Projected Household
Costs of Mandated
Environmental
Infrastructure
Investments
AUGUST 1995
New England Interstate Water Pollution
Control Commission
and
EPA-New England
-------
LETTER OF INTRODUCTION
On behalf of EPA New England, each of the six New England States, and the New England
Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, we are pleased to distribute this report on
Projected Household Costs for Mandated Environmental Infrastructure Investments.
The states and EPA are responsible for assuring compliance with federal environmental laws and
regulations. One of the key issues associated with these requirements is the cost of compliance—
to communities, to business and industry, and to individuals. To date, the discussions on cost
have been driven largely by anecdotes and have been hampered by a lack of reliable information
on actual costs and impacts of compliance.
This report presents the results of a year-long effort by EPA and the six New England states to
help fill this information gap. This effort is purposefully narrow in scope, with a focus on the
household costs of compliance with current federal wastewater treatment, drinking water, and
solid waste management requirements affecting New England communities. It is the only project
of its kind in the country being done on a regional scale, and it is a significant step forward in
raising the quality of the discussion on cost and affordability of environmental requirements by
providing actual data. It is also an indication of our commitment to addressing the issue of cost
of compliance head on with real data.
The bulk of this report consists of presentation and analysis of cost data from about 100 waste-
water, drinking water, and solid waste facilities serving about 300 communities throughout New
England. The analysis is limited to discussion of findings and trends that can be clearly seen
when looking at the data; any broader analysis would be stretching the reliability of the data.
The cost data are presented as household costs for two reasons: this provides a common denom-
inator for information from six states that come from cities, towns, villages within towns and
groups of towns, and, more importantly, this puts the information in numbers that the average
person can directly relate to.
Projected Household Costs of Mandated Environmental Infrastructure Investments is for federal, state
and local officials, environmental groups, community organizations, economists, businesses, cit-
izens—anyone who wants a better understanding of and appreciation for the costs and econom-
ic impacts of compliance with federal environmental requirements. It represents a significant
contribution to the ongoing discussions about the actual costs of environmental "mandates." We
commend it to you.
k- \
Robert W. Varney, C«{mmissionjpr John P. DeVillars, Regional Administrator
NH Department of Environmental Services EPA New England
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Background . 2
General Findings 3
Cost vs. Affordability 4
II. PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS 5
III. PROJECT QUALIFICATIONS . . 6
IV. DATA AND RESULTS PRESENTATION
Results At A Glance 8
Size of Sample 9
Tables 1-4 9-10
Ranking of Sample Communities by Cost for Each Program Area &
for 41 3-Media Communities 11
Tables 5-8 12-18
Projected Annual Costs for 3-Media Communities Ranked by
Households Served 19
Figure 1 20
Bar Charts Showing Percent of Communities vs. Projected Costs and Percent
Median Household Income for Each Media & Combined Media 21
Figures 2-9 22-25
Bar Chart Showing the Percent Increase of Household Costs Due to
Future Compliance 26
Figure 10 27
Line Graphs Showing Percent of Communities with Cost Impacts Less than
Projected Annual Household Costs for Each Media & Combined Media 28
Figures 11-14 29-30
Sample Wastewater Communities with Costs Greater than 1.5% MHI 31
Figure 15 32
Cost Tables 33
Tables 9-10 34
Summary Tables 35
Tables 11-16 36-42
V. APPENDICES
Appendix A
Instructions for Household Rate Projection Spreadsheet A-l - 8
Attachment A
Financial Information Summary Sheet (City 1 sample) A-9
Financial Information Summary Sheet (City 2 sample) A-10
Financial Information Summary Sheet (blank) A-ll
Attachment B
Household Rate Projections A-12 - 13
Attachment C
Rate Model Calculations A-14 - 15
Appendix B
Financial Information Summary Sheet Instructions A-16-18
Financial Information Summary Sheet (sample) .4-19
Financial Information Summary Sheet (blank) ,4-20
Appendix C
Environmental Infrastructure Steering and Technical
Committee Members A-Zl
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
(NEIWPCC) wishes to thank each and every state staff person who
participated in this study. (See Appendix C.) Our goal was an
ambitious one, and the spirit of interstate and interagency cooperation
carried us through to a successful completion. This pilot project would
also not have proceeded as quickly, efficiently, and with such cost savings
without the efforts of Steve Silva, EPA-New England, who developed, test-
ed, and refined the household rate projection spreadsheet, developed all
the guidance materials for state staff using the model, and provided tech-
nical oversight of this project from start to finish. Thanks also go to Larry
MacMillan, EPA-New England, and Gary Champy, Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation, for their work in generating the graphics
used in this report. A special thanks goes to the late Paul Keough, EPA-
New England, whose support for this project at its inception is gratefully
remembered.
NEIWPCC
255 Ballardvale Street
Wilmington, MA 01887
Telephone: (508)658-0500
This report was prepared by the NEIWPCC with a cooperative agreement
(CP 001748-01) from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England Office.
This publication may be copied. Please give credit to the NEIWPCC. The New England
Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission was established by an Act of Congress
in 1947 and remains the oldest agency in the Northeast United States concerned with
coordination of the multimedia environmental activities of the States of Connecticut,
Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED
ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS ,
• fnfunded mandates... Underfunded mandates... The cost of environmental
• I compliance... Affordability... Adequate financial assistance. These and other T*miAn¥TrTtA\T
^^*/ issues are being and will continue to be raised at the local, state, and federal iNlRUUULllUN
levels of government as we all work to protect public health and the environment in '
the most cost effective and affordable ways. This report is an attempt by the New
England states and EPA-New England to identify the costs of compliance with federal
environmental regulations to the average household and to estimate the future costs
of compliance while assuming no future financial assistance.
This report addresses only the public wastewater, drinking water, and solid waste
facilities that have been or will be constructed as a result of federal regulation.
Minimum national environmental standards for these environmental infrastructure
projects are set forth in the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). With this focus on federal require-
ments, the New England states gathered 1993 budget information for wastewater and
drinking water systems and for costs associated with landfill closures in selected com-
munities that must comply with one or more of these federal requirements. With the
use of a spreadsheet designed by EPA-New England, the residential share of the cost
information on systems and communities was translated into per household costs,
projected over a 20-year period, and presented both as annual projected household
costs and as percent of median household income (% MHI).
In a very short period of time, state agency staff were able to compile community bud-
getary and expense data for roughly 100 systems in the wastewater, solid waste, and
drinking water programs areas. The roughly 300 communities involved in this project
represent approximately 20 percent of the total number of cities and towns in New
England. For 41 communities, cost information was gathered in all three program
areas, making it possible to perform cumulative cost projections. The size of the com-
munities studied varied greatly. For example, households served by wastewater sys-
tems ranged from 50 in Rutland Town, Vermont to 228,000 in Boston, Massachusetts.
The methodology piloted in this project has proven to be useful to states for generating
comparative assessments of costs to communities. The experience has helped states
develop a better understanding of what might be considered "typical" costs. The method-
ology can also be used as a means of checking cost projections developed by others.
This pilot project focused on the residential share of compliance costs, using a repre-
sentative sample of New England communities. However, this report does not attempt
to gauge the relative affordability of these projects against the costs of other govern-
mental or private services or to assess the communities' ability to pay. The issue of
affordability, while recognized in this report, was largely beyond the scope of the study.
The mission of the New England Environmental Infrastructure Needs
Analysis Project is to develop a better understanding and apprecia-
tion for the costs and economic impacts of compliance with waste-
water treatment, drinking water, and solid waste management
requirements affecting New England communities.
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
In July 1993, the New England State Environmental Commissioners and EPA-New
England agreed to work cooperatively to generate the information necessary for eval-
uating financial stress on households as a result of federal water, wastewater and waste
disposal regulations. This was a major concern to Environmental Commissioner
Robert Varney, State of New Hampshire, who advanced the idea to the other New
England states. New England's environmental commissioners/secretaries have endeav-
ored to ensure that the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorizations are
crafted in a manner that balances the financial assistance needed to achieve program
compliance with annual household user cost affordability.
In November 1993, the six New England States, EPA-New England, and the New
England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC) set in motion a
project to develop an accurate and consistent method for projecting the" future costs
of compliance with environmental requirements at the state and regional levels. The
group's goal was to produce as much data as possible in a short period of time on
household costs associated with federally mandated wastewater, water supply, and
solid waste services. The information and methodology acquired through this project
was designed to help the states calculate annual household costs, estimate future envi-
ronmental infrastructure costs, assess the individual and cumulative costs of compli-
ance in the areas of wastewater, water supply, and solid waste, and to share this cost
information on a regional basis.
Infrastructure Needs Per Environmental Program
• Wastewater: federally enforceable projects (CSOs, updating WWTPs,
secondary and advanced WWTP needs, sewers, sludge management).
• Water Supply: capital remediation projects (requirements to meet var-
ious national primary drinking water regulations, such as filtration,
corrosion control, controls for VOCs and various organic and inorgan-
ic contaminants).
• Solid Waste: landfill closure, cost of waste management resulting from
landfill closure.
As a starting point, EPA-New England staff developed a household cost rate projection
model (spreadsheet), which was validated by comparing it with existing cost projec-
tions from a variety of municipal projects. The spreadsheet provides an accurate and
consistent tool for projecting household cost rates in terms of "annual cost" and "per-
cent median household income" (% MHI). (See Appendix A.)
During the spring and summer of 1994, state personnel from each program area
(wastewater, water supply, and solid waste) collected and developed cost information
for a sampling of communities and entered the cost information into the spread-
sheets. The states forwarded the media-specific data to EPA for consolidation and sum-
marization. EPA then worked with the states and NEIWPCC to depict the cost data
graphically from various perspectives.
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
GENERAL FINDINGS
This project yielded a series of lists, tables, charts, and graphs that offer snapshots of
the costs and economic impacts of complying with wastewater, drinking water, and
solid waste management requirements in the sampled communities. In analyzing the
results, members of the study team w'ere able to make the following general observa-
tions:
• Estimated future capital costs of compliance for systems surveyed total
approximately $3.5 billion and are apportioned in approximate amounts
by program area as follows: S2.5 billion wastewrater, $742 million drinking
water, and $163 million solid waste.
• Cost projections vary widely among the three program areas, and within
each media. Generally, per household costs for xvastewater systems (S378
median annual cost) are higher than for drinking water ($272 median
annual cost), both are higher than costs for solid waste ($204 median annu-
al cost).
• Projected annual household costs resulting from a single federal require-
ment (either wastewater, drinking water, or solid waste) range from
> $1,000 per year to < $100 per year. The results expressed as % MH1 range
from > 3% MHI to < 0.5% MHI.
• For the 41 communities with cost information for all three program areas,
the projected combined annual per household costs ranged from a high of
$1,692 per year to a low of $338 per year. In terms of % MHI, cost projec-
tions ranged from 6.19% MHI to 0.72'% MHI. These data also show that
approximately 80 percent of the 3-media communities studied have com-
bined household costs greater than $500 per year. Of the 3-media commu-
nities, 68.2 percent face 25 to 75 percent rate increases.
• Some large as well as small communities are faced with disproportionately
large costs. The study sample happens to include many very small com-
munities (<1,000 households served).
INTRODUCTION
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
INTRODUCTION
COST VS. AFFORDABILITY
The projected costs presented in this report must be kept in perspective for two impor-
tant reasons: First, the federal environmental compliance costs examined herein rep-
resent only part of the burden supported by communities. Costs for schools, bridges,
and compliance with other federal and state requirements must be considered in any
assessment of affordability.
Second, there has been no assessment of the communities' ability to pay these costs.
Although "percent median household income" (% MHI) has been used as a general
indicator or trigger level of affordability, % MHI is an incomplete measure of ability to
pay. Other factors such as disposable income and bond indebtedness are also impor-
tant. Thus, while the cost data in this report provide useful information on the costs
and impacts of some environmental mandates, they should be used with caution.
To date, there is no national standard to measure affordability. Although an afford-
ability "trigger" of 1.5 percent median family income was mentioned in the proposed
Clean Water Act revision, that rate may not be an appropriate one to use. (In this
study, data on communities with projected wastewater rates greater then 1.5% MHI
are included for informational purposes only.) Since the choice of the 1.5% MHI trig-
ger for affordability is questionable for a single program area, the appropriateness of
trying to assign an affordability trigger for the cumulative costs associated with multi-
ple projects facing a community is even more suspect.
The task of measuring affordability is complicated by an assortment of factors that
affect a community's ability to pay—the availability and accuracy of the data, the site-
specific nature of the situation, and the subjective nature of the analysis. Affordability
decisions are influenced by factors such as property tax rates, land valuation, total rev-
enues and expenses, population, number of tax payers, number of service users, out-
standing debt/history of payments, growth index, percent of industrial/commercial
base, delinquency rates, projects costs, and future regulatory requirements.
