( 65.9% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
173.00
( 33.5%)
0
( 0.0% )
3.10
( 0.6% )
516.10
( 100% )
1995-1999
660.50 (d)
( 70.9% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
264.10
( 28.3% )
0
( 0.0% )
7.30
( 0.8% )
931.90
( 100% )
(a) Existing direct loan program. If leveraging is implemented, figures may be substantially higher.
(b) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(c) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
(d) Includes loan funds from repayments of short-term loans.
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
(S Millions)
Nebraska
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e. , new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
1989
5.54
( 96.7% )
0.19
( 3.3%)
5.73
( 100% )
1990
5.73
( 96.6% )
0.20
( 3.4% )
5.93
( 100% )
1991-1994
34.50
( 96.6% )
1.21
( 3.4% )
35.71
( 100% )
1995-1999
14.50
( 100.0% )
14.50
{ 100% )
m^t
^^ Nevada
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
1989
1990
1991-1994
32.00
( 89.4% )
2.70
( 7.5% )
1.10
( 3.1%)
35.80
( 100% )
1995-1999
12.50
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
12.50
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF la previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
E-13
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
New Hampshire
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1989
11.20
( 96.6% )
0.39
( 3.4% )
11.59
( 100% )
1990
11.30
( 96.7% )
0.39
( 3.3%)
11.69
( 100% )
1991-1994
69.60
( 96.7% )
2.40
( 3.3% )
72.00
( 100% )
1995-1999(a)
!
New Jersey
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e. , new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed ^^1
Federal Fiscal Year(s) ^^
1988
134.00
( 88.9%)
14.10
( 9.4% )
2.70
( 1.8ft)
150.80
( 100% )
1989
128.50
( 98.0% )
2.60
( 2.0% )
131.10
( 100% )
1990
199.20
( 98.3% )
3.50
( 1.7*)
202.70
( 100% )
1991-1994
581.00
( 94.1%)
24.30
( 3.9% )
12.10
( 2.0% )
617.40
( 100% )
1995-1999
254.20
( 100.0% )
i
j
i
254.20
( 100% )
(a) New Hampshire did not provide projections for 1995-1999.
(b) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(c) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
E-14
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
New Mexico
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
2.80
( 100.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
2.80
( 100% }
1989
16.00
( 100.0%)
- —
0
( 0.0% )
16.00
( 100% )
1990
9.30
( 95.9% )
0.40
( 4.1%)
9.70
( 100% )
1991-1994
33.80
( 97.1%)
— —
1.00
( 2.9% )
34.80
( 100% )
1995-1999
27.40
( 95.8% )
1.20 (b)
( 4.2% )
28.60
( 100% )
^ New York
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt (d)
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds*
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
{ 100% )
1990
109.30
( 39.3% )
97.60
( 35.1%)
0
( 0.0% )
69.30
( 24.9% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.80
( 0.6% )
278.00
( 100% )
1991-1994
1299.90
( 39.5% )
1161.80
( 35.3% )
0
( 0.0% )
804.70
( 24.5% )
0
( 0.0% )
20.70
( 0.6% )
3287.10
( 100% )
1995-1999
816.90
( 48.6% )
544.10
( 32.4% )
0
( 0.0%)
308.00
( 18.3%)
0
( 0.0% )
10.60
( 0.6% )
1679.60
( 100% )
The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
New Mexico anticipates that it may bank a portion of its 4% of capitalization grant administrative allowance for use after 1995.
Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
Funds committed are equal to three times the amount deposited for security. Aggressive leveraging and full appropriations are
(a)
(b)
(c)
assumed.
E-15
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
1
North Carolina
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
{ 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
21.80
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
21. SO
( 100% )
1990
31.70
( 99.4% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.20
( 0.6% )
31.90
( 100% )
1991-1994
136.50
( 97.2% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
3.90
( 2.8% )
140.40
( 100% )
. 1995-1999
29.70
( 79.8% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
7.50
( 20.2% )
37.20
( 100% )
Oklahoma
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed ^^R
Federal Fiscal Year(s) ^^^
1988
1989
1990
11.10
( 96.8% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.37
( 3-2%)
11.47
( 100% )
1991-1994
202.05
( 88.0% )
11.10
( 4.8% )
0
{ 0.0% )
14.13
( 6.2% )
0
( 0.0% )
2.22
( 1.0% )
229.50
( 100% )
1995-1999
200.00
< 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% ) ;
0
( 0.0% )
200.00
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization giant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses U limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
E-16
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
Oregon
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
1989 1990
14.25
( 84.8%)
2.00
{ 11.9%)
0.56
( 3.3%)
16.82 (c)
( 100% )
10.79
( 81.5%)
2.00
( 15.1%)
0.44
( 3.3%)
13.23
( 100% )
1991-1994
52.80
( 83.9%)
8.00
( 12.7% )
2.10
( 3.3%)
62.90
( 100% )
1995-1999
27.60
( 87.3% )
4.00
( 12.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
31.60
( 100% )
L.
