33 Miss. Code. R. 7-VI
The SDWA provides the state with the flexibility to determine how to best utilize the Cap grant. To meet the particular and unique issues facing the public water systems in Mississippi, SDWA requirements allow states to give priority to those projects which:
* address the most serious risk to human health
* are necessary to ensure compliance with the SDWA requirements
* assist systems most in need, on a per household basis
Projects will be placed on the fundable portion of the Priority List according to both priority ranking and readiness to proceed. The term "ready to proceed" means that all loan application requirements established in the Program regulations are met, and all documents necessary for loan award are approved. If a project cannot reasonably be expected to meet the Priority System deadlines, then the project will not be placed on the current year's Priority List, but will be placed on the Planning List. It is the Board's judgment with input from the DWSIRLF staff as to when a project is ready to proceed. Loans will be awarded to projects (within available funds) that are above the funding line on the current year's Priority List, that have met all Priority System deadlines and are ready to proceed.
Should any projects on the FFY-2016 Priority List (which are above the funding line) fail to comply with the deadlines in Section D, the project shall be bypassed and the funds reserved for said project will be released. Released funds will first be made available to listed projects, to ensure that all projects above the funding line meeting priority system deadlines are funded. Any remaining funds will be made available to the highest ranking project(s) shown below the funding line that is ready for loan award at the time funds become available. If no projects above the funding line are ready for loan award at the time funds become available, projects shown below the funding line will be funded on a first-come, first-served basis as they become ready for loan award and until the released funds are awarded. This same process will continue as each deadline passes and released funds become available.
The FFY-2016 federal appropriation is not expected to require that a percentage of the funds appropriated for the Revolving Funds be designated for projects that exhibit the elements of green infrastructure, water efficiency improvements, energy efficiency improvements or other environmentally innovative projects. However, projects that wish to be classified in the following elements will be reported as green infrastructure to the EPA through its "Project and Benefits Report Database" and noted in the future annual report. Projects may exhibit one or more of the "green" elements and the details of the project's "green" content will be identified in the business case required for each project if the recipient so chooses.
- Green infrastructure projects include a wide array of practices at multiple scales; green infrastructure projects will manage wet weather and will maintain and restore natural hydrology by infiltrating, evapotranspiring and harvesting and using storm water. On a regional scale, green infrastructure is the preservation and restoration of natural landscape features, such as forests, floodplains and wetlands, coupled with policies such as infill and redevelopment that reduce overall imperviousness in a watershed. On the local scale, it may consist of site- and neighborhood-specific practices, such as bio-retention, trees, green roofs, permeable pavements and cisterns.
- Water efficiency projects are designed to use improved technologies and practices to deliver equal or better services with less water. It encompasses conservation and reuse efforts, as well as water loss reduction and prevention, to protect water resources for the future.
- Energy efficiency projects are designed to use improved technologies and practices to reduce the energy consumption of water projects, use energy in a more efficient way, and/or produce/utilize renewable energy.
- Environmentally innovative projects include projects that demonstrate new and/or innovative approaches to deliver services or manage water resources in a more sustainable way.
Projects desiring to be classified as "green" will be judged for eligibility based on the guidance supplied by the EPA and that is available at our website www.healthyms.com/dwsrf. Systems desiring "Green Infrastructure" classification will be required to present a "business case" establishing justification for the classification request. Guidance for establishing a "business case" is available to assist potential loan recipients in preparation of the documentation.
Any funds recovered from loan decreases during the year will be used:
Any funds not obligated for these purposes may be made available for new loan awards ready to proceed on a first-come, first-served basis.
On October 10, 2001, EPA issued policy memorandum DWSRF 02-01 to notify regions and states of a change in policy regarding the use of DWSRF monies for providing local match for SPAP grants. This change in EPA policy will allow the state to use non-federal, non-state match DWSIRLF funds to provide loans that can be used as local match for SPAP grants awarded for drinking water projects. These non-federal, non-state match DWSIRLF loan funds may be made available to eligible SPAP grant recipients that are on the priority list for use as local match funds for their SPAP grants, provided the grant is for loan eligible work. Such projects will be funded in accordance with the Priority System and until all non-federal, non-state match monies have been obligated or demand for such funds has been met.