These factors must be identified for each community. Once identified, some important
questions must be answered: Are the data readily available? Are the data routinely or
periodically updated to reflect current conditions? Which data fairly portray afford-
ability across a wide range of municipal services provided (schools, fire, police, ambu-
lance, roads, etc., as well as services related to environmental compliance)? The ques-
tion of affordability on a state or regional basis must draw on the expertise of econo-
mists, financial consultants, bond rating houses, as well as state and local financial
managers.
-------
PROIECTFD HOt'SHHOII) COSTS OE MANDATED ENVI RONM^TAl JjWrjKAS^
-
PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS
• The spreadsheet model assumes an inflation rate of three percent and that
all future capital expenses are bonded at six percent for 20 years.
• All rate projections are reported in current (1994) dollars, not in future year
inflated dollars.
• The "current rate" or base annual costs for a community often include sub- ASSUMPTIONj
stantial amounts of financial assistance for past compliance with environ-
mental mandates. However, the projected future costs to communities ,_mra^~_-~__~—~-
("projected rate" and "% Mill") assume no additional grants or loans.
• Many communities put significant capital costs on the tax rate and opera-
tion and maintenance (O&M) costs on the user charge. Because, in this
study, there was no way to know how a community might choose to
apportion future costs, the following conservative assumption was used:
future infrastructure capital and operation and maintenance
(O&M) expenses are funded in the same manner that current
expenses are raised (i.e. taxes vs. user charges).
This assumption is particularly important for smaller systems that serve a
small percentage of households in the community. l;or example, if a community cur-
rently raises funds for a service, such as wastewater treatment, solely from user
charges, the cost projection methodology assumes future revenues (both capital and
O&M) will all be raised by user charges. If, in actuality, future capital costs were to be
put on the tax base and spread over the entire community rather than just on the rel-
atively small number of users tied into the treatment system, actual household rates
would be much lower than those projected in this study.
• The 41 "3-media" communities are those for whom states had cost infor-
mation in each of the waslewater, solid waste, and drinking water program
areas. All 41 communities face future capital costs associated with an envi-
ronmental mandate in at least one program area. In those communities,
costs in the other two program areas represent past compliance costs that
are included in the base or current annual cost. Of these 41 communities,
22 lace future capital costs in two areas; |(> face future capital costs in all
three program areas. (See Table 4.)
• The goals of this study were to project future household costs for as many
communities or for as large a representation of the state population as pos-
sible and to assess the magnitude of cumulative costs where possible. Some
communities have already complied with environmental mandates, but
are still paying off the costs. l;or these communities, current costs of past
compliance are reflected in the base or "current rate" and are carried into
the projected annual costs (and % Mill). Future capital costs for future
compliance are included only in the projected annual costs (and % MHI).
for example, if the future costs ('fables 5-7) for a particular program area
are greater than the current annual costs ("current rate" from data Tables
1 1-16), then the community faces a future capital cost for complying with
an environmental mandate. If the future and current costs are the same,
then the future annual costs ("projected rate") represent the future costs
related to past compliance.
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
Fff
PftOIECT QUALIFICATIONS
• The states made every effort to obtain the best data available for tiiis study.
Communities were not chosen by random selection, and states differed in
their method of selection. An effort was made to include a sampling of
both different-sized communities and a mix of communities affected by
costs associated with one, two, and three program areas. Methods by
which cost data were gathered also varied among states. Since this project
was not Designed as a rigorous scientific study, caution should be used in
QUALIFICATIONS extrapolating any of these results to show statewide or regional cost trends.
• The lack of uniformity among community accounting practices made it
difficult to gather data for this study and required that states use their best
professional judgment in developing the figures. For example, if a com-
munity's accounting system lumped the costs together, the state may have
had to apportion costs for a given program area between user charges and
the tax base so that the data could be entered into the study spreadsheet .
EPA-New England provided the states with guidance for consistency in
data gathering, which is included in Appendix A.
• Political boundaries do not necessarily coincide with the physical bound-
aries of environmental infrastructure system service areas. In some cases, a
system serves only part of a community; while other systems may serve
several communities. This reality makes it difficult to gather financial
information on a community-wide basis, for the purposed of this study,
states used their own judgment in selecting communities and developing
cost information to use in the spreadsheet. This same boundary issue
means that, when looking at the cumulative costs for the 41 communities,
the residents of one community may not all bear the same costs if differ-
ent utility systems service the community.
• The cost rates, in terms of percent median household income for projects
that don't serve the entire community, may need to be adjusted to reflect
varying income levels in different parts of the community.
• This report reflects costs of compliance with federal mandates associated
with wastewater treatment, drinking water, and solid waste. The report
does not reflect those costs related to other federal program areas, or media
(e.g., air program requirements), or with state-specific mandates associated
with the cost of compliance.
• This study predates the pending reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water
Act. The new Act may add many requirements which are not included in this
project and which could increase the costs tor drinking water infrastructure.
• This report is not exclusively reflective of federal mandates; it also includes
the base costs of providing service.
• The environmental costs identified in this study only include those capital
costs foreseen by each state and may not include all the costs that will be
needed to upgrade existing wastewater and drinking water treatment
facilities.
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
The assessment of cumulative impact in this report focuses on both pro- T [" T
jected capital costs and costs of past compliance that the "3-media" com- J.J.J.
munities face in the three program areas. In terms of these communities,
although cost information is available in each program area, it does not
mean that a community faces future capital costs in all three areas. The
study looks at the cumulative costs of compliance, not just the cost of
future mandates.
This project reports the impact of costs in terms of annual household cost 1 ROIECT
and as % MHI. Neither of these rates are a measure of affordability. A com-
munity's ability to pay the cost is a function of many factors and is very
site specific.
States and communities are faced with a whole host of other mandates,
such as schools, roads, prisons, bridges, and health care, not just environ-
mental. All of these costs affect a community's ability to pay.
-------
IV
DATA
AND
tons
PRESENTATION
PROJECTED HOUESHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENIURONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
RESULTS AT A GLANCE
This section consists of a series of graphics that depict the study results in a variety of
formats, provide a description of the purpose of each category of graphics, and inter-
pret the results shown by those graphics.
Tables and Figures
TABLES 1-4
Size of Sample.
TABLES 5-8
Ranking of Sample Communities by Cost (high to low) for Each
Program Area & for 41 3-Media Communities.
FIGURE 1
Projected Annual Costs for 3-Media Communities Ranked by
Households Served.
FIGURES 2-9
Bar Carts Showing Percent of Communities vs. Projected Costs and
Percent Median Household Income for Each Media and Combined
Media.
FIGURE 10
Bar Chart Showing Percent Increase in Household Costs Due to
Future Compliance.
FIGURES 11-14
Line Graphs Showing Percent of Communities With Cost Impacts
Less Than Projected Annual Household Costs for Each Media &
Combined Media.
FIGURE 15 (BAR CHART)
Sample Wfrstewater Communities With Costs Greater Than 1.5%
MHI (sorted by number of households served).
TABLES 9-10
Cost Tables (by state and media).
TABLES 11-16
Summary database
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
SIZE OF SAMPLE
Tables 1-4 show the sample size in perspective by state and by media.
- Table 1 - the total number of communities in each state.
- Table 2 - the total number of public systems serving municipalities in each
state.
- Table 3 - the number of systems sampled, per program area and by state.
- Table 4 - the number of communities in this study where data could be
obtained in all three program areas.
STATE
TOWNSHIPS/CITIES
Connecticut
169
Maine
492
Massachusetts
351
New Hampshire
234
Rhode Island
39
Vermont
255
Totals
1,540
IV
DATA
AND
RESULTS
PRESENTATION
Table 2 TOm»TOMBEROFyOTIJC«^^
STATE
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Totals
WASTEWATER
84 *
154
231
98
19
125
711
SOLID WASTE
119
36
345
40
4**
11**
555
WATER
604 ***
118
517***
124
30
160
1,553
PUBLIC SYSTEMS
807
308
1,093
262
53
296
2,819
125 communities receive wastewater service in Connecticut.
Rhode Island has 4 solid waste districts (one of which receives 93% of
the state's municipal solid wastes.); Vermont has 11 districts serving
all communities in the state.
The number of water supply systems in Connecticut and Massachusetts
includes small private systems.
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE^JNVESJMENTS
IV
DATA
AND
RESULTS
PRESENTATION
tlaMeS PU8IJK:S¥SIEMSS^
STATE
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Totals
WASTEWATER
14
11
15
18
5
30
93
SOLID WASTE
6
5
16
40
5
16
88
WATER
13
8
19
39
4
25
108
PUBLIC SYSTEMS
33
24
50
97
14
71
289
ToMe4
NUMBER OF THREE MEDIA COMMUNITIES PER STATE
NUMBER OF COMMUNITIES FACING FUTURE CAPITAL COSTS IN:
STATE
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Totals
3-MEDIA
2
4
7
2
1
0
16
2-MEDIA
9
1
1
0
3
8
22
1-MEDIA
1
0
2
0
0
0
3
TOTAL COMMUNITIES
12
5
10
2
4
8
41
10
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
RANKING OF SAMPLE COMMUNITIES BY COST (HIGH i|§
LOW) FOR EACH PROGRAM AREA & FOR 41 3-MEDIA-:w
COMMUNITIES* ••-. - ; : \,:^.: . ,^^:J1M
Tables 5 - 8 list the sample communities. Residential cost information is provided in
terms of projected future costs per year and as percent of median household income.
The communities are sorted in descending order by projected annual household costs.
- Tables 5 - 7 list the sample communities by media.
- Table 8 ranks the 41 three-media communities by projected future annual
household costs and shows percent of median household income for those
communities.
RESULTS SHOW:
Residential cost projections vary widely among the three media and
within eacJi media.
Maximum projected future annual costs per community range from:
- $2,819 down to $71 in wastewater ($378 median value);
- $979 to $4 for solid waste ($204 median value);
- $1,073 to $85 for drinking water ($272 median value).
Communities exhibited the following ranges in percent median
household income:
- 7.65% - 0.17% MHI wastewater;
- 3.06% - 0.01% MHI solid waste;
- 4.30% - 0.19% MHI drinking water.
In the 41 3-media* communities, costs ranged from:
- $1,692 - $338 max. annual cost ($898 median value);
- 6.19%-0.72% MHI.
IV
DATA
AND
RESULTS
PRESENTATION
* See page 5 for definition of 3-media community.
