4.а TOOLS

а

FORа BUILDING

 

PUBLIC-PRIVATE

 

PARTNERSHIPS

 

аааааааааааааааааааа 4.а TOOLS FOR BUILDING PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

 

INTRODUCTION4.а TOOLS FOR BUILDING PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPSINTRODUCTION

 

 

Community leaders across the nation face the prospect of building, upgrading or renovating facilities to meet important environmental needs. They are feeling the squeeze of growing environmental expectations and costs coupled with increasing constraints on funding for all types of infrastructure and services.а As the pressure to hold rate increases down for facility users grows, local leaders must find new ways to hold down costs and build public support for necessary expenditures.а Public-private partnerships offer local governments one possible solution to this growing challenge.а

 

This section evaluates the use of public-private partnerships (P3s).а The P3s discussed here are contractual relationships between a public authority (usually a local government) and a private company that commits both parties to providing an environmental or other service, and for which the private sector seeks a profit.а They may involve a variety of activities ranging from designing a facility such as a wastewater treatment plant to its financing, construction, operations, maintenance, management, and/or ownership.а While each partnership is unique, most fall into one of five general categories: contract services; turnkey; developer financing; privatization; and merchant facility.а However, there are important sub-types of partnerships within each of these major categories.ааа

 

а Other types of P3s involving the voluntary and not-for-profit collaboration of many individuals and the nonprofit sector, especially involving areas such as parks and conservation, are not covered in this section.а They are presented in sections throughout the guidebook, but perhaps most prominently in Section 8.а Tools for Financing Community-Based Environmental Protection and in Section 9.а Tools for Financing Brownfields Redevelopment.

 

In part A of this section , a number of important types of contractual public-private partnerships are presented and evaluated. Each includes a look at some of their advantages and limitations.а Depending on the individual arrangement, a public-private partnership may allow communities to capture some of the following important private sector efficiencies:

 

╖                     private financing can reduce the burden on public debt capacity;

╖                     private operation, maintenance, and manage can generate efficiency savings;

╖                     private sector procurement and construction methods can provide significant savings;

╖                     the private sector can provide technology and expertise otherwise unavailable to the public sector, or a higher level of quality of services;

╖                     private sector operations can shorten implementation time; and

╖                     private sector involvement can reduce public liabilities through risk-sharing.

 

 

In part B, abstracts of recent case studies developed by USEPAТs Environmental Financial Advisory Board are profiled. These case studies are cutting edge examples of how communities have implemented successful public-private partnerships and internal optimization models.а The abstracts both supplement and complement the partnership arrangements presented in part A of this section.а They provide concrete examples of how successful partnerships and other models can be implemented by communities to provide needed environmental services and result inа a "win-win" situation for both public and private parties.а

 

4.A.а PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.A.а PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS

 

 

Description: A contractual public-private partnership (P3), commits the public sectorа (usually a local government) and a private sector company to providing a facility-based environmentalа service, which is undertaken by the private sector for business (profit-making) purposes.а The private party can be involved in a variety of ways from designing the public-purpose facility to its financing, construction, operations, maintenance, management, and/or ownership.а Although each public-private partnership is unique, most fall into one of five general categories: contract services; turnkey; developer financing; privatization; and merchant facility.а There are different responsibilities and benefits associated with each type.

а

To encourage and facilitate private investment and involvement in local infrastructure, including federally grant funded facilities, Executive Order No. 12803 was issued on May 4, 1992 directing executive agencies to make needed policy and regulatory changes.а The order is intended to:

 

╖ааааааааа assist local privatization initiatives,

╖ааааааааа remove federal regulatory impediments to private sector involvement,

╖ааааааааа relax federal repayment requirements, thus increasing State and local governments' proceeds from privatization arrangements, and

╖ааааааааа protect the public interest by ensuring that privatized assets continue to be used for original purposes and that user charges remain consistent with current federal conditions.

 

Advantages: Depending on the nature of the specific arrangement, a public-private partnership may be able to capitalize on a number of private sector resources.аа If private financing is used, the burden on public debt capacity can be reduced.а If private operations, maintenance, and/or management is used, efficiency savings are generally realized.аа Private sector procurement and construction methods typically provide significant savings as well.а Due to access to sophisticated technologies and specialized expertise, the private sector can sometimes provide services otherwise unavailable to the public sector, or services at a higher level of quality.а Private ownership can transfer part or all of the responsibility for financial risk and environmental compliance from the public to the private company (risk-sharing).а Finally, private sector operations can frequently have a shorter implementation time.

 

Limitations: A major concern of governments in public-private partnerships is loss of control.а When the public party is not involved in day-to-day operations, it may believe it does not have the same control over quality, including compliance with environmental standards and permits.а Public employees and unions may oppose the public-private partnership due to fears about the loss of jobs.а Local governments may not always have the legal authority to enter into contracts with private

 

parties.а Tax-exempt and/or other low-cost financing may not be available from federal or State governments for partnership arrangements, and in general, changes in the tax code directly impact private sector profit-making opportunities.а At times, for example private landfills, the public and private sectors have been in direct competition, and disputes have occurred.

 

Summary: The impetus for local communities to undertake a contractual P3 arrangement forа environmental services differs for each environmental media, depending on the history of public funding and facility ownership, the tax code, and other factors.а Hitherto, most attention has focused on wastewater treatment facilities, compared to drinking water or solid waste, because wastewaterа has been dominated by federally-funded, and now State Revolving Fund-financed facilities, which by law provide monies only for publically owned systems.а Since 98 percent of all wastewater infrastructure is currently publically owned, mechanisms to encourage private sector involvement have been an important topic.а Examples of these mechanisms include tax code issues which affect private sector profits, lease arrangement that avoid some funding restrictions, the disposition and use of previously federally-funded (i.e., by construction grants) projects, and private operations and maintenance contracts.а In contrast, well over fifty percent of all drinking water and solid waste systems/facilities are privately-owned.а Thus, privatization in the drinking water and solid waste areas is a well-established and widely accepted commercial practice, and offers a somewhat different set of topics for discussion.а For example, equal treatment for both the public and private sectors is an issue, as exemplified by the ability of the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund to fund both the public and private sectors.а Meanwhile, limiting competition has been an important solid waste issue with regards to landfills.ааааа

 

 

LIST OF PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS

(In Alphabetical Order)

 

 

ааа 1.а Asset Sales (Under Executive Order 12803)

а *2.а Build/Operate/Transfer or Build/Transfer/Operate (New Facility Construction, Operation,

аааааааа and/Ownership)

а *3.а Contract Services: Operations and Maintenance (Private Services Contract)

а *4.а Contract Services: Operations, Maintenance, and Management (Private Services Contract)

ааа 5.а Developer Financing

ааа 6.а Lease/Develop/Operate or Build/Develop/Operate (Existing Facility Lease and Renovation)

ааа 7.а Lease/Purchase (New Facility Construction)

ааа 8.а Long-Term Lease (Under Executive Order 12803)

ааа 9.а Merchant Facility

*10.а Privatization

а 11.а Sale/Leaseback

а 12.а Self-Regulation (Inspection and Monitoring)

а 13.а Tax-Exempt Lease

*14.а Turnkey (New Facility Construction)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*а Stars indicate most highly rated mechanisms as described in the Comparison Matrix at the end of the narratives.а See Introduction to the Guidebook for a description of the criteria used.а Ratings of УHighФ, УModerateФ, and УLowФ are for comparison purposes only, as some ratings are necessarily subjective and data are incomplete.

 

 

 

ASSET SALES

(Under Executive Order 12803)

 

Description:аа Executive Order 12803 directs all federal departments and agencies to support the privatization (sale or long-term lease from a State or local government to a private party) of infrastructure assets financed in whole or part by the federal government to the extent permitted by law and consistent with originally authorized purposes.а The Executive Order also lays out the transfer price distribution and recoupment priorities needed to meet the disposition requirements of federal administrative grant requirements.а

 

Actual Use: In July 1995, the Miami Conservancy District (MCD) , a government flood control agency serving the municipalities and counties abutting the Miami River near Dayton, Ohio, sold its 4.5 MGD wastewater treatment facility to Wheelabrator Environmental Operational Services (see case study on P4B-7).а This historic transaction, approved by USEPA represented the first sale of a grant-funded wastewater treatment facility to the private sector under Executive Order 12803.

 

Potential Use:а Asset sales could be used by local governments and authorities to attract private sector investment.а This new investment could be used to upgrade and/or expand previously grant-funded, public-purpose wastewater treatment facilities, equipment, and services.а Private investment represents a largely untapped, badly needed source of financing to help communities maintain environmental compliance and meet new mandates.

 

Advantages:а An asset sale allows the public sector to take advantage of possible construction and operational efficiencies (faster time frames and lower costs) of the private sector and to unlock the potentially significant economic value of the public sectorТs wastewater treatment assets.а In addition, the partnership arrangement offers an opportunity for the public and private sectors to share the regulatory risks and responsibilities as well as important economic benefits.аа

 

Limitations:а The Уasset saleФ privatization process can be complex, politically sensitive, andа time-consuming from a legal stand-point.а Regulatory agency concerns and inexperience with this type of transactional arrangement may contribute to these barriers.а While asset sales have received a lot of attention, few have been concluded successfully.а There is little assurance that the public revenues gained will be reinvested in the environment.

 

Reference for Further Information:а USEPA, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460 (Mail Code: 4201).а Phone: 202-260-5880.а Fax: 202-260-1040.а USEPA, Office of the Comptroller, Environmental Finance Program, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.а Mail Code: 2731R.

 

аааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа BUILD/OPERATE/TRANSFER

OR

BUILD/TRANSFER/OPERATE

ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа (New Facility Construction, Operation, and/or Ownership)

 

 

Description:а Under the Build/Operate/Transfer (BOT) option, the private sector partnerа builds a facility to the specifications agreed to by the public agency (usuallyа under a turnkey arrangement), operates the facility for a specified time period under a contract or franchise agreement with the agency, and then transfers the facility to the agency at the end of the specified period of time.а In most cases, the private partner will also provide some, or all, of the financing for the facility, so the length of the contract or franchise must be sufficient to enable the private partner to realize a reasonable return on its investment through user charges.а At the end of the franchise period, the public partner can assume operating responsibility for the facility, contract the operations to the original franchise holder, or award a new contract or franchise to a new private partner.

 

Actual Use: There have been quite a few BOT arrangements implemented for the provision of environmental services.а For example, the City of Bristol, Connecticut, entered into a contractual arrangement with a private partner to design build, operate and own a resource recovery facility.а In Lee County, Alabama, the county contracted with a private company to site, construct, operate and own a landfill in the county.

 

Potential Use: The Build/Operate/Transfer arrangement could be used in a substantial number of situations to build new wastewater and solid waste management facilities.

 

Advantages: BOT arrangements allow the public sector to capitalize on the construction efficiencies of the private sectors such as faster time frames and lower construction costs.а Depending on the individual contractual arrangement, BOT may also allow the public partner to reap the benefits of private sector operating efficiencies.а The arrangements may allow the private partner to enjoy the tax benefits of ownership and, in some cases, provide access to lower cost public financing.

 

Limitations:а Like the case with turnkey arrangements, Build/Operate/Transfer arrangements must be individually negotiated.а Many traditional low-bid governmental procurement policies often do not work very well.а

 

Reference for Further Information:а Apogee Research, Inc., Unpublished Paper: Private Sector Involvement in Transit Maintenance: Sharing the Benefits and the Risks, April, 1992.

 

CONTRACT SERVICES:а OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа (Private Services Contract)

 

 

Description:а A public partner (federal, State, or local government, agency, or authority) contracts with a private partner to provide and/or maintain a specific public environmental service.а Examples of the type of service provided include lab testing, auditing, the collection of fines and penalties, solid waste collection and disposal, and the operation and maintenance of water and wastewater treatment facilities and systems.а Under the private operation and maintenance option, the public partner retains ownership and overall management of the public facility or system.

 

Actual Use: This contractual arrangement is used by nearly one thousand local governments for wastewater treatment and by many thousands for the transportation and disposal of solid waste.а Local governments have also used contract services to provide recycling services, asbestos encapsulation or removal operations, and many other municipal services.а State governments have contracted out various parts of their environmental programs.а For example, the monitoring of wastewater discharges in Wisconsin has been contracted out to a private laboratory by the State of WisconsinТs Water Quality Program.

 

Potential Use:а Contract services could be used to provide and/or maintain services involving water and air quality monitoring, hazardous waste facility management, drinking water facility operation, hazardous waste remediation, and many additional activities in these and other environmental media.аааа

Advantages:а Depending on the nature of the activity or service, private sector operators haveа achieved efficiency savings of 10-40 percent compared to public sector operation and maintenance.а Under some contract operation or service agreements, the risk of operations is shared with the private partner or even transferred to them entirely.

а

Limitations:а In some cases, the transfer of formerly public services and operations to private companies can cause labor difficulties among public employees.а Some local governments and authorities fear that contracting out may result in the possible loss of control over important public services for which they are held responsible by constituents.

 

Reference for Further Information: USEPA, Office of the Comptroller, Environmental Finance Program publication, Public Private Partnerships Case Studies:а Profiles of Success in Providing Environmental Services, September, 1990, contains case studies on contract operations in solid waste removal, wastewater treatment, and drinking water utilities.а USEPA Environmental Finance Program, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.а Mail Code: 2731R.

 

 

CONTRACT SERVICES:

OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND MANAGEMENT

ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа (Private Services Contract)

 

 

Description: A public partner (federal, State, or local government, agency, or authority) contracts with a private partner to operate, maintain, and manage a facility or system providing a public environmental or other service.а Under this contract option, the public partner retains ownership of the public facility or system, but the private party may invest its own capital in the facility or system.а Any private investment is carefully calculated in relation to its contributions to operational efficiencies and savings over the term of the contract.а Generally, the longer the contract term, the greater the opportunity for increased private investment because there is more time available in which to recoup any investment and earn a reasonable return.

 

Actual Use:а Many local governments use this contractual partnership to provide wastewater treatment services.а The City of Indianapolis used it for two large advanced wastewater treatment facilities and saved $22.6 million dollars in two years (see EFAB case study in Section 4B).а Baltimore also realized substantial savings.а Local governments can use the arrangement for solid waste collection and disposal, recycling services, and other operations and services.а Statesа contract with private parties to operate, maintain, and manage highly specialized environmental activities such as the vehicle emissions testing programs needed for compliance with the Clean Air Act.аа

 

Potential Use: This type of contract arrangement could also be more extensively used to provide services relating to water and air quality monitoring, solid and hazardous waste collection and disposal, drinking water facilities, and hazardous waste remediation.а The 1997 Private Activity Regulation liberalized the treatment of tax-exempt funds used to finance public facilities under private management contracts, extending the contract term from five to 20 years.

 

Advantages: аDepending on the nature of the activity or service, private sector operators haveа achieved efficiency savings of 10-30 percent compared to public sector operation and maintenance.а The total projected savings for the Indianapolis project referenced above is $60 million over five years.а Under many operations, maintenance, and management contracts, the risk of operations is shared with the private partner or transferred to them entirely.

а

Limitations:а In some cases, the transfer of public services and operations to private companies can cause labor difficulties with public employees.а Some local governments fear that contracting out may lead to loss of control over services for which they are held responsible by the public.

 

Reference for Further Information:а USEPA Environmental Financial Advisory Board report, Cost-Effective Environmental Management Case Studies. USEPA, Office of the Comptroller, Environmental Finance Program, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.а Mail Code: 2731R.

DEVELOPER FINANCING

 

 

Description:а Under developer financing, the private party (usually a real estate developer) finances the construction or expansion of an environmental facility in exchange for the right to buildа residential housing, commercial stores, and/or industrial facilities.а The private developer contributes capital and may operate the facility under the oversight of the local government.а The developer gains the right to use the facility and may receive future income from user fees.а While developers may in rare cases build a facility, more typically they are charged a fee or required to purchase capacity in an existing facility.а This payment is used to expand or upgrade the facility.а Developer financing arrangements are often called capacity credits, sewer access rights, impact fees, or exactions.а Developer financing may be voluntary or involuntary depending on local circumstances.

 

Actual Use: Anecdotal reports suggest the number of developer financed municipal facilities is significant and growing.а One survey found 190 cities with populations of over 15,000 had tapped developers to finance wastewater treatment plants and sewer lines.а This occurred most often in areas with rapid growth such as California, Colorado, Florida, and Texas.а Developer financing also occurs where growth is tightly regulated or restricted, and/or where the value of the development is great.а Other developer financed facilities have included drinking water systems (distribution lines, wells, treatment plants, and storage tanks), landfills, and trucks/equipment for solid waste disposal.

аа

Potential Use:а Developer financing arrangements might also be used to help acquire the capital needed to finance solid waste disposal, storm water management,а and recycling facilities, as well as the establishment and/or purchase of riparian buffer zones.а Proffers (exactions) or impact fees also could be used to acquire capital.

 

Advantages: Current users of the environmental service do not have to provide the capital needed to upgrading or expand the facility.а The private partner gets the right, which it otherwise would not have, to develop lucrative residential, commercial, and/or industrial property.

а

Limitations: Developer financing is almost always limited to certain locations such as in rapid growth areas.а The developer receives no preferential tax treatment.а Most developers do not like to pay or manage for these facilities and often resist, even to the point of engaging litigation with local governments.а Serious environmental problems can result if developers neglect or abandon the facilities, which has occurred in some localities.

ааа

Reference for Further Information:а USEPA Publication 20M-2005, Public-Private Partnerships Case Studies: Profiles of Success in Providing Environmental Services, September 1990.а USEPA, Office of the Comptroller, Environmental Finance Program, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Mail Code: 2731R.

 

 

ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа LEASE/DEVELOP/OPERATE

OR

BUILD/DEVELOP/OPERATE

ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа (Existing Facility Lease and Renovation)

 

 

Description:а Under these partnership arrangements, the private party leases or buys a facility from a public agency, invests its own capital to renovate, modernize and/or expand the facility, and then operates it under a contract with the public agency.аа

 

Actual Use:а A number of different types of municipal transit facilities have been leased and developed under various Lease/Develop/Operate (LDO) and Build/Develop/Operate (BDO) partnership arrangements.

аа

Potential Use:а LDO and BDO arrangements also could be used to acquire the private capital needed to finance upgrades to local environmental facilities, such as wastewater treatment plants or solid waste management facilities, to bring them into compliance with environmental regulations.а By facilitating the lease of federally-grant funded wastewater treatment works, Executive Order 12803 on Privatization permits local governments to enter into LDO arrangements if and when they determine it beneficial and appropriate.а

 

Advantages: Under LDO, the public agency may not have to provide the capital investment necessary for upgrading or expanding its environmental facilities.а The public agency also may be able to take advantage of possible private sector construction and operational efficiencies.а The private partner gets the right to operate the facility for a predetermined length of time and recover its investment through carefully crafted user charges.

а

Limitations: State and local governments may be concerned about negotiating and guaranteeing the correct operating contract with a particular vendor.а In some States or areas, local governments and/or other authorities may lack the power to enter into lease arrangements.а State regulatory or statutory action may be required for these governments/authorities to enable them to lease their environmental facilities.аа

 

Reference for Further Information:а Apogee Research, Inc., Unpublished Paper: Private Sector Involvement in Transit Maintenance: Sharing the Benefits and the Risks, April, 1992.а Contains a number of examples of LDO and BDO arrangements. USEPA, Office of the Comptroller,а Environmental Finance Program, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.а Mail Code: 2731R.

 

 

 

ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа

LEASE/PURCHASE

аааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа (New Facility Construction)

 

 

Description:аа A lease/purchase is an installment-purchase contract.а Under this model, the private sector finances and builds a facility which it then leases to a public agency.а The public agency makes scheduled lease payments to the private party.а The public agency accrues equity in the facility with each payment.а At the end of the lease term, the public agency owns the facility or purchases it at the costа of any remaining unpaid balance in the lease.а Under this arrangement, the facility may be operated by either the public agency or the private developer during the term of the lease.а

 

Actual Use:а Lease/purchase arrangements have been widely used for years by the General Services Administration for building federal office buildings.а Pennsylvania and a growing number of other States (Departments of Corrections) have used lease/purchase arrangements to build prisons and other correctional facilities.