EPA has mandated that a minimum of 20% but no more than 30% of the FFY-2016 Cap grant be provided as additional subsidization to disadvantaged communities. Based on the FFY-2016 grant amount of $8,607,000 the amount of subsidization will be between $1,721,400 and $2,582,100. The DWSIRLF's subsidization will be in the form of "Principal Forgiveness" (PF) to individual public water supplies that are considered disadvantaged communities and which received reimbursements with Federal Cap grant funds during the construction of the project. If the amount of PF which a project is eligible exceeds the amount of Federal Cap grant funds which it received, the amount of PF extended will be limited to the amount of Federal Cap grant funds used for reimbursement.
Subsidization may be used over a two year period. Subsidization remaining from a previous year may be awarded to loans which are eligible for PF over a two year time period. Subsidization for FFY-2016 may be awarded to projects eligible for PF in FFY-2017 and FFY-2018.
Disadvantaged Community Program
During FFY-2016, the following PF methodology will be used since it is anticipated that the FFY-2016 federal appropriation will continue to require the state to provide additional subsidy for disadvantaged communities.
The amount of PF for which a potential "Loan Recipient" (LR) may be eligible will be determined by calculating the percentage of the "Median Household Income" (MHI) of the potential LR versus the MHI of the State of Mississippi ($36,311) as a whole.
90% < LR MHI < 100% | - 15% Principal Forgiveness |
80% < LR MHI < 90% | - 25% Principal Forgiveness |
70% < LR MHI < 80% | - 35% Principal Forgiveness |
LR MHI < 70% | - 45% Principal Forgiveness |
This PF will be extended to projects until all mandated subsidy funds are obligated. The amount of PF given will be assigned at loan award and will not change after the project goes to the bid phase. Additionally, due to the limited amount of PF funds, the maximum amount of PF funds a loan recipient may receive for a project will be set at $500,000. Once subsidy funds are depleted, only standard loans will be made with DWSIRLF funds.
MHI's to be used for calculating PF will be those displayed in the publication "The Sourcebook of Zip Code Demographics", Twenty-third Edition. Where the affected community is included in more than one zip code area, an average will be used for the community's MHI.
In the event that a LR declines their loan that includes PF, the released PF may be reallocated to other projects for the present fiscal year that are eligible for PF or the PF may be carried over to projects for the next fiscal year.
If returned PF funds are reallocated to projects awarded during the existing fiscal year. The reallocation of PF will be given first to projects which did not receive their full allowable amount based on the above table up to the maximum allowed limit.
If all projects have received their full allowable amount, returned PF funds may be reallocated to projects awarded PF during the existing fiscal year based on a percentage of the individual LR's initial loan amount to the total loan amount of loans awarded PF during the fiscal year.
In all cases, the amount of PF which is awarded to a project may not exceed the amount of Federal Cap grant funds which the project was reimbursed during the construction of the project.
Projects in Category I are funded each year to the extent funds are available. Projects in Categories II through XI are ranked in priority order; that is, all Category II projects are ranked higher than Category III projects, etc. Ranking is established in like manner through all remaining categories. Adjustments are made as necessary to comply with small community set-aside provisions of the Federal SDWA and as established by the Board [Section 1542(a)(2) of SDWA]. As stated previously, the order of Categories II - XI is intended to give highest priority to those projects that address the most serious risks to human health. Projects within each category will be ranked as described in Section C.
This category of projects includes any remaining segments of projects that previously received funding for an integral portion of that project, and are necessary for the entire project to be functional. Projects will be funded under this category in order of their regular priority ranking provided they meet the deadlines established in Section D.
In order to maintain continuity, the Board intends to make some amount of funds available for each ongoing-segmented project. Preference in the amount of funds to be provided will be given to the projects that received the earliest loan award for their initial segment.
Priority for this category will be given to the previous year Category II projects to the maximum extent practicable. This category of projects includes projects that:
This category includes projects to facilitate compliance with Primary Drinking Water Standards. To qualify for this category, projects must correct deficiencies resulting in non-compliance with the primary drinking water standards. Depending on the nature of the project, additional treatment requirements may be necessary as part of the proposed project.