11
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
• m v v — . .... ... .. ... .. .. . _ ._ _
• •K^ WHeS PROTECTED COSTS FOR WASTEWATER COMMUNITIES SURVEYED. RANKED
H^^^^^^^B BY ANNUAL COST PER HOUSEHOLD
DATA
AND
im*\\J
RESULTS
PRESENTATION
COMMUNITY PROJECTED
Oak Bluffs, MA
Charlton, MA
Newtown, CT
Ashfield, MA
Rangeley, ME
Thomaston, ME
Rollinsford, NH
N Brookfield, MA
Marshfield, MA
Rochester, NH
ColdbrookFDl, VT
Chicopee, MA
Northfield, VT
Fort Kent, ME
Scituate, MA
Bridgeport, CT
Jaffrey, NH
Brandon, VT
Sherburne, VT
Springfield, VT
Milford, NH
New Haven, CT
Boston, MA
Pittsford, VT
Barton, VT
Manchester, MA
Woodstock, VT
Randolph, VT
Swanton, VT
Newport City, VT
Orwell, VT
New Bedford, MA
Enosburg, VT
Bangor, ME
Winooski, VT
Milton, MA
Westboro, MA
Augusta, ME
Lisbon, ME
Orleans, VT
Bar Harbor, ME
Portland, ME
Richford, VT
Fair Haven, VT
West Warwick, RI
Chelsea, VT
Bridgewater, VT
(Continued on page 13>
COSTS PER YEAR ($)
$2,819
1,607
1,428
1,059
1,054
894
857
814
769
719
705
694
688
678
650
641
625
623
591
565
552
530
500
489
483
480
480
476
476
468
467
459
453
435
431
431
429
429
412
411
405
401
398
396
396
378
372
% MEDIAN HH
INCOME
7.65% ( X)
3.20 V_X
1.98
2.68
3.90
2.98
1.92
2.16
1.33
1.79
2.58
2.03
2.94
2.89
1.06
1.89
1.62
2.69
1.87
2.29
1.20
1.73
1.45
1.55
2.81
0.77
1.81
1.79
2.13
2.31
1.87
1.71
2.01
1.49
1.60
0.68
0.82
1.41
1.35
1.92
1.29
1.28
2.05
1.64
1.06
1.48
1.25
^SBM
12
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
Table 5 PROTECTED COSTS FOR WASTEWATER COMMUNITIES SURVEYED. RANKED 1
BY ANNUAL COST PER HOUSEHOLD (CONTINUED) ^1
COMMUNITY PROJECTED
Rutland, VT
Morrisville, VT
Bath, ME
Ashland, NH
Jewett City, CT
Manchester, CT
Dover-Foxcroft, ME
Hampton, NH
Berlin, NH
W. Rutland, VT
Johnston, RI
N. Providence, RI
Providence, RI
Portsmouth, NH
Nashua, NH
Lebanon, NH
Hardvvick, VT
Bellows Falls, VT
Milo, ME
Brighton, VT
Mars Hill, ME
Castleton, VT
Keene, NH
New Market, NH
Montpelier, VT
Greenfield, MA
Waterbury, CT
Durham, NH
Farmington, NH
Epping, NH
Manchester, NH
W. Hartford, CT
Orange, MA
Vergennes, VT
Newington, NH
Bennington, VT
Bloomfield, CT
Windsor, CT
Hartford, CT
Wethersfield, CT
Westfield, MA
Rocky Hill, CT
E. Hartford, CT
Merrimack, NH
Charlestown, RI
COSTS PER YEAR ($)
353
349
337
337
328
326
326
324
320
320
314
314
314
308
302
294
293
289
287
283
281
279
271
271
270
268
250
238
227
209
207
205
193
188
187
184
178
171
163
154
140
138
129
116
71
% MEDIAN HH INCOME
1.39
1.80
0.95
1.12
2.26
0.68
1.16
0.67
1.08
1.11
0.81
0.84
1.20
0.85
0.63
0.77
1.32
1.34
1.05
1.55
1.30
0.92
0.73
0.71
0.98
0.85
0.69
0.47
0.62
0.48
0.55
0.35
0.62
0.75
0.35
0.74
0.31
0.29
0.62
0.30
0.35
0.18
0.30
0.18
0.17
DATA
AND
RESULTS
PRESENTATION
13
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
IV
Table 6 PROIECTED COSTS FOR SOLID WASTE COMMUNITIES SURVEYED, RANKED
BY ANNUAL COST PER HOUSEHOLD
COMMUNITY PROJECTED COSTS PER YEAR ($) % MEDIAN HH INCOME
DATA
AND
FRBENTATION
Moultonboro, NH
ErroLNH
Milton, NH
Rehobeth, MA
Groton, NH
Effingham, NH
Shelburne, VT
Bennington, VT
Kingston, NH
Plainfield, VT
Northfield, VT
Montpelier, VT
Swanton, VT
Tuftonboro, NH
Newport City, VT
Orleans, VT
Barton, VT
New Hampton, NH
Groton, CT
Fair Haven, VT
Farmington, NH
Freedom, NH
Alton, NH
Thornton, NH
Winchester, NH
Harrisviile, NH
Deerfield, NH
Troy, NH
Windham, NH
Whitefield, NH
Unity, NH
Chester, NH
Marshfield, MA
Hardwick, VT
Colebrook, NH
Morrisville, VT
Wakefield, NH
Tamworth, NH
Bellows Falls, VT
Ashland, NH
Manchester, MA
Milton, VT
Hinesburg, VT
Richmond, VT
Goffstown, NH
Hampton, NH
Marborough, NH
Bedford, NH
(Continued on page 15 i
$979
811
692
526
494
432
422
389
372
371
371
371
345
335
321
321
320
313
310
309
309
309
302
301
300
287
274
272
263
259
255
254
253
247
242
241
234
232
227
222
214
206
206
206
204
199
196
189
2.81%
3.06
1.78
0.93
1.26
1.47
1.10
0.96
0.67
1.10
1.34
1.13
1.31
0.94
1.34
1.27
1.57
0.79
0.77
1.04
0.84
0.86
0.82
0.78
0.90
0.69
0.56
0.78
0.76
0.92
0.69
0.46
0.44
0.94
0.84
1.05
0.70
0.77
0.89
0.74
0.34
0.54
0.43
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.53
0.25
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
Table 6 PROIECTED COSTS FOR SOLID WASTE COMMl
IMIIlXSlJliyEYEO. R^p|D>'"S;l3
BY ANNUM COST PER HOUSEHOLD (CONTIMIED) ;; -? 11 1
COMMUNITY PROJECTED
ColdbrookFDl, VT
Nashua, NH
Manchester, NH
Sanbomton, NH
Greenfield, MA
Exeter, NH
Lisbon, ME
Walpole, NH
Hinsdale, NH
Merrimack, NH
Southampton, MA
Manchester, CT
N Brookfield, MA
Derbv, CT
New Bedford. MA
Berlin, NH
Westfield, MA
Pittsford. VT
Littleton, NH
Providence. RI
Augusta, ME
Waterbury, CT
Charlestown, RI
New Haven, CT
Westboro, MA
Orange, MA
New Ipswich, NH
Yarmouth, MA
Portland, ME
Rangeley, VIE
Edgartown, MA
Mars Hill, ME
Chicopee, MA
Newtown, CT
West Warwick, RI
N. Providence, RI
Scituate, MA
New Canaan, CT
Dover-Foxcroft, ME
Johnston, RI
Fairhaven, MA
COSTS PER YEAR ($)
185
180
177
166
163
162
161
160
159
156
154
149
137
136
133
129
120
119
114
110
109
104
101
95
76
76
73
/ 2,
68
68
65
64
64
63
54
51
49
42
36
35
4
% MEDIAN HH INCOME
0.57
0.51
0.47
0.42
0.51
0.37
0.53
0.49
0.50
0.25
0.29
0.26
0.36
0.32
0.50
0.44
0.30
0.32
0.38
0.42
0.36
0.29
0.24
0.31
0.24
0.24
0.15
0.22
0.22
0.25
0.15
0.30
0.19
0.09
0.14
0.13
0.08
0.04
0.10
0.09
0.01
DATA
AND
RESULTS
PRESENTATION
15
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
Table 7 PROIECTED COSTS FOR DRINKING WATER COMMUNITIES SURVEYED.. RANKED
BY ANNUAL COST PER HOUSEHOLD
COMMUNITY PROJECTED COSTS PER YEAR ($) % MEDIAN HH INCOME
DATA
AND
RBUITS
teNTATION
N. Hero, VT
Wells River, VT
Berlin, NH
Fairfax, VT
Rutland Town, VT
Rangeley, ME
Bartlett/NH
Richmond, VT
Hyde Park, VT
Woodsville, NH
Manchester, CT
W. Rutland, VT
Bellows Falls, VT
Hinesburg, VT
Bridgeport, CT
Hardwick, VT
Jeffersonville, VT
New Haven, CT
Ashland, NH
Ossipee, NH
Milton, VT
Augusta, ME
Southampton, MA
Tisbury, MA
N. Stratford, NH
Milo, ME
Lebanon, NH
Freedom, NH
VVolfeboro, NH
Ashfield, MA
Andover, NH
Windsor, VT
Bethlehem, NH
Swanton, VT
Jaffrey, NH
Pittsfbrd, VT
N.Bennington, VT
N Brookfield, MA
Edgartown, MA
Fair Haven, VT
Boscawen, NH
Adams, MA
Orleans, MA
Marshfield, MA
Morrisville, VT
Manchester, MA
Jewett City, CT
New Hampton, NH
Dover-Foxcroft, ME
Concord, NK
Stowe Village, VT
Hanover, NH
Plainfield, VT
Northfield, VT
/Continued on page 17)
$1,073
805
672
639
563
551
546
545
530
514
488
488
477
463
448
422
418
418
393
389
387
385
377
375
372
370
368
367
366
361
360
359
356
353
352
344
326
321
321
320
315
314
312
312
308
308
305
296
296
294
277
274
274
272
3.04
4.30
2.27
1.79
1.45
2.04
1.62
1.29
2.10
1.65
1.02
1.70
2.22
1.15
1.32
1.91
1.26
1.37
1.30
1.31
1.21
1.26
0.71
1.12
1.40
1.35
0.97
1.02
1.05
0.66
1.23
1.18
1.04
1.58
0.91
1.09
1.24
0.85
0.75
1.27
0.85
1.06
0.89
0.54
1.59
0.49
2.11
0.75
1.05
0.71
1.33
0.45
0.96
1.16
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS^
Table 7
PROTECTED COSTS FOR DRINKING WATER COMMUNITIES SURVEYED, RANKED
BY ANNUAL COST PER HOUSEHOLD (CONTINUED)
IV
COMMUNITY PROJECTED COSTS PER YEAR ($) % MEDIAN HH INCOME
Portland, ME
Bristol,, YT
Newport, NH
Tilton, NH
West Warwick, RI
Hartford, YT
New London, NH
Newport City, YT
Groveton, NH
Salem, NH
Laconia, NH
Mars Hill, ME
Carroll NH
Keene, NH
Oak Bluffs, MA
W. Hartford, CT
Meredith, NH
Lancaster, NH
Campton Free., NH
Littleton, NH
Newtown, CT
Troy, NH
Orange, MA
Scituate, MA
Fort Kent, ME
Pittsfield, NH
Goffstown, NH
Providence, RI
N. Providence, RI
Bloomfield, CT
Contoocook, NH
Windsor, CT
Somersworth, NH
Bangor, ME
Hartford, CT
Portsmouth, NH
Greenfield, MA
Exeter, NH
Milton, MA
Gorham, NH
Chicopee, MA
Charlestown, RI
Wethersfield, CT
Rocky Hill, CT
Hillsboro, NH
Fairhaven, MA
E. Hartford, CT
Proctor, YT
Lincoln, NH
Hancock, NH
Agawam, MA
Waterbury. CT
\Vestfield,' MA
New Bedford, MA
272
266
264
258
256
251
248
243
242
239
237
236
230
226
221
221
217
215
214
205
201
200
199
198
196
195
195
193
193
192
189
184
183
178
177
176
175
175
173
168
167
166
166
149
149
144
139
136
134
126
121
118
115
85
0.86
1.06
0.62
0.76
0.68
0.80
0.45
1.20
0.78
0.62
0.69
1.09
0.75
0.61
0.60
0.38
0.68
0.64
0.60
0.67
0.28
0.57
0.64
0.32
0.83
0.56
0.39
0.74
0.50
0.34
0.34
0.31
0.47
0.61
0.67
0.49
0.55
0.41
0.28
0.41
0.49
0.39
0.32
0.19
0.37
0.40
0.32
0.49
0.52
0.26
0.27
0.33
0.29
0.32
DATA
AND
RESULTS
PRESENTATION
17
-------
IV
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
Table 8 PROTECTED COSTS FOR COMMUNITIES WITH AVAILABLE DATA FOR WASTEWATER,
SOLID WASTE, AND DRINKING WATER, RANKED BY COMBINED ANNUAL COST PER HOUSEHOLD
DATA
AND
RESULTS
PRESENTATION
COMMUNITY
Newtown, CT
Rangeley, ME
Marshfield, MA
Northfield, VT
Bridgeport, CT
Swanton, VT
N. Brookfield, MA
Berlin, NH
Milton, MA
New Haven, CT
Newport City, VT
Fair Haven, VT
Manchester, MA
Bellows Falls, VT
Manchester, CT
Hardwick, VT
Pittsford, VT
Ashland, NH
Chicopee, MA
Augusta, ME
Morrisville, VT
Scituate, MA
Jewett City, CT
Portland, ME
West Warwick, RI
New Bedford, MA
Dover-Foxcroft, ME
Providence, RI
Greenfield, MA
Windsor, CT
Mars Hill, ME
N. Provdence, RI
W. Hartford, CT
Bloomfield, CT
Waterbury, CT
Orange, MA
Hartford, CT
Rocky Hill, CT
E. Hartford, CT
Westfield, MA
Charlestown, RI
PROJECTED COMBINED COSTS
PER YEAR (DOLLARS)
$1,692
1,673
1,334
1,331
1,214
1,174
1,135
1,121
1,048
1,043
1,032
1,025
1,002
993
963
962
952
952
925
923
898
897
809
741
706
677
658
617
606
592
581
558
487
487
472
468
459
415
378
375
338
% MEDIAN HH INCOME
2.35%
6.19
2.30
5.70
3.57
5.24
3.37
3.78
1.67
3.41
5.15
4.24
1.60
4.61
2.02
4.34
3.02
3.15
2.70
3.02
4.63
1.46
2.39
2.36
1.89
2.53
2.34
2.35
1.92
1.00
2.69
1.46
0.83
0,86
1.31
1.51
1.75
0.72
0.87
0.95
0.79
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
PROJECTED ANNUAL COSTS FOR 3 MEDIA COMMUNITIES
RANKED BY HOUSEHOLDS SERVED
One goal of the study was to look at the cumulative impact of the costs of compliance
on communities. Figure 1 shows the effect of community size on the cost data, per
program area (wastewater, solid waste, and drinking water) and collectively, for the 41
communities in the study with cost information in all three program areas.* The com-
munities are ranked by households served in descending order. General benchmarks
separate groups of communities.
RESULTS SHOW:
Cost projections vary widely among communities of different sizes;
extreme costs are projected for both small and large communities.
This study included a high proportion of small communities. In this
particular subset of the data (3-media communities), 68 percent of the
communities are small (< 10,000 households).
