Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept/Commerce TSEP Guidelines M N TANi COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION r 'Tv AUREL TO: Local Governments and Others Interested in the Treasure State Endowment Program FROM: Jim Edgcomb, Program Manager Treasure State Endowment Program DATE: AugUs{~ 8~ 2003 REi Draft Application Guideline's for the Treasure State Endowment Program The Montana Department of Commerce is pleased to acquaint you with the proposed changes presented in the draft of the Treasure State Endowment Program ('I-SEP) Application Guidelines. The guidelines explain how cities, towns, counties, tribal governments, and county water, sewer, and solid waste districts may apply for funding through the program for the next two years. The guidelines also explain the policies that the Department proposes to follow in evaluating T,SEP funding applications, and the methodology used to recommend the amount of financial assistance for TSEP applicants to the Governor and the 2003 Legislature. The Department will hold a public hearing on the proposed changes on September 4, 2003, and comments will be accepted through September 11, 2003. Rather than sending you the entire draft of the TSEP application guidelines, the following points highlight the substantive changes that are being proposed: 1. Applications for funding that will be awarded by the 2005 Legislature will be due no later than May ?,-2004~ 2. The local match requirement needed for a preliminary engineering report grant may come from any source except from other state grants. Previously, the match had to be local funds only. 3. TSEP funds can only be used to do a complete assessment of a county's bridge system once every five years. However, specific bridges that are to be studied in detail as part of the PER can be're-evaluated more frequently. 4. The name and qualifications of the person inspecting and rating the bridge must be clearly stated in the PER. 5. Under Statutory Priority #1, the question asking if there is clear documentation that the current condition of the public facility (or lack of a facility) violates a state or federal health or safety standard, no longer excludes considering design standards. 6. Under Statutory Priority #1, a separate set of evaluation criteria have been developed for bridge projects in order to be consistent with the way that bridge needs are scored. The following two questions are asked: a. Does a serious deficiency exist in the bridge system and will the deficiencies be corrected by the proposed project? (Describe all deficiencies for each bridge proposed for TSEP funding, including the NB/sufficiency rating, appraisal ratings, and element condition ratings. Describe any related public safety problems not reflected in the NBI sufficiency rating. If a new bridge is ............. 13ei~:p~4g~sed~w~p,r~ none currently exists, describe why there is a need for a bridge at this new location; describe the public safety problems that necessitate the new bridge.) b. Is the entire county, or a substantial pementage of the residents of the county, seriously affected by the deficiency, as opposed to a small percentage of the residents? (Describe the number of residents, households, businesses, etc. affected by the problem.) 7. Under Statutory Priority #2, the financial analysis for bridge projects used to provide a score for indicator ~ will look at only the two indicators previously used, but will look at the past five years, rather than just one year. The other factors previously considered will not be taken into account in determining relative financial need. 8. Under Statutory Priority #2, the financial analysis will utilize the following new target pementages: 2.3% for combined water and wastewater, 0.9% for wastewater alone, and 0.3% for solid waste. Water alone at 1.4% has not changed. These target percentages are multiplied times the median household income (MHI) and multiplied again times 90% to calculate the target rate. These new target pementages are based upon a survey~o~water, wastewater and solid waste systems across the state 9. In order to compensate for the inability to adjust target rates on a more frequent basis, and to lessen the degree to which target rates increase every ten years, the amount that is multiplied times the community's target pementage will increase by 2% every two years. In 2004, when TSEP applications are next due, MDOC will continue to multiply the target pementage times 90%, but in 2006 the target percentage will be multiplied times 92%, in 2008 - 94%, in 2010 ~ 96%, and in 2012 - 98%. When new census data is available in 2014 and new target percentages are computed, MDOC will start all over again by multiPlying the target pementage times 90% and then again increasing the amount by 2% every two years. 10. Under Statutory Pdodty #2, the financial analysis for bridge projects will utilize the following target pementages: 0.041% of a county's MHI should be levied for bridges and 2.67% of a county's MHI should be levied in total. 11. Under Statutory Priority #4, the criterion that looked at whether the applicant has received other grants or loans was modified so that it looks at only whether the applicant has previously received a TSEP grant, and whether it adequately administered the grant and abided by the program's requirements. This criterion will not result in any additional points being given, but may result in a lower score than would otherwise be given. 12. In the second step of the process used by MDO¢ to make recommendations on funding projects (the financial analysis used to determine whether to award a grant and how much), the additional questions that used to be considered under Statutory Priority #2 for bridges will now be taken into account at this stage of the analysis. '(our Comments ar-e~rY impor~nt to the Department. Piease C°nsid~tte~ding th~ - public hearing on September 4, 2003, at 1:30 p.m., at the Department of Commerce, conference room 202, 301 S Park Ave, Helena, to provide comments on the "Draft" TSEP Application Guidelines. Written comments are strongly encouraged, and the Department will accept them by mail (PO Box 200523, Helena, MT 59620), email (jed~comb~state .mt .us) or fax (84t-277t). They can also be submitted at the public hearing so that your concerns or suggestions are clearly communicated, In order for your comments to be considered, they must be received no later than September 11, 2003, Thank you for your time and consideration of the changes proposed in the Draft TSEP Application Guidelines. The entire text of the Draft TSEP Application Guidelines is available upon request. Please contact the TSEP staff at 841-2770 if we can be of assistance to you or if you have any questions regarding the proposed changes.