This category includes projects to provide additional water supply to systems that have neither a backup well or an MSDH-approved emergency tie-in to another system to ensure safe drinking water; thereby protecting the health of the existing population. Depending on the nature of the project, additional treatment requirements may be necessary as part of the proposed project.
This category includes projects to correct documented deficiencies that result in existing systems routinely failing to maintain minimum acceptable dynamic pressure. Experience has shown that failure of water systems to maintain minimum acceptable dynamic pressure is the major cause of system contamination in Mississippi. System contamination that results from inadequate water system pressure is considered by the MSDH to be one of the most serious drinking water-related threats to public health in Mississippi
This category includes projects to manage potential sources of contaminants/pollutants and/or prevent contaminants/pollutants from reaching sources of drinking water. To be eligible for loan participation, potential contaminants/pollutants and source water protection areas must have been identified in the public water systems Source Water Assessment Plan Report (SWAPR) prepared by the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality's Groundwater Planning Branch (DEQ-GPB). If the public water system has not received its SWAPR from the DEQ-GPB yet, or has documentation that may change its SWAP, it shall provide in the facilities plan suitable documentation of potential sources of contaminants/pollutants that is acceptable to the DEQ-GPB before the project will be deemed eligible.
The projects will be ranked: first in order of the highest source water classification that would be negatively impacted by source water contaminants; secondly, within each classification in order of the public water systems susceptibility assessment ranking as determined by the DEQ-GPB; and thirdly, within each susceptibility assessment ranking in order of the highest number of connections served by the public water system. Source water classifications will be ranked in the following order: surface water sources; shallow (generally = 300' in depth) unconfined water wells; shallow (generally = 300' in depth) confined water wells; and deep confined water wells.
This category includes projects to either expand existing system capacity or construct a new drinking water system to ensure safe drinking water (source, treatment and/or distribution) to serve existing residences/businesses in currently unserved areas.
This category includes projects to provide additional supply to systems with insufficient back-up water supply sources to ensure safe drinking water, and thereby protect the health of the existing population. As a minimum, a system using ground water should be able to lose any one of the wells supplying the system and still maintain minimum acceptable dynamic pressure throughout the entire system.
This category is for projects that either rehabilitate existing fluoride treatment facilities at well or treatment plant sites, or add new facilities to existing well or treatment plants.
This category includes projects to provide treatment that brings systems into compliance with Secondary Drinking Water Regulations. Depending on the nature of the project, additional treatment requirements may be necessary as part of the proposed project.
This category includes projects to consolidate separate systems into a single system for purposes other than those related to Categories II through IX. Consolidation will also be considered in establishing priority ranking within all categories, as described in the Priority Ranking Criteria in Section C.
This category includes projects that do not meet the criteria of any other listed category, and have been determined loan eligible in accordance with the DWSIRLF loan program regulations.
The criteria for ranking projects within each category is intended to give priority to projects that:
Benefit/Cost points assigned to each project will be determined using the following formula:
Benefit/Cost Points = Number of benefiting connections/ Total eligible cost of improvements (in $1.0 millions)
The number of benefiting connections must be included in the facilities plan submitted by the applicant; be defined as the sum of individual connections currently experiencing deficiencies that will be corrected by the improvement; and include only existing residences, businesses, and public buildings. Applicants must furnish information (including hydraulic analysis, if necessary) to support their estimate of the number of benefiting connections. The total eligible cost is in millions of dollars (i.e., $800,000 = $0.8 M).
An affordability factor will be assigned to each project to reflect the relative needs of applicants on a per household basis. The Benefit/Cost points calculated in Section C.1. will be adjusted using the affordability factor in the following formula:
Adjusted Benefit/Cost Points = (Affordability Factor) x (Benefit/Cost Points)
The affordability factor used in the calculation is defined as the ratio of the "Median Household Income" (MHI) for the State of Mississippi ($36,311)* MHI for the affected community. The affordability factor used in the calculation will be no less than 1.0 and no greater than 1.5.
The MHI to be used in the calculations will be those displayed in the publication (*)"The Sourcebook of Zip Code Demographics", Twentieth Edition or from the publisher's website at http://www.esribis.com/reports/ziplookup.html. Where the affected community is included in more than one zip code area, an average will be used for the community's median household income.