IV
DATA
AND
RESULTS
PRESENTATION
* The 41 "3-media" communities are those for whom states had cost information in
all three program areas (wastewater, solid waste and drinking water). All 41 commu-
nities face future capital costs associated with an environmental mandate in at least
one program area; in those communities, costs in the other two program areas repre-
sent past compliance costs that are included in the base or current annual cost.
Twenty-two communities face future capital costs in two areas; 16 face future capital
costs in all three program areas. (See page 5 for further explanation.)
19
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL. INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
DATA
AND
RESULTS
PRESENTATION
Wdstewater, Solid Waste and Drinking Water Costs
Combined for 41 3 Media Communities
(Communities sorted by households served in descending order)
Community
Providence, RI
Bridgeport, CT
Hartford, CT
New Haven, CT
Waterbury, CT
• Wastewater
D Solid Waste
• Drinking Water
• of Households: 10.OOO - 35 000
New Bedford, MA
W. Hartford, CT
E. Hartford, CT
Portland, ME
Manchester, CT
Chicopee, MA
West Warwick, RI
N. Providence, RI
Windsor,
Milton,
Westfield, MA
Bloomfield, CT
Newtown, CT
Rocky Hill, CT
Greenfield, MA
Augusta, ME
Berlin, NH
Charlestown,
Scituate,
Manchester, MA
Marshfield, MA
Bellows Falls, VT
Swanton, VT
Newport City, VT
Jewett City, CT
Dover-Foxcroft, ME
Orange, MA
N. Brookfield, MA
Hardwick, VT
Morrisville, VT
Mars Hill, ME
Northfield, VT
Rangeley, ME
Fair Haven, VT
Pittsford, VT
Ashland, NH
500 1,000 1,500
Projected Annual Rate (Dollars)
2,000
Indicated trends are for the surveyed communities. These trends may not be representative of all
affected communities.
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
BAR CHARTS SHOWING PERCENT OF COMMUNITIES VS.
PROJECTED COSTS AND PERCENT MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD
INCOME FOR EACH MEDIA AND COMBINED MEDIA
Figures 2-9 show the overall distribution of community cost projections for individ-
ual program areas and for the 3-media combined. The charts show the cost ranges
within which the greatest number of communities fall, as well as overall range of the
"outlying" communities. For each program area (wastewater, solid waste, and drink-
ing water), and for the 3-media combined, there are two charts. The first shows the
distribution of communities (in terms of % of communities) vs. projected annual
costs. The second in each set shows the distribution of communities vs. percent medi-
an household income (% MHI).
RESULTS SHOW:
The communities tend to cluster in definite cost ranges, which are dif-
ferent for the three program areas. Generally, the costs for waste-
water are higher than for drinking water, and both are higher than
costs for solid waste.
The biggest grouping of wastewater impacts falls within the $300-500 per year and 1-
2% MHI ranges. The biggest grouping of solid waste impacts falls within the $100-400
per year and 0.5% MHI ranges. The biggest grouping of drinking water impacts falls
within the $200-400 per year and 0.5-1.5% MHI ranges. For the 3-media communi-
ties, the range is generally from $400-1,300 per year with peaks at $500 and $1,000.
The distribution of communities is fairly broad, ranging from 1-4% MHI, with sever-
al communities exceeding 4% MHI.
HV
DATA
AND
RESULTS
PRESENTATION
21
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
Waste water: Projected Annual Household Costs
Percent of Communities vs. Dollars Per Year Per Household (current dollars)
DATA
AND
RESULTS
PRESENTATION
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 >1400
Projected Annual Cost (dollars per year)
92 communities; 3 extreme values over J1400
Waste water: Projected Annual Household Costs
Percent of Communities vs. Percentage of Median Household Income
=
V
30
25
20
15
10
I Wastewater
I
0.5 1.0
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Projected Annual Cost (%MHI)
>6.0
92 communities
Indicated trends are for the surveyed communities. These trends may not be representative of all
affected communities.
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
Solid Waste: Projected Annual Household Costs
Percent of Communities vs. Dollars Per Year Per Household (current dollars)
89 communities
200 400 600 800 1000
Projected Annual Cost (dollars per year)
Solid Waste: Projected Annual Household Costs
Percent of Communities vs. Percentage of Median Household Income
60
50
1
40
<*. 30
0
1
20
10
I Solid Waste
1.0
2.0 3.0 4.0
Projected Annual Cost (%MHI)
5.0
89 communities
JATA
AND
RESULTS
PRESENTATION
Indicated trends are for the surveyed communities. These trends may not be representative of all
affected communities.
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
i a in•;
Drinking Water: Projected Annual Costs
Percent of Communities vs. Dollars Per Year Per Household (current dollars)
DATA
AND
RESULTS
PRESENTATION
108 communities
200 400 600 800 1000
Projected Annual Cost (dollars/year)
Drinking Water: Projected Annual Costs
Percent of Communities vs. Percentage of Median Household Income
0.5 1.0
Projected Annual Cost (%MHI)
108 communities
Indicated trends are for the surveyed communities. These trends may not be representative of all
affected communities.
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
• a [«•!
Three Media Communities: Projected Annual Household Costs
Percent of Communities vs. Combined Annual Cost (dollars per year per household)
s
I
AND
RESULTS
PRESENTATION
4i communities have an
three media represented
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1600
Projected Annual Cost (dollars per year)
• a mil ;<
Three Media Communities: Projected Annual Household Costs
_ Percent of Communities vs. Percentage of Median Household Income _
20
15
10
0.5 1.0
41 communities have all
three media represented
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Projected Annual Cost (%MHI)
Indicated trends are for the surveyed communities. These trends may not be representative of all
affected communities.
-------
DATA
AND
RESULTS
PRESENTATION
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
BAR CHART SHOWING THE PERCENT INCREASE IN
HOUSEHOLD COSTS DUE TO FUTURE COMPLIANCE
Figure 10 shows the economic impact of future compliance with environmental man-
dates for the 41 3-media communities. The percent increase in cost for each commu-
nity is calculated by taking the difference between the combined projected rate and
current rate and dividing that difference by the current rate (data are taken from right-
hand "total" columns in Tables 11-16*):
projected rate - current rate = percentage rate increase
current rate
Figure 10 shows the distribution of percentage rate increases for the 41 3-media com-
munities in the study.
RESULTS SHOW:
Of the 41 3-media communities studied, the majority of communities
(68.2%) face cost rate increases between 25 percent and 75 percent.
A smaller proportion (17.1%) face costs that represent less than a 25
percent increase; 9.8 percent of the communities face cost increases
between 75 and 150 percent; 4.9 percent (two communities) face cost
increases greater than 150 percent.
*The column for projected cost rate in Tables 11-16 is labeled as "max. rate."
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
Percent Increase in Houshold Costs Due to Future
Compliance for 41 Three-Media Communities Surveyed
Percentage Rate Increase vs. Percentage of Communities
35.0%
0.0%
<25%
0
34.1% (14)
34.1% (14)
41 3-media
communities
25-50% 50-75% 75-150%
Percentage Rate Increase
>150%
AND
RESULTS
PRESENTATION
Indicated trends are for the surveyed communities. These trends may not be representative of all
affected communities.
-------
DATA
AND
RESULTS
PRESENTATION
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
LINE GRAPHS SHOWING PERCENT OF COMMUNITIES
WITH COST IMPACTS LESS THAN PROJECTED ANNUAL
HOUSEHOLD COSTS FOR EACH MEDIA & COMBINED
MEDIA
Figures 11-14 show the cumulative distribution of cost projections for communities
in the study in terms of percent of communities with costs less than a given project-
ed annual household cost vs. annual costs or % MHI. Graphs 1 and 2 are useful for
comparing data from the three program areas. Graphs 3 and 4 show the cumulative
distribution of cost projections for the 3-media communities in the same terms. These
graphs are useful for picking out percentages of households paying less than or equal
to critical levels of cost. Using these graphs, it is possible to determine maximum
annual cost or % MHI for a given percentage of communities. Alternately, the graphs
can be used to pick a given annual cost or % MHI to see what percentage of commu-
nities have rates equal to or less than that value.
y*.
RESULTS SHOW:
Results from these graphs depend on what specific levels of cost or
what percent of communities are of interest to the reader. For exam-
ple, 20 percent of the communities sampled for wastewater had future
annual costs less than approximately $200.
28
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
Projected Annual Household Costs by Media
Percent of Communities with Rates less than Annual Household Costs (current dollars)
S Wastewater
+ Solid Waste
* Drinking Water
200
400 600 800 1000
Projected Annual Cost (dollars)
1200
1400
DATA
AND
RESULTS
PRESENTATION
• B »!•
Comparison of Projected Annual Household Costs by Media
Percent of Communities with Rates less than the Percentage of Median Household Income
100
80
60
EM
S«
u
<—
0
i
40
20
i A
-e-
>i< >k.
•B Wastewater
+ Solid Waste
T Drinking Water
0.5 1.0
2.0 3.0 4.0
Projected Annual Cost (%MHI)
5.0
6.0
Indicated trends are for the surveyed communities. These trends may not be representative of all
affected communities.
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
• a [«•
Projected Annual Household Costs
of the 41 Three-Media Communites
Percent of Communities with Rates less than Projected Annual Household Costs (current dollars)
DATA
AND
RESULTS
PRESENTATION
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Projected Annual Cost (wastewater + solid waste + drinking water) (dollars)
Projected Annual Household Costs
of the 41 Three-Media Communites
Percent of Communities with Rates less than the Percentage of Median Household Income
0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0+
Projected Annual Cost (wastewater + solid waste + drinking water)(%MHI)
Indicated trends are for the surveyed communities. These trends may not be representative of all
affected communities.
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
SAMPLE WASTEWATER COMMUNITIES WITH COSTS
GREATER THAN 1.5% MHI (SORTED BY NUMBER OF
HOUSEHOLDS SERVED)
Figure 15 foctises on the annual costs for the subsection of wastewater communities
that have costs greater than 1.5% MHI. The communities are sorted by number of
households served in descending order. The sorting screen of 1.5% MHI was chosen
simply to enable presentation of a data subset that would fit easily on one page. (See
Table 5. for a complete data set of wastewater communities.) Although the 1.5% MHI
level has been mentioned in the proposed Clean Water Act revisions, use of this same
level here does not represent an endorsement of that level as a cut-off point for afford-
ability.
RESULTS SHOW:
This chart shows that the universe of communities studied with
costs > 1.5% MHI includes both large and small communities
(<1,000 households served).
DATA
AND
RESULTS
PRESENTATION
31
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
DATA
AND
RESULTS
PRESENTATION
Wastewater: Projected Annual Costs (dollars)
Communities with costs exceeding 1.5% MHI
(Communities sorted by households served in descending order)
Community
Households served between 14.500 and 53,000
Bridgeport, CT
New Haven, CT
New Bedford, MA
Wastewater
I Households served between 3,500 and 14,000
Chicopee, MA
Newtown, CT
l.OOO and 3.500
Rochester, NH
Springfield, VT
Newport City, VT
Swanton, VT
Woodstock, VT
Winooski, VT
N. Brookfield, MA
Randolph, VT
Fort Kent, ME
Sherbume, VT
Thomaston, ME
(affrey, NH
Richford, VT
Morrisville, VT
Enosburg, VT
Brandon, VT
Northfield, VT
Orleans, VT
Barton, VT
Rollinsford, NH
Rangeley, ME
Fair Haven, VT
Pittsford, VT
ColdbrookFDl, VT
Oak Bluffs, MA
Brighton, VT
Charlton, MA
Putney, VT
Ashfleld, MA
Orwell, VT
Households served between 201 and 1.000
500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
Projected Annual Cost (dollars)
Indicated trends are for the surveyed communities. These trends may not be representative of all
affected communities.
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
COST TABLES (BY STATE AND MEDIA)
Tables 9 and 10 provide a state-by-state breakdown of estimated capital costs and %
MHI ranges for each program area.
- Table 9 provides the estimated future capital cost of environmental infra-
structure for the three program areas, by state, for the sampled com-
munities only.
- Table 10 places the costs of compliance for the systems in the study into
three different ranges of % MHI.
RESULTS SHOW:
Overall, these tables show that, for the sampled communities, as far
as future capital costs and % MHI are concerned, infrastructure costs
vary among the program areas: wastewater is most costly, followed by
drinking water, followed by solid waste.
For the sample communities studied:
- Future capital costs for wastewater are estimated at $2.5 billion; Costs for
wastewater systems are fairly evenly distributed among the three ranges of
% MHI, with the greatest number of system costs greater than 1.5% MHI.
- Capital costs for solid waste are estimated at $162 million; the vast major-
ity of the solid waste system costs fall in the 0-0.99% MHI range.
- For drinking water, capital costs are estimated at $742 million; a majority
fall in the 0-0.99% MHI.