 

Potential Use:а Lease/purchase arrangements could be used to provide the financing mechanism for wastewater treatment, solid waste disposal, and water storage facilities, as well as a wide variety of other environmental and non-environmental uses.а

 

Advantages:а The basic reason for this transaction is to enable a public agency to obtain a new facility without the need for the additional capital investment or debt.а The private sector puts up the investment and the public agency pays for it over a set period of time.а Private sector design and construction efficiencies may result in lower costs than would be incurred by a public agency.а The interest earned from the transaction may be tax-exempt.

 

Limitations:а The cost of the private capital used to finance the project may be higher than the cost of public capital, and may or may not outweigh the benefit gained from private sector construction efficiencies.аа There is also a slight possibility that the public agency could default on the lease and not end owning the facility.

 

Reference for Further Information:а USEPA State Capacity Task Force Draft Report, Alternative Financingа Mechanisms, August 1992.аа USEPA , Office of the Comptroller, Environmental Finance Program, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.а Mail Code: 2731R.аа See also Municipal Tax-Exempt Lease Purchasing, Richard Chambers, Touche Ross.

 

LONG-TERM LEASE

(Under Executive Order 12803)

 

 

Description: Executive Order 12803 directs all federal departments and agencies to support the privatization (sale or long-term lease from a State or local government to a private party) ofа infrastructure assets (including publicly-owned wastewater treatment works or POTWs) financed in whole or part by the federal government to the extent permitted by law and consistent with originally authorized purposes.а The Order also lays out the transfer price distribution and recoupment priorities needed to meet the disposition requirements of federal administrative grant requirements.а

 

Actual Use: No long-term leases have been implemented under the Executive Order to date.а However, long-term leases have been successfully used for years in a wide range of public and private real estate and economic development situations.а

 

Potential Use: Under the Executive Order, long-term leases could be used, where needed and appropriate, to attract increased private sector investment to previously grant-funded, publicly-owned, wastewater treatment facilities, equipment, and services.а This new investment could be used to fund the rehabilitation, upgrade, and/or expansion of these important public assets needed to maintain environmental compliance and help meet future mandates.

 

Advantages: Long-term lease arrangements allow the public sector to capitalize on the operational and construction efficiencies enjoyed by the private sector and to unlock the potentially significant economic value of previously grant-funded public wastewater treatment assets.а In addition, the public and private sectors can use this type of partnership arrangement to share regulatory risks and responsibilities, as well as economic benefits.аа

 

Limitations: The use of long-term leases to privatize wastewater treatment assets under the provisions ofа Executive Order 12803 remains untested at this time.а Given this lack of experience, this privatization process may prove to be complex, politically sensitive, and time-consuming from federal, State, and local regulatory standpoints.ааа

 

Reference for Further Information:а USEPA, Office of Wastewater Management, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.а Mail Code: 4201.а Telephone Number: 202-260-5880.а Fax Number: 202-260-1040.а USEPA Environmental Financial Advisory Board Report, Private Sector Partici-

pation in the Provision of Environmental Services: Barriers and Incentives, November 25, 1991.а USEPA, Office of the Comptroller, Environmental Finance Program, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.а Mail Code: 2731R.

 

MERCHANT FACILITY

 

 

Description: In this type of partnership arrangement, the private sector party not only owns and operates the environmental facility, as in privatization deals (see write-up on page 4A-14) , but it also makes the decision to provide the environmental service to the community in the first place.а The concept is similar to that ofа fast food, clothing store, or automotive services franchises except that it involves the provision of an environmental service.

 

Actual Use: Merchant facilities have been generally associated with the provision of solid waste management services such as landfills, composting facilities, recycling plants, and resource recovery facilities (mass-burn incinerators).а Examples of diverse communities having merchant facility solid waste composting plants include Milbury, Massachusetts (population 11,500), and Saint Cloud, Minnesota (population 181,570).а Lee County, Alabama, (population 80,800), is an example of a community where efficient landfill service is provided through a merchant facility arrangement.

 

Potential Use: Given favorable economics and community support, merchant facilities could more frequently provide environmental services in any of the solid waste management areas listed above.а In addition, if political hurdles can be overcome, merchant facilities arrangements might also be used to facilitate the rail transportation of solid waste from point of generation to point of disposal.а This may become necessary as large cities begin to run out of local disposal sites and must transport their solid waste to sites farther away from their metropolitan regions.

 

Advantages: Through the use of merchant facility arrangements, the public sector enjoys access to private sector financing, superior technology, and considerable operating expertise.а Merchant facilities can be built more quickly and at a lower costs, in large part, because they do not need to go through the public sector procurement process.а This type of partnership arrangement shifts the regulatory responsibilities to the private sector.а If they are efficiently built, maintained and marketed, merchant facilities can be very profitable for the private owner and operator.

 

Limitations: There may be local employee/union opposition to privately owned and run public-purpose facilities.а The private investment required is large and facility use must be maximized.а The private party can suffer financial difficulties if service demand falls or low-cost competition Thus, there are many situations in which the public and private sector have competed for solid waste delivery, giving rise to lawsuits and other complaints, such as in New York.

 

Reference for Further Information: USEPA Publication 20M-2005, Public-Private Partnerships Case Studies: Profiles of Success in Providing Environmental Services, September 1990.а USEPA, Office of the Comptroller, Environmental Finance Program, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.а Mail Code: 2731R.а

 

PRIVATIZATION

 

 

Description: In privatization, the public sector (usually a local or State government) decides to provide an environmental service and looks to the private sector for help in meeting that need.а The private sector contracts to design, build, own and operate the desired environmental facility.а Generally, the private party partially or totally finances the project.а They may, however, access tax-exempt financing available through the State for public-purpose projects.а See Section 2A writeup on Private-Activity Bonds, for a summary of eligibilities by environmental media.аа

 

Actual Use: Privatization is very common forа solid waste management and drinking water systems, but is still rare for wastewater treatment.а Frequently, the privatized facilities provide services to more than one government or community.а A good example of privatization is a resource recovery facility (mass-burn incinerator) built in Bristol, Connecticut in the late 1980s.аа In this case, eight Connecticut communities entered into an agreement with a private party to make the facility possible.а The State issued private activity tax-exempt bonds to finance the project and an expanded group of eleven communities contracted together to oversee facility operations and agreed to provide a minimum amount of waste to it each year.а There are many rate-regulated privately owned water supply companies nationwide, some of which are very large and operate in multi-states.а In two States, Connecticut and Missouri, the majority of population is served by private water companies

 

Potential Use: Further privatization deals are possible in the environmental areas named above in cases where groups of communities can agree to site and share a common facility.а They are also possible in areas where high user fees already exist.а Such deals could be used to finance other environmental technology approaches such as waste-to-energy-facilities and advanced treatment wastewater plants.а The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund can provide low-cost loans to even regulated water companies.

 

Advantages: Privatization allows the private party to bring sophisticated technology to the solution of environmental management challenges.а It also allows the public sector to share or transfer the risks of the technology and future environmental compliance responsibilities with the private sector.

 

Limitations: Public tax-exempt financing may not be available for all private, public-purpose environmental projects.а The reduction in tax incentives resulting from the Tax Reform Act of 1986 greatly reduced private interest in this partnership option, particularly for wastewater.а Frequently, privatized facilities must provide services to numerous governments to make economic sense.

 

Reference for Further Information:а USEPA Publication 20M-2005, Public-Private Partnerships Case Studies: Profiles of Success in Providing Environmental Services, September 1990.а USEPA, Office of the Comptroller, Environmental Finance Program, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.а Mail Code: 2731R.а

ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа

SALE/LEASEBACK

 

 

Description:а A sale/leaseback is a financial arrangement in which the owner of a facility sells it to another entity, and subsequently leases it back from the new owner.а Both public and private entities may enter into sale/leaseback arrangements for a variety of reasons.а For example, a tax-exempt lease (see write-up on page 4A-17), is a particular type of sale/leaseback arrangement in which a public entity sells a facility to a private partner in order to finance construction or upgrades, and repays the private partner's investment with lease payments.а Another innovative application of the sale/leaseback technique is the sale of a public facility to a public or private holding company for the purposes of limiting governmental liability under environmental statutes.а Under this arrangement, the government that sold the facility leases it back and continues to operate it. Since ownership remains with the holding company, however, the government may not be held financially liable for potential violations of environmental regulations.а

а

Actual Use:а Sale/leaseback arrangements can be used by both State and local governments.а Phoenix, Arizona is setting up a sale/leaseback arrangement to sell an environmental facilityа to a municipal holding company that has the power to issue tax-exempt bonds.а The government will lease and operate the facility while the holding company will retain ownership and the risk of environmental liability associated with the facility.

 

Potential Use:а Sale/leaseback arrangements could be used to limit potential governmental liability from operation of hazardous waste disposal facilities.

 

Advantages:а Sale/leaseback arrangements can sometimes provide private sector financing for a facility (as with a tax-exempt lease), and may be able to limit a government's potential liability.а If a sale/leaseback arrangement involves private ownership, the private partner gains the tax benefits of depreciation on the facility.

 

Limitations:а Enacting sale/leaseback arrangements may be difficult under State or local law.а In exchange for the protection from liability, the public partner may be concerned about losing control over the facility.

 

Reference for Further Information:а Gelfand, M. David, State and Local Government Debt Financing, Volume 2, Callaghan & Company, Deerfield, Illinois, December, 1988.а Contains general definition and description of sale/leaseback arrangements.а For further information on sale/leaseback arrangement in Phoenix, contact George Britton, City Manager, (602) 256-3248.

 

 

 

ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа

SELF-REGULATION

ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа (Inspection and Monitoring)

 

 

Description:а Self-regulation is a form of environmental enforcement wherein private sector industry is responsible for inspecting and monitoring its own discharges and emissions with some reduced form of governmental oversight such as a State auditing program.а The State auditing program may review all instances of self-regulation or may review a random sampling of these partnerships each year.

 

Actual Use: Some State governments have already contracted out various portions of their environmental programs and activities.а For example, the Wisconsin water quality program has contracted out monitoring of wastewater discharges to a private laboratory.а Ohio is in the process of contracting out a significant portion of its State voluntary cleanup program for brownfields properties.а Ohio plans to maintain oversight of private party cleanup efforts through the operation of an audit program.

 

Potential Use: The self-regulation approach works best for industries that generate relatively low quality and quantity pollutant streams.а It is also a feasible approach for those industries and/or private companies with minimal incentive to pollute or with good compliance histories.

 

Advantages:а Self-regulation does not generate revenue per se, but does present significant cost savings to the governing enforcement agency through reduction in program implementation, oversight and inspection.а It allows the enforcement agency to focus its efforts on other industry (ies) that presents a greater and more immediate environmental threat, or is more capable or likely to pollute the environment.

 

Limitations:а Over time the polluting strength of a given industry may change, thereby presenting a greater risk in allowing self-regulation.а The approach imposes costs upon the industry that is self-regulating.а Industries that are not designated as self-regulating may protest the burdens they face from excessive governmental regulation.а Audit programs using sampling techniques may not catch self-regulators who are violating their agreements (polluting).

 

Reference for Further Information: The State of WisconsinТs water quality program can beа contacted for information on its wastewater discharges monitoring contract.а The State of Ohio has information on its State voluntary cleanup program.а

 

 

 

 

ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа

TAX-EXEMPT LEASE

 

 

Description:а Under a tax-exempt lease arrangement, a public partner finances capital assets or facilities by borrowing funds from a private investor or financial institution.а The private partner generally acquires title to the asset, but then transfers it to the public partner either at the end orа the beginning of the lease term.а The portion of the lease payment that is used to pay interest on the capital investment is tax-exempt under State and federal laws.а

 

Actual Use:а Tax-exempt leases have been used to finance a wide variety of capital assets, ranging from computers to telecommunication systems to municipal vehicles/fleets such as buses, police cars, fire trucks, and garbage trucks to professional sports arenas and stadiums.а

 

Potential Use:а Tax-exempt leases are another method of capital financing that could be applied to environmental facilities and equipment.а Since the lease arrangements usually do not count against local statutory debt limitations, they may be a particularly valuable tool for communities whose debt capacity is nearly exhausted.

 

Advantages: The primary advantage to the local government is the fact that it can use the tax-exempt lease to access capital from the private sector without having to issue a bond or some other public debt instrument.а In addition, the public partner can oftenа use the tax-exempt lease to acquire private capital at discounted rates.а The private partner, meanwhile, realizes the benefit of tax-exempt income from the interest portion of the lease payments.

а

Limitations:а Since some lease arrangements are long-term, the public partner must have the authority to enter into long-term contracts.а If they do not have this authority, State regulatory or statutory action may be necessary to grant it to them.а This may prove to be a difficult and time-consuming process.аа

 

Reference for Further Information:а USEPA State Capacity Task Force Draft Report, Alternative Financingа Mechanisms, August 1992.аа USEPA , Office of the Comptroller, Environmental Finance Program, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.а Mail Code: 2731R.ааа Municipal Tax-Exempt Lease Purchasing, Richard Chambers, Touche Ross.

ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа

TURNKEY

аааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа (New Facility Construction)

 

 

Description:а Under a turnkey arrangement, a public agency will contract with a private investor or vendor to design and build a complete facility in accordance with specified performance standards and criteria agreed to between the agency and the vendor.а The private developer will commit to build the facility for a fixed price and will absorb the construction risk of meeting that price commitment.а Generally, in a turnkey transaction, the private partners will use fast-track construction techniques (such as design-build) and will not be bound by traditional public sector procurement regulations.а This combination often enables the private partner to complete the facility in significantly less time and for less cost than could be accomplished under traditional construction techniques.а In a turnkey transaction, financing and ownership of the facility can rest with either the public or private partner.а For example, the public agency might provide the financing, with the attendant costs and risks.а Alternatively, the private party might provide the financing capital, generally in exchange for a long-term contract to operate the facility.ааааааа

 

Actual Use:а A large number of State and local governments have used turnkey agreements to build wastewater treatment plants and solid waste disposal facilities.а For example, the City of Huntsville, Alabama, created a Solid Waste Disposal Authority that contracted with a private partner to design, construct, and operate a mass-burn incinerator owned by the authority.а Furthermore, theа steam generated by the facility is sold to a federal arsenal.а

а

Potential Use:а Turnkey agreements would be particularly suited to build facilities that require highly-specialized technology, such as hazardous waste disposal, waste-to-energy generation, or vehicle emissions inspection.

 

Advantages:а Turnkey agreements take advantage of the private sector procurement process and potential construction efficiencies, which allows private facilities to be built faster and more cheaply than comparable public facilities.а

 

Limitations:а Implementation of a turnkey transaction requires that a public agency be able to negotiate a contract with a private vendor.а The traditional "low-bid" procurement frequently will not work for a turnkey project.

 

Reference for Further Information:а Public Private Partnerships Case Studies:а Profiles of Success in Providing Environmental Services, September, 1990,аа USEPA, Office of the Comptroller, Environmental Finance Program, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.а Mail Code: 2731R.аааа

 

 

OTHER

 

 

Description:а

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actual Use:

 

 

 

 

 

Potential Use:а

 

 

 

 

Advantages:

 

 

 

 

Limitations:а

 

 

 

Reference for Further Information:а

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMPARISON MATRIX FOR PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS

 

 

Criteria/   P3 Tool	Actualааааааа Use	Revenueа Size	Revenueа Cost/ааа Savings	Admini-strative Ease	Equity	Environ-mentalаа Benefits
аAsset Sales	Low	Mod.	High	Low	Mod.	Mod. - High
*Build/Operate/аааааааааа Transfer	Mod. - Low	Mod. - High	Mod. - High	Mod.	Mod.	High
*Contract Servicesааааа (O&M)	High	High	Mod.-аааааа High	Mod.-аааааа High	Mod.	Mod.
*Contractаааааааааааааааааааа Servicesаааааааааааааааааааааа (O&M&M)	High	High	High	Mod.	Mod.	Mod.
*Developer а Financing	High	High	Mod.	Mod.	Low	Mod.
а Lease or Build/ааааааааа Develop/Operate	Low	Mod.	Mod. -High	Low	Mod.	Mod.
а Lease/Purchase	Low	Mod.	Low -Mod.	Low -Mod.	Mod.	Mod.
а Long-Term Lease	Low	Low - Mod.	Mod.	Low	Mod.	Mod.
а Merchant Facility	Mod. -High	High	Mod.	Mod. - High	Low	Mod. - High
а*Privatization	High	Mod. - High	Low - Mod.	Mod.	Mod.	High
а Sale/Leaseback	Low - Mod.	Low - Mod.	Low - Mod.	Low - Mod.	Mod.	Mod.

 

ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа

COMPARISON MATRIX continued

 

 

Criteria/ ааааа P3 Tool	Actualаа Use	Programаа Size	Revenueа Cost/ааааааа Savings	Admini-strative Ease	Equity	Environ-mentalаа Benefit
а Self-ааааааааааааааааа Regulation	Low.	Low	High	Mod.	Mod.	Mod.
а Tax-Exemptаааа Leaseа	Mod.	Low - Mod.	Mod. - High	Low-аааааааааа Mod.	Mod.	Mod.
*Turnkey	High	High	Mod.-аааааааа High	Mod.- High	High	High

 

 

High -а High use (over 25 States, many localities/private sector); most environmental media covered ааааааааааа (water, wastewater, solid waste, air, etc.); criteria score high (e.g., program lowers costs,а is аааааа easy to use, readily available, and results in improved facility construction and management)

Mod.-а Moderate use (10-25 States, some localities/private sector); programs include two or moreааааааааааааа environmental media; criteria score in medium range

Low - Low or rare use; scope is very limited; one or more major implementation problems exist

 

*Star indicates best rated mechanismsааа

4.B.а EFAB

аPUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP AND OPTIMIZATION

CASE STUDIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.B.а EFAB PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND OPTIMIZATION

CASE STUDIES

 

 

The Environmental Financial Advisory Board (EFAB) is a federally chartered advisory board that provides independent advice to EPA on issues relating to environmental finance.а EFAB is comprised of nationally recognized experts drawn from government; the finance, banking, and legal communities; business and industry; and national organizations.а EFAB has produced more than twenty major reports and advisories since 1989, identifying numerous policy and program options across a broad spectrum that seek to lower the costs of environmental protection, increase public and private investment, and buildа and local financial capacity to carry out environmental programs (see the EFAB write-up on P.5A-19).

 

The BoardТs Cost Effectiveness Environmental Management Workgroup has focused on identifying institutional models that communities have used to create more cost effective environmental services.а The workgroup recognizes that in some cases these models may be public-private partnership arrangements, while in other cases, communities may look internally to optimization, competitivization, or re-engineering approaches.а In its deliberations, the workgroup determined that it would produce two products:

 

╖                     A УCompendium of Case StudiesФ showcasing cutting edge examples of how communities have implemented successful public-private partnerships and optimization models.а These case studies include a discussion of the lessons learned from these case studies and how thisа information might be used in helping other communities design their own approaches.

ааааааааааа

╖                     A УHow To HandbookФ providing guidance to local officials and managers when evaluating the feasibility of various public-private partnership arrangements and internal models. The handbook would also discuss ways that various models might be implemented.

 

The case study abstracts on the following pages are brief summaries that attempt to capture the essence of the first series of EFAB public-private partnership/optimization case studies.аа The work of the BoardТs Cost Effective Environmental Management Workgroup is freely acknowledged and greatly appreciated.а We believe that these abstracts both supplement and complement the public-private partnership arrangements presented in section 4.A.а They provide concrete examples to local officials of how successful partnerships and other models can be used by communities to provideа needed environmental services more efficiently.а They also show how public-private partnerships can be used as a way to provide substantial benefits to both the public and private sectors, creating the classic Уwin-winФ situation.