Any project that includes consolidation (ownership and management) of separate existing systems into a single system will receive consolidation points equal to 0.5 times the Adjusted Benefit/Cost points assigned to the project. The purpose of assigning consolidation points is to promote reliability, efficiency and economy of scale that can be achieved with larger water systems while discouraging the proliferation of numerous separate small systems with their inherent inefficiencies and limitations. Projects, in any priority category, that do not include consolidation will receive zero consolidation points in the final calculation of total priority points.
Consolidation Points = 0.5 x (Adjusted Benefit/Cost Points)
Any project that includes scope of work to address critical design capacity issues (systems that are currently overloaded or within two (2) years of reaching their current design capacity, as determined by MSDH) will receive additional priority points equal to 25% of the Adjusted Benefit/Cost points assigned to the project. Documentation of the system capacity analysis and recommendations to address the design capacity issues must be addressed in the facilities plan to be eligible for these additional priority points.
System Capacity Points = 0.25 x (Adjusted Benefit/Cost Points)
The MSDH, with the Board's approval, has contracted with Community Resources Group (CRG) to provide both short-term and long-term assistance to designated water systems in the state based on their scores on the latest Capacity Assessment Form (CAF). This assistance is provided at no cost to the water systems.
Participation by the water systems in these assistance programs is voluntary; however, any water system that has participated in either of these assistance programs within the past two years will be eligible to receive additional priority points equal to 5% of their Adjusted Benefit/Cost Points. Water systems that have implemented all of the recommendations made by CRG will receive additional priority points equal to 5% of their Adjusted Benefit/Cost Points for a total of 10%. Documentation of participation in either of these assistance programs and implementation of the recommendations made by CRG must be included in the facilities plan before additional priority points will be granted.
Assistance Points = ** x (Adjusted Benefit/Cost Points)
** 5% if the water system participates in the assistance, or 10% if the water system participates in the assistance and implements all recommendations
Any water system that participated in the most recent MSDH Public Water Supply Improvements Needs Survey or the EPA Drinking Water Needs Survey by satisfactorily completing and returning this form to MSDH will be eligible to receive additional priority points equal to 10% of their Adjusted Benefit/Cost Points.
Needs Survey Points = 0.10 x (Adjusted Benefit/Cost Points)
Within each category, projects will be ranked in order based on the total points assigned the project using the following formula:
Total Priority Points = Adjusted Benefit/Cost Points + Consolidation Points + System Capacity Points + Assistance Program Points + Needs Survey Points
Projects receiving the most priority points will be given the highest ranking on the Priority List. In case of a tie in the number of priority points, projects with the lowest median household income will receive the highest ranking.
Following completion of the ranking process, the Priority List will be reviewed to determine if at least 15% of available funding for projects above the funding line is for public water systems which regularly serve fewer than 5,000 people, which the Board has defined as a small community for the purposes of this set-aside. If this is not the case, the Priority List will be adjusted by exchanging the lowest ranking projects above the funding line that serve 5,000 or more with the highest ranking projects below the funding line that serve fewer than 5,000, until the 15% requirement is satisfied.
A complete DWSIRLF facilities plan includes: all Intergovernmental Review (IGR) agency comments; proof of publication of advertisement for public hearing; a transcript of the public hearing comments; copies of any comments received from the public; and a summary of how each comment was addressed. The loan applicant should provide a copy of the facilities plan to USDA - Rural Utilities Service (RUS); if the loan applicant has an existing debt with RUS, their approval to incur the additional debt must be obtained and provided as part of the plan.
Any significant changes made to the facilities plan (i.e., changes in the chosen alternative location of the facility, cost increases that substantially affect the financial capability of the loan recipient) after this date will be considered a first submittal of the facilities plan. The loan applicant will then be considered to be in violation of the Priority System deadline and the project will be placed on the planning portion of the priority list. If the change is made after adoption of the IUP, funds reserved for this project may be released and made available to other projects.
This deadline also applies to all projects competing for released funds during FFY-2016 and to be able to qualify for the Previous Year Certified Projects Category in the FFY-2016 IUP.
33 Miss. Code. R. 7-VI