IV
DATA
AND
RESULTS
PRESENTATION
33
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
IV
DATA
AND
RESULTS
PRESENTATION
Table? tSTIMATtD FUTURE CAPITAL COST OF COMPLIANCE {$) BY STATE AND PROGRAM
^ ^
STATE
CT
ME
MA
NH
RI
VT
Totals
WASTEWATER
$740,000,000
156,093,000
844,862,000
275,336,000
468,000,000
63,873,000
$2,548,164,000
SOLID WASTE
$31,356,000
834,000
37,237,000
86,921,000
6,448,000
*
$162,796,000
WATER
$539,275,000
13,625,000
45,137,000
61,837,000
50,789,000
31,631,000
$742,294,000
FUTURE CAPITAL COST
$1,310,631,000
170,454,000
927,236,000
423,892,000
525,237,000
95,504,000
$3,452,954,000
* No major future solid waste expenditures predicted in Vermont.
N^
^
STATE
CT
ME
MA
NH
RI
VT
Totals
Systems
WASTEWATER
0-0.99
10
1
6
11
3
3
34
1-1.5
1
5
3
4
2
7
22
>1.5
3
5
6
3
0
20
37
SOLID WASTE
0-0.99
16
5
16
39
5
7
88
1-1.5
0
0
0
1
0
8
9
>1.5
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
WATER
0-0.99
11
3
18
32
4
4
72
1-1.5
2
4
2
7
0
13
28
>1.5
0
1
0
0
0
8
12
Indicated trends are for the surveyed communities. These trends may not be representative of
all affected communities.
34
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS Of MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
Tables 11-16 are summary tables of the entire data base. The tables are presented
alphabetically by state and show the cost data by community and by program areas
of wastewater, solid waste, and drinking water. General cost data for each communi-
ty include number of households and median household income. Program-specific
cost data include: current rate (current annual cost), maximum rate (future annual
cost; maximum rate projected over 20 years in current dollars), and % MHI. % MHI is
based on the maximum rate.
These summary tables contain almost all the basic information used to generate the
graphics used in this report.
IV
DATA
AND
RESULTS
PRESENTATION
35
-------
BTfTTlWlB
Community Number of
Households
CONNECTICUT (wattewater)
3 Media New Haven
Newt own
Waterbury
Manchester
Hartford
E. Hartford
W. Hartford
Wind«or(MDC)
Bloomfield
Rocky Hill
Bridgeport
JvweltOty
2media Wethra1W(MOC)
Ne wing ton
1 Media New Canaan
Derby
aoton
Wind ham
48,986
6.798
43.164
20,745
51,464
20,343
23,916
9,838
7,474
6.577
52.326
1.385
10,470
11,223
6,502
4,974
14.853
8.128
Med. HH
Income
25,811
60.830
30,533
40.290
22,140
36.584
49.642
50,228
47.853
48,538
28704
28.556
43.888
45,48t
91,951
35,808
33,967
29,135
WASTEWATER
Curr. Max. % Med.
Rate Rate Income
230 530 1 .73
195 1428 198
63 250 0.69
304 326 0.68
76 163 0.62
60 129 0.30
96 205 0.35
80 171 0.29
83 178 0.31
65 138 0,29
259 641 1 .89
197 328 1.15
72 154 0.30
87 187 0.35
SOLID WASTE
Curr. Max. % Med.
Rate
91
63
too
149
119
110
61
237
117
128
125
176
0
130
2B2
253
Rate
95
63
104
149
119
110
61
237
117
128
125
176
42
136
310
2B3
Income
0.31
009
029
0.26
0.54
0.30
0.12
0.47
0.24
0.26
043
062
0,04
0.32
0.77
0.76
DRINKING WATER
Curr. Max. %Med. |
Rate Rate Income |
I
401 418 1.37
201 201 0.28
114 118 0.33
442 488 1.02
134 177 0.67
106 139 0,32
169 221 0,38
140 184 031
146 192 0.34
114 149 0.31
372 448 1 32
177 305 1.07
126 166 0.32
154 200 0.37
Total
Cut.
Rate
722
459
277
895
329
276
326
457
346
307
756
550
198
241
0
130
282
253
TOTAL
Total
Max.
Rate
1043
1692
472
963
459
378
487
592
487
415
1214
809
320
367
42
136
310
263
%Med.
Income
3.41
2.35
1.31
2.02
1.75
0.67
0.83
1.00
0.86
0.72
357
239
0.62
0.72
0.04
0.32
0.77
0.76
-------
.......
WASTEWATER
SOLID WASTE
DRINKING WATER
MANE
3 Media
Community
Augusta
Portland
Dover - Fox
Mars Hill
Rongeley
Number ol
Households
(wastewater)
3,938
28.230
1,169
561
357
Med.HH
Income
25,790
26,576
23.785
18,234
22,850
Curr.
Rate
267
256
293
278
331
Max.
Rate
429
401
326
281
1054
%Med.
Income
1.41
1.28
1.16
1.30
3.90
Curr
Rate
105
67
27
61
60
Max. %Med
Rote Income
109
68
36
64
66
0.36
0.22
0.10
0.30
0.25
Curr
Rate
382
220
282
236
205
Max.
Rate
385
272
296
236
551
%Med. |
Income |
1.26
0.86
1.05
1.09
2.04
Total
Curr.
Rate
754
543
602
575
596
TOTAL
Total
Max.
Rat»
923
74 1
658
581
1673
%Med.
Income
3.02
2.36
2.34
2.69
6.19
2 Media
Bangor
Fort Kent
Milo
8.448
779
657
24.674
19.832
23,125
356
222
287
435
678
287
1.49
289
105
130
187
144
178
196
370
0.61
0.83
1.35
486
409
431
613
874
657
2.10
3.72
2.40
1 Media
Bath
Bar Harbor
Thomas ton
2.460
863
698
29.892
26,439
25.332
278
215
444
352
405
894
0.99
1.29
2.98
278
215
444
352
405
894
099
1.29
2.98
-------
HliVillHKI
|
WASTEWATFR
Community
MASSACHUSETTS
3 Media
2 Media
1 Media
Greenfield
Marshfield
Milton
New Bedford
N Brookfield
Manchester
Scituate
Westfield
Chicopee
Orange
Southampton
Ashfietd
Weitboro
Oak Bluffs
Edgartown
Fairhaven
Boston
Orisons
Yarmouth
Tisbury
Agawam
Adams
Rehobeth
Charlton
Number of
Households
(wastewater)
4.994
1.500
8.749
35,000
630
1,572
1,827
7,700
14,000
1,138
674
104
3.000
200
3,297
5,689
228.000
4,078
1,500
2,112
10.500
3,000
1,500
170
Med.HH
Income
26,680
48.986
53,130
22,647
31.868
52,806
52.044
33.498
28,905
26.271
45,132
33.372
44.044
31,117
36,285
30,097
29.180
29,519
27,222
28,285
37.261
25,060
47.748
42,461
Curr.
Rate
126
322
427
113
302
228
319
106
186
193
0
394
0
263
262
Max.
Rate
268
769
431
459
814
480
650
140
694
193
1059
429
2619
500
1607
%Med.
Income
0.85
1.33
0.68
1.71
2 16
0,77
1 06
0.35
2.03
062
268
0,82
765
1 45
3.20
SOLID WASTE
Curr.
Rate
96
162
80
92
137
188
49
88
62
60
41
64
58
2
37
45
Max.
Rate
163
253
444
133
137
214
49
120
64
76
154
76
65
4
72
526
%Mod
Income
0.51
0.44
071
050
0.36
0.34
008
0.30
0.19
0.24
029
024
0,15
0.01
0.22
0.93
DRINKING WATER
Curr.
Rate
132
293
170
69
274
187
198
83
154
199
344
253
186
297
143
312
211
119
313
Max
Rate
175
312
173
85
321
306
198
115
167
199
377
361
221
321
144
312
375
121
314
%Med. |
Income |
I
0.55
0.54
0.28
0,32
0.85
0.49
0.32
0.29
0.49
0.64
0.71
066
060
075
0.40
0.89
1.12
0.27
1.06
Total
Curr.
Rate
356
777
736
280
576
603
566
277
402
452
385
253
458
186
355
145
263
312
37
211
119
313
45
262
TOTAL
Total
Max
Rate
606
1334
1048
677
1272
1002
897
375
925
468
531
1420
505
3040
386
148
500
312
72
375
121
314
526
1607
%Med.
Income
1 92
2.30
1.67
2,53
3.37
1.60
1.46
0.95
2.70
1.51
0.99
3.59
0.97
8.25
090
042
1.45
089
0.22
1.12
0.27
1.06
0.93
3.20
-------
•lirMniata ~~~~
Community Number of
Households
Med.HH
Income
VVA^> i r.vvm en
Curr. Max. %Med.
Rate Rate Income
ov,
Curr.
Rate
l_ii_v v»r*«j i i.
Max.
Rate
%Med.
Income
D RIM KIN G WATF R
Curr. Max. % Med. |
Rate Rate Income
NEW HAMPSHIRE (wastewoter)
3 Media Ashland
Berlin
2 Media Merrimack
Nashua
Lebanon
Manchester
Lisbon
Keene
Portsmouth
Farming ton
Hampton
Jaflrey
New Hampton
Freedom
Littleton
Troy
Exeter
Gotfstown
1 Medio Concord
Tamworth
Epptng
New Market
Rochester
Durham
Marborough
Moultonboro
New Ipswich
New London
Newport
Wolteboco
Satom
Thornton
SheJbune
Unity
Wakefield
Wai pole
Whrtefield
Winchester
Cnrtoll
266
3,275
7,439
17,093
1,838
30.000
483
4,953
4.815
1.OOO
2,500
677
590
376
2.347
793
3,500
4759
10400
875
315
1,190
3,500
812
745
1,164
1.208
930
1,365
2,162
5.736
575
142
393
1,172
1.323
728
1.454
309
25.495
25.040
52,796
40,505
32,221
31,911
25.776
31,235
30.591
31.112
40.929
32.549
33.487
3O.491
25,671
29.511
36,121
4216O
35000
25,552
36,860
32,348
30,807
42,477
31.383
29,476
40,325
46.681
28,036
29.542
44,210
32,821
32,411
31.458
28,171
27.679
23,670
28.196
26000
308
204
96
134
219
148
208
146
284
161
266
273
16O
209
370
218
337 1.12
320 1.08
116 0.18
302 0.63
294 0.77
207 055
412 1.35
271 0.73
308 0.85
227 0.62
324 0.67
625 1 .62
209 0.48
271 0,71
719 1.97
238 0.47
52
83
9
23
34
111
64
92
119
86
50
56
83
122
29
97
239
26
139
138
62
50
49
44
69
2H2
129
156
180
177
161
309
199
313
309
114
272
162
2O4
232
196
979
73
301
422
255
234
160
259
30O
0.74
0.44
0.25
0.51
0.47
0,53
0.84
0.41
079
0.86
038
076
0.37
0.41
0.77
0,53
2.81
0.15
0.78
1.10
0.69
0.70
0.49
0.92
0.90
198
300
309
105
176
223
86
111
189
170
121
123
291
131
166
203
139
56
393
672
368
226
176
352
296
367
205
200
175
195
294
248
2O4
366
323
230
1.30
227
097
0.61
0.49
0,91
0.75
1.02
067
057
0.41
0.39
0.71
0.45
0.62
1 05
062
0.75
TOTAL
Total
Cur.
Rate
558
587
105
157
528
182
319
251
460
225
358
496
205
)97
239
226
204
245
291
29
160
209
370
218
97
239
26
131
166
203
139
139
138
62
50
49
44
69
56
Total
Max.
Plate
952
1121
272
482
662
384
573
497
484
536
523
977
609
676
319
472
337
399
294
232
209
271
719
238
196
979
73
248
204
366
323
301
422
255
234
160
259
300
230
%Med.
Income
3.15
3.78
0.44
1 .01
1.74
1.02
1.88
1.34
1.34
1 .46
1.08
254
1.54
1.87
1.05
1.35
0,79
0.80
0.71
0.77
0.48
0.71
1.97
0.47
0.53
2.81
0.15
0.45
0.62
1.05
0.62
0.78
1.10
0.69
0.70
0.49
0.92
0.90
07^
w
-------
PIM11IBEI
Community
NEW HAMPSHIRE
RoUingatad
Mllford
B«nnington
Colebrook
Bedford
Milton
Sanborntan
Alton
Chwter
DwrfiekJ
Effingham
Errol
Ooton
Harrlavito
Hinadale
Kingston
Tuftonboro
And over
O»ipee
Contoocook
Bartstt
Bethlehem
Boscowen
Hancock
Hanover
Woodsvilte
Laconia
Lancaster
Lincoln
Mwedith
Ooveton
PttlsfiaW
Somersworlh
N. Stratford
Tilton
Campton P
Hillsboro
Gor ham
WASTEWATER SOLD WASTE
Number of
Households
(waatewater)
391
1,739
466
1.005
3,997
483
750
1,262
862
999
320
117
116
345
1,560
1,911
710
125
361
510
250
500
900
190
1,475
604
5.600
1.079
2.000
990
850
615
3.014
119
925
180
770
1.0S2
Mad. HH CUT.