 

 

LIST OF

EFAB PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP

AND OPTIMIZATION

CASE STUDIES

(In Alphabetical Order)

 

 

а 1.а Charlotte, North Carolinaааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа (Contract Operations and Maintenance)

а 2.а Indianapolis, Indianaа ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа (Contract Operations, Maintenance, & Management)

а 3.а Jersey City, New Jerseyа ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа (Contract Services)

а 4.а Miami Conservancy District, Ohioаааааа (Asset Sale Under Executive Order 12803)

а 5.а New Orleans, Louisianaа ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа (Contract Operations)

а 6.а North Brunswick Township, ааааааааааааааааааааааааааа (Concession Operations)

ааааа New Jerseyааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа

а 7.а Oklahoma City, Oklahomaа ааааааааааааааааааааааааааа (Contract Operations)

а 8.а Philadelphia, Pennsylvaniaа аааааааааааааааааааааааааа (Contract Operations)

а 9.а West New York, New Jerseyа ааааааааааааааааааааааа (Contract Operations)

10.а Wilmington, Delawareа аааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа (Asset Sale/Privatization)

11.а Wixom, Michiganа аааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа (Contract Operations)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA

аааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа (Contract Operations and Maintenance)

 

 

Description: The City of Charlotte seeks competition and outsourcing to reduce the costs ofа public services.а Water and wastewater services are provided to Charlotte and Mecklenberg County by the Charlotte-Mecklenberg Utilities Department (CMUD) which runs three water treatment plants and five wastewater treatment plants.а To explore cost savings through public-private partnership, CMUD offered the Vest Water Treatment Plant and the Irwin Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant for contract operations.а The partnership offered was a five-year contract (a three year contract with two one-year renewal options) for operations and maintenance of the facilities only.а Each plant was treated as a separate procurement, but firms were allowed to submit a combined proposal in addition to the individual ones, if there was a cost savings to the City.

ааа

Demographics:а The City and County have a strong economy with significant growth and these trends are expected to continue.а The service area includes Mecklenberg County (about 500,000 people) and both plants are in Charlotte, NC.а The Vest plant treats 16-24 million gallons a day (MGD) and has a hydraulic capacity of about 30 MGD.а The actual range of finished water ranges from 6-46 MGD.а The Irwin plant treats an average of 12 MGD of mostly domestic wastewater, with a design capacity of 15 MGD.а Secondary treatment is based on a modified Bio-Filter activated sludge process and recently completed upgrades add a single media filter to provide tertiary treatment.а CMUD has not experienced recent compliance problems.

 

Procurement/Competition:а The City used a two-stage procurement process which began in late spring 1995.а The first was a request for qualifications from firms interested in proposing on one or both projects.а Separate statements of qualifications (SOQs) were required for each.а The City received nine SOQs for the Vest project and eight for the Irwin project.а SOQs were evaluated based on management arrangements, experience, key staff experience and qualifications, technical resources, financial resources, performance history, and project understanding/contracting suggestions.а The SOQs received were of high quality and only one firm did make the short-list.

 

Including the in-house proposal (it was pre-qualified), seven proposals were submitted for Vest and six for Irwin.а The main criterion for evaluating proposals was cost.а Technical criteria included the quality and reliability of proposed operations and maintenance services, level and skill of staff, transition plan, and specific areas of risk for each proposal.а Considerable efforts were taken to ensure a level playing field for all proposers, particularly in regards to separating the in-house proposal team from the procurement team, and in fairly allocatingа indirect department and City overhead costs to the in-house proposal. In addition, an independent consulting team was hired to manage the procurement process, and assist in evaluating qualifications and technical/cost proposals.

 

CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA

 

 

Proposer Selected: The City selected CMUDТs in-house team to operate both plants. Their proposed price was substantially lower than the lowest privatizerТs price.а Technically, the CityТs in-house proposal was comparable to the privatizersТ proposals.а The in-house proposal reduced costs through staff reductions, increased automation, and improved process control equipment.а The City set up a separate cost center to track the performance of the in-house team in meeting cost-saving goals.а Failure to meet the goals allows the non-binding memorandum of understanding with the in-house team to be ended and operation of the plants again offered for privatization.а Employee bonuses are based on cost savings exceeding those guaranteed in the proposal.а The contract began July 1, 1996.

 

Benefits: Based on the CityТs in-house proposal, costs savings of about 30% are expected the first year compared to the previous yearТs budget.аа Since the operation of these two plants is only a small part of the total CMUD budget, the impact on rates will not be significant over the five-year time frame of the contract.а However, the implications for achieving similar savings throughout CMUD operations may have a significant impact on long-term costs and future rates.аа The City expects to benefit from improved maintenance and the corresponding preservation of its assets.

а

Drawbacks:а None.а Cost of capital was not an issue since the City was retaining responsibility for capital expenditures and none are expected over the five-year term of the contract.а The City view of privatization is still favorable and perceived loss of control is not an issue.а The City believes it can maintain control via the provisions of the service contract and by owning the land and assets.

 

Lessons Learned: Even though the City choose not to privatize, the procurement was successfulа and valuable lessons were learned, including:

 

╖                     Open communications between the City and private parties are essential.

╖                     The evaluation process must be objective and provide a level playing field for all proposers.

╖                     A two-step procurement can be an effective way to streamline the process.

╖                     Requests for Proposal should include comprehensive and explicit draft service agreements.

╖                     Both sides must understand the maintenance risks assumed by the contract operator so that cost-effective proposals can be prepared and evaluated.

╖                     Given the same flexibility as a private party, a public entity can achieve major cost savings.

╖                     The proposal process must provide all participants an equal opportunity to develop creative and cost-effective proposals.

 

Reference for Further Information:а Doug Bean, Director, Charlotte-Mecklenberg Utility Department, 5100 Brookshire Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28216.а Telephone Number: 704-391-5073.а EFAB Member George Raftelis, 6100 Fairview Tower, Suite 615, Charlotte, NC 28210.а Telephone Number: 704-556-1936.а Fax Number: 704-556-1937.аа

ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA

(Contract Operations, Maintenance, and Management)

 

 

Description:а This partnership involves the contract management, maintenance and operations of two advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) facilities by a private operator.аа Prior to the contract, both facilities were sophisticated, state‑of‑the‑art, and operated at a high level of efficiency. The facilities include preliminary treatment, primary clarification, biological treatment via bio-roughing and oxygen nitrification, followed by secondary clarification, effluent filtration, and ozone disinfection prior to effluent discharge into the river.а Also included in the contract were the associated sludge handling facilities, laboratories, and pretreatment programs. Excluded from the contract were sewer collection, billing and collection, and customer service functions.а Major capital improvements remain the responsibility of the City.а

 

Demographics:а The Indianapolis area has a very stable and diversified economy, with average growth of approximately 1.5% annually.а The two AWT facilities serve 850,000 to 900,000 people (400,000 accounts) in the greater Indianapolis area, which includes all of Marion County.а Total average treatment capacity of the plants is 300 million gallons per day ("MGD") ‑ 150 MGD each.а The plants were 11 years old in 1993 when the procurement began.

 

Procurement/Competition:а The City wanted to improve operation, maintenance, and management (OM&M) while cutting costs and generating revenue for system improvements.а The City looked at many options and chose to compete the OM&Mа of the facilities.а In selecting this option, the City retained the tax advantages of public ownership and gained savings viaа private sector efficiencies.

 

A task force was formed to evaluate proposals.а It included members of the City‑County Council, utility management and staff, regulatory officials, general citizens, and the union -- the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).а Relations between the City and AFSCME were originally constrained, but they improved over the course of the procurement.а Theа winning proposer honored the agreement between AFSCME and the City and guaranteed jobs.а All employees were placed within two months.а The entire process, including the preparation time for procurement, took 8 to 10 months.а It cost $200,000 to $300,000 for advisors, consultants and engineers.а This amount was recovered by the City through contract savings within a few weeks.

 

Proposer Selected:а White River Environmental Partners (WREP), a group of private firms, was selected to operate, maintain, and manage the two AWT facilities.а WREP's proposal guaranteed 38% savings over the previous year's budget, and the professional capabilities of the companies in the group were considered superior to the other proposers.а WREP must meet NPDES requirements, is responsible for any penalties as a result of violations, and must maintain the same effluent level or better than under City operations.а WREP is subject to selective audit by an overseeing "board" to ensure bothа compliance with the contract and the quality of private operations.

ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA

 

 

Benefits:а WREP operations are projected to save about $60 million over five years. Between 1993 and 1994, the facilities' O&M budget was reduced from $30 million to $17 million and the number ofа employees reduced from 328 to 196.а By June 1996, 168 WREP employees staffed the facilities.

 

The City has held rates constant due to savings, but they are expected to grow slowly in the future due toа inflation.а Instead of lowering rates, the City puts savings into a Sewer Sanitary Fund used to improve the City's system.а These funds have been used to dry out interceptors and collector systems and to provide sewer service to new areas.

 

Effluent violations have been cut from seven under City operations to one even though rains have been heavier than usual.а The facilities accident rate decreased byа 80% in the first two years of the contract and the Indiana Water Pollution Control Association gave its 1995 safety award to WREP.а Since the contract began, employee grievances have dropped from 38 in 1993 to 1 in 1994, and none in 1995.

 

Drawbacks:а The contract is only for five years. At the end of the contract term, the contract will have to be renegotiated.а Any changes desired by the City or the private operator at that time must be incorporated into a new contract, or the City will need to re‑propose the operations.

 

Lessons Learned: ааAlthough Indianapolis approaches each competition individually, it has developed general principles which guide its efforts:

 

╖                     The key to positive results is public and open competitions.

╖                     Evaluations teams need to be inclusive and formed early in the procurement process.

╖                     Employees are encouraged to compete and unions to be involved in the process.а

(The creativity of these competitions was recognized in 1995 by an American Governmentа Award from the Ford Foundation, presented jointly to the union and the City.)

╖                     Although the City gets advice from experts, when in doubt it lets the marketplace speak. The study conducted for the two AWT facilities underestimated savings of by 30-35%.

╖                     Deal documents need to explicitly address performance standards, and provide incentivesа for vendors to attain and maintain performance goals.а Provisions must be implemented withа effective contract oversight and management by the City.

 

Reference for Further Information: Tom Olsen, Director of Enterprise Development, City of Indianapolis, City-County Building, Suite 2460, 200 East Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204.а Telephone Number: 317-327-4794.а Fax Number: 317-327-4954.а EFAB Member George Raftelis, 6100 Fairview Tower, Suite 615, Charlotte, NC 28210.а Telephone Number: 704-556-1936.а Fax Number: 704-556-1937.

 

JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY

(Contract Services)

 

 

Description:а In the summer of 1995, the City of Jersey City (City) sought to privatize the operations of its Water Department through the efforts of a new Mayor elected on a pro‑business and privatization platform. After investigating options, the City projected that large cost savings and the increased revenue could be achieved through a public-private partnership. After issuing a comprehensive Request For Proposals (RFP) and carefully evaluating the proposals, the City entered into a three‑year operating contract (with two optional one‑year renewals) with United Water Resources (UWR).

 

Demographics:а Jersey City has a favorable cost of living and tax environment for attracting business.а Wages are relatively low as are taxes and other city charges for utility services.а Many New York City companies have offices in the City due to the lower cost of doing business. In recent years the City has had economic problems, and as a result, the Mayor has focused on the CityТs economic development and financial challenges.а He has been instrumental in promoting privatization and desires the most cost‑effective method for providing water services.

 

The Jersey City Water Department provides water service to about 32,000 retail customers located in the New Jersey metropolitan area across the Hudson River from New York City.а Potable water is pumped via aqueduct to the Jersey City area, where it is distributed to retail customers.а Wholesale customers in Hackensack, New Jersey and the municipalities of Hoboken, Lyndhurst, and West Caldwell are served along the aqueduct.а

 

The City-owned system consists of two reservoirs, 5,700 acres of watershed property surrounding them, a treatment facility, and an extensive transmission and distribution system. The reservoirs have capacities of 3.3 and 8.0 billion gallons a day, respectively. The 80 million gallons per day (MGD) water treatment facility receives average daily flows of about 55 MGD. The water treatment plant is located adjacent to one of the reservoirs, 23 miles northwest of the City.

 

The City has had compliance problems with State and federal regulations in the past.а In particular, the City had been stockpiling sludge from the water treatment plant and was forced to dispose of this stockpile, and further sludge generated, into a regulation disposal site.

 

Procurement/Competition: аA steering committee was formed, consisting of members of the City Council and key staff personnel involved in providing water services. Labor unions were active inа the process, as were water utility managers and the City's Business Manager. Raftelis Environmental Consulting Groupа managed the privatization feasibility and procurement process, assisted by W.R. Lazard on financial issues.

 

JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY

 

A detailed RFP was prepared and proposers were evaluated on technical merit, management, operations and maintenance approach, experience and responsiveness, ability to meet contractа obligations, and price.а New Jersey had recently passed a privatization procurement act for water utilities and the procurement required approval from several State agencies.а The procurement took about one year, cost $300,000 to $350,000,а and the contract was signed on April 1, 1996.а Given projections for savings and increased revenues, gaining the City CouncilТs support was straightforward.а Labor unions were brought into the process early and were heavily involved in negotiating the contract.а An innovative leasing of employees was the basis for agreement. The contract required the privatizer to use all employees for at least one year.

 

Proposer Selected: аThe City entered into a three‑year operating contract with UWR. The contract privatizedа all water services including source of supply, treatment, distribution, meter reading, billing and collection, and laboratory services. UWR assumed liability for any fines due to regulatory violations. The City retained rate setting and policy making functions.а A creative cost‑sharing approach was negotiated to encourage a decrease in uncollectible, promote marketing of water services to new wholesale customers, and reduce the amount of unaccounted‑for water.

 

Benefits:а The City is projected to save about $38.5 million over the five‑year contract period: a $2.5 million up‑front concession payment to the City by UWR; $17.5 million in operational savings; and $18.5 million from increased revenues to the utility via improved collections and bulk water sales.а The contract has incentive clauses which allow UWR to earn additional revenue if it increases the collection rate and successfully markets excess water.аа Instead of lowering rates, the City is using cost savings for capital improvements in the system.а UWR has begun a comprehensive predictive and preventive maintenance program unavailable to the City.а Privatization is expected to lead to improved customer service and expanded opportunities for employees via training and higher pay.

 

Drawbacks: Although unions were included from the beginning, the transition of labor to private operations was difficult.а Since UWR chose to base its customer service operations in its Hackensack headquarters, concerns were raised about UWRТs ability to be as responsive as City operations.

 

Lessons Learned:а A comprehensive, detailed RFP and frank negotiations with all parties are essential. A Draft Service Agreement which gave proposers expected contractual requirements was invaluable at the time of actual contract negotiations as all parties were on the same page.а Labor negotiations played a major role in the privatization process and cannot be downplayed.а

 

Reference for Further Information:а Daniel F. Mahoney, Jr., City of Jersey City, 325 Palisades Ave, Jersey City, NJ 07307. Ph: 201-547-5157. Fax: 201-547-6586. EFAB Member George Raftelis,а 6100 Fairview Tower, Suite 615, Charlotte, NC 28210.а Phone: 704-556-1936.а Fax: 704-556-1937.

MIAMI CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

аааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа (Asset Sale Under Executive Order 12803)

 

 

Description: This partnership involved the sale of a wastewater treatment facility by the Miami Conservancy District (MCD) to Wheelabrator Environmental Operational Services (WEOS).а The transaction was the first sale of a grant‑funded environmental facility to the private sector under Executive Order 12803, signed in April 1992.а MCD is a flood control government agency serving the counties abutting the greater Miami River in the Dayton, Ohio area. The plant was built in 1972 at a cost of $3.2 million, including a $1.75 million federal grant. Upgrades and expansions totaling $7.5 million were completed in 1984, 1989, and 1991.а Since the municipalities and counties had existing service agreements with MCD, it was necessary for them to approve the sale of the facility.

 

Demographics: The Franklin wastewater treatment plant serves 40,000 people in theа municipalities of Carlisle, Franklin, and Germantown, and incorporated areas of Montgomery and Warren counties. Growth has been moderate but steady.а Area governments have focused on economic development.а The 4.5 million gallons per day (MGD) facility serves 8,000 households.а Several major industries represent 33% of the plant's total effluent flow and over 75% of plant loadings.а The facility was built to treat a combination of industrial and domestic waste. Current flows average just overа 2.0 MGD.

 

Procurement/Competition:а Flood control is MCDТs major mission and it recognized the need to divest itself of the wastewater facility and concentrate on this main focus.а MCD moved to contract operations of the Franklin facility in July 1987.а Over the next several years, MCD considered full privatization.а As a result of Executive Order 12803, the full privatization of the Franklin plant became a possibility.а The proposed sale of the Franklin facility as an EPA pilot project was approved in December 1992.

 

The plant is regulated by the Ohio EPA. The transfer of the Domestic Sewage Exclusion (DSE) from MCD to the private and public partners (WEOS and the three municipalities of Carlisle, Franklin, and Germantown) was a key issue in the sale.а In addition, the Ohio Water Development Authority (OWDA) had loaned approximately $5.0 million to MCD for upgrades and expansions, and OWDA had to approve the transfer. Another key element of the transfer was the assurance that the OWDA tax‑exempt status of the current outstanding bonds would be preserved.

 

Major community participants included the MCD General Manager and the leaders of the affected communities.а The Ohio EPA, EPA Region V in Chicago, the US EPA Headquarters, and the US Office of Management and Budget were all key in approving the sale of the facility.а The sale was approved July 11, 1995. The feasibility analysis cost $35,000 and supporting activities cost $150,000.а Community consensus was achieved by committed involvement from the municipal managers, MCD Director, community advisors, and Wheelabrator EOS.аа Montgomery and Warrenа counties were brought on board at a later date to support the project.

 

MIAMI CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

 

 

Proposer Selected: After significant economic analysis, policy evaluation, and other relevant considerations, MCD, the bulk municipal customers, and WEOS agreed to the sale of the facility to WEOS.а WEOS had been the successful contract operator for over six years.а WEOS had a long history of dealing with similar transactions in the waste energy business, and Ohio law allowed MCD to conduct negotiations with Wheelabrator EOS without going through a procurement process.

ааааа

The municipalities retained ownership of the land and a prepaid lease was structured to pay the municipalities for use of the land by WEOS.а A 20‑year service agreement, with two five year options, was used to effect the transfer.а The contract requires WEOS to comply with environmental regulations and maintainа customer service levels.а The contract also requires that WEOS expand the facility at certain threshold points. Formulas were put in the service agreement which allow for the recovery of expansion costs.а The three municipalities and WEOS are co‑permitees of the facility.а An advisory board of representatives from the municipalities and the counties works with WEOS.

 

Benefits: The communities were able to assign certain ownership risks to the private partner in the contract, and can repurchase the facilities at the end of 20 years.а Over the contract period, the cost of continued MCD operation versus WEOS operation will be basically the same. WEOS can make only reasonable returns, similar to what would be achieved under regulation by the Ohio Public Utility Commission.а WEOS's cost in the early years will be much lower than MCD'S, but as existing bonds are paid off, MCD costs will fall.а The plant sale to WEOS is, in effect,а a refinancing of the mortgage of the plant over the contract term. The rate charged for sewage was cut by 14%.

 

Drawbacks:а The privatization process was complex and the large number of parties involved made reaching consensus difficult.а The amount of time it takes to navigate the approval process, particularly when federal approvals are required for the sale of grant-нfunded assets, is very lengthy.