§
Pennsylvania
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% }
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
43.43
( 96.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
{ 0.0% )
1.50
( 3.3% )
44.93
( 100% )
1990
45.39
( 96.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.55
( 3.3%)
46.94
( 100% )
1991-1994
247.48
( 96.8% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
{ 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
8.25
( 3.2% )
255.73
( 100% )
1995-1999
140.00
( 99.2% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
{ 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.20
( 0.8% )
141.20
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
(c) Totals vary due to rounding.
E-l 7
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
(S Millions)
Rhode Island
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
1989
5.61
( 70.8% )
2.00
( 25.2%)
0.32
( 4.0%)
7.92 (d)
( 100% )
1990
7.80
( 96.0% )
0.33
( 4.0% )
8.13
( 100% )
1991-1994
51.02
( 100.0% )
51.02
( 100% )
1995-1999 (a)
1
-**•
South Carolina
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (b)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (c)
TOTAL
Funds Committed ^V
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( J00% )
1989
20.70
( 97.7% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.49
( 2.3% )
21.19
( 100% )
1990
20.61
( 97.1%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.61
( 2.9% )
21.23 (f)
( 100% )
1991-1994
71.40
( 96.4% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
2.70
( 3.6% )
74.10
( 100% )
1995-1999
52.00
( 100.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
UNK (e)
52.00
( 100% )
Rhode Island did not provide projections for 1995-1999.
The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
Totals vary due to rounding.
Unknown.
Totals vary due to rounding.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
E-18
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
South Dakota
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
{ 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1989
5.70
( 96.6% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0.20
( 3.4% )
5.90
( 100% )
1990
7. 10
( 97.3%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.20
( 2.7%)
7.30
( 100% )
1991-1994
39.60
( 94.7% )
1.00
( 2.4% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0,0% )
1.20
( 2.9% )
41.80
( 100% )
1995-1999
22.70
( 91.9%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
2.00
( 8.1%)
24.70
( 100% )
fe
Tennessee
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation (d)
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
19.15
( 96.7% )
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.66
( 3.3%)
19.81
( 100% )
1989
17.63
( 96.7% )
0.61
( 3.3%)
18.24
( 100% )
1990
27.50
( 96.7% )
0.95
( 3.3% )
28.45
( 100% )
1991-1994
93.63
( 96.7% )
3.23
( 3.3%)
96.86
{ 100% )
1995-1999
94.96 (c)
( 96.4% )
3.53
( 3.6% )
98.49
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recicved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all giant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
(c) Does not include loans from non-SRF State loan program.
Refinancing may be done through loans under Tennessee's SRF law.
E-19
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
Texas
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
j Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
100.50
( 79.63 )
25.70
( 20.4% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
126.20
( 100% )
1989
165.40
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
165.40
( 100% )
1990
145.60
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
145.60
( 100% )
1991-1994
308.10
( 96.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
12.70
( 4.0% )
320.80
( 100% )
1995-1999
175.00
( 95.3% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
8.70
( 4.7% )
183.70
( 100% )
Utah
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed ^^b
Federal Fiscal Year(s) ^^F
1988
10.40
{ 96.7% )
0.36
( 3.3% )
10.76
( 100% )
1989
8.50
( 96.7% )
0.29
( 3-3%)
8.79
( 100% )
1990
8.00
( 96.9% )
0.26
( 3.1%)
8.26
( 100% )
1991-1994
43.60
( 97.3% )
1.21
( 2.7% )
44.81
( 100% )
1995-1999
23.30
{ 100.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
23.30
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
E-20
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
i
Vermont
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
1989
5.70
( 98.4%)
0.10
( 1.6%)
5.80
( 100% )
1990
5.80
( 98.5%)
0.09
( 1.5%)
5.89
( 100% )
1991-1994
15.89
( 71.1%)
5.00
1.47
( 6.6% )
22.36
( 100% )
1995-1999
25.11
( 100.0% )
25.11
( 100% )
£ .