Income Rate
37.741 446
36.792 369
34.375
24.429
63,782
32.888
33.581
31,033
46.429
40.960
24.853
22,361
33,125
35,000
26,753
46.867
30.175
24,674
25,117
46,910
28,485
29.048
31,304
41.318
51,899
26.269
29.116
28,611
22.000
27,057
26.250
29.627
32.866
22.440
28.500
30,298
34,167
35,000
Max. %Med. Curr,
Rate Income Rate
857 1.92
552 1 .27
290
143
X
186
64
124
76
106
148
335
194
94
51
134
123
Max.
Rate
389
242
189
692
166
302
254
274
432
811
494
287
159
372
335
%M«d.
Income
0.96
0.84
0.2S
1.78
042
082
0.46
056
1 47
306
1 26
0.69
0.50
0.67
094
•— I
§
DRINKING WATER
Cur.
Rate
74
121
36
181
186
174
24
233
247
159
110
65
126
100
93
120
81
152
214
55
168
Max
Rate
360
389
189
546
356
315
126
274
514
237
215
134
217
242
195
183
372
258
214
149
168
%Med. |
Income |
I
1.23
1.31
0.34
1.62
1.04
0.85
0.26
0.45
1.65
0.69
0.64
0.52
0.68
0.78
0.56
0.47
1.40
0.76
060
0,37
041
Total
Cat.
Rah.
446
369
290
143
50
186
64
124
76
106
148
335
194
94
51
134
123
74
121
36
181
186
174
24
233
247
159
110
65
126
100
93
120
81
152
214
55
168
TOTAL
Total
Max
Rate
857
552
389
242
189
692
166
302
254
274
432
811
494
287
159
372
335
360
389
189
546
356
315
126
274
514
237
215
134
217
242
195
183
372
258
214
149
168
%Med.
Income
1.92
1.27
0.96
0.84
0.25
1.78
042
082
0.46
0.56
1.47
3.08
1.26
0.69
050
0.67
0.94
1.23
1.31
0.34
1.62
1.04
0.85
0.26
0.45
1.65
0.69
0.64
0.52
0.68
0.78
0.56
0.47
1.40
0.76
0.60
0,37
0.41
-------
WASTEWATER
Community
RHODE ISLAND
3 Media Charles town
Providence
NPr evidence
West Warwick
2 Media JohnstonNBC
TABLE 16 ^^^^^H
Community
VERMONT
3 Media Morrisville
Northed
Far Haven
Bellows Falls
Pittsford
Newport City
Sworrton
Hardwick
2 Media W.Rutland
Barton
Orleans
Montpelier
Pb infield
ColdbtookFDI
Milton
Hineaburg
Richmond
Number of
Households
(wastewater)
2,489
59.529
11.865
12,499
5,900
Med.HH
Income
36,040
22,147
32.321
31,637
32,596
Curr.
Rate
2
121
121
282
121
Max
Rate
71
314
314
396
314
%Med
Income
0.17
1.2O
0.84
1.06
0,81
Curr.
Rate
34
110
51
54
35
WACITPWATCTD
Number qt
Households
(wastewater)
595
520
353
1,5OO
305
1.500
1,500
685
830
450
500
3,100
350
300
1.100
225
310
Mod. HH
Income
19.390
23,370
24.149
21,545
31,569
20,174
22,384
22,148
28.750
17,222
21,400
27.702
28.571
27.335
31.944
40,359
42,177
Ctirr,
Rate
206
269
348
277
359
164
121
180
223
291
203
155
598
Max. % Mad,
Rate
349
688
396
289
489
475
476
293
320
490
411
270
705
Income
1 80
294
1 64
1.34
1.55
2.31
2.13
1.32
1.11
2.81
1.92
0.98
2.58
Curr,
Rale
241
371
309
227
119
321
345
247
320
321
371
371
185
206
206
206
SO LID WASTE
Max.
Rate
101
110
51
54
35
SOLID WASTE
Max.
Rate
241
371
309
227
119
321
345
247
320
321
371
371
185
206
206
206
DRINKING WATER
%Med.
Income
0.24
0.42
0.13
0.14
0.09
Curr.
Rate
159
170
170
166
Max.
Rate
166
193
193
256
%Med.
Income
I
0.39
0.74
0.50
0.68
Total
Curr.
Rate
195
40t
342
502
156
DRINKING WATPR
%Med.
Income
1,05
1.34
1 04
089
0.32
1.34
1.31
0.94
1.57
1.27
1.13
1.10
0.57
0.54
0.43
0.4(
Curr,
Rate
173
200
2S9
435
143
155
295
220
175
159
283
141
452
Max. % Med. |
Rate
306
272
320
477
344
243
353
422
486
274
387
463
545
Income
1.59
1.16
1.27
2.22
1,09
1,20
1.58
1.91
1.70
0.96
1.21
1.15
1.29
Total
Curr
Rale
620
840
946
939
621
640
761
647
398
611
524
526
530
783
489
347
658
TOTAL
Totel
Max.
Rate
338
617
558
706
349
TOTAL
Total
Max.
Rate
898
1331
1025
993
952
1039
1174
962
808
810
732
641
645
890
593
669
751
%Med
Income
0.79
2.35
1 46
1 89
0.90
%Med.
Income
4.63
5.70
4.24
4.61
3.02
5.15
5.24
4.34
2.81
4,70
3.42
2.31
2.26
326
1.86
1.66
1.78
42)
-------
rl
Tinwisi
Community
VERMONT
1 Media Bennington
Chelsea
Woodstock
Richtord
Brandon
Bridgawater
Brighton
Vetgertnes
Snerburne
Enosburg
Orwell
Caatleton
Rutland Crty
Springfield
Winooaki
Randolph
Fairfiw
N, Bennington
Proctor
Wells River
Windsor
Rutland Town
Hyde Park
Stowe Village
Jaffersonville
Putney
N.Hero
Rtistoi
Hartford
Number ol
Households
(wnsteweter}
3.500
193
995
600
595
224
196
1,040
785
595
75
875
4,200
1.800
850
800
120
800
1.1OO
108
990
50
197
17O
157
147
160
600
2300
Med.MH
Income
24,909
25,573
26.477
19,437
23,148
29,666
18.312
24,871
31.687
22,564
25.000
30.255
25.434
24.666
26.688
26.209
36.618
26.375
27,679
18,750
30,375
38,818
Z5.Z50
20.833
33.01 1
29.653
35.313
27,077
35.512
Curr.
Rate
139
279
378
124
393
308
261
128
220
361
247
206
271
343
195
243
395
WASTFWATEH
Wax. %
Rate Income
184
378
4SQ
398
623
372
283
186
591
453
467
279
353
565
431
476
638
0.74
1.48
1.81
2.05
2.69
1.25
1.55
0.75
1.87
2.01
1.87
0.92
1 39
2.29
1 60
1 79
2.15
SOLtO WASTE DRINKING WATER
Curi, Max- % Mod. Cutr. Max. % Med. | Total
Rote Rale Income Rate Hate Income | Cur.
| Rate
139
279
378
124
393
306
261
128
220
361
247
206
271
343
195
243
212 639 1.74 212
284 326 1.24 264
110 136 049 110
312 8O5 4.30 312
173 3J>9 1.18 173
105 563 1.45 105
185 530 2.10 185
198 277 133 198
395 418 1.26 395
395
162 1073 3.04 162
95 26C 1,06 95
162 251 0.80 162
TOTAL
Total
Max.
Rate
184
378
480
398
623
372
283
166
591
453
467
279
353
565
431
476
639
326
136
805
359
563
530
277
418
635
1073
266
251
%M*d.
Income
0.74
1.48
1.81
2.05
2.69
1,25
1.55
0.75
1,87
2.01
1.87
0.92
1.39
2.29
1.60
1.82
1,74
1.24
0.49
4.30
1.18
1.45
2.10
1.33
1,26
2,15
3,04
1.06
0,80
-------
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
INSTRUCTIONS FOR HOUSEHOLD RATE PROJECTION
SPREADSHEET (MODEI^
The following materials provide information on how this model can be used.
Contents
• Instruction on use of the model and verification of data, including
information on:
- data required
- model output
- getting started
- detailed instructions for data entry
- checking model input data and results.
• Attachment A:
- Sample data collection sheets (financial information summary
sheet).
- Blank data collection sheet ^ financial information summary sheet).
• Attachment B:
- Sample spreadsheet.
• Attachment C:
- Equations used in the model to calculate household costs.
V
A
p
p
i
N
D
I
X
A
A-l
-------
V
A
p
p
E
N
D
I
X
A
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
INSTRUCTIONS FOR HOUSEHOLD RATE PROJECTION
SPREADSHEET (MODEL)
The household rate spreadsheet (model) computes annual household costs to pay for the
current budget and projected future capital and new O&M expenses over the next twenty
years in both future and current dollars.
Data Required
• Municipality Name.
• Current Annual Budget (e.g., '93 total budget (usually the budget for the year
before the first year in the rate projection table) - include both operations and
any existing or current annual debt service).
• Annual Revenue by source (e.g.. user charge, taxes, and other).*
• Number of Households.
• Percent Residential Share of Budget (e.g., 0.45 - 0.95).
• Median Household Income (for 1989 from the 1990 census).
• Current Annual Household User Charge.*
• Base Year (year basis of future capital and O&M estimates, e.g., 1991 if in 1991
dollars).
• Future Capital Expenses (fill in for each year in base year dollars, e.g., 1991 dol-
lars).
• New Annual O&M Costs (fill in for the year starting in base year dollars - do
not repeat for the same cost in subsequent years).
• Current Annual Debt Service (this is actually past debt service such as pay-
ments on the existing treatment facility loan that is still (currently) being paid,
these costs are also part of the current annual budget - repeat for each year
until the payments end starting in 1994).
• Future Estimate Source (enter 1 for engineering report, 2 for staff estimate)
* These items are used for checking model input data rather than in the model itself.
Spreadsheet (Model) Output
Based on the above input data the model computes the following for each of the next
20 years:
• New Debt Service (cumulatively).
• Annual Budget (in inflated i.e. future dollars).
• Household Rates in Future Dollars.
• Household Rates in Current (1994) Dollars.
• Percent Median Household Income.
-------
The model also provides:
* Maximum Annual Rate, assuming no inflation and % Mill u? less accurate but
often used approximation'}.
« Maximum .Annual Rate with inflation and % MHI (a more accurate estimate!.
• Total Capital Expenses.
• Total New O&M Expenses,
Setting Spreadsheet Financiai Variables
Near the top of the spreadsheet to the right of the year by year rate projection table are
the financial variables which the user can set. These are:
Variable
inflation
debt interest
loan term
MHI inflation
. . .. . ... .
Abbreviation
infl.
int.
term
MHI infl.
Initial Setting
0,03
0.06
20
0.035
I
N
D
I
I
A
The household rate spreadsheet model was produced in Lotus, but will work in other com-
patible spreadsheet programs. After the spreadsheet is on the screen (see Attachment B),
notice the arrows —> next to each item requiring regular entry. All other cells on the
worksheet are protected.
Attached to these instructions (Attachment A) are completed (examples^ and blank (for
your use) Financial Information Summary Sheets. You may want to make copies of the
blank form to use for recording the required information. After the form is complete, the
data may be entered easily onto the spreadsheet. The spreadsheet already has t\vo exam-
ples {City 1 and City 2) filled in to demonstrate where everything goes,
The second attachment (Attachment B> is a print out of the spreadsheet with two samples
(City I and City 2) filled in which may be helpful to refer to when reviewing the detailed
instructions below. The third attachment I Attachment O is a summary of ail the equa-
tions used in the rate projection spreadsheet which illustrates how each item is calculated.
A-3
-------
JK-
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
V
A
p
p
E
N
D
I
X
A
Detailed Instructions
Municipality Name
Current Budget
Annual Revenue
Number of Households
% Residential Share
Enter municipality name where indicated.
Enter most currently available (e.g., 1993) annual bud-
get for both operations and debt service in thousands
where indicated. The spreadsheet assumption is that
the budget is for the year before the first year in the
rate projection table. A year or two either way, howev-
er, does not make a big difference.
This item appears on the Financial Information
Summary Sheet only, it is not used in the model
except to verify input data. It consists of annual rev-
enue by source, user charges, general taxes, or other.
This item should generally add up to the current bud-
get item above. Therefore, it is a good check on the
budget figure. This information is also useful to help
decide if it is necessary to adjust the number of house-
holds for a large number of non-user charge budget
contributors as described in the last section of these
instructions called "checking model input data."