 

Lessons Learned:аа All affected political jurisdictions need to be on board early.а By not including Montgomery and Warren counties early on, the consensus process took longer as all relevant agreements were executed.а Do not underestimate the amount of time it takes to privatize when federal approvals are required for the sale of grant-funded assets. Gaining approvals for a sale is complex and requires appropriate internal and external input and commitment.а Negotiation with a private contractor is a careful and important process. It is imperative to negotiate with the proper resources, time frame, and venue in mind.а Appropriate economic, legal, and engineering input isа instrumental in the privatization process.

 

Reference for Further Information: Jim Rozelle, General Manager, Miami Conservancy District, 38 East Monument, Dayton, OH 45402.а Telephone Number: 513-223-1271.а Fax Number: 513-223-4730.а EFAB Member George Raftelis, 6100 Fairview Tower, Suite 615, Charlotte, NC 28210.а Telephone Number: 704-556-1936.а Fax Number: 704-556-1937.

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

(Contract Operations)

 

 

Description:а The Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans (S&WB), a statutory body of the Louisiana constitution, owned and operated two wastewater treatment plants providing secondary treatment of wastewater in the greater New Orleans area.а The S&WB was having difficulty meeting permit levels for effluents, operating costs were increasing, and the maintenance program could not keep pace with facility repair requirements.а In 1991, the S&WB funded a $1.7 million capital improvements program to rehabilitate major equipment and contracted with the Professional Services Group (PSG) to operate, maintain, and manage its two sewage treatment plants for a five‑year term.а PSG operations have saved the S&WB an average of $ 1.1 million a year since 1991.

 

Demographics:а The two plants serve approximately 165,000 customers in the greater New Orleans areaа (population of 480,000).а The customer base consists ofа retail customers, mainlyа residential andа 1% industrial.а In addition to year‑round tourism, the City of New Orleans (City) is a major shipping port, especially for grain and petrochemicals.

 

The East Bank treatment facility is a 122 million gallons per day (MGD) pure oxygen activated sludge plant.а It processes over 90% of the CityТs wastewater.а Although the facility is rated at 122 MGD and short‑term peak treatment capacity of 239 MGD, extended wet weather flows as high as 250 MGD are not uncommon.а The smaller West Bank secondary treatment facility is a 10 MGD trickling filter plant which is being expanded to double its capacity.

 

The S&WB has had difficulty meeting NPDES permit requirements which resulted in several violations.а These violations, prior to privatization, continue to be the subject of litigation between the city, and US EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice.а

 

Procurement/Competition:а All research was performed in‑house.а Beginning in early 1991, the S&WB conducted a ten‑month study of contract operations, which included tours of other privately‑operated facilities.а The study projected that besides achieving permit compliance, annual operating savings of $750,000 were possible under a service contract due to improved worker productivity.аа The main opponent of the contract was the City Civil Service Commission who make decisions on City employee matters.а Agreement was achieved when PSG offered to give the plant's 52 employees better pay and benefits and a two-year job guarantee.а Furthermore, employees could choose to remain with the S&WB. Although not quantified by the City, the procurement process probably cost less than $ 100,000, since outside advisors were not used.

 

Proposer Selected:а PSG was selected from a short-list of three firms based on cost, operating experience, technical resources, employee training and development programs, safety programs,

 

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

 

 

computerized process controls, and procedures for the transition from public to private operations. This contract represents one of the largest OM&M wastewater operations contracts in the nation.а PSG assumed OM&M responsibility for the facilities on January 10, 1992.

 

PSG has established regular reporting mechanisms to provide S&WB management with current information on plant operations.аа The service contract has been structured so that the responsibility for making all capital improvements and maintenance of items costing greater than $5,000 (or having a service life of over three years) rests with the S&WB. PSG is responsible for all routine maintenance and repair. The contractor's operations remain under the scrutiny of the same regulatory bodies as the S&WB's operations.а The S&WB has retained the NPDES responsibilities with the EPA.а Any fines resulting from violations under contract operations are the liability of PSG.

 

Benefits: PSG has achieved operational savings of $1.1 million annually since 1991 and savings are expected to grow in future years.аа Rates have not been increased since 1987, remaining flat despite the cost savings achieved by privatization.а Private operations have provided improved wages and productivity incentives for employees, as well as extensive employee training programs.

 

PSG set up a preventive maintenance program and a comprehensive odor control plan and did a complete evaluation of the plants on assuming operational control.а PSG directed theа rehabilitation of a 70 tpd cryogenic plant which had been inoperable for years and restored inoperable 40 tpd and 20 tpd incinerators, whose failure had resulted in numerous compliance violations. Plant discharge quality has been improved. Increased incinerator capacity has cut solids inventory, fecal coliform in the effluent has been reduced because of the rehabilitation of the chlorination system.а

 

Drawbacks: The S&WB believes it was a mistake to sign a five‑year contract, renewable for onlyа one-year periods.а It believes that a longer‑term provider has more financial exposure and thus more incentive to work harder and increase efficiencies.а Although the S&WB and PSG have excellent relations, disagreements occur over who should bear certain costs.

 

Lessons Learned: The key to a successful privatization is having a well‑defined contract with a reputable firm. The contracting government should make sure that the term "maintenance" is well‑defined in the contract, as well as who will pay for each type of maintenance. This will prevent any arm-нwrestling matches during the contract period.

 

Reference for Further Information: Don Crowder, S&WB Liaison, Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans, 625 Saint Joseph Street, New Orleans, LA 70625.а Telephone Number: 504-585-2271 or 585-2272.а EFAB Member George Raftelis, 6100 Fairview Tower, Suite 615, Charlotte, NC 28210.а Telephone Number: 704-556-1936.а Fax Number: 704-556-1937.

NORTH BRUNSWICK TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY

ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа (Concession Operations)

 

 

Description: The first US publicly‑procured, long‑term concession contract for the operation ofа a water and sewer system was signed in February 1996 by North Brunswick Township (the Township) and US Water Inc.а The treatment plant had been run by US Water under contract for ten years prior to the concession agreement.а This concession contract was the first application of two New Jersey State laws: the New Jersey Wastewater Treatment Public‑Private Contracting Act and the New Jersey Water Supply Public‑Private Contracting Act.а Under the terms of the concession, US Water will operate, maintain, and manage the systems for 20 years.а The Township retains ownership of the facilities and its rate‑setting ability.

 

Demographics: The facilities serve the Township of North Brunswick, population 35,000, and an additional 200 surrounding residences.а The number of customers served is about 12,000, consisting ofа 70% residential, 15% commercial, and 15% industrial.а The Township is located in Middlesex County, New Jersey.а The economic base of the region includes manufacturing and pharmaceutical companies. The area has steady population growth of about 1/2% per year .

 

The water treatment plant has a capacity of 10.0 million gallons per day (MGD).а Average flows are 4.0 to 5.0 MGD.а The Township has a contract with the New Jersey Water Supply Authority to draw 8.0 MGD.а The plant is only four years old, but some of the pumping stations and lines are 50 to 60 years old.а The Township has experienced minor violations of New Jersey Water Supply Authority and Department of Environmental Protection regulations.

 

Procurement/Competition:а The Township wanted to find a less expensive way to operate the facility, and to relieve itself of billing and collection, customer service, and other responsibilities related to operating the facility, but still retain ownership and control rate‑setting.а The Township also wanted to improve its balance sheet by decreasing its outstanding debt.а A blue ribbon panel comprised of Town Council members and the mayor was organized in the fall of 1994 to study the available options.а A combined RFQ/RAP was issued in February 1995 and proposals were due Mayа 1995.

 

The procurement process was delayed while the Township waited for two New Jersey public‑private contracting acts to become law.а This innovative new legislation allows payment of concession fees to a municipality.а These fees may be paid either up‑front, annually, or as a municipality desires. They must be used to reduce or offset property taxes, service rates, nonrecurring expenses, or capital asset expenditures. The laws permit a wide range of contractual forms to meet municipal needs.а Competitive procurement is required, and asset sales prohibited.а When both acts were finally passed, the Township issued an amended RAP, providing bidders with the opportunity to re‑propose based on the passage of these two newа laws.

 

NORTH BRUNSWICK TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY

 

 

The Township began negotiations with US Water in September of 1995.а US Water agreed to hire all six current employees for at least two years. At the end of two years, the employees would either be offered a permanent job with US Water or offered a job with the Township.а The Township invested approximately $400,000 in the privatization process. The entire process took one year. The decision to privatize was not an issue since the facility was already being operated under a contract with US Water. This contract was a win-нwin‑win public‑private partnership for the taxpayers and utility users, the employees and the private firm.

 

Proposer Selected:а US Water was selected for economic reasons, as well as its experience and expertise in operating the plant.аа Under the terms of the partnership, US Water operates, maintains and manages both the water and wastewater systems for a twenty-year period, including the distribution and collection systems, billing and collection, and customer service.а The Township still owns the facilities, sets rates, and is responsible for capital improvements.а The Township does not participate in day-to-day operations, but does oversee the operations and perform annual inspections.а US Water must comply with all State and federal standards and pay any fines assessed for violations.а The firmа must also meet set requirements for repairs and maintenance, as well as customer service.аааа

Benefits: The Township estimates savings of $46 million over the 20‑year period.а US Water estimated rates for the next 20 years based on their annual fee, with the first year's rates increasing 5.75% over the previous year's, and eventually increasing 3.0% in the latter years of the contract. The cost of operations by US Water was significantly less expensive than Township operations.а As a result of the concession, $23 million of Township debt was deceased by US Water, an initial concession payment of $6 million was made to the Township, and royalties of $22.9 million will be paid to the Township over the 20 years of the contract. The system‑wide replacement of all water meters was included in the contract as part of US Water's responsibilities.

 

Lessons Learned: аThe main questions to ask are: УWhat is the objective of the municipality?Ф and "Can this objective be achieved through private operations?"а In the case of North Brunswick, the Township wanted to be relieved of all utility requirements, to improve its balance sheet, and to have some budget relief.а Because of these goals, the Township took a long‑term view.

 

Reference for Further Information: Paul Keller, Business Administrator, North Brunswick Township.а Telephone Number: 908-247-0922 extension 435.а EFAB Case Study, EFAB Member George Raftelis, Inc., 6100 Fairview Tower, Suite 615, Charlotte, NC 28210.а Telephone Number: 704-556-1936.а Fax Number: 704-556-1937.

 

 

 

OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

(Contract Operations)

 

 

Description:а In 1988, the Oklahoma City Water Utilities Trust (OCWUT), contracted out the operations, maintenance, and management of three wastewater treatment facilities, a pumping station, and all sludge disposal services to Professional Services Group (PSG).а Prior contractingа with PSG, operations and maintenance duties at two wastewater treatment facilities been performed by two separate companies, while operations at the third had been carried out by City employees. Sludge disposal for each facility had been performed by another company under three separate contracts. This independent structure of operations, maintenance, and sludge removal activities was an unnecessary and expensive duplication of operations, equipment, and personnel.а The incorporation of all the facilities into contract operations by PSG has created savings of about 11 % annually for OCWUT.

 

Demographics:а The three wastewater treatment facilities receive mostly domestic waste from about 600,000 residents, as well as process waste from light industries in the service area. The plants serve a 530 square mile area in and around Oklahoma City (City).а In addition to its retail, residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial customers, the City has wholesale contracts with surrounding municipalities, the local Air Force base, and General Motors.

 

The North Canadian plant has an design capacity of 80 million gallons per day (MGD), and the Deer Creek and Chisholm Creek plants have design capacities of 10 MGD and 5 MGD, respectively. Collectively, the three plants generate about 23,500 tons of sludge per year.аа The North Canadian plant has primary and secondary treatment processes, as well as chemical scrubbers and a hydrogen peroxide injection system.а The Witcher Pumping Complex has two large lift stations and three aeration wastewater storage lagoons.а The Deer Creek plant is a rotating biological contractor plant for secondary treatment followed by nitrification and chlorination.аа Finally, the Chisholm Creek plant has primary, secondary, and advanced treatment prior to discharge.

 

Procurement/Competition:а The City wanted the contract to lower costs.а In 1987, the CityТs wastewater treatment cost about twice what other Oklahoma municipalities were paying on a per unit basis.а The Water and Wastewater Utilities Department conducted the procurement.а The assistant city manager had an engineering background and easily explained the process and projected results to the City Council.а Employment of existing employees was a condition of the RFP.а In 1987, the City put sludge management, disposal services and operations of all the facilities up for competition.а The RFP directed prospective firms to identify operational changes and/or capital improvements to ensure maximum efficiency and to lower costs.а This provision allowed for innovative techniques in sludge processing and disposal.а The entire process took about a year, and cost less than $100,000.

 

 

OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

 

Proposer Selected:а PSG was chosen for having the lowest costs as a result of the capital improvements and operational changes contained in their proposal.а The contract was progressive for its time, since most contract operations agreements for wastewater treatment plants were for operation of the plant "as is."аа In this case, the agreement permits operational changes and capital improvements to ensure the most efficient and costн-effective operation of the facilities.

 

Under the contract, the City owns the facilities, but PSG is responsible forа operating the three plants, their effluent quality, and paying any fines for compliance violations.а The City's Water and Wastewater Utilities Department employs three people to oversee the private operations by looking after the plant and making routine inspections.а The operations are subject to regulations and checks by the EPA, the State Department of Environmental Health, and the City‑County Health Department.

 

PSG offered equal salary and benefits to all plant employees.а In the first year, the firm conducted intensive training.а Many employees attended a local college to prepare for certification, with tuition reimbursed by PSG.аа Employees who did not choose to work for PSG could remain with the City.

 

Benefits:а In the first year, the City saved about $4.5 million.а The City has been saving about 11 % per year over projections due to capital improvements and operational changes from privatization.а After three years, the contract was renewed for five years, and will be eligible for renewal again next year.а PSG's annual fee is $10.3 million, which is lower than the 1987 cost of OCWUT operations.а

Wastewater rates have not increased since October 1983.аа From 1989 to 1993, a 4% annual decrease in rates occurred due to savings achieved by private operations. Since the last decrease, the City has used the savings from privatization to make improvements in the system instead of lowering rates. The City is considering rate increases of 3 % per year for three years beginning in October 1996.

 

A post‑dewatered lime stabilization process has reduced energy consumption for sludge processing.а The largest reduction has been a decrease in transportation costs.а Previously, 6,500 gallon tankers carried 60 to 65 loads of sludge per day, seven days a week to application sites.аа After increasing the sludge solids content, truckloads have been decreased to 18 to 20 per day, five days a week.

 

Lessons Learned: The City did not anticipate how large a role it would need to play in supervising the contract operations. The City now has three employees dedicated to the oversight of the facilities.

 

Reference for Further Information: James Couch, Director of Utilities, Oklahoma City Water Utilities Trust.а Phone: 405-232-6238.а EFAB Member George Raftelis, 6100 Fairview Tower, Suite 615, Charlotte, NC 28210.а Telephone Number: 704-556-1936.а Fax Number: 704-556-1937.

 

 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

(Contract Operations)

 

 

Description: The City of Philadelphia Water Department (PWD) owns and operates one of the largest centralizedа biosolids processing facilities in the country, the Biosolids Recycling Center (BRC).а In the late 1980's, the BRC faced numerous problems, including: high operations costs, low productivity, community distrust, extremely high overtime expenditures, labor unrest, improper equipment, and most importantly, a consent decree imposed by the State ofа Pennsylvania for the removal of stockpiled products from unpermitted areas.а The BRC was also the target of unfavorable union action and media attention during protracted municipal union negotiations in the summer of 1992.а This combination of factors made the BRC a candidate for privatization.

 

After a new city administration settled the union contract, it set a goal to reduce operating costs at the BRC by $5 million (about one‑fifth), and retained the engineering firm of Camp, Dresser & McKee (CDM) to evaluate the BRC and estimate the cost of operations under private management.а Contract operations was presumed the only viable option available to the city to achieve the cost savings goal.а While no specific assurance was given, the BRC managers believedа a challenge had been presented to them to accomplish a successful turn‑around, concurrent with the CDM study, which might thereby dissuade officials from proceeding with contract operations.

 

Demographics:а The BRC provides the dewatering and composting processes for two regional wastewater plants which serve about 487,000 accounts (2.3 million people). The PWD provides sludge disposal services via the BRC to the City of Philadelphia and ten counties, townships, and/ or authorities in the surrounding area.а The BRC processes liquid sludge from the two regional wastewater facilities and distributes the processed biosolids product to contractors forа disposal.

 

The BRC consists of a centralized biosolids dewatering station and a 72 acre biosolids composting plant.а In October 1993, the BRC handled about 15.5 million gallons per week of digested and thickened sludge.а A consent decree was imposed on the PWD by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources for the removal of stockpiled products from unpermitted areas.

 

Procurement/Competition:а The City retained Camp, Dresser & McKee to evaluate the facilities and estimate the cost to operate the plants under private management. The study estimated that contract operations of the BRC would yield annual savings of $6 million to $8 million over current city operations.а The City issued an RFQ in October 1993 to begin the privatization process.

 

 

 

 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

 

 

Meanwhile, BRC managers made vigorous changes at the facility, focusing on meeting self‑imposed "expense goals".а Management reduced staffing and funding levels.а Staffing for biosolids management fell from 235 positions in 1993 to 133 positions in 1996, a reduction of over 40%.а The cost of biosolids processing was cut fromа $21 million in 1992 to $9.8 million in 1995.а Starting from December 1993, the BRC operating budget was decreased from $30.6 million to $15.7 millionа between 1993 and 1995.аа

 

The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees negotiated with PWD management to ensure that no layoffs occurred.а In turn,а PWD management worked closely with them to develop a strategy for moving employees within the department.а Although some employees were placed in lesser positions, no one was unemployed as a result of the changes.

 

Proposer Selected:а The PWD management succeeded in meeting the challenge, and the City halted the privatization process.

 

Benefits:а The BRC rates are set by the PWD for the entire department and are fixed for long periods of time. Rates have not been reduced as a result of cost savings; however, they are not expected to be increased until after the turn of the century.аа Customer service became the focus for the BRCТs operational improvements.

 

Management modernized the dewatering equipment by replacing eddy current back drives and installing automatic torque control which removed the need for "hands‑on" operation and improved the consistency of equipment performance. Vehicular equipment was reassigned to upgrade the BRC's capacity for materials handling, and production of screened compost was reduced from two shifts to one shift of operation as a result of a better coordinated screening system.

 

Lessons Learned:а Municipal operations, even those with a tradition of union activism and strong work rules, present an opportunity for positive change.а Sound data and clear operational objectives can set the stage for positive change in municipal operations.а A city can realize large financial benefits in changing a municipal operation, and the potential savings can be of a magnitude meeting or exceeding the projected financial benefits of privatization.

 

Reference for Further Information: Guru P. Bose, Manager of Wastewater Operations, City of Philadelphia Water Department, ARA Tower, 1101 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107.а Telephone Number: 215-685-6250.а EFAB Member George Raftelis, 6100 Fairview Tower, Suite 615, Charlotte, NC 28210.а Telephone Number: 704-556-1936.а Fax Number: 704-556-1937.

 

WEST NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY

(Contract Operations)

 

 

Description:а In the fall of 1994, the West New York Municipal Utility Authority (MUA) issued a Request For Qualifications (RFQ) for the purchase or lease of its wastewater treatment facility.аа In early 1995, the MUA issued a Request For Proposals (RFP), and three proposals from private parties were received by June 1995.а Concurrent with receipt of the proposals, a new mayor and city administration were elected, creating the need to familiarize the new administration with privatization.

 

In addition to these political changes, a nearby wastewater authority, the TriнCities Authority, expressed interest in buying the assets of the MUA soon after the private proposals had been received. This interest created a new dynamic, since the issues involved in a sale to another public entity differ from those in a sale to a private party.а This opportunity has created new possibilities for the MUA not contemplated earlier and has delayed the procurement process for over a year.

 

Theа West New York (Town) is still in the process of deciding whether to sell to a public authority or a private contractor.а The decision of whichа privatizer to choose would obviously have to come after this decision is made.а The Town wants to put the privatization process officially on hold, so that if the decision is made to sell to the private sector, no backtracking will be necessary.