Virginia
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
34.90
( 73.4% )
12.20
( 25.6% )
0.48
( 1.0%)
47.58
( 100% )
1989
34.90
( 93.7% )
1.50
( 4.0% )
0.83
( 2.2% )
37.23
( 100% )
1990
60.00
( 98.7% )
0
( 0.0% )
0.80
( 1-3%)
60.80
( 100% )
1991-1994
136.00
( 97.1%)
0
( 0.0% )
4.00
( 2.9% )
140.00
( 100% )
1995-1999
0
( 100% )
0
( 100% )
(B.) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
E-21
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
($ Millions)
Washington
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4 % of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
1989
18.80
( 91.1%)
1.15
( 5.6%)
0.69
( 3.3%)
20.64
( 100% )
1990
19.40
( 96.6% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0%)
0.68
( 3.4% )
20.08
( 100% )
1991-1994
120.50
( 97.2% )
3.50
( 2.8%)
124.00
( 100% )
1995-1999
52.00
( 91.2%)
„ —
5.00
( 8.8% )
57.00
( 100% )
West Virginia
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed ^^L
Federal Fiscal Year(s) ^^
1988
^ 0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 100% )
1989
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 100% )
1990
10.00
( 97.1%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0.30
( 2.9%)
10.30
( 100% )
1991-1994
115.00
( 96.6% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
4.00
( 3.4% )
119.00
{ 100% )
1995-1999
25.84
( 96.2% )
1.03
( 3.8% )
26.87
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
E-22
-------
TABLE E-l, continued
Types of SRF Assistance by State
(S Millions)
Wisconsin
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 100% )
1989 1990 1991-1994 1995-1999
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.00
( 100.0%)
1.00
( 100% )
0
( 0.0%)
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1.00
( 100.0%)
1.00
( 100% )
995.00
( 68.5% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
452.00
( 31.1%)
0
( 0.0% )
6.00
{ 0,4% )
1453.00
( 100% )
1058.00
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
1058.00
( 100% )
fe.
Wyoming
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
Loans (i.e., new loans)
Purchase or Refinance
Existing Debt Obligation
Guarantee or Purchase
Insurance for Local Debt
Revenue or Security
for SRF Debt
Loan Guarantees for
"Sub-State Revolving Funds"
Administrative Expenses (a)
(max. 4% of cap. grant) (b)
TOTAL
Funds Committed
Federal Fiscal Year(s)
1988 1989 1990 1991-1994 1995-1999
41.30
( 96.0% )
1.70
( 4.0% )
43.00
( 100% )
50.00
( 100.0% )
0
( 0.0% )
50.00
( 100% )
(a) The CWA restricts the amount of SRF money that may be used for administrative expenses to 4% of all capitalization grant awards
recieved by the fund. The amount of SRF money available each year for administrative expenses is limited to 4% of all grant awards
minus the amount of administrative expenses paid by the SRF in previous years.
(b) Note that this number is a percentage of total SRF funds available, not a percentage of capitalization grant awards.
E-23
-------
-------
'
APPENDIX F
USER FEE CALCULATION MODEL
-------
-------
APPENDIX F
USER FEE CALCULATION MODEL
Variable List and Description
Community size: This is a basic input whose value for each model run is set at either 1,000,
2,500, 10,000 or 100.000 by the user.
SRF interest rate: Another critical input that the user adjusts for each model run. The value
can vary between zero and the market rate. The base value is four percent, a "typical" value
for existing SRF programs.
Market interest rate: This variable changes with time and financial market conditions. Also,
different States define market rate differently in their Capitalization Grant Applications. The
base value used in the analysis, eight percent, is the value that best reflects recent costs of
borrowing capital in the municipal bond market
Persons/Household: This is an integral part of the analysis since we are attempting to assess
impacts on households in a community, not on individuals. The number included here, 2.64, is
the national average value released by the Bureau of the Census in the Spring of 1989. It is
the best information available.
Gallons/Person*Dav: Analyses of this type usually assume a value of about 100. The value
varies somewhat depending on geographical location (rural versus urban), age and condition of
the system (which affects losses because of leaks), and, most importantly, community population.
This analysis assumes a value 90 for communities sizes 0-1,000; 100 for 1,000-5,000; and 110 for
5,001+.
Loan period: This is the maximum loan period allowed under SRF regulations. Most States
have indicated they intend to make 20-year loans, so this analysis assumes a base loan duration
of 20 years.
Cost eligible SRFf%1: This is the percentage of total capital costs eligible for loans under the
SRF program. Since this analysis ignores land costs, typically the largest ineligible cost, and
since the flexibility of the SRF program allows expanded eligibility, the analysis assumes all costs
(100 percent) are SRF-eligible. ;
Cost elipble CG (%}: This is the percentage of total capital costs eligible for grants under the
Construction Grant program. EPA staff familiar with the Construction Grants program
recommended a base value of 90 percent
State grant (%); The State grant is the percentage of total capital costs funded through a
State construction grant program. It is independent of any Federal financial assistance. The
base value is zero for the SRF program and 15 percent for the Construction Grants program.