Enter number of households served (i.e., directly or
indirectly contributing to the budget). If only a small
portion of the community is paying user charges and a
substantial portion of the budget is being paid by a
larger group of taxpayers, then this item may have to
be adjusted or calculated as described below under
checking model input data. If this item or the next
(% res. share) is difficult to obtain, it may be calculated
from current budget and household rates using a sim-
ple ratio equation (also discussed in checking model
input).
Caution: this number is usually larger than the num-
ber of billing accounts. It should include all house-
holds in multi-family dwellings even though they are
not directly billed for service. Census data on the
number of households in the service area are a poten-
tial source.
Enter decimal percent of budget contributed by house-
holds (as opposed to industrial, commercial, and gov-
ernment users).
Median Household Income Enter 1989 MHI from the 1990 census.
Current Annual
Household User Charge
This item appears on the Financial Household User
Information Summary Sheet only, it is not used in the
model except to help verify input data as described
below under "checking model input data." This item
consists of the current typical household user charge.
A-4
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
Base Year
Capital Expenses
New O&M
Current Debt Service
Future Estimate Source
Enter base year of future capital arid O&M estimates
(e.g.. 1993 if in 1993 dollars).
Enter projected capital expenses in thousands (and in
constant base year dollars1) along the capital expense
row in the year column that they are expected to be
incurred. Don't worry if the time frames are approxi-
mate, -/- 5 years is still much better than assuming all
costs in 1994.
Enter projected new O&M expenses in thousands (and
in constant base year dollars1) along the new O&M
row in the year column that they are expected to start
(do not continue to add this amount to subsequent
years because the mode! will carry this into the annual
budget for future years).
Enter current debt service, that is, annual debt costs
from past (e.g., pre -1994) capital expenses which the
municipality is still making annual payments on (e.g.,
building the existing treatment plant), in thousands, in
this row for each year they are anticipated to continue
to be paid (e.g., 2,000 per year for the next four years -
i.e., until the loan is paid off). Note, entries for this
item always start with the first year (1994), can vary
from year to year, and continue until debt is retired.
[Note - Use of this item is optional but if this item is
left blank the model will assume that all current bud-
get costs are for operational expenses and will inflate
and include them for each year of the 20-year model
projection which may be inaccurate for communities
retiring large debts during the 20-year life of this pro-
jection.]
Enter source of future capital and O&M estimates used
(e.g., 1 for engineering report, or 2 for staff estimate).
This item is used to provide an indicator of the confi-
dence in the future cost estimates.
V
A
p
p
E
N
D
I
I
A
1 In the situation where future capital or O&M expenses are projected for several projects
and in different base year dollars, pick the most commonly used base year for the
model and convert the costs given in different years (e.g. x year) to the base year cho-
sen using the formula below.
Costs = Costs x (1 + inf. )(base vr - x >"ean
(base yn (x yean
model initial value for inf. = 0.03
A-5
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
A
Checking Model Input Data and Results
It is important to check (and sometimes adjust) the basic model input data, using other
. available data and current user rates, in order to ensure that the input data will produce as
/\ accurate projections as possible. Below are procedures for: a) checking the base current
n annual budget by comparing expenses to income, and b) checking the ratio of % residen-
f tial share to # of households by comparing it to the ratio of the current user charge to
p current budget.
E • Checking The Current Annual Budget Value
^ The Current Annual Budget value used in the model is total annual expenses for service
_ including operations and debt payments (but just annual payment for past debt, new debt
U is picked up by the model automatically as capital expenses are added in the future).
I BUDGET1993 = ANNUAL O&M1993 + ANNUAL DEBT PAYMENTS1993
X Budget (expenses) should be approximately equal to income (revenue) received from both
user charges and taxes.
INCOME = USER CHARGE (UC) INCOME + TAX INCOME
= BUDGET (EXPENSES) = O&M + DEBT PAYMENTS
Suggestion
Use annual budget (expenses) and income (revenue) data to check each other when deter-
mining the Current Budget value used on the first line of the model. If you can't get both
expense and income data, get the best information possible and use it to develop the bud-
get figure.
• Checking Percent Residential Share And Number of Households Values
Consider the two cases outlined below:
Case 1 (typical situation)
In this case, essentially the same households pay both user charges and, where applicable,
taxes for service. This is the case applicable to most fairly developed cities, towns, and dis-
tricts.
It is very important to check the model input data against the Current User Charge (UC).
For Case 1, the equation for doing this is:
(1) UC = ( TOTAL BUDGET - TAX REVENUE) x (% RESIDENTIAL)
# HOUSEHOLDS
Equation (1) can be rearranged and used to calculate the ratio of % Residential to #
Households, see equation (2) below.
(2) UC = % RESIDENTIAL
(TOTAL BUDGET - TAX REVENUE) # HOUSEHOLDS
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS __
The model uses the ratio of % Residential to # of Households to calculate the household : ^ /
rate for each future year. See equation (3) below, which the model uses to compute future /
year household rates from calculated future budgets (taxes are not subtracted out as in
equation (1) because we want to calculate a HH rate including all costs whether covered 1
by user charges or taxes). Note that it is the ratio of % Residential to # of Households that n.
is important to calculating future year rates, not the particular values of % Residential or # p
of Households.
(3) HH RATE <
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
V
A
Expanding Spreadsheet Capacity
The spreadsheet has household rate projection tables for 36 municipalities (including the
two samples which can be overwritten with actual data if desired). To expand capacity for
more municipalities additional copies of the blank spreadsheet file may be copied (or
_ saved) under different names to create multiple spreadsheets. Another option is to expand
* the spreadsheet by copying blank household rate projection sections of the worksheet
n below the last existing rate projection section. As the spreadsheet gets larger, however, it
will take longer to load and could eventually exceed computer memory capacity.
E
« Spreadsheet Printing
The most important section of the spreadsheet, columns B to Z, with the data entry and
U rate projection information may be printed on a single landscape, 8.5 X 11 page if the
T font size and column widths are reduced. A font size of 5 or 6 and the column widths
shown below should allow columns B to Z to fit on a single landscape page.
X
column width
B 10
C 4
D 3
E 3
F 10
G-Z 4
See Attachments
-------
ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS- APPENDIX A-ATTACHMENT A
Municipality Name:
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
SUMMARY SHEET
/
Completed by:
Date:
Comments:
Annual Revenue
? of Households:
User Charge:
8 , ft 8
coo
Taxes:
Other:
O
% Residential share of Budget:
Income
* V? (as decimal)
ay, d7V
Base Year of Future Capital and O&M Estimates:
Year
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
T*SN^- K 1
rocai
Future
Capital
Exp. (000)
/ 5 78
3 ¥3 3.
^&^ &
/ ? / 2
71/3
/ ?/3
7C*
/£/£
/pay
5?/0/
/ 5 V<£
/?^r
337P
^/s y
/£~7?
^? ft /r ^
•"» cr / fe ^,
Future
New O&M
Exp. (000)
/35
V/
4^^
V7
75
7^
^j?/
/ ^/
Current
Debt Serv.
(000)
BS£5~
S S S^5"
3255"
53(T6~
33C^
S~3£3~
3?Q£"
33>£5~
-33Z&
3'3££~
35*£5~
33rc5~
52<:^
gsc^
S3^5-
S3£3~
gscs*
6
\t
Fut
1 Re
2 Es
/
Est
port
tim.
/
Comments
Note: enter new O&M costs for the first year they occur
-------
APPENDIX A-ATTACHMENT A
SHFORM&TIOM
Completed by:
Date:
////?5"
Municipality Name:
£
Comments:
Annual Revenue
# of Households;
User Charge:
£";
Taxes :
% Residential Share of Budgets
Median Household Income (1989);
(Trora v99Q census)
Base Year of Future Capital and OOJ Estimates:
t 7
f
(as decimal)
Year
Capital
O6K
I
Coramants
1994
/37V
1995
1996
5? 8
1997
1998
1999
2000
31 3-3
///<=>
2001
2002
fl tO
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total
Note: enter new O&M costs for the first year they occur only.
-------
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
SUMMARY SHEET
Completed by:
Date:
Municipality Name:
Current Budget:
(G&H and Capital}
Annual Revenue
# of Households: _
User Charge:
Comments:
Taxes:
Other;
% Residential Share of Budget: .
Median Household Income (1989):
(from 1990 census) v '
Base Year of Future Capital and 0£M Estimates:
(as decimal)
Year
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
20D7
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total
Future
Capital
Exp. (000)
Futur*
New OtM
Exp. (000)
Current
Debt Serv.
(000)
Fut Eat
1 Report
2 Estim.
Comments
Note: enter new O&M costs for the first year they occur only.
-------
HOUSFHOl F> RATE PROJECTIONS
Name >Crty 1 (sample) Cmts.->
Curr. Budget (000) ;•
# of Households - >
Res. Shr of Budget • >
89 Median HH Income >
Base Year (Fut Esl) - >
Est. Source 1 or 2 - >
Tot Cap Exp (000)
Tot. New O&M (000)
Name >Cily 2 (sample)
Curr. Budget (000) >
)C of Households >
FVw. Shr a* Budget >
B9 Median HH Income - >
Ba»e Year (Fut Est) - >
Est. Source 1 or 2 - >
Tot Cap Exp (000)
Tot. New O&M (000)
Name - >
Curr. Budget (000) - >
# of Households - >
Res. Shr of Budget >
89 Median HH Income - >
Base Year (Fut Est) >
Est. Source 1 or 2 - >
Tot. Cap Exp (000)
Tot. New O&M (000)
Name - >
Curr. Budget (000) - >
* of Households >
Re* Shr of Budget >
69 Median HH Income >
Base Yew (Fut Est) - >
Est. Source 1 or ? -- >
Tot. Cap Exp ((XX))
Tot. New O&M (000)
6,059
8,448
0.49
24.674
1992
1
28,163
421
Cmts. - >
7,012
23.580
0.76
26.734
1993
1
14,401
240
Cmte.->
o
0
Cmts.->
0
0
MAX RATES
CURR$
No Infl. 518
%MHI 1,77
W/ Infl 435
%MHI 1.48
MAX RATES
CURR$
No Infl. 274
%MHI 0.86
W/ Infl, 244
%MHI 0.77
MAX RATES
CURR*
No Infl. ERR
% MHI ERR
W/ Infl. ERR
%MHI EHR
MAX RATES
CURR$
No Ml ERR
% MHI ERR
W/ Infl ERR
% MHI ERR
City 1 (sample)
C«p Exp (000) - >
New O&M (000) >
Curr Debt Serv (000) >
New Debt Serv (000)
Budget (000)
Rotes - Future $
Rate«--Curr.$
% Median HH Income
Crty 2 (sample)
Cop Exp (000) - >
New O&M (000) >
Curr Debt Serv (000) >
New Debt Serv (000)
Budget (000)
Hate« — Future $
Rate* --Curr. S
% Median HH Income
0
Cap Exp (000) - >
New O&M (000) - >
Curr Debt Serv (000) - >
New Debt Serv (000)
Budget (000)
Hntes - Future $
Rntes Curr. $
% Median HH Income
0
Cap Exp (000) - >
New O&M (000) - >
Curr Debt Serv (OOQ) >
New Debt Serv (000)
Budget (000)
Rotes - - Future S
Rates- • Curr. S
% Median HH Income
1994
1.278
3.365
118
6,258
363
363
1.24
1,374
4,134
123
7,222
233
233
073
0
0
ERR
ERR
ERR
0
0
ERR
ERR
ERR
1995
2,432
3.365
350
6,573
381
370
1 26
2.000
120
4,134
308
7.623
246
?39
0.75
0
0
ERR
ERR
ERR
0
0
ERR
ERR
FRR
199b
2.898
138
3,365
634
7.096
412
388
1.32
2,598
70
4,134
556
8,042
259
244
077
0
0
ERR
ERR
ERR
0
0
ERR
ERR
ERR
1997
1.912
41
3,365
828
7,432
431
394
1.35
1,950
2,430
747
6,630
214
196
062
0
0
ERR
ERR
EHR
0
0
ERR
FRR
FRR
1998
1,912
3.365
1.027
7,728
448
398
1.36
1 950
2,430
944
6.931
223
198
063
0
0
ERR
ERR
ERR
0
0
ERR
ERR
ERR
1999
1,912
3,365
1,232
6,034
466
402
1 37
860
2.430
1,034
7.127
23O
198
062
0
0
ERR
ERR
ERR
0
0
EHR
ERR
ERR
2000
762
3,365
1,316
8,221
477
399
1.36
1,517
1,110
1,197
6.080
196
164
0.52
0
0
FRR
ERR
ERR
0
0
ERR
EPR
LHR
2001
1,616
3.365
1.500
8,51 1
494
401
1.37
2,152
1.110
1,434
6,431
207
169
053
0
0
ERR
ERR
EHR
0
0
ERR
ERR
LRR
2O02
1,224
3,365
1.643
8,764
508
401
1.37
1,110
1.434
6,547
211
167
0.52
a
0
ERR
ERR
ERR
0
0
ERR
ERR
ERR
?003
2,101
3,365
1,897
9,130
530
4O6
1 38
50
1,434
5625
181
139
0.44
0
0
ERR
ERR
ERR
0
0
ERR
ERR
FRR
?O04
1,248
44
3,365
2.052
9,464
549
408
1 39
1,434
5,750
185
138
043
0
0
ERR
LRR
ERR
0
0
ERR
FRR
FRR
?O05
1,795
3365
?,281
9,815
569
411
1.40
1,434
5,880
190
137
043
0
0
ERR
ERR
ERR
0
0
ERR
ERR
ERR
s
;<
u
•
:
u
•
•
i
S
•
\
Ej
P
\
*
»
ii
\
•
i
j
5
ii
i
|
i
i
jj
2
;
•
j
!