 

Demographics: West New York, NJ is located a few miles from Bergen County.а The area's economy is composed of service‑oriented companies.а The MUA serves a population of 60,000 and has 4,900 customer accounts.а The MUA serves primarily retail customers in West New York, but also serves portions of Union City and Weehawken as wholesale customers.а It operates a 10 million gallons per dayа (MGD) wastewater treatment facility.

 

Procurement/Competition:а The MUA is having trouble managing the debt service generated from capital investment.аа The Town Council and the MUA Board are involved in the privatization process.а CME Associates are the consulting engineers; Natwest is the financial advisor; and DeCotiss, Fitzpatrick & Gluck are legal counsel for the MUA.

 

The MUA received three private proposals in June 1995 to purchase the facility, and as of July 1996, the proposals were still being considered. The potential still exists for the procurement process to be put on hold so the MUA can consider another option, the possibility of merging with or selling its assets to another public authority.а If the MUA decides on full privatization, it will retain some control over its facility through a service agreement with the privatizer.а If the MUA decides to sell to the Tri‑Cities Authority, it will not be responsible for any aspects of the wastewater treatment facility, nor will it have any control over operations or rates.

 

 

WEST NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY

 

 

Proposer Selected:а No proposer has been selected yet.а The MUA has been considering privatization for approximately two years as of June 1996.а As of July 1996, US Water, Inc. and American Anglian Environmental Technologies, Inc. are the only two contractors that remain in the competition.

 

Lessons Learned: Economic and political factors which may affect the privatization process are really very case specific. The election of a new mayor and the purchase offer from a public authority have hindered the privatization process in West New York.

 

Reference for Further Information: Arnold Mitnaul, Executive Director, West New York Municipal Utility Authority, West New York, NJ.а Telephone Number: 201-295-5240.а EFAB Member George Raftelis, 6100 Fairview Tower, Suite 615, Charlotte, NC 28210.а Telephone Number: 704-556-1936.а Fax Number: 704-556-1937.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WILMINGTON, DELAWARE

(Asset Sale /Privatization)

 

 

Description:а In the fall of 1994, the City of Wilmington (City) began investigating the economic benefits of privatizing the operation of its wastewater treatment plant.а Two options were evaluated initially: (1) leasing the plant to a private operator and (2) the sale of plant assets to a private owner/operator with a 20‑year operations contract.а Under the guidelines established by Presidential Executive Orders 12803 and 12893, the City sought a substantial up‑front payment by the privatizer to be amortized over the contract.а After completing an elaborate procurement process to select a preferred privatizer, the project was delayed due to concerns raised by New Castle County (County).

 

Demographics: The City and surrounding County includes large professional group and industrial presences with almost all growth occurring in the County.а The plant, located in the City, serves about 460,000 people.а The City generates 30% ofа flows to the plant and New Castle County 70%.а The City provides wholesales wastewater service to the County.а Their relationship is governed by an interjurisdictional service agreement which sets the method used to allocate costs to the County.а

The plant has a rated capacity to treat 90 million gallons per day (MGD) and is operating at capacity.а It provides tertiary treatment of wastewater to meet stringent requirements before release into the Delaware River.а The plant has maintained general compliance with environmental regulations, with the exception of some problems related to high flows to the plant during wet periods.

 

Procurement/Competition: аThe City expressed three main objectives in privatizing the facility: controlling operating costs; ensuring rate stability;а and generating a cash infusion for the City to meet other needs.а The privatization option, including the sale of the plant assets with a 20‑year operations contract, was the most effective method to achieve these goals.а Other objectives included acceptable rate impacts to all customers, preserving the City's capital investment to assure long-нterm plant reliability and performance, and gaining help in meeting future capital expenditures objectives.

 

The feasibility study to determine the economic benefits of privatization and the preferred option began in the fall of 1994. The decision to move with privatization came in January 1995, and RFP work began in March 1995.а The RFP was issued in early May, with technical proposals due in late June, and cost proposals due by July 21.а The proposal evaluation process, including requests for clarification and interviews, took about six weeks, with the notice of rankings issued in late August.

аа

The evaluation was conducted by a City review committee andа utility advisors based upon a matrix that included: corporate profile; corporate experience and expertise; regulatory experience; key management and operational personnel; financial strength; employee considerations; references and reputation; use of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises and EEO compliance; and proposal completeness and responsiveness.

WILMINGTON, DELAWARE

 

 

Cost proposals were submitted separately from technical proposals, as required by Cityа policies, and were not used in evaluating and ranking submittals. Proposers were scored and ranked solely on the basis ofа technical proposals. Cost proposals were used for developing a cost basis for negotiating a Service Contract and Service Fee with the preferred vendor.а The most qualified privatizer was selected at least cost.а The process was challenged in court, but the City won.а The cost for project feasibility studies, procurement services, negotiation, and implementation ran $300,000 to $400,000.

аа

Proposer Selected:а Wheelabrator EOS (WEOS)а was the preferred vendor based on the evaluation.а As plant owner, WEOS would maintain all local, State, regional, and federal permits.а Since WEOS would not directly deal with customers, it was not expected that the plant would be regulated by the Delaware Public Service Commission.аа If full privatization included the purchase of plant assets andа repayment of federal grants, it was expected that approvals would be required from the State, USEPA Region III, USEPA headquarters, and the federal Office of Management and Budget.а The need for regional and federal approvals under a long‑term lease privatization was also investigated.

 

Contract negotiations with WEOS began shortly thereafter and were to have been completed by the end of 1995, with a scheduled project start date of January 1, 1996.а However, the County did not approve of the project and voiced significant concerns that the City was going to receive a substantial financial windfall that County customers would pay for in the form of higher rates.а Even after it was shown that privatization would benefit all customers, the County believed that it had an "equity position" in the assets and should share in the up-front cash benefits.а Disagreement over this issue is the primary reason the privatization initiative failed.аа However, negotiations are underway between the City, County, and Wheelabrator EOS to develop an acceptable privatization scenarioа meeting the objectives of all parties, which will likely be a service contract with a 4 to 20 year term.а

Benefits:а No benefits have yet been realized.аа

 

Lessons Learned:а All major users or stakeholders should be included in the privatization process from the beginning.а Personnelа involved in operatingа facilities to be privatized should be excluded from the process.а It is essential to review, understand, and seek clarifications where needed, on any laws, regulations, or guidelines that may affect the procurement, evaluation, selection, or negotiation process.а Rigorous compliance with all rules and guidelines is essential to avoid legal challenges.а It is important to keep State environmental agencies informed during the privatization process.

 

Reference for Further Information: Mr. Kash Srinivasan, Water Division Director, City of Wilmington, Louis L. Redding Building, 800 French Street, Wilmington, DE 19801.а EFAB Member George Raftelis, 6100 Fairview Tower, Suite 615, Charlotte, NC 28210.а Phone: 704-556-1936.а Fax Number: 704-556-1937.

 

WIXOM, MICHIGAN

(Contract Operations)

 

 

Description:а Dissatisfied with its lessor/public operator, the Oakland County Department of Public Works (OCDPW), the City of Wixom (City) began to investigate the process for contracting the operation and maintenance of its wastewater treatment facility in 1990.аа The study revealed that savings and improvements could be achieved through private operations and maintenance of the facility.а After a lengthy procurement competition and the CityТs decision to acquire the facility, a private operator was engaged and savings realized.аа

 

Demographics:а The water distribution system consists of 7 separate systems, 19 wells, 15 miles of water mains with 767 connections.а The system has a capacity of 16 million gallons per day (MGD), whichа is about the level of current use.а The wastewater treatment plant is a 5 MGD facility serving 1,620 customers.а Of the 5 MGD capacity, 1.5 is used and half of the unused capacity is dedicated, by agreement, to Ford Motor Company.аа

 

The wastewater treatment plant was the subject of environmental permitting violations which resulted in a consent order.а As a result, the state-of-the-art facility which presently services the community was built.а The facility has an oxidation ditch activated sludge process with a chemical phosphorus removal system, and tertiary filtration and ultraviolet disinfection and aerobic digestive system to handle solids with sludge storage (1.7 million gallons)а for possible land application.

 

Procurement/Competition:а The City was dissatisfied with the cost, communications and control that they were experiencing with their lessor/operator, the OCDPW.а They wanted to become the owner of the wastewater facility and contract operations and maintenance of the water and wastewater systems to a private operator.а Consensus was achieved by constant review and attention to the process by the city council, city manager, treasurer, and public works manager. The matter was discussed openly at council meetings and community input solicited.

 

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources and USEPA became involved regarding dismissal of the consent order.аа This dismissal was required for transfer of ownership of the plant from OCDPW to the City of Wixom.а Advice from the DNR and EPA was also sought as to whether the privatizer/operator could operate both the waste facility and the industrialа pretreatment program for Ford Motor Company.

 

The procurement process cost about $100,000 incurred over three years. A portion of the cost was recouped through a charge of $2,000 from each of the five proposers and as a result of lower interest costs on the bonds subsequently issued for the purchase of the wastewater plant.

 

WIXOM, MICHIGAN

 

 

Proposer Selected:а Williams and Works (now Earth Tec) was selected in the spring of 1994 after a competitive request for proposal process, answers to written questions, and personal interviews with three of the most competitive proposers (including OCDPW).а They had superior technology and innovative ideas; and they provided additional services not included in the OCDPW proposal.а Earth Tec received a five year contract to operate the wastewater which limited price adjustments to changes in flow or content, Consumer Price Index fluctuations, and other escalators.а It withdrew from its previous testing and services role in Ford Motor CompanyТs pretreatment program.а The City decided to payoff the Countyа bonds and acquire ownership of the wastewater facility.

 

Labor was addressed in an agreement that OCDPW employees could apply for employment at Earth Tec, OCDPW provided an early retirement program, and reassignment was offered to other positions in the Oakland County system.а Allа issues were openly discussed and resolved without cost to the City of Wixom.а Labor issues caused no delays in the project, and there were no layoffs.

 

Benefits: The community saved about ten percent or $100,000 in the first year of operation and received additional programs and services.а The City was impressed with the increased level of information provided by the private operator, including more timely cost and budgetary data. The City believes it is more knowledgeable about wastewater operations and has better information with which to develop its budget and conduct long term planning.а The privatization process informed the City, its people, elected officials, and management on the value of analyzing the quality of functions run by government agencies and on the benefits of public‑private partnerships.

 

Drawbacks:а The process was lengthy and time consuming, especially for the owner's personnel. It also required an up front commitment of funds to get through the process.

 

Lessons Learned:а Politics are always a factor in anything that involves major change from former municipal ownership and operations.а The political process requires patience, flexibility and the ability to fund necessary experts and consultants.а Public owners and operators will not give up control until the full administrative/political process has been used and all options carefully explored.а It is essential to engage experts early in the process and include them in the review team analyzing proposals and drafting contracts.а The city council must be committed to the project and involved in the process.а A strong administrative leadership team (city manager, treasurer, and director of Public Works) is essential for a project to remain focused.

 

Reference for Further Information:аа Mr. J Michael Dornan, City Manager, City of Wixom, 49045 Pontiac Trail, PO Box 155 Wixon, MI 48393-0155.а David M. Lick, Partner, Loomis, Ewert, Ederer, Parsley,а Davis & Gotting, P.C., 232 South Capitol Avenue, Suite 1000, Lansing, MIа 48933.а Telephone Number: 517-482-2400.а Fax Number: 517-482-6604.

аа

OTHER

 

 

Description:а

 

 

 

 

Demographics:ааааааааа аааа

 

 

 

 

Procurement/Competition:а

 

 

 

 

Proposer Selected:

 

 

 

 

Benefits:а

 

 

 

 

Lessons Learned:

 

 

 

 

Reference for Further Information:а

 

 

5.а TOOLSа

 

FOR

 

аDELIVERING

 

аFINANCIAL

 

аOUTREACH

 

 

 

5.а TOOLS FOR DELIVERING FINANCIAL OUTREACH

 

INTRODUCTION

 

 

Financial outreach and technical assistance at the State and local level can be vital to the success of environmental programs. The outreach tools described in this section are different from direct governmental assistance, such as financial assistance, and traditionally have been offered by a range of non-profit and private sector organizations as well as some governments.а Outreach can be very important for environmental programs because of the multiplicity and complexity of constantly changing environmental regulations, both federal and State, and the need to finance, operate, improve or construct facilities to comply with these regulations.а Financial outreach is increasingly important because of the growing cost of environmental facilities, programs, and activities.а This is particularly true for small community environmental projects because this has not been readily provided by the federal government, and can be a criticalа link between environmental mandates and implementation of these mandates by local managers in the field.

 

Two types of financial outreach are presented in this section: institutional arrangements and electronic services.аа Institutional outreach arrangements are provided by organizations, initiatives and mechanisms that provide information, advice and hands-on training on how to finance environmental facilities and implement new programs.а Institutional outreach traditionally has been provided by non-profit groups and private associations, such as universities, professional associations, trade organizations, and advisory panels.

а

аHowever, many States are now providing more financial and technical assistance to communities, especially small ones, in connection with their State Revolving Fund (SRF) Programs for financing clean water and drinking water activities.а For example, capacity development assistance in the context of a State capacity development plan is mandated under the Drinking Water SRF program.а SRF self-help type outreach also is increasing in a number of States.аа

 

Electronic outreach is achieved through computers and electronic technology such as telephone, faxа and video links.а These electronic services represent one of the fastest growing forms of access and data sharing.а They can be a prompt and highly cost-effective method of financial outreach, provided that potential users have adequate access to them.а These services can be highly beneficial to even large, sophisticated public and private entities.

 

 

5.A.а INSTITUTIONAL

ааааааа ARRANGEMENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.A.а INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

 

 

Description: аThe term institutional arrangement as used in the context of financial outreach and technical assistance includes organizations, initiatives, and mechanisms that support and facilitate the financing and implementation of sustainable environmental programs, systems, and projects by all levels of government, as well as the private sector and individuals.а Such arrangements can range from non-profit environmental and service associations to university-based technical assistance networks,а governmentа advisory or ad hoc groups, and State capacity development assistance programs.а All arrangements, however, must promote the exchange of information and technical assistance on sustainable ways to pay for the myriad of environmental activities undertaken by regulated entities, public and private.

а

Advantages:а Institutional arrangements have some distinct advantages over direct governmental assistance approaches.а Since there are so many types of arrangements, there is a likelihood that one or more can be found to help meet the financing needs of any regulated entity. Theses arrangements tend to be independent, innovative, and non-bureaucratic in nature.а They often provide help to clients more easily, faster, and at lower costs. They typically involve face-to-face, hands-on training, and are project specific.а They also may require significant client involvement ranging from detailed feedback and cooperation to direct project participation and funding.а As a result, the outreach and technical assistance provided is of extremely high quality and may be highly financially leveraged.а

The very nature of institutional outreach arrangements presumes a close interaction with client groups.а Consequently, such arrangements often have, or come to have, a high degree of credibility and standing with clients.а They can also often develop over time a considerable body and degree of technical expertise in a relatively focused area, such as finance, which can be replicated in other locations.а Furthermore, since they are not regulatory in nature and operate more informally, client groups often develop and maintain a higher level of comfort with them than they do with federal and State government agencies and approaches.

 

Limitations:а Institutional arrangements are not typically themselves a source of funds, with the exception of the State Revolving Fund Self-Help and Drinking Water Financial Assistance programs that some States have for smaller, disadvantaged communities.а However, many efforts may serve as pass-through entities funneling money to assistance recipients (in demonstrations or pilots).а Outreach , assistance, and direction provided to clients via these arrangements may be rejected by State or federal regulatory agencies.а Care must be taken when designing and establishing these arrangements to give clear guidelines on requirements, responsibilities, and authorities with clients andа governments, or the organization may not be able to carry out its mission effectively.

 

 

Summary: The fourteen types of institutional outreach arrangements presented here are hardly exhaustive.а Many other kinds and sources of outreach and technical assistance exist.а Some arrangements/techniques are quite informal and ad hoc, for example, pro bono legal services, business panels and forums, and the like.а The mechanisms presented here are arranged or supported more formally by governments, such as the eight university-based Environmental Finance Centers (EFCs).а Reader suggestions for additional types of outreach arrangements are not only welcome, but actively encouraged and solicited.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

(In Alphabetical Order)

 

 

ааа 1.а Border Environmental Cooperation Commission

ааа 2.а Circuit Riders

ааа 3.а Cooperatives

а *4.а Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (DoA)а

а *5.а Drinking Water SRF Capacity Development

а *6.а Environmental Finance Center Network

ааа 7.ааааа EFC at the University of New Mexico

ааа 8.ааааа EFC at the University of Maryland

ааа 9.ааааа EFC at the Maxwell School, Syracuse University

а 10.ааааа EFC at California State University at Hayward

а 11.ааааа EFC at Cleveland State University

а 12.ааааа EFC at Boise State University

а 13.ааааа EFC at University of North Carolina

а 14.ааааа EFC at University of Louisville

а 15.а Environmental Financial Advisory Board

*16.а Environmental Finance Program

*17.а Finance Charrettes

*18.а National Technical Assistance Programs

а 19.а Retired Volunteers

*20.а Rural Community Assistance Corporation

*21.а Self-Help

*22.а West Virginia University Environmental Services and Training Division

 

 

 

 

 

*а Stars indicate most highly rated mechanisms as described in the Comparison Matrix at the end of the narratives.а See Introduction to the Guidebook for a description of the criteria used.а Ratings of УHighФ, УModerateФ, and УLowФ are for comparison purposes only, as some ratings are necessarily subjective and data are incomplete.

 

 

 

 

 

BORDER ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION COMMISSION

 

 

Description:а The Border Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC) was created within the context of the North American Free Trade Agreement process and is a sister agency to the North American Development Bank (NADBank).а The BECC reviews proposals for environmental projects in the region along the US-Mexico border region and certifies them for loan funding by the NADBank. The purpose of the BECC is to help preserve, protect, and enhance the environment of the border region in order to advance the well-being of the regionТs residents and to achieve sustainable development.а Environmental areas to be emphasized by the BECC include municipal solid waste management, wastewater treatment, and the supply of potable water.а

 

Actual Use: аBefore the BECC certifies a project for funding by the NADBank, criteria in the following six categories must be satisfied: 1) general project description; 2) environmental andа human health; 3) technical feasibility; 4) financial feasibility and program management; 5) community participation; and 6) sustainable development.а By mid-year 1998, the BECC had certified twenty-five projects for funding in a range of environmental areas including water supply, wastewater treatment, regional landfills, water/wastewater facilities maintenance, and a surface water cleanup study.

 

Potential Use: Growing trade and population has increased stress along the border region between the US and Mexico.а The lack of adequate environmental and other infrastructure to handle rising population and traffic has led to additional municipal, environmental and public health, transportation, and educational needs.а The growth potential for BECC approved environmental infrastructure projects is very significant.

 

Advantages:а Both the BECC and the NADBank have a strong private sector orientation.а Private financial institutions and firms play a key role in financing, building, operating, and maintaining the infrastructure.а Because of the strong private sector orientation, employment along the border and equipment suppliers have benefitted from increased economic development.а

 

Limitations:аа Projects that require grants or equity funding are not considered for certification by the BECC.а There is considerable concern that border communities may not be able to repay loans of any kind.а All projects certified by the BECC and funded by NADBank must address environmental issues within 100 kilometers of the US-Mexico border.

 

Reference for Further Information: аBorder Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC), Post Office Box 221648, El Paso, Texas 79913, E-Mail: becc@cocef.interjuarez.com.

 

 

 

CIRCUIT RIDERS

 

 

Description: A circuit rider is a dedicated expert who travels on some established regular basis to a number of participating individuals and organizations to provide hands-on technical assistance, professional services, and education. The circuit rider can be either an independent entrepreneur contracting with the participants individually or as a group, or an employee of the participant group acting cooperatively.а Furthermore, the circuit rider can work either a full or part-timeа depending on the number of systems participating and the assistance and services provided.

