Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMT Department of Commerce (7)TO: FROM: M N TANA epartment of Commerce COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Local Governments and Others Interested in the Treasure State Endowment Program Jim Edgcomb, Manager ~ Treasure State Endowment Program NOV 2 0 2007 DATE: November 14, 2007 RE: Draft Application Guidelines for the Treasure State Endowment Program The Montana Department of Commerce is pleased to acquaint you with the proposed changes presented in the revision of the Treasure State Endowment Program (TSEP) Application Guidelines. The guidelines explain how cities, towns, counties, tribal governments, and county water, sewer, and solid waste districts may apply for grants through the program for the next two years. The guidelines also explain the policies that the Department proposes to follow in evaluating TSEP construction grant applications that will be received next May in 2008, and then presented to the Governor and the 2009 Legislature. The Department will hold a public hearing on the proposed changes on December 12, 2007, and comments will be accepted through December 20, 2007. The entire text of the revised TSEP Application Guidelines highlighting the changes can be viewed on the program's web site (http:/Icomdev.mt.gov/CDD_TSEP_Grants.asp), or a copy can be provided if requested. The following information summarizes the substantive changes that are being proposed and the page in the guidelines that the change can be found: In Section Ill - Construction Grants [] Changed date that construction grant applications are due: May 2, 2008. Pg 11 and several other locations in guidelines. [] Added a provision that allows communities awarded a TSEP construction grant by the 2007 Legislature to submit a new application. If the applicant is recommended for a new grant, a condition would be submitted to the 2009 Legislature that the recommended grant woUld be terminated if the applicant ultimately meets start-up conditions by June 30~ 2009 and receives the TSEP grant awarded by the 2007 Legislature. Applicants will be allowed to keep the scores for Statutory Priorities #1 and #3 that were assigned in 2006 if the project has not changed from what was proposed to TSEP in 2006. Pg 11 [] Modified the amount that can be requested. In order to qualify for the maximum of $750,000, the applicant must be at least 150 percent of the community's "target rate" (based upon the projected monthly rates with TSEP assistance) upon completion of a proposed water, wastewater project, storm drain, or solid waste project. Applicants that are less than 150 percent of the community's "target rate" are limited to a maximum of $500,000. Counties with bridge projects are simply limited to a maximum of $750,000. Pg 11 [] Added a text boX to clarify that if user rates are raised beyond what is necessary to construct the project in order to qualify for a TSEP grant, a particular funding amount, or simply to be more competitive, the local government must agree to maintain rates at that level. Pg 1! [] Changed the amount allowed per benefited household from $15,000 to $20,000. Pg 11 and other appropriate pages where referenced. [] Eliminated the limitation of $15,000 per household for economic development related projects, when those benefiting from the project are primarily businesses and there are few or no households. Pg 12 [] Modified the language related to counting the value of land and materials as match to clarify that it will be the cost actually paid for the land or materials. Pg 13 [] Added clarification to box discussing MDOC recommending additional funding for projects previously funded (no additional funds will be requested for an existing project unless the local government can demonstrate that it has a strong likelihood of receiving any additional funds necessary to complete the project). Pg 18 [] Added a requirement in the section explaining administrative procedures and requirements that there is a limit on how long a grant can be held for the grantee (local governments will be requir~l_~ to me_et.sta~-up ~conditions by_December 31, 2012, or the grant contract will be terminated). Pg 20 [] Added text in a box discussing capital improvement plan, clarifying what information should be in a CIP, and how it can make the application more competitive. Pg 21 In Section IV - Preliminary Engineering Grants [] Added clarification to discussion of match for PER grants that local funds being used to match other grants cannot be used to match the TSEP funds. Pg 22 [] Added a statement allowing other state grants to match a PER grant in hardship cases. Pg 22 [] Added clarification that costs for preparing the TSEP construction application are ineligible for reimbursement or for match in regards to PER grants. Pg 23 [] Added clarification about when PER costs are eligible for reimbursement. Pg 23 [] Added a provision for counties to submit one application to study its bridge system and another application to study an unincorporated area that is not served by a community water or wastewater