1
i
jj|
1
-------
2006
3,372
3,365
2,726
10,385
602
422
1.44
1,434
6.013
194
136
0.43
0
0
ERR
ERR
ERR
0
0
ERR
ERR
ERR
?007
2.124
47
3.365
3,015
10.875
631
430
1.47
1,434
6.150
196
135
0.43
0
0
ERR
ERR
ERR
0
0
ERR
ERR
FRR
2008
1,577
73
3,365
3,235
1 1,348
658
435
1.48
1,434
6.292
203
134
0.42
0
0
ERR
ERR
ERR
0
0
ERR
ERR
ERR
2009
78
3,365
3,235
11,619
674
433
1.46
1.434
6,438
207
133
0.42
0
0
ERR
ERR
ERR
0
0
ERR
ERR
ERR
2010
3,365
3,235
11.770
683
425
1.45
1.434
6,568
212
132
0.42
0
0
ERR
ERR
ERR
0
0
ERR
ERR
ERR
2011
3,235
8,560
496
300
1.03
1,434
6,742
217
131
0.41
0
0
ERR
ERR
ERR
0
0
ERR
ERR
ERR
2012
3,235
8,720
506
297
101
1.434
6,902
222
131
041
0
0
ERR
ERR
ERR
0
0
ERR
ERR
ERR
2013
3,235
8,884
515
294
1.00
1,434
7,066
228
130
0.41
0
0
ERR
ERR
ERR
0
0
ERR
ERR
ERR
infl. 0.03
int. 0.06
term 20
MHIinfl. 0.035 lAnnua) MHI % increase estimated
from chong* In Northeast CPI
from 131.3 (12/89) to 156,3(12/94))
-------
RATE MODEL CALCULATIONS
ITEM
New Debt Serv
Budget
Rates Future $
Rates Current $
FIRST YEAR
Cap. Exp. x (1 +inf.)'yr-baseyrl
x (A/P,int,n)
(Cur. Bud. - Curr. Debt Serv94)
x (1 +inf.) + Curr. Debt Serv9l1
+ New O&M x (1 +inf.)(vr-basevfl
1000 x (Bud.) x (Res.Share)
# of Households
Rates Future $
+inf.)lvca'-1994"'
SUBSEQUENT YEARS
Prev. Yr New Debt Serv
+ [Cap. Exp. x (1 +inf.)(yr basevr)
x (A/P,int,n)]
(Prev. Yr Bud. - Prev. Yr Curr. Debt Serv
- Prev. Yr New Debt Serv) x (1 +inf.)
+ New O&M x (1+inf.}(yr baseyr|
+ Curr. Debt Serv + New Debt Serv
1000 x (Bud.) x (Res.Sharej.
# of Households
Rates Future $
(1+inf.)(year-19941
' Base year is the year all projected capital and O&M costs are based on e.g. J991 if in 1991 dollars.
" * 1994 and 94 above actually refer to any first year in the rate projection table on the spreadsheet.
(Continncil on pugc A-15)
-------
CALCULATIONS CONTINUED |
MAX RATES CURR $
Maximum Rate With Inflation
@MAX (Rates-Curr. $) [i.e. selects the max from this row in the table]
% Median HH Income With Inflation
(ftMAX (Rates-Curr. $) [i.e. selects the max from this row in the tablel x 100
(89 MHI from 1990 census) x (1 + MHI inf.)'1994 19891
No infl. Max Rate [The no inflation max rate and MHI are included for informational purposes
because rates are often approximated this way. These results are not as
accurate as projections using the above with inflation equations.]
1000 x (Cur. Bud, ± Iot,.Cap. Exp,,x (A/PJjrLn) ..... + Tot, New_Q&M) x (R.es,Sharel
ft of Households
No infl. % Median HH Income
Zero infl. Max Rate [from above equation] x 100 _
(89 MHI from 1990 census) x (1 + MHI inf.)1199* 1<>8!"
Xrt
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
y
A
p
p
E
N
D
I
X
B
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
FINANCIAL INFORMATION SUMMARY SHEET INSTRUCTIONS
The following materials are intended for use by people providing data for the house-
hold rate projection model.
Contents
• Instructions on use of the financial information summary sheet, including:
- data required
- derated instructions
• Sample data collection sheets (financial information summary sheet).
• Blank data collection sheet (financial information summary sheet).
A-16
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE 5NVESTMENTS
FINANCIAL INFORMATION SUMMARY SHEET INSTRUCTIONS
The Financial Information Summary Sheet is used to summarize existing budget and future
planned capital and O&M expenses in a format convenient for further analysis.
Data Required
• Municipality Name.
• Current Annual Budget (e.g., 93 total budget - include both operations and any
existing or current annual debt service),
* Annual Revenue by source (user charge, taxes, and other).
• Number of Households.
• Percent Residential Share of Budget (e.g., 0.45 - 0.95).
• Median Household Income (for 1989 from the 1990 census).
» Current Annual Household User Charge.
Base Year (year basis of future capital and O&M estimates, e.g., 1991. if
dollars).
1991
Future Capital Expenses (fill in for each year in base year dollars e.g.. 1991 dollars
and enter total).
New Annual O&M Costs (fill in for the year starting in base year dollars - do not
repeat for the same cost in subsequent years and entet total).
Current Annual Debt Service (include past debt service such as payments on the
existing treatment facility- repeat for each year until the payments end starting in
1994).
Future Estimate Source (enter 1 for engineering report, 2 for staff estimate).
Detailed Instructions
Municipality Name
Current Budget
Annual Revenue
Number of Households
Enter municipality, district, sewer authority, etc. name
where indicated.
Enter most currently available (.e.g. 1993) annual budget
for both operations and debt service in thousands
where indicated.
Enter annual revenue by source, user charges, general
taxes, or other (please explain). This item should gener-
ally add up to the current budget item above.
Enter number of-househoids served (i.e. directly or indi-
rectly contributing to the budget).
Caution: this number is usually larger than the number of
billing accounts. It should include all households in multi-
familv dwellings even-though they are not directly billed
for service. Census data on the number of households in
the service area are often a good source for this item.
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
V
A
p
p
E
N
D
I
X
B
% Residential Share
Enter decimal percent of budget contributed by house-
holds (as opposed to industrial, commercial, and gov-
ernment users).
Median Household Income Enter 1989 MHI from the 1990 census.
Current Annual
Household User Charge
Base Year
Capital Expenses
New O&M
Enter current typical household user charge (for
wastewater assume 75,000 gal/yr usage).
Enter base year for future capital and O&M estimates
(e.g. 1991 if in 1991 dollars).
Enter projected capital expenses in thousands (and in
constant base year dollars1) down the capital expense
column in the year row that they are expected to be
incurred. Don't worry if the time frames are approxi-
mate, just do the best you can, even (+/- 5 yrs) is still
ok.
Enter projected new O&M expenses in thousands (and
in constant base year dollars1) down the new O&M
column in the year row that they are expected to start
(do not continue to add this amount to subsequent
years).
Enter current debt service (i.e., annual debt costs from
past or pre 1994 capital expenses which the municipal-
ity is still making annual payments on - e.g., building
the existing treatment plant, in thousands, in this row
for each year they are anticipated to continue to be
paid (e.g., 2,000 per year for the next four years - i.e.,
until the loan is paid off). Note entries for this item
always start with the first year (1994), can vary from
year to year, and continue until debt is retired. In
other words, this item stays constant, decreases over
time, and/or finally goes to zero. It does not increase
because new debt is included in capital expenses
above.
1 In Die situation \vtiere future capital or O&M expenses are projected for several pro-
jects ami in different base year dollars, pick the most commonly used base year for
the summary sheet and convert the costs given in different years (e.g., x year) to the
base year chosen using the formula below:
Current Debt Service
Costs = Costs x (1.03)
( base vr ) t x vear I
(bast- vi - \ veari
A-18
-------
ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS- APPENDIX B
FINANCIAL INFORMATION^
SUMMARY SHEET
Completed, by:
Date:
Municipality Name:
Curr-ent Budq^t:
-.
User Charge:
o
Taxes:
Other:
% Residential Share of Budget:
Median Household Income (1989) :
(from 1990 census)
(as deciraal)
Current Annual Household User Cost:
Base Year of Future Capital and O&M Estimates: / 993
Year
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2C09
2010
2011
2012
Future
Capital
Exp. (000)
/ ^y?
P OOO
2 -£~?S
/ ? S~o
/
Future
New O&M
Exp. (000)
7<2o
><=>
^J?
A 9
?£
& 9
current
Debt Serv.
(000)
v/s-y
y^ y
v/^v
pV5co
ay^o
2 V?<^
/ / / 0
// / 0
// / &
} I / 0
o
: ^
K
Fut Est
1 Report'
2 Estin.
/
/
comments
S>esp. L*J. S~/£>e
S*^. -* R cf.
•S-ey^.
)
<^o^^ . Or>*)£?*J_s7r
S r
fj-
f (
&L,I^ S> Srtv?^£il|
ty
t* i-j xX" 1
('/• i
, .
11
1
1
l|
1
1;
Total
-------
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
SUMMARY SHEET
Completed byt
Date:
Municipality Name:
Current Budget:
(O&M and Capital)
Annual Revenue
# of Households:
User Charge:
Subarea:
(for multi overlap areas)
Taxes:
Other:
% Residential Share of Budget: .
Median Household Income (1989):
(frora 1990 census)
(as decimal)
Current Annual Household User Cost:
Base Year of Future Capital and O&M Estimates:
Year
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total
Future
Capital
Exp. (000)
Future
New O&M
Exp. (000)
current
Debt Serv.
(000)
Fut Est
1 Report
2 Estim.
.•-.- - - : .-.: '
Comments
j
1
i
!
i
1
ij
i
i
i
i!
NO 1C:
the first year
-------
APPENDIXC
-------
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS OF MANDATED ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
TECHPBCJkfc CO
The following state and federal staff are members of the Steering Committee and Technical
Committee of the State/EPA Environmental Infrastructure project. The Steering Committee
provided direction and oversight for the project. The Technical Committee members
reviewed the methodology' developed by EPA, decided which infrastructure projects were
required by federal regulation, decided how to collect the data in their particular state for
each program area, and were responsible for data collection. In many cases, staff partici-
pated on both committees.
INFRASTRUCTURE STEERING AND TECHNICAL
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
NOVEMBER 1994 - JANUARY 1995
CONNECTICUT
John Cimochowski - CT DEP, Waste
Mgmt.
Mike Harder - CT DEP, Water Mgmt.
Gerald R. Iwan - CT DPH, Water Supply
Sect.
Bob Norwood - CT DEP, Water Mgmt.
MASSACHUSETTS
Glenn Gilmore - MA DEP, Bur. of Munic.
Facil.
Richard Giorosa - MA DEP, Div. of Solid
Waste
Glenn Haas - MA DEP, Bur. of Munic.
Facil.
Jack Hamm - MA DEP, Bur. of Munic.
Facil.
Stanley Linda - MA DEP, Bur. of Munic.
Facil.
Thomas C. McMahon - MA DEP, Munic.
Assistance
MAINE
Michael Harden - ME DEP, Bur. of HM
RHODE ISLAND
Thomas Epstein - RI DEM, Div. Waste
Mgmt.
Ronald Gagnon - RI DEM, Div. Waste
Mgmt.
Roger Greene - RI DEM, Director's Office
Bob Griffith - RI DEM, Div. of Planning
Ramon Pena - R! DEM, Div. of Water
Resources
Elizabeth Scott - RI DEM, Off. Water
Supply Mgmt.
June Swallow, P.E. - RI Dept. of Health
Warren Towne - RI DEM, Div. Water
Resources
Frederick J. Vincent - RI DEM, Planning
Adm. Serv.
VERMONT
William Brierley - VT DEC
Gary Champy - YT DEC
EPA
David Chin - U.S. EPA - WST
Aaron Gilbert - U.S. EPA - SWGIS
David Breau - ME Dept. of Health Services Gerry Levy - U.S. EPA - HAA
Dennis Purington - ME DEP, Bur. of WQ
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Bradford Foster - NH DES, W
------- |