F-l
-------
Flow rate ftngd'): In millions of gallons per day, it equals the number of persons in the
community multiplied by the daily water usage per person.
Capital cost: Derived according to updated EPA construction cost curves. The original cost
curve comes from EPA's Construction Costs for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants: 1973-
78. The curve in this document was updated according to EPA's inflation index for
construction of wastewater treatment plants. The costs in EPA's report were January, 1979
dollars. These were assumed to be the same as March, 1979 dollars (the EPA inflation index is
keyed to March each year). A factor of 1.602 was used to bring March, 1979 dollars up to
March, 1989 dollars.
Eligible: The total capital cost multiplied by the percent eligible under SRF.
Ineligible: The total capital cost less the eligible costs. This is the amount of funds the
community must raise from the State or from other sources outside the SRF.
O&M cost: Derived from composite data provided by EPA Region EG staff who had done a
rate study of 161 wastewater treatment plants built under the Construction Grants program.
The curve was assumed to flatten out at either end, beyond the range of the composite data.
The cost curve derived from the data was inflated using the GNP deflator from the Economic
Report of the President. The shape of the curve was compared with that of an O&M cost
curve developed by EPA in 1981 to confirm that the economies of scale implied by the model's
O&M cost curve are reasonable. Also to ensure reasonableness, the values derived from the
model's cost curve were compared with unit, average values calculated in studies undertaken by
California and Pennsylvania. A comprehensive national study of user charges and O&M costs is
now underway at EPA; the results of this study will provide an updated source for O&M costs.
Number of hookups: The number of households served by the wastewater treatment plant.
is equal to the community population divided by the number of persons per household.
It
F-2
-------
APPENDIX F
MODEL OUTPUT ILLUSTRATING THE EFFECTS OF
CERTAIN VARIABLES ON USER FEES
-------
-------
'USER CHARGE CALCULATION MODEL*
• •••• *«INPlJT SECTION*"**"""
I. USER SUPPLIED INPUTS
Community Size: 1,000
SRF Interest Rate: 4.0
Market Intrst Rate: 8.0
Persons/Household: 2.64
Gal!ons/Person*Day: 90
Loan Period:
Cost Eligible SRF(%):
Cost Eligible CG(%):
State Grant/SRF (%):
State Grant/CG (%):
20
100
90
0
15
II. MODEL CALCULATED INPUTS
Flow Rate (mgd):
Number of Hookups:
Capital Cost:
Eligible:
Ineligible:
Annual 0 & M Cost:
0.090
379
$752,427
$752,427
$0
$77,427
*** OUTPUT SECTION**'
I. CAPITAL COST FINANCING
No grant or loan:
With SRF Loan:
With 55% CG:
With SRF Loan
and State Grant
With 55% CG
and State Grant:
II. 0 & M COST FINANCING
Cost of financing
capital portion
per household
$202
$146
$102
$146
$75
Cost of financing
O & M portion
per household:
Savings realized
using program
option
N/A
28%
50%
28%
63%
$204
F-3
-------
111. TOTAL ANNUAL COST FINANCING
Total annual cost
of financing
per household
Savings realized
using program
option
No grant or loan:
With SRF Loan:
With 55% CG:
With SRF Loan
and State Grant:
With 55% CG
and State Grant:
$407
5351
$307
$351
$279
N/A
14%
25%
14%
31%
A Construction Grant that equaled 31 % of eligible costs would
provide savings equivalent to those provided by the SRF loan (this
does not include the effects of any state grant)
A Construction Grant that equaled 31 % of eligible costs would
provide savings equivalent to those provided by the SRF loan (this
does include the effects of any state grant)
A Construction Grant, after including the effects of a Construction
Grant State Grant, that equaled 16% of eligible costs would
