STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
JUNE 15, 2000
SUBJECT
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SMALL COMMUNITIES GRANT (SCG) PROGRAM
DISCUSSION
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted an Implementation Policy for the Small Communities Grant Program (SCG Policy) dated April 30, 1997. This Policy set the requirements and procedures for implementing the $30 million (SCG) Program from the Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act (1996 Bond) passed by the voters on November 5, 1996. The funding available under the 1996 Bond was fully committed by July, 1998.
The voters passed the Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood Protection Act on March 7, 2000, (2000 Bond). This bond issue provides $34 million for small communities with less than 10,000 people and with a financial hardship as determined by the SWRCB. There are two changes in statute between the bond issues. The first change in the 2000 Bond is an increase in the eligible population from 5,000 to 10,000 people and the second is a limit on state grant funding to 97.5 percent of the eligible project costs. The 1996 Bond limited the sum of any state and federal grants to 97.5 percent of the eligible project costs. However, no change is needed in the SCG Policy to implement the new limit. In order to make these new funds available as quickly as possible, the Division of Clean Water Programs (DCWP) proposes that the existing SCG Policy adopted April 30, 1997, with an amendment to increase the eligible population to 10,000 people, be used to implement the 2000 Bond (Exhibit A contains a copy of the April 30, 1997, SCG Policy). The reasons supporting this recommendation are:
1. The money in the 2000 Bond can be encumbered quickly resulting in the early correction of identified public health and water quality problems.
2. Using program requirements that have already been met, applicants with completed plans and specifications who did not receive funding under the 1996 Bond could proceed rapidly to construction with no change in the expected level of grant funding. Adoption of new program requirements could change project eligibility affecting the amount of grant funding as well as delaying the award of grants under the 2000 Bond.
3. Significant administrative cost savings will occur by not having to develop new program implementation documents. Both staff and existing applicants have worked with the existing SCG Policy.
The downside of this proposal is that new applicants may have less access to the 2000 Bond monies because the carryover 1996 Bond projects will be ready to go sooner than any new projects. One solution, for example, would be to consider set-asides when the Priority List is adopted to assure that new applicants receive a share of the available funds.
The 2000 Bond sets the maximum grant for any single project at $3.5 million, but due to the expected demand for these funds, the DCWP proposes that the $3 million cap placed on the 1996 Bond projects be continued. Finally, the DCWP proposes that the SWRCB also continue to limit grants to regional facilities to one $3 million grant per regional applicant. These limitations are necessary to assure a reasonable distribution of the available funds.
There may be a small number of agencies that have obtained alternative financing and proceeded with construction to meet enforcement deadlines. In these cases, the DCWP proposes that an eligible project, subject to certain limitations, initiating construction after DCWP approval of the final plans and specifications remain eligible to receive a SCG, regardless of whether construction started before issuance of the grant.
POLICY ISSUES
Should the SWRCB; 1) use the Implementation Policy for the SCG Program adopted on
April 30, 1997, to implement the 2000 Bond; 2) amend the SCG Policy to raise the eligible population to 10,000 people; 3) adopt a new Priority List of eligible projects; 4) continue the limit of $3 million in grant assistance per applicant; 5) continue the limit of one $3 million grant per regional agency; and 6) provide SCG assistance to an eligible small community, subject to certain limitations, that failed to receive 1996 Bond funds and initiated construction before award of grant assistance under the 2000 Bond?
FISCAL IMPACT
A total of three percent of the monies placed in the SCG Subaccount can be used to administer the SCG Program. A Finance Letter has been submitted to the Department of Finance requesting three Pys and $280,000 for administration of the program in State Fiscal Year 2000-2001.
RWQCB IMPACT
There is a minor impact on RWQCB administrative resources due to the need to develop and submit the RWQCB Priority List recommendations. Speedy implementation of the program and early construction of projects will enable small communities to comply with RWQCB waste discharge requirements and enforcement orders.
That the SWRCB adopt a resolution approving:
2. An amendment to the SCG Policy to increase the eligible population from 5,000 to 10,000 people;
4. Continuation of $3 million cap on the amount of grant assistance any one applicant can receive;
6. Allow eligible SCG applicants, that did not receive 1996 Bond monies, to receive 2000 Bond Law monies pursuant to the SCG Policy, subject to the limitations in the attached resolution.
(Note: for a copy
of the SMG policy, contact Eric Torguson/916-227-4449
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT May 22, 2000
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-___
IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE SMALL COMMUNITIES GRANT (SCG) PROGRAM
1. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted the Implementation Policy for the Small Communities Grant Program Policy dated April 30, 1997, for issuance of SCG grants under the Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act (1996 Bond);
2. The Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood Protection Act (2000 Bond) passed by the voters on March 7, 2000, provides $34 million for grants to small communities with populations of less than 10,000 people;
3. The Division of Clean Water Programs has determined that the quickest method to make these new funds available is to use the existing SCG Policy, with an amendment to increase the eligible population to 10,000 people, to implement the 2000 Bond program;
4. Some SCG applicants may have initiated construction due to enforcement deadlines after the 1996 Bond monies were committed, but before the 2000 Bond monies became available and deserve and need SCG funding;
5. The SWRCB placed a $3 million cap on the amount of grant funding any one recipient can receive and limited regional agencies to one $3 million grant per regional agency when it adopted the Priority List under the 1996 Bond;
6. A new Priority List needs to be developed to encompass communities up to 10,000 people.
The State Water Resources Control Board:
1. Amends the April 30, 1997, SCG Policy, making small communities with populations up to 10,000 people eligible for grant assistance;
2. Approves the use of the April 30, 1997, SCG Policy, as amended, for issuance of SCG grants under the 2000 Bond;
3. Retains the $3 million cap on the amount of funding any one applicant can receive and limits grant assistance to regional facilities to one $3 million grant per regional facility;
4. Approves the award of SCG assistance from the 2000 Bond for any SCG project meeting the following criteria:
a. The project was on the September 18, 1997, SCG Priority List adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board and is on the fundable portion of the 2000 SCG Priority List to be adopted at a later date.
b. The project received all necessary approvals, including approval of the final plans and specifications prior to construction being initiated.
c. The need to meet enforcement deadlines necessitated construction before grant awards pursuant to the 2000 Bond can be offered.
d. The SCG money under the 2000 Bond is used to repay or replace a commercial or public borrowing, or local funds used to construct the eligible project; and
5. Directs the Division of Clean Water Programs to prepare a new SCG Priority List for SWRCB consideration.
The undersigned, Administrative Assistant to the Board, does hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of a resolution duly and regularly adopted at a meeting of the State Water Resources Control Board held on June 15, 2000.
_______________________________
Maureen Marché
Administrative Assistant to the Board