 

For example, several publicly or privately owned water or other environmental systems may agree to jointly obtain administrative, management, technical, or other services from a common source to meet their common needs.а The common source, the circuit rider, addresses the common need such as the collection of samples from each system and delivery of the batch to a lab for testing.

а

Actual Use:ааа Cooperatives in many fields use circuit riders to obtain specialized goods and services.а State government agencies in fields such as education, the environment, transportation, and small business development use the circuit rider approach to provideа technical assistance to small, often rural, communities and businesses.а OhioТs T2 Center Circuit Rider program is a good example of a transportation-based effort.а AmeriCorpsТ programs make significant use of circuit riders in implementing their varied activities.

аа

Potential Use: There is high potential for use of circuit riders by smaller environmental systems in areas such as mobile home trailer parks.а For many of these systems, circuit riders are a good way to overcome their geographical dispersion and individual inability to afford technical assistance.а These same systems are also good candidates for membership in cooperatives.

 

Advantages: The circuit rider approach is a cost-effective way for smaller environmental systems to be able to afford technical assistance.а The pooling of their business needs lets the individual systems negotiate lower overall rates with assistance providers by virtue of being part of a larger business opportunity.

 

Limitations: Circuit riders cannot be at every location all the time and may not be accessible in a timely manner during an emergency.а The circuit rider may try to play one system off against another to negotiate a better deal.а Small systems are often very independent.

 

Reference for Further Information: аOhio T2 Center Circuit Rider Program, Program Coordinator Mike Fitch, Telephone: 614-292-4988.аа National Association of Service and Conservation Corps (an AmeriCorps T/TA provider), Circuit Rider Program, Telephone: 202-737-6272.а

 

 

COOPERATIVES

 

 

Description: A cooperative is an independent association of people and/or groups voluntary united to meet common needs through a jointly owned and democratically operated venture.а For example, several publicly and/or privately owned environmental systems could agree to jointly share administrative, management and technical resources in providing common environmental services. The resulting cost savings would be either passed along to users, reinvested in the cooperative venture, or returned to the member systems.

 

Actual Use: Some limited numbers of water systems operate jointly in cooperatives.а The Water Cooperative of Pierce County located in Washington State is a good example.а This organization consists of several municipal and mutual utilities that provide water to almost a quarter million people.а It has both an environmental and a legislative agenda.а Nationally over 100 million people belong to 47,000 cooperatives.а Cooperatives are set up to provide/receive just about any good or service including: business services, child care, financial services, employment, equipment and farm supplies, food and food services, health care, housing, insurance, legal and professional services, the marketing of agricultural and other products, and utilities.а They are organized in one of three ways: producer-owned, consumer-owned or worker owned.

 

Potential Use: There is a high potential for using the cooperatives approach with smaller water, wastewater, and solid wasteа systems.а Cooperatives also could also be very effective in helping implement community-based environmental programs. For example, agricultural cooperatives could promote with their members techniques to reduce fertilizer and pesticide runoff and use.а Forming cooperatives to buy environmentally friendly products in bulk would reduce costs and encourage market expansion in the availability of such products.

 

Advantages: Cooperatives can reduce costs (sometimes dramatically) through the buying/selling power achieved through economies of scale.а Cooperatives allow systems to pool not just their resources, but also their technical expertise and knowledge regarding outside sources of assistance.а

Limitations: Cooperatives can be a challenge to start as their members are often very independent and used to operating in their own ways.

 

Reference for Further Information: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, 14th & Independence Avenues, SW, Room. 5405-South Bldg, Washington, D.C. 20250, Web site: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/index.html.а Information is also available on the National Cooperatives Business Association web site at http://www.cooperative.org.а The Pierce County Cooperative web site is http://users.aol.com/waterguy3/waterworks.html.

 

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION & EXTENSION SERVICE - DoA

(Community-Based Environmental Education)

 

 

Description:а The Department of AgricultureТs (DoAТs) Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) promotes and supports community-based environmental education efforts by the land-grant universities and the 57 State/territorial cooperative extension services, which employ over 9,600 local extension agents.а The Smith-Lever and Renewable Resources Extension Acts provide formula grants supporting extension programs that promote community-based volunteer activities, collaborations among public and private institutions, and other delivery systems.

 

Actual Use:а Since 1991, the Cooperative Extension Service at the University of ConnecticutТs Non-Point Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) has been explaining non-point pollution sources and their links to different land uses.а Farm*A*Syst, in 47 States and Home*A*Syst in 30 States, are voluntary, rural water pollution prevention programs coordinated by the University of Wisconsin.а In 1996, CSREES and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supported the University of Wisconsin Extension Service in identifying and describing interagency program models promoting partnerships that use non-formal education to solve community problems.а In 1997, CSREES supported four pilot projects that integrated its resources with those of the EPA, State Extension Services, and others to apply environmental education to sustainable development issues at the community level.а These projects sought to encourage community-based environmental education models, build the capacity of regional, State and community agencies to coordinate their work via formal and non-formal education institutions and systems, and to improve the ability of communities to plan/implement development that integrates economic, environmental and social capacities.

 

Potential Use:а If the four pilot projects with EPA produce workable models, or are extended to and embraced by other communities, the opportunities for environmentally sound, sustainable development projects could be increased.

 

Advantages:а The program can integrate environmental thinking at all governmental levels.

 

Limitations:а Funding for environmental education and technical assistance activities tends to be very limited.а Some approaches have limited applicability.

 

Reference for Further Information: U.S. DoA, Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, Ag Box 2210, Aerospace Bldg, Rm 826, Washington, DC 20250, Telephone: 202-401-6050, Fax: 202-401-1706, E-mail: gcrosby@ reeusda.gov, Internet: www.reeusda.gov/.а NEMO, 1066 Saybrook Rd, Box 70, Haddam, CT 06438, Telephone: 860-345-4511, Fax: 860-345-3357, Internet: http://www.lib.uconn.edu/CANR/ces/nemo/;а Farm*A*Syst and Home*A*Syst, B142 Steenbock Library, 550 Babcock Drive, Madison, WI 53706; Phone:а 608-262-0024; E-mail: farmasyst@macc.wisc.edu; Internet: www.wisc.edu/farmasyst/.

DRINKING WATER SRF CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

Description: УCapacityФ is a term currently used to describe the technical, financial and managerial ability of public and private entities to administer vital services, in this case drinking water facilities.

The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act authorizing the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)

requires States to prepare capacity development strategies for assessing and assisting adequate local capacity.а All DWSRF local applicants must demonstrate that their water system has appropriate capacity to qualify for financial assistance.а Since DWSRFТs without strategies may lose up to 20 percent of federal capitalization grants beginning in the year 2000, and must use 15 percent of funds to finance water systems under 10,000 customers, local capacity now receives formal attention.

 

Actual Use: All States are focusing systematically on capacity development, primarily via State Departments of Health, DWSRFТs and/or Self-Help programs, and are permitted to use 2% of DWSRF funds for technical assistance and up to 10% for program management including capacity development and operator certification.а Technical capacity refers to engineering knowledge and operator skills.а Financial capacity describes local revenue, income and cost issues, credit worthiness, and rate systems supporting drinking water facilities.а Managerial capacity is the expertise of personnel administering overall water systems on a day-to-day basis and overseeing financial operations to ensure viability.

 

Potential Use: A number of important issues will be addressed as part of capacity development assistance for water systems, and such strategies are transferrable to other environmental facilities such as wastewater, solid waste and air pollution.а These include a stronger focus on local affordability, including cumulative cost of all environmental services, facility operator training and certification, regionalization/consolidation of systems to achieve economies of scale, privatization alternatives such as contract management, and assessment of local environmental conditions such as adequacy of source water and comparative risk ranking.

 

Advantages: Adequate local capacity to design and administer pollution control projects on a long-term basis is the single most important factor influencing the success of money spent on environmental improvements.а Small communities in particular can greatly benefit from capacity development assistance, which further may reduce costs.а Systematic criteria such as for affordability can be extremely helpful in determining whether and what type of financial assistance is needed, and enables comparison of alternatives.

 

Limitations: there is no guarantee that localities needing improved capacity will receive assistance, as projects ranking highest on DWSRF priority lists and ready to proceed will be assisted first.а The DWSRF capacity development set-aside decreases the total amount of DWSRF money available to make loans.а SRF may find the specific federal compliance dates and set-asides onerous.

 

Reference for Further Information: The federal capacity development strategy is outlined in Section 1420 of the 1996 SDWA Amendments.а Each State will develop and administer its own plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL FINANCE CENTER (EFC) NETWORK

 

 

Description:а The EFC Network is a system of eight university-based regional centers that provides State and local governments and the private sector with educational, technical, and analytic assistance on environmental finance.а Centers are located at: Syracuse University (Region 2);а the University of Maryland (Region 3); Cleveland State University (Region 5); the University of New Mexico (Region 6); California State University at Hayward (Region 9); Boise State University (Region 10), the University of North Carolina (Region 4), and the University of Louisville (Region 4).а Coordination of the EFC Network is assisted by the Environmental Protection AgencyТs (EPAТs) Environmental Finance Program.

 

Actual Use:а During the past several years, the Network has helped numerous communities throughout the nation. Network centers have held more than thirty conferences, meetings, workshops, and advisory panels with more than 1,000 State and local officials, and private parties covering a wide range of financing topics.а These have included watershed management, brownfields redevelopment,а drinking water and wastewater financial planning, stormwater runoff, environmental business opportunities, and solid waste management.а Network centers have developed detailed training courses on innovative financing alternatives.а They have also produced approximately fifty guidance documents, reports, articles, and models on these and other environmental financing topics.

 

Potential Use:а The Network has the capacity to assist many more of the large numbers of State, local and private parties who need to identify and access suitable financing tools.а It could grow without expanding by allowing individual Centers to set up satellite arrangements with other universities in its EPA Region.а For example, the Cleveland State EFC in Ohio might link with institutions in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, etc., to work jointly on specific brownfields projects.

 

Advantages:аа Each EFC has its own environmental finance speciality(ies). The Network is highly leveraged in that it taps the expertise(s) of each, as well as the strengths of the universities at which they are located.а Network centers are well distributed and well positioned around the country.а By sharing information and serving as a clearinghouse, the Network is able to efficiently help States and localities nationwide identify and access suitable environmental financing approaches.

 

Limitations: The EFC Network and individual centers are generally not able to provide direct financial assistance for environmental activities to State and local governments and businesses.а All fifty States are not yet covered by the program.

 

Reference for Further Information: U.S. EPA, Office of the Comptroller, Environmental Finance Program, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, Mail Code: 2731R, Contact: Vera Hannigan at hannigan.vera@.epa.gov.а EFC Network information can also be accessed via the Environmental Finance ProgramТs home page on the World Wide Web located at http://www.epa.gov/efinpage.

 

REGION 6а EFC at the UNIVERSITY of NEW MEXICO

 

 

Description:а Established in 1992, the University of New Mexico Environmental Finance Center (UNM-EFC) is located at the New Mexico Engineering Research Institute.а UNM-EFC provides technical assistance to federal, State, and local governments and focuses on public and private water systems.а The Center seeks to identify viable financing options and promote low-cost, alternative, and appropriate technologies for environmental projects that strengthen the movement toward sustainable development.а UNM-EFC seeks to develop and implement affordable pollution prevention and source reduction approaches, when possible.ааа

 

Actual Use:а UNM-EFC has aided New Mexico counties on the US-Mexico border with meetingа environmental infrastructure needs by analyzing the feasibility of small regional water systems.а UNM-EFC has developed benchmark criteria as an assessment tool/methodology to evaluate the viability of small, rural water systems.а The Center is providing assistance to New Mexico State agencies in developing and implementing a program to enhance resources available for small system capacity development.а This work has provided a model for mobilizing water systems to better meet the small system capacity/viability requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

 

Potential Use:а UNM-EFC is undertaking new projects in a variety of environmental areas and locations.а These include brownfields site redevelopment projects, a small system rate structuring for the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TRNCC) using expert rate setting,а impact fee, and financial planning computer software known as RateModProTM, municipal water conservation projects, and small system capacity development analysis for the Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico and the TNRCC.

 

Advantages: The UNM-EFC is one of six university-based centers participating in EPAТs Environmental Finance Center Network.а Through its own expertise, the sharing of information and expertise between centers, and use of the Network as a clearinghouse on environmental financial issues, UNM-EFC is able to greatly leverage the technical assistance on environmental finance that it provides to Region 6 State and local governments.

 

Limitations: Although UNM-EFC identifies financing options and low-cost, alternative and appropriate technologies for environmental projects, the Center is not a funding resource.

 

Reference for Further Information: The University of New Mexico Environmental Finance Center, 901 University Blvd. SE, Albuquerque, NM 87106, Telephone: 505-272-7356, Fax: 505-272-7203.а The UNM-EFC World Wide Web site is located at http://nmeri.unm.edu/ta/efc.htm.

 

 

 

REGION 3 EFC AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

 

 

Description: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 3 Environmental Finance Center (EFC), which is part of the University of MarylandТs Coastal and Environmental Policy Program and is hosted by the Maryland Sea Grant College, was created to train, provide assistance, and act in an advisory capacity to State and local governments/private parties on issues related to environmental finance.

 

Actual Use: To help communities assess and analyze funding options for specific environmental projects, the EFC has staged over a dozen finance charrettes -- forums for frank discussions between local officials and technical/finance experts.а Charrette issues have included wastewater treatment, stormwater management, solid waste facilities, drinking water systems, costal zone protection, and credit access for small businesses.а The EFC has also produced reports on financing alternatives for Chesapeake Bay cleanup for setting up riparian buffers in the Bay watershed.а Another EFC publication assists air program agencies with financial management of the Clean Air Act Title V program.а The EFC also has a pilot project showing the feasibility of extending the State Revolving Fund (SRF)а program to sustainable agriculture practices.а Finally, the EFC has co-sponsored Regional conferences to discuss and disseminate information on financing environmental projects.

 

Potential Use: The EFC is designing educational workshops for environmental finance issues that are best addressed via a local watershed-based strategy.а For MarylandТs multi-county, watershed-specific, УTributary TeamsФ, it is developing workshops to identify fiscal problems relating to nutrient reduction, policy making processes, and major fiscal options.а Excess nutrients have been identified as a major cause of Chesapeake Bay pollution.а In cooperation with EPA, the EFC is conducting a series of workshops nationwide to encourage SRFs to move to an integrated watershed planning and priority setting process in considering loan applications to their programs.а

 

Advantages: As part of the University of MarylandТs Coastal and Environmental Policy Program, the EFC draws on the expertise of professionals in the fields of environmental research, agriculture, engineering, law, and policy as a holistic response to addressing environmental finance issues.а Being part of EPAТs network of six university-based EFCs and working with its Environmental Finance Program, provides access to information on environmental finance from around the nation.

 

Limitations:а While able to design and demonstrate ways to lower the cost of environmental facilities and services, the EFC does not provide direct funding for environmental projects.

 

Reference for Further Information:а Region 3 EFC, University of Maryland Sea Grant College, 0112 Skinner Hall, College Park MD 20742.а Phone: 301-405-6384.а Fax: 301-314-9581. E-mail: hickey@umbi. umd.edu; World Wide Web: http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/MDSG/EFC/index.html.

 

 

REGION 2 EFC at the MAXWELL SCHOOL,а SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY

 

 

Description: Established in 1994, the Syracuse University Environmental Finance Centerа (EFC) is located at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.а The EFC provides training, technical assistance, and outreach services to State and local officials relating to financing environmental systems. The EFC has undertaken projects ranging from studies of risk and finance decision-making methodologies to financing strategies and delivery mechanisms for funding water infrastructure.а It has interests in the full-cost pricing of environmental services, water and wastewater privatization, and small community environmental infrastructure needs.

 

Actual Use: In 1996, the EFC completed a Congressionally-requested report for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Water examining alternative strategies for financing the water and wastewater infrastructure needed to meet environmental mandates.а The EFC is conducting an analysis of the economic and fiscal consequences for Onondaga County (Syracuse) of the court-ordered remediation of Lake Onondaga.а It has underway demonstrations and training on the use of an EPA-funded computer software program for setting water and wastewater rates.а The EFC also recently co-sponsored a waste-water privatization conference with the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation.

 

Potential Use: The EFC plans to conduct seminars throughout New York and New Jersey on water/wastewater rate-setting, including training on the use of the rate model software.а The EFC

will be working with Cornell University and the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute on a joint proposal to form an Environmental Community Assistance Consortium (ECAC).а ECAC would assist New State and local officials in New York by providing training, institutional expertise, education, and outreach to assist in implementing State environmental programs.

 

Advantages:а The Syracuse EFC benefits greatly from the combined expertise of network of six university-based EFCs. Further, the EFC enjoys close access to the expertise at the Maxwell School, which is renowned for its premier public administration graduate programs and high quality,а practitioner-focused training.а When operational, the ECAC will be an intra-university partnership tapping the further expertise of Cornel University and the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

 

Limitations:а EFC program funding and staff resources are currently limited.а Efforts are being made to expand the centerТs financial base to expand services.а The EFC is not a funding source.

 

Reference for Further Information: U.S. EPA Region 2 Syracuse University Environmental Finance Center, The Maxwell School, 219 Maxwell Hall,а Syracuse, New York 13244-1090. Phone: 315‑443‑9438. Fax: 315‑443‑5330. World Wide Web: http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/exed/efc/

 

 

REGION 9 EFC at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY at HAYWARD

 

 

Description: The Environmental Finance Center, Region 9 (EFC9), is affiliated with California State University at Hayward (CSUH), and exists to benefit Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9, which includes Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Guam, and the Marshall Islands.а The mission of the EFC9 is to educate and assist public and private business/financial managers, owners, and advisors in the application and use of innovative financing techniques that further the implementation of environmental programs and projects.а EFC9 also seeks to support the establishment of environmental businesses and environmental technology development enterprises.

 

Actual Use: To assist environmental industry entrepreneurs in understanding the dynamics of their markets and identifying those market segments with the greatest potential, EFC9 has developed profiles of the U.S. environmental industry, environmental industry labor market models and databases, a 100 page directory of funding sources,а and environmental education and training programs.аа The EFC has developed a financial model for assessing the viability, short- and long-term financial characteristics, and capital needs required for establishing and operating an Environmental Technology Incubator.а EFC9 has also hosted numerous Environmental Business Opportunity conferences throughout California and in Hawaii.

 

Potential Use: EFC9 will be working to complete development and begin implementation of an innovative financing model designed to stimulate capital investments in the environmental industry.а The EFC plans to inventory and assess current/planned water system improvements, expansions, and additions in EPA Region 9.а EFC9 also looks forward to hosting and/or participating in future conferences involving such diverse topics as environmental business opportunities and ways to improve and finance the water systems of small and rural counties and cities.ааа

 

Advantages: The EFC possesses considerable technical expertise on matters relating to the environmental industry, and through its participation in the Environmental Finance Center Network the diverse expertise of the other five EFCs.а In addition, EFC9 benefits from the expertise of the faculty at CSUH and from its contacts and connections with other colleges, universities, and affiliated laboratories through the State ofа CaliforniaТs renowned educational systems.ааа

 

Limitations: While clients can benefit from EFC9's expert advice and technical assistance/outreach, the center is unable to provide direct financial support to businesses and communities in the Region.

 

Reference for Further Information: U.S. EPA EFC9, Building 7, Alameda Point, 851 West

Midway Avenue, Alameda, California 94501, Telephone 510‑749-6867,а Fax: 510‑749Ц6862, World

Wide Web: www.greenstart.org/efc9/.