provide savings equivalent to those provided by the SRF loan (this
does not include the effects of any SRF state grant)
A Construction Grant, after including the effects of a Construction
Grant State Grant, that equaled 16% of eligible costs would
provide savings equivalent to those provided by the SRF loan (this
does include the effects of any SRF state grant)
F-4
-------
APPENDIX F
CONTENTS OF USER CHARGE MODEL CELL BY CELL
-------
-------
ITic user charge model runs on Lotus 123 software
A1:
A2:
A5:
A7:
A9:
R
E9:
A10;
810:
D10:
£10:
A11:
811:
011:
£11:
A12:
312:
D12:
E12:
A13;
B13;
013:
E13:
£14:
£15:
A16:
£16:
A18:
818:
C18:
E18:
A19:
B19:
A20:
820:
A21:
B21:
:1:
W193
CW19]
W19]
CW191
022
A23
B23
023
B2S
A26
A28
B30
030
B31
031
832
032
A34
B34
034
A36
B36
036
A38
838
038
A40:
A41:
B41:
041:
A43:
844:
044:
A46:
0:
C50:
A53:
B55:
DS5:
B56:
'Persons/HousehoId:
2.64
'State Grant/SRF (X):
'Gallons/Person*Day:
S1F(B9<1001,90,31F(B9<5001,100,110)}
'State Grant/CC fiIF(C1o>5t0.68-(0.0018»C18),1.189*C18*-0.342))-365000*Bl8
(H) [W211 aiF(D22>0,D22,0)
(CO) PI15I '
'I. CAPITAL COST FINANCING
'Cost of financing
' Savings realized
'capital portion
' using program
'per household
' option
' No grant or loan:
(CO) PJ15] (aPHT(B2fl,B11/ioO,E9)/B9)-B12
IW21] "N/A
JW193 * With »F Loan:
(CO) CW15] ((aPtrr(B22.B1V100,E9)+8P«T(B21,810/100,E9))/B9)*B12
(PO) CW21] (B34-B36)/B34
01191 ' Uith 55X Cfii
(CO) W153 (aPHT(B20^l5,B11/100fE9)/B9)*B12
(PO) CU21] (B34-B38)/B34
[W191 ' Uith SRF Loan
(U191 ' and State Grant:
(CO) PJ15] ((8PMT(D23,811/100,E9)+aPMT(D21,B10/100,E9))/B9)*B12
(PO) PJ211 (+834-841 )/B34
CW191 ' Uith 55Z CG
W19] ' and State Grant:
(CO) [W151 (aPNT(B20"£16,B11/100,£9)/89)*B12
(PO) [W2U (+B34-B44)/B34
CW19] 'II. 0 t H COST FINANCING
twl53 'Cost of financing
[U15I '0 t N portion
[W15] 'per household:
(CO) (B23/B9)*B12
CU19] 'III. TOTAL ANNUAL COST FINANCING
[U15] 'Total annual cost
CU21] ' Savings realized
CM15I 'of financing
CU191
CW153
M21]
EU15]
W15]
[W2D
F-5
-------
856: IW15I 'of financing
056: CU21] ' using program
857: CW15I 'per household
057: IW21] ' option
A59: CU19] ' Ho grant or loan:
859: (CO) W15] »834»C50
D59: [U21] "N/A
A61: CW19] ' With SRF Loan:
861: (CO) CW15] +C50+836
D61: (PO) W211 (859-361)/B59
A63: CW191 ' With 55X CG:
S63: (CO) [U15] +838+C50
D63: (PQ) [U211 (B59-363)/859
A65: CW19] ' With SRF Loan
A66: [W193 ' and State Grant:
366: (CO) [U15J +841+CSO
066: (P0> [U21J (859-366)/SS9
A63: [U19] ' With 55X CG
A69: CU19] ' and State Grant:
369: (CO) EW15] •t-BiA+CSO
069: (PO) W21] (B59-369)/359
ATI: [W19J 'A Construction Grant that equaled
C71: (PO) *036/(E11/100)
071: CU21] ' of eligible costs Mould
ATS: CU191 'provide savings equivalent to those provided by the SRF loan (this
A73: [U191 'does not include the effects of any state grant)
ATS: CU191 'A Construction Grant that equaled
C75: (PO) +041/(£11/100)
075: [W21] ' of eligible casts would
A76: [U191 'provide savings equivalent to those provided by the SRF Loan (this
AT?: CU191 'does include the effects of any state grant)
A79: CM19] 'A Construction Grant, after including the effects of a Construction
ASC: CU191 'Grant State Grant, that equaled
C80: (PO) (D36-(E13«E14)/100)/(E11/100)
080: BC1] ' of eligible costs would
A81: [U191 'provide savinQS equivalent to those provided by the SRF loan (this
AS2: (U191 'doe* not include the effects of any SRF state grant)
A84: [V191 'A Construction Grant, after including the effects of a Construction
ASS: [W191 'Grant State Grant, that equaled
C8S: (PO) (D41-(E13»EH)/tOO)/CEl1/10Q)
08S: 0213 • of eligible casts would
A86: CWIvl 'provide savings equivalent to those presided by the SBF loan (this
A&7: W191 'does include tb* effects of any SBF state grant)
F-6
------- |