system. Pg 23 [] Modified the dates and circumstances for applying for PER grants. Pg 23 and 24 [] Added a Section on PER grant administration. An engineer must be procured within Six months or the contract may be terminated. Grant agreements will not be extended unleSs the grantee can demonstrate substantial progress and show good cause for extending the date. Pg 24 In Secfion,V - Emergency Grants [] Added clarification that TSEP emergency grants are not for funding routine maintenance and added an example. Pg 25 In Appendix A - Format Instructions for TSEP Construction Applications [] Added text in a box in the instructions for submitting a construction grant application encouraging applicants to obtain a Certified Regional Development Corporation's letter of support. Pg 28 and 29 [] Added a statement in the instructions for submitting the application that applicants are encouraged to place on the computer diskette, photographs of the current project conditions, diagrams, schematics of the proposed design, etc. to help the reviewers dudng the scoring process to visualize the project better. Pg 30 In Appendix C - TSEP-Specific Information Required for Completing the Uniform Preliminary Engineering Report [] Added a statement for wastewater projects that opportunities for contact with people must be documented with photos, maps, and other supporting evidence in order to demonstrate the level of public use of the area. Pg 35 and also in Appendix D with two of the scoring level examples Pg 63 and 64 [] Added limitations on proposed projects in floodplains. Pg 35 [] In the PER outline, clarified the requirements for who can inspect and rate bddges (must be performed by individuals that have met the criteria outlined in 23 CFR 650, subpart C), and the information needed to document they are qualified (bridges that have not been properly rated or inspected by a qualified inspector may result in a lower score). Pg 38 In Appendix D - Application Review Process [] Added clarification regarding a change to scoring Statutory Priority #3: changing to four levels rather than five levels to score it. Pgs 43 and 72 Added a requirement that an application must receive a minimum of 2,700 points in orderto be recommended for a grant. Pg 44 Added Clarification to a text box at the end of Statutory Priodty ~2 about completing the Uniform Application: the Department reserves the dght to modify the financial information submitted by the applicant in order to ensure that the projected user rate is computed properly and most accurately reflects what the projected rate is likely to be. Pg 52 Added scoring level definitions for all statutory priorities (except #2), including project specific examples for Statutory Pdodty #1 - Pgs 57 to 82. Note: scoring levels have not previously been included in the guidelines. The requirements for being scored at a particular level have been modified and better defined. Items that may be of particular interest include the following: [] Discussion of how environmental pollution is scored is discussed on Pg 58. [] Examples of how TMDL related problems could potentially be scored are discussed on Pgs 64 and 65. In Appendix E - Target Rate Analysis for Water, Wastewater and Solid Waste Projects [] Modified the target rate discussion and example to reflect the elimination of multiplying the target percentage times a multiplier (a percentage) when computing the target rate, which reduced the ultimata target rate in the past. Pgs 85 to 89 E] Added text in a box discussing the change in methodology. Pg 87 [] Added clarification to discussion in a box (note for tribes): subsidization by the tribe is viewed as the same as user fees paid by individuals. Pg 90 In Appendix H - Conducting an Income Survey [] Several modifications were made on conducting an income survey from Pgs 100 to 104. Items of particular interest include the following: [] A smaller sample size will be allowed when the number of households exceeds 200. [] Information was added to clarify how the income survey must be accomplished in order to be acceptable (no rounding of incomes, no surveys older than two years, the specific information that must be submitted, and problems must be fixed within two weeks of being requested). Your comments ara very important to the Department. Please consider attending the public hearing on December 12, 2007, at 1'30 p.m., at the Department of Commerce, conference room 228, 301 S Park Ave, Helena, to provide comments on the revised TSEP Application Guidelines. Written~ commentsere st[ongJy encouraged~ a~ri the~ Department will accept them by mail (PO Box 200523, Helena, MT 59620), email (jedgcomb~mt.gov), or fax (841-2771). Comments can also be submitted at the public hearing so that your concems or suggestions are clearly communicated. In order for your comments to be considered, they must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on December 20, 2007. Thank you for your time and consideration of the changes proposed in the revised TSEP Application Guidelines. 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.