 

REGION 5 GREAT LAKES EFC at CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY

 

 

Description: In May 1995, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the Region 5 Great Lakes Environmental Finance Center (EFC) in the Urban Center at Cleveland State University (CSU).а The Great Lakes EFC serves a six-State area, including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.а The primary mission of the EFC is to assist State and local government and private sector organizations in devising effective financing strategies for environmental improvement projects.а It accomplishes this by providing high-quality technical assistance and training services to its clients.а While the EFCТs chief client is the public sector, it has steadily increased services to banks, insurance companies, environmental consultants, law firms, and other private businesses serving the environmental industry.

а

Actual Use: The Region 5 EFC's initial major focus has been on brownfields site redevelopment.а This involves the financial issues affecting the availability of credit and financial tools and incentives to spur investment in abandoned commercial and industrial sites.а These sites are a major constraint to the redevelopment of central city neighborhoods, which desperately need new jobs and investment.а The issue is a top priority in all of the Great Lakes region's major cities, including many small and medium-sized cities.а Other areas of importance for the EFC are environmental facility privatization and market-based pollution prevention, both of which are emerging strategies cities are examining to achieve more cost effective environmental cleanup-up goals.

 

Potential Use: The EFC plans to work more closely in joint projects with other centers.а It will be collaborating with the Region 9 EFC in a two-city demonstration project to develop innovative regional strategies to increase the demand for pollution prevention activities by smaller companies.а The EFC will continue and expand its efforts to provide on-site advisory assistance to Midwestern cities In addition to working with Benton Harbor, Michigan, the plans to conduct technical assistance workshops in five other Midwestern cities in 1997.

 

Advantages: The EFC can tap the expertise and resources of CSUТs Urban Center as well as the rest of the University.а It can also tap the expertise and contacts of the other five centers in EPAТs EFC Network and those of EPAТs Environmental Finance Program in Washington, DC.

 

Limitations: Most EFC activities are concentrated in the six-States comprising EPA Region 5.

The EFC provides financial technical assistance and outreach, but no direct funding support.

 

Reference for Further Information: Region V Great Lakes EFC, the Urban Center at Cleveland State University, Economic Development Program, UB 215, Cleveland, Ohio 44115, Telephone: 216-687-6947, Fax: 216-687-9227,а World Wide Web site: http://www.csuohio.edu/glefc/.

 

 

REGION 10 EFC at the BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY

 

 

Description: The Environmental Protection AgencyТs (EPAТs) Region 10 Environmental Finance Center (EFC) was created in 1995 and is contained within the Public Affairs Program of the Boise State University (BSU) College of Social Sciences and Public Affairs.а The EFC serves the Pacific Northwest and Intermountain States of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington.а The EFC seeks to assist these States and their communities on environmental financing issues, particularly with regard to drinking water system capacity assessment and the needs of small communities and systems.аа

 

Actual Use: The EFC has been an important partner to State and local governments in Region 10 in addressing financing issues relating to unfunded and underfunded environmental mandates in small communities.а Program faculty, working with staff from the State of Idaho, have been national leaders in developing multi variate drinking water capacity assessment and strategic planning approaches similar to those in the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. The EFC has been working to improve the financial and managerial capacities of public waterа and wastewater treatment systems.

 

Potential Use: The EFC seeks to provide the following technical assistance and outreach services: workshops, conferences, training seminars, and formal education directed at expanding the ability of public and private leaders to address environmental problems;а practical guides, handbooks, and reports on financial and management issues relating to environmental systems;а assistance to local and tribal governments and other public water and wastewater systems to improve financial management capabilities and, where appropriate, to increase their use of alternative approaches to traditional finance and revenue raising methods; and initiatives to foster regional partnerships in improving public management and innovative financing techniques.а

 

Advantages: The Region 10 EFC is one of eightа university-based centers participating in EPAТs Environmental Finance Network.а Using its own expertise, the sharing of information and expertise between centers, and using the Network as a clearinghouse on financing issues, the EFC is at BSU is able to assist in addressing the how-to-pay issues of environmental compliance in Region 10.ааа

 

Limitations: Although the EFC helps communities to address financing options, low-cost alternative and appropriate technologies, and appropriate technologies and management techniquesа to meet infrastructure challenges, the EFC is not itself a funding source.

 

Reference for Further Information: The Environmental Finance Center at Boise State University, 1910 University Drive, Boise, ID 83725, Telephone: 208-385-4293, Fax: 208-385-4370, E‑mail: bjarock@idbsu.edu/efc, Web site:а http://sspa.boisestate.edu/efc/index.html

 

REGION 4 EFC at the UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA

 

 

Description:а This Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 Environmental Finance Center (EFC) was created in October 1998 and is contained within the Economic Development Office of the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill.а The UNC EFC primarily serves the Southeastern United States -- including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.аа The EFCТs initial expertise is in the areas of environmental finance, management and planning.а The Center recognizes the importance of economic development to environmental infrastructure and to the provision of truly sustainable environmental services.а

 

Actual Use:а The North Carolina EFCТsа initial core mission focuses on the environmental financing needs of small- to medium-sized communities, particularly those considering interlocal or regional arrangements for providing environmental infrastructure.а In this regard, the EFCТsа staff has begun working with representatives from four counties in the North Carolina central coastal plain to help promote joint solutions to critical wastewater issues on that coast.а The EFC is developing anа approach involving enhanced local planning and plans to prepare one or more case studies during and/or upon completion of this project.а The EFC also has begun working with the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and the North Carolina Attorney GeneralТs office to advise the Tribe on accessing State resources for environmental financing needs.а

 

Potential Use:аа The North Carolina EFC intends to assemble a group of expert advisors drawn from academia, government, and mission-related non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to help set future directions and assess projects.а The EFC also plans to develop a matrix of contacts for use by staff and clients on any particular project. The EFC recognizes the need for constructing an Internet web site and developing the information management tools necessary to carry out its planned environmental and finance missions.

 

Advantages:а The Region 4 EFC located at the University of North Carolina is one of eightа university-based centers participating in EPAТs Environmental Finance Network.а Using its own expertise in a number of areas, the sharing of information and expertise between centers, and using the Network as a clearinghouse on financing issues, the EFC at UNC will be able to assist in addressing the how-to-pay issues of environmental compliance in Region 4 and beyond.ааа

 

Limitations: The EFCТs program funding and staff resources are currently quite limited.а The EFC plans concentrated efforts to expand the centerТs financial base in order to expand services.а The EFC is not a funding source for environmental financing needs.

 

Reference for Further Information: U.S. EPA Region 4 Environmental Finance Center at the University of North Carolina, Office of Economic Development, CB#3435, Chapel Hill, NCа 27599, Telephone: 919-962-8494, Fax: 919-962-5824, E-Mail: mluger@email.unc.edu.

 

 

REGION 4 EFC at the UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE

 

 

Description:а The Environmental Finance Center (EFC) at the University of Louisville (UL) was created in October 1998 and is part of the UniversityТs Kentucky Institute for the Environment and Sustainable Development.а The UL EFCТs primary service area is the Southeastern United States -- encompassing Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.а The EFC staff has expertise and interest in environmental policy and planning, economic development, environmental and other public utilities, sustainable development, urban sprawl, brownfields redevelopment, and cost-benefit analyses.а

 

Actual Use: The Louisville EFC is currently developing a detailed work plan in consultation with the Environmental Protection AgencyТs (EPAТs) Region 4 Office in Atlanta, GA.а The UL EFC is also meeting with the other Region 4 EFC located at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill to develop joint environmental finance work projects, as appropriate.аа

 

Potential Use: The EFC StaffТs wide range of expertise gives it considerable leeway in determining the CenterТs future work areas.аа Examples of possible future work areas include brownfields finance, environmentally sustainable development/smart growth, multi-media environmental revolving funds,а rate-setting for environmental infrastructure services, and capital access for small businesses and businesses in the environmental goods and services industry.

 

Advantages:а The Region 4 EFC located at the University of Louisville is one of eightа university-based centers participating in EPAТs Environmental Finance Network, and one of two in EPA Region 4..а Using its own expertise in a number of areas, sharing of information and expertise with other centers, and using the Network as a clearinghouse, the Louisville EFC will be able to assist communities in Region 4 and beyond in addressing the financial components of environmental compliance issues.

 

Limitations:а The EFC is in the early stages of its development.а The EFC itself is not a source of money to help meet environmental financing needs.

 

Reference for Further Information: U.S. EPA Region 4 Environmental Finance Center at the University of Louisville, Kentucky Institute for the Environment and Sustainable Development, 203 Patterson Hall, Louisville, KY 40292, Telephone: 502-852-1851, Fax: 502-852-4677, E-Mail: rabarn01@ulkyum.louisville.edu.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL FINANCIAL ADVISORY BOARD

 

 

Description: аThe Environmental Financial Advisory Board (EFAB), a federally chartered advisory board operating under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, provides independent advice to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on environmental finance issues.а The Board consists of nationally recognized experts drawn from government; the finance, banking, and legal communities; business and industry; and national organizations.а аа

 

Actual Use:а EFAB has an impressive record, producing more than over twenty major reports and advisories since 1989. The Board has identified numerous policy and program options across a broad spectrum -- incentives and revenues; environmental costing; institutional efficiencies; outreach and coordination; and rural, urban, and international -- that seek to lower the costs of environmental protection, increase public and private investment, and build State and local financial capacity to carry out environmental programs.а Examples of EFAB work includes reports on: financing brownfields redevelopment, Superfund leveraging, international/NAFTA implementation, EPAТs Safe Drinking Water Act guidance, finance options to implement the Clean Air Act, the integration of environmental risk and finance, and small businessesТ problems in accessing capital.а EFAB continues to work with EPAТs Environmental Finance Centers (EFCs), with members advising the EFCs and serving on EFC-sponsored expert finance panels (charrettes) designed to help local governments and small businesses.аааа

 

Potential Use:а Senior EPA managers could more frequently request that the Board address financing issues related to important and topical environmental protection activities, including legislation and regulatory matters.

 

Advantages: EFAB provides EPA with real-world public finance/investment banking expertise which the Agency does not possess, nor can it afford to pay to retain the services of the typical member. The only realistic way to access such expertise is on a volunteer, advisory basis.

 

Limitations: аAs a federal advisory committee, the BoardТs recommendations are purely advice and EPA may choose not to act on them.а Also, by the nature of the advisoryа boardа process, the BoardТs recommendations are developed by a group of approximately twenty-five individuals, and not by an all-inclusive, consensus development process encompassing all interested stakeholders.аа

 

Reference for Further Information:а U.S. EPA, Office of the Comptroller, Environmental Finance Program, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20460, Mail Code: 2731R, Fax: 202-565-2587, Contact: Alecia Crichlow at crichlow.alecia@epa.gov.а EFAB information is also available on the World Wide Web at http://www.epa.gov/efinpage.

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL FINANCE PROGRAM

 

Description: The Environmental Protection AgencyТs (EPAТs) Environmental Finance Program (EFP) is a small, multi-media effort that seeks to bridge the gap between the growing costs of environmental protection and the ability of governments and the private sector to meet those costs.а Drawing on the expertise of EFP staff, the Environmental Financial Advisory Board (EFAB) and the Environmental Finance Center (EFC) Network, the EFP works to lower costs, avoid costs, increase efficiencies, stimulate public and private investment, and build financial capacity by creating partnerships with State and local governments and the private sector to help fund environmental needs.а

 

Actual Use: The EFP provides professional staff support to EFAB.а EFAB is a federally chartered advisory board composed of finance experts that provides advice and analysis to EPA on how to pay for environmental protection.а To date, EFAB has produced advisories and reports on a wide range of environmental financing topics.а Its latest report provides advice to EPA on its Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund Program guidance implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996.аа See page 5A-19, Environmental Financial Advisory Board.

а

The EFP also manages EPAТs network of university-based, regional EFCs.а These EFCs provide State and local officials and small businesses with training, advisory services, publications, and analyses on environmental financing trends and techniques.а The network currently includes the University of New Mexico, University of Maryland, Syracuse University, California State University at Hayward, Cleveland State University, Boise State University, University of North Carolina and University of Louisville.

 

Potential Use: The EFP could take additional steps to improve its efforts in working more closely with all EPA program offices.а It could also seek within resource constraints to expand its efforts in working with those EPA Regions not having EFCs.ааа

 

Advantages:аа The EFP provides EPA with an integrated, multi-media environmental financing focus. Through EFAB and the EFCs, the Agency can access real-world, public finance/investment banking expertise which it does not have and could not afford to obtain.а Working with these groups, the EFP is able to greatly leverage its own financing expertise and resources.

 

Limitations: The EFP is small and cannot work with all EPA offices at once.а Due to resource constraints and the demonstration nature of the EFC concept, there are EFCs in only seven Regions.аа

Reference for Further Information:а U.S. EPA, Office of the Comptroller, Environmental Finance Program, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20460, Mail Code: 2731R, Fax: 202-565-2587,а Contact George Ames at ames.george@epa.gov, Internet web site: http://www.epa.gov/efinpage.

 

 

FINANCE CHARRETTES

 

 

Description: аA Уfinance charretteФ is a forum where a regulated entity meets with a panel of finance experts from the public and private sectors that offers advice and recommendations onа finance issues faced by that entity.а The charrette technique has been pioneered in the environmental finance field by the EPA Region III Environmental Finance Center (EFC) at the University of Maryland at College Park (see page 5A-11).а The public sector expert participants come from interested federal and State agencies. The private sector experts are drawn from business and industry, banks and other financial institutions, and the professional consultant services arena.а Typically, a charrette lasts a half day beginning with a description of the problems by, for example, officials from a local government, followed by questions and answers with the panel, and report out by panel members on the actions they recommend as individuals and as a group. The proceedings are taped and results summarized.

 

Actual Use:а Through April 1999, the University of Maryland EFC has developed and conducted more than twenty charrettes examining the environmental financing problems of communities, counties, and businesses in the mid-Atlantic region and across the nation.а

 

Potential Use: Charrettes could be used by colleges, universities, and other technical assistanceа providers nationwide to determine, evaluate and help solve the environmental financing problems facing governments, communities, and businesses.

 

Advantages:а Charrettes have proven to be a highly effective outreach tool in providing useful advice and recommendations to local governments not only on the environmental financing problem that brought them to the table to begin with, but also on other issues that they might not have been aware of.а A significant spinoff benefit has been that the real world information gleaned from the charrettes can be used to develop and improve finance courses offered by EPAТs network of eight university based Environmental Finance Centers ( see Pages 5A-11 through 5A-18).

 

Limitations: аTo maximize the panelТs contribution, it is essential to give them clear, accurate and complete information on the issue prior to the charrette.а Political issues disguised as finance issues need to be weeded out in advance.а The charrettes undertaken to date have tended to work best with communities of populations under 50,000.

 

Reference for Further Information:аа Region 3 EFC, University of Maryland Sea Grant College, 0112 Skinner Hall, College Park MD 20742, Telephone: 301-405-6384, E-mail: hickey@umbi. umd.edu., World wide web: http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/MDSG/EFC/index.html.

 

 

 

 

NATIONAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

(Nonprofit)

 

 

Description: National non-profit technical assistance entities that facilitate the financing and implementation of environmental projects and programs.а Such entities can include non-profit organizations ranging from environmental media-based associations to community-focused programs to university-based groups to professional associations and organizations to cooperative networks.

 

Actual Use: There are a significant number of excellent nonprofit national technical assistance organizations operating in the environmental arena.а Some good examples of this type of organization include the American Waterworks Association, the Environmental Protection AgencyТs (EPAТs) network of eight university-based Environmental Finance Centers, the National Rural Water Association, the six Rural Community Assistance Programs, and West Virginia UniversityТs Environmental Services and Training Division.

 

Potential Use: There is a great need in communities, especially in the thousands of smaller ones, for technical assistanceа and outreach related to financing environmental systems and activities.а As both federal and State budget constraints continue, the costs of environmental compliance grows, and communities face increasing demands in all service areas, this need for financial technical assistance will grow even further.аа

 

Advantages: Many national technical assistance organizations have accumulated considerable experience and developed significant technical expertise in dealing with communities and their environmental and financing problems.а The best of these organizations have earned the hard-won confidence of their client communities and other groups.

 

Limitations: Most technical assistance organizations usually do not provide any significant direct financial assistance to communities for environmental activities.а Furthermore, providing financial technical assistance and/or environmental assistance may be often only one part of the overall mission of many national technical assistance providers.а

 

Reference for Further Information: American Water Works Association, 6666 West Quincy Avenue, Denver, CO 80235.а Phone: 303-794-7711.а U.S. EPA Environmental Finance Centerа Network: see Page 5A-10.а National Rural Water Association, P.O. Box 1428, Duncan, OK 73534.а Phone: 405-252-0629.а Rural Community Assistance Programs, 602 South King Street, #402, Leesburg, VA 22075.а Phone: 703-771-8636.а Also, see the individual write-up on the Rural Community Assistance Corporation, on Page 5A-24.а West Virginia Environmental Services and Training Division,а see the individual write-up on Page 5A-26.

 

 

RETIRED VOLUNTEERS

 

 

Description:а A group of retired environmental finance practitioners could make their professional services available to small local governments and businesses on a voluntary basis.а The program could be publicly or privately sponsored or supported by some combination of public-private partnership.а The assistance offered would be advisory in nature, extending to such matters as suggestions for raising revenues to finance environmental improvements, review of capital programs, tracking new developments in environmental finance, and assisting at meetings with citizens and regulatory officials.а Travel and living expenses could be paid by host communities/businesses or via cost-sharing arrangements with sponsoring organizations.

 

Actual Use:а None currently known involving this type of technical assistance.а However, the Senior Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE) program of the Small Business Administration is a good example of this outreach technique.а SCORE volunteers assist small businesses with management issues.а No compensation is paid, but volunteers are paid for Уout-of-pocketФ expenses.а The program has over 12,000 volunteers nationwide.а Readers are encouraged to let us know of any other examples by filling out a blank tool form (see Appendix A).ааа

 

Potential Use:аа There is great potential use for this tool given the need by many smaller communities and businesses for financial technical assistance.а Volunteer assistance could easily be linked to other outreach efforts such as follow-up to a finance charrette (see Page 5A-21) and/or a water and wastewater rate model workshop (see Page 5B-9).

 

Advantages:аа Useful, professional financial outreach services could be provided to needy customers at very low costs.а Retired volunteers could also help give State and federal environ- mental officials a more complete and clearer picture of the nature of financing problems faced by small local governments and businesses.а This knowledge could help State and federal officials improve their regulatory programs as well as the content and delivery of technical assistance.

 

Limitations: Connecting volunteers with communities/businesses takes a lot of up-front work. Help provided is only as good as the volunteer.а Job benefits such as workmenТs compensation can be a problem.а Volunteer programs must not to compete unfairly with the private sector.а

 

Reference for Further Information: SCORE Association 409 3rd Street, SW 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024, Telephone: 800/634‑0245,а World Wide Website: http://www.score.org/.

 

 

 

 

RURAL COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE CORPORATION

 

 

Description: The Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC) is a recognized 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.а RCAC seeks to improve the quality of life for rural communities and disadvantaged people in 12 western States: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.а Working with rural governments and community organizations, RCAC provides a wide range of development assistance involving housing, environmental services, local organizational capacity, and information and outreach.а RCAC environmental activities focus on improving local drinking water, wastewater, and solid waste management and helping communities comply with environmental requirements.

 

Actual Use:а RCAC provides environmental training and technical assistance to more than 120 communities and small utilities each year. It helps these entities to comply with federal and State drinking water standards, reduce or eliminate water pollution, develop and implement low-cost water and wastewater systems,а trainа water, wastewater, and solid waste operators, and acquire affordable environmental systems.а In Fiscal Year 1994, RCAC leveraged more than $18 million for water and wastewater facilities development and trained more than 1500 public officials and citizens.а The division also provides help to more than 60 native American Tribes in 75 communities.а This work includes evaluating the management of wastewater facilities, developing rehabilitation plans for environmental systems, producing reference materials, and assisting in disputes resolution.

 

Potential Use:а RCACТs community-based approach could be successfully applied in many more small communities throughout its 12 State service area.а The assistance that RCAC provides in those States could be replicated by similar nonprofit technical assistance providers throughout the rest of the country.аа Given adequate resources, RCAC could expand the types of assistance that it provides.

 

Advantages: аRCAC stresses low-cost and low-tech solutions whenever possible and appropriate.а In almost twenty years of working with small communities and developing solutions to their environmental problems, RCAC has developed considerable expertise and earned the hard-wonа confidence of rural communities in its service area.

 

Limitations: RCAC does not assist medium-sized and larger communities/utilities, and does not possess the resources to help all of the small ones.а It operates only in 12 States located in the western United States.а Other rural assistance providers operate programs that cover the remaining 38 States.а

Reference for Further Information: Rural Community Assistance Corporation, 2125 19th Street, Suite 203, Sacramento, California 95818, Telephone: 916-447-2854,а Fax: 916-447-2878,а RCACТs homepage on the World Wide Web: http://www.rcac.org/index.htm.

 

 

SELF-HELP

 

 

Description: Self-help is an Уin the fieldФ strategy supported by many State government and nongovernmental organizations that helps small communities help themselves in solving their environmental problems.а Self-help has proven a highly effective, low-cost approach to providing environmental services and achieving compliance in small communities.а It depends heavily on local residents to contribute their time, labor and, on occasion, material and equipment in getting the job done.а A local project coordinator or УsparkplugФ is essential to success.а In the self-help paradigm, State and federal agencies are called upon to move to supporting roles -- providing outreach and technical services.

 

Actual Use: The self-help approach was pioneered in the State of New York by the Rensselaerville Institute.а The Institute helped New York State create its УSelf-Help Support System,Ф a ten-year oldа program that has saved nearly 150 New York towns more than $17 million over the cost of initial job estimates.а The Institute has taken its program nationwide supporting self-help projects and related activities in Arkansas, Maryland,а North Carolina, Oklahoma , and Washington State.а The self-helpа approach has also been employed in countries worldwide --а including Australia, Nicaragua, Japan and Finland.аа

 

Potential Use: Self-help could be effectively used to implement environmental projects and activities in thousands of communities nationwide.а The approach could provide substantial assistance to the 75% of American communities with less than 10,000.а Based on past experiences it could be especially effective with regard to small capital projects providing drinking water and wastewater treatment services.

 

Advantages: The approach offers a proven, viable local alternative to implementing local environmental that holds down costs, sizes technology to needs, builds local capacity, and supports community independence.а Self-help projects can be implemented in a very timely manner due to the lack of bureaucratic red tape.

 

Limitations: Self-help will not work in every community.а There has to be in the community a minimum level of consensus of purpose as well as confidence in local abilities to succeed with the project.а In addition, the approach does not work very well in the absence of a local УsparkplugФ or champion pushing the project along.

 

Reference for Further Information: See УThe Self-Help Handbook,Ф by Jane W. Schautz, available through the Rensselaerville Institute, Rensselaerville, NY, Telephone: 518-797-3783,а Fax:а 518-797-3692.

 

 

WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AND TRAINING DIVISION

 

 

Description: West Virginia UniversityТs Environmental Services and Training Division (ESTD) is an important national environmental technical assistance program directed at small communities.а Theа Division is comprised of four major federally-supported technical assistance efforts:

 

1.)аааааа National Small Flows Clearinghouse - proves technical information, educational products, аааа and assistance on wastewater issues to small communities;

2.)аааааа National Environmental Training Center for Small Communities - provides information ааааа and training to small communities on wastewater, drinking water, and solid waste issues;

3.)аааааа National Onsite Demonstration Project - manages six demonstration sites testing alter- аааааааа native wastewater solutions for small communities in environmentally sensitive areas; and

4.)аааааа National Drinking Water Clearinghouse - provides technical assistance, information, and ааааааааааа educational products relating to drinking water issues to small communities.

 

Actual Use: ESTD provides free and low-cost information to every State and US territory.а Itа provides this assistance each year through 30,000 telephone calls, 30,000 computer Bulletin Board System calls, 65,000 product distributions, 100,000 newsletters mailed quarterly, and 10 or more train-the trainer sessions.а ESTD assistance helps small communities to understand environmental and public health regulations, save or locate money, solve technical problems, learn about alternative technologies, and locate additional assistance.а In its work with small communities, ESTD seeks through its work to increase the environmental knowledge base, spur appropriate technology transfer, create informed decision makers and problem solvers, and enhance professional skills.

 

Potential Use: The potential use, and growth ofа use, of ESTD services is high.а Many thousands of additional small communitiesа could benefit from the environmental information and assistance provided by ESTD.

аа

Advantages:а Access to, and use of, its information/assistance is easy and free or low-cost.а ESTD provides a comprehensive one-stop shop for small communities needing environmental information.

 

Limitations:а Providing financial technical information and assistance is only one part of ESTDТs overall work.аа ESTDТs single location limits its ability to deliver field technical assistance nationally.

Reference for Further Information: Environmental Training and Services Division, West Virginia University, P.O. Box 6064, Morgantown, WV 26506-6064,а Telephone: 304-293-4191,а Fax: 304-293-3161, Toll Free: 1-800-624-8301,а BBS: 1-800-932-7459.

 

 

 

OTHER

 

 

Description:а

 

 

 

 

Actual Use:а

 

 

 

 

 

 

Potential Use:а

 

 

 

 

 

Advantages:

 

 

 

 

 

Limitations:а

 

 

 

 

Reference for Further Information:а

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMPARISON MATRIX FOR

INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

 

 

Criteria/   Outreach Tool	Actual Use	Program Size	Program Quality	Admini- strative Ease	Equity	Environ- mentalаа Impact
*Border Environmental а Cooperation а Commission	Low	Mod.	High	Low - Mod.	Mod.	High
а Circuit Riders	Mod.	Low	Mod.	High	Mod..	Mod.
а*Cooperative Research а Education and а Extension Service	High	High	Mod.	High	Mod.	Mod.
*Cooperatives	Low	Mod.	High	Mod.	Low	Mod.
*Drinking Water State а Revolving Fund аCapacity Development	High	High	High	Mod.	Mod.	High
*Environmental а Finance а Center Network	Mod.	Low	Mod.	High	Mod.	High
а Environmental а Financial Advisory а Board	Low	Low	Mod.	Mod.	Low	Mod.ааааа
*EPA Environmental а Finance Program	Mod.	Mod.	Low	High	Mod.	Mod.
*Finance Charrettes	Low	Low	High	High	Mod.	High

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа COMPARISON MATRIX continued

 

 

Criteria/   Outreach Tool	Actual Use	Program Size	Programаа Quality	Admini-ааа strative Ease	Equity	Environ- mental Benefits
*National Technical а Assistance Programs	High	High	High	High	High	аMod.
а Retired Volunteers	Low	Low	Mod. -High	Mod.	Low - Mod.	Low
*Rural Community а Assistance Programаааа (RCAP)а	Mod.	Mod.- High	High	High	Mod.	Mod. -ааааааа High
*Self-Help	Mod.	Mod.	High	High	Mod.	High
*West Virginia а University а Environmental а Services andааааааа Training Division	High	High	Mod.	Highаааааааа	Mod.	Mod.

 

 

High -а High use (over 25 States and many localities); criteria score highа (e.g., assistance is hands-on, easy to use, cost-effective, and project specific)

Mod.-а Moderate use (10-25 States and many localities); criteria score in medium range

Low -аа Low use (under 10 States and few localities); criteria score poorlyа (e.g., printed information only, difficult to access, and not project specific)

 

 

*Star indicates comparatively best rated mechanisms

 

5.B.а ELECTRONIC SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

аааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа

5.B.а ELECTRONIC SERVICES

 

 

Description: аElectronic services are forms of electronic technology used by one party to provide information, training, analyses, advice, and outreach to one or more other parties.а These services can include-- but are not necessarily limited to -- computer networks, online data bases and libraries, computer software, and voice, video, and/or data transmission.а This last category encompasses such technologies as facsimile transmissions, computerized telephone referral services, telephone conferencing, and video conferencing.а

 

Electronic services are the fastest growing method of conveying information in this country and many others, including environmental and financing information.а The use of these services is growing and is increasingly being incorporated into the routine operations of all levels of government, the private sector, professional associations non-profit organizations, educational and training institutions, and large numbers of the general public.ааа

 

Advantages: аElectronic services can greatly facilitate the flow of information and outreach between these many and often varied parties.а These services have the capability of making these exchange processes both much faster and much more efficient.а Using electronic services, more people and parties, public and private,а can interact and access significantly more information in much shorter periods of time.а Large, sophisticated users may benefit as much, or even more, from these services as small users.

 

In addition, these interactions and information exchanges can often be implemented in a more cost-effective manner.а Properly implemented, electronic services can help control resource consumption and pollution by reducing paper use, cutting transportation and fuel costs, and preventing related air, water and land pollution (and the need to clean it up).

 

Limitations: Electronic services in one way are almost the exact opposite of institutional outreach since most are impersonal.а Not everyone has access to, and/or the inclination to use, these types of services.аа The costs of obtaining the technological equipment needed can be a financial burdensome, perhaps prohibitively so to some parties.а As with many other complex technologies, not everyone has the necessary skills to properly use and/or maintain electronic services and any associated equipment.а The popularity of an electronic service such as the Internet/World Wide Web may also cause problems.а Growth in use can outstrip the ability of technology vendors to provide and maintain a service.а A good example of this limitation is the serious service outage problems experienced by America On Line during the winter of 1996-1997.ааа

 

 

 

Summary: The nine electronic services described here are government-sponsored services, with the exception of the World Wide Web which in itself makes many of the others possible.а Since electronic services are the fastest growing source of information exchange many other new servicesа are possible.а Some private sector electronic services for businesses are discussed in Section 10а Tools to Access Financing for Small Businesses and the Environmental Goods and Services Industry.а For almost any environmental finance problem-solving effort, there is probably existing software that is useful, or if not, it could be developed.а Suggestions for additional electronic services and software for inclusion in the Guidebook are most welcome.

а

 

 

LIST OF ELECTRONIC SERVICES

(In Alphabetical Order)

 

 

*1.а Catalog of Domestic Federal Assistance

*2.а Environmental Finance Program Home Page

а 3.а Environmental Financing Information Network

*4.а Environmental Protection Agency Home Page

*5.а FinanceNet

а 6.а Long Distance Learning

*7.а Rate Models

*8.а The Environmental Hotline, EarthТs 911

*9.а World Wide Web

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*а Stars indicate most highly rated mechanisms as described in the Comparison Matrix at the end of the narratives.а See Introduction to the Guidebook for a description of the criteria used.а Ratings of УHighФ, УModerateФ, and УLowФ are for comparison purposes only, as some ratings are necessarily subjective and data are incomplete.

 

CATALOG OF DOMESTIC FEDERAL ASSISTANCEа

 

 

Description: The Catalog of Domestic Federal Assistance (FDAC) is a government-wide compendium of federal programs, projects, services and activities which provide grants, loans, and other assistance or benefits to the American public.а The FDAC contains information on financial and nonfinancial assistance programs administered by departments, agencies, commissions, and otherа federal government establishments.а Potential recipients of assistance or benefits include, but are not limited to: State, local, and other governments; non-profit organizations, groupsа and institutions; private sector for-profit firms, partnerships and corporate entities; and the general public.аа The Catalog is updated at least twice a year.

 

Actual Use:а FDAC data is available in multiple formats: hard copy through the World Wide Web, machine-readable magnetic tape, high-density floppy diskettes, and CD-ROM.а These last three formats contain the text published in the program description section of the FDAC, as well asа characteristics data of coded program information taken from the text.а Important information provided in the FDAC includes program function, types of assistance, applicants, beneficiaries, circular requirements, obligations, matching requirements, agency contact information and authorizing legislation.а The Catalog is a valuable and widely used reference document in all of its formats.а For example, between January 5, 1997, andа February 12, 1997,а the FDACТs World Wide Web site alone was accessed and searched more than 41,000 times.

 

Potential Use: The potential future use of the FDAC via its numerous forms, but especiallyа its World Wide Web site, is large.а As more local officials become more computer proficient and more knowledgeable about the World Wide Web,а their use of the FDAC should grow rapidly.

аааа

Advantages: Accessing the FDAC by computer through the World Wide Web is fast, easy, and efficient.а Summaries and detailed program information on all types of federal assistance from all federal departments, agencies and other organizations can be accessed and printed.а

 

Limitations:а Information retrieval may be slowed by growing use of the World Wide Web and accompanying strains on technical systems support.а User uncertainty or lack of specificity as to the agency and/or assistance program in question can complicate and delay the search for information.

 

Reference for Further Information:а The Catalog can be accessed via the World Wide Web at http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/cfda/index.htm.а Questions and requests to buy magnetic tapes, diskettes, or CD-ROM should go to the Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Staff (MVS), General Services Administration, 300 7th St., SW, Washington, DC 20407.а Phone: 202-708-5126.а

 

 

 

ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа

ENVIRONMENTAL FINANCE PROGRAM HOME PAGE

 

 

Description: The Home Page for the Environmental Protection AgencyТs (EPAТs) Environmental Finance Program (EFP) contains detailed information on the program, its primary components, and important work products.а Primary EFP components include: the network of eight-university based Environmental Finance Centers (EFCs); the Environmental Financial Advisory Board (EFAB) and the Environmental Financing Information Network.а Important information provided on the home page includes contacts for the EFCs, selected EFC documents, such as case studies developed through the Region 3 EFC finance charrettes, the names and affiliations of EFAB members, EFAB advisories and reports; and instructions for accessing the EFIN database.

 

Actual Use: The EFP Home Page provides wide, unrestricted, and cost-free public access to a large number of computer users desiring information on environmental finance and costs. This information, moreover, is multi-media in scope and covers both the public and private sectors.

 

Potential Use: The amount of environmental finance information available on the Home Page will continue to grow and this growing body of information will be electronically available to a growing (perhaps exponentially) number of Internet/World Wide Web users.аа

 

Advantages: аInformation on the EFP Home Page is currently quickly accessible to a wide variety of users.а Through the electronic medium, users have a central location where they can access important environmental finance information and contacts.

 

Limitations: The EFP Home Page is only available to users who have World Wide Web access. Growing use of the World Wide Web combined with server constraints may limit or slowа access to this and other Home Page sites.а The costs of maintaining the Home Page and possible Home Page space limitations may in the future dictate the volume of information (such as full text documents) that can be put on the Web site.

 

Reference for Further Information: The Environmental Finance Program (EFP) Home Page can be accessed via U.S. EPAТs Home Page, http://www.epa.gov, under УMoney MattersФ or directlyа at http://www.epa.gov/efinpage/.а The EFPТs mailing address is U.S. EPA, Office of the Comptroller, Environmental Finance Program, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, Mail Code: 2731R, Fax: 202-565-2587,а E-mail:а George Ames at ames.george@epa.gov.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL FINANCING INFORMATION NETWORK (EFIN)

 

 

Description: The Environmental Protection AgencyТs (EPAТs) Environmental Financing Information Network (EFIN) provides information on financing alternatives for State and local environmental programs and projects and small businesses.а Information is available through an online database, which contains abstracts of publications, case studies and contacts, and via the EFIN World Wide Web site at http://www.epa.gov/efinpage/.а The EFIN Center operates an infoline which provides callers with referrals, assistance with accessingа and searching the EFIN database and the Web site, and serves as a point of contact for ordering documents.

 

Actual Use:а Federal, State and local officials, and individuals seeking sources of funding for new businesses and research use EFIN as a reference service.а Users can search the EFIN database or request the librarian to conduct a search for them.а The EFIN Center also distributes documents published by the Environmental Finance Program (EFP), such as reports and advisories developed by the Environmental Financial Advisory Board (EFAB) as well as information about projects managed by the Environmental Finance Center (EFC) network.а The EFIN and Environmental Finance Program Home Page are increasingly being used as a source of information on EFP programs, services and publications.

 

Potential Use:а Through the EFIN Home Page, EFIN will provide electronic information on the EFP programs and full text of EFP publications, for example, case studies developed from Environmental Finance Center charrettes.а EFIN can also provide links to other sources of information such as EPAТs grant and research programs.

 

Advantages:а EFIN is a central point for environmental financing information.а It provides an easily

accessible reference service via the infoline, EFIN e‑mail mailbox and a link to the EFIN database via the EPAТs Online Library System Web site.

 

Limitations:а The EFIN database can be difficult to access if the user does not have the proper Telnet or modem connections. In addition, there can be a lag time between the time material is received by EFIN and loaded onto the database.

 

Reference for Further Information:а U.S. EPA, Office of the Comptroller, Environmental Finance Program, 400 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460,а Mail Code: 2731R,а Infoline: 202-564-4994, Fax: 202-565-2587,а E-mail address: аefin@epa.gov, Internet access to the EFIN database: http://www.epa.gov/efinpage/efindata.htm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HOME PAGE

 

 

Description:а The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Home Page provides public access to the activities and organizational components of the Agency.аа The Home Page has two sections.а The first section is divided into user groups, such as УConcerned CitizensФ and УSmallа Business and IndustryФ.а The second includes access to the AgencyТs УOffices, Labs and RegionsФ and УProjects and ProgramsФ.а Links to financial information can be found under the category УMoney MattersФ.

 

Actual Use:а The EPA Home Page provides the first step in locating information in the EPA.а A user can select a link from the user and resource categories.а The EPA Home Page also has both browse and search capabilities.а A user can browse for information on a specific subject(s), or search for sites on a topic(s). There is also the capability to search via zip code.

 

Potential Use:а The EPA Home Page could be more of a source for researching environmental topics rather than a starting point.а Currently, there are several levels a user must go through to locate information on a specific topic.а The Home Page could be restructured to include more information, such as a list of the УOffices, Labs and RegionsФ on the page itself.а The functions of the Offices andа Programs could be more transparent, and the subjects could be shown on the Home Page.

 

Advantages:а The EPA Home Page provides a fairly comprehensive guide to the many types of information located on the overall EPA Web site.а Interested users are directed to specific areas to begin their search and further directed at each subsequent step to sub-areas.

 

Limitation: аThere are numerous layers on information on the EPA World Wide Web site and it can take considerable time to locate information.а The current search engine does not always provide relevant results.

 

Reference for More Information:аа U.S. EPA, Information Resource Center, 400 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, Mail Code: 3404, Telephone: 202-260-8674, Internet/World Wide Web access: http://www.epa.gov/.а There are contacts for various types of questions, which can be accessed by clicking on the Comments section.а This includes general questions, comments and technical assistance.а There is also an e-mail address: public‑access@epamail.epa.gov.

 

 

 

 

FINANCENET

 

 

Description: Established in 1994 by Vice-President Al GoreТs National Performance Review, FinanceNet is the largest government Internet administrative platform in the world.а It serves as the InternetТs home for public financial management information.аа FinanceNet is a worldwide network of people spanning federal executive agencies, departments and other groups; International, State, local, and other municipal governments; professional organizations, educational institutions; and theа general public.

 

Actual Use:аа FinanceNet provides Internet users with access to current and archival electronic reference libraries of financial legislation, Congressional testimony, executive orders and memoranda,а minutes and highlights of meetings of the U.S. Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) Council (comprised of CFOs from the 24 largest federal agencies and departments), and federal, State, and local government financial circulars, bulletins, releases, news, notices.а It also provides Internet users with access to public Internet mailing lists and discussion forums covering a wide range of government finance topics to stimulate dialogue, information sharing and reinvention ideas.

 

Potential Use:а FinanceNet could play an growing role in improving the delivery of government services by reducing information distribution costs.а It could also facilitate access to government information and build the partnerships necessary to make it the electronic vehicle for intra-and inter-governmental communications, coordination, and collaboration.а Governments, public and private organizations, and individuals involved in financing environmental protection could take an role in such an effort.

 

Advantages:аа As more people access and participate in FinanceNet, the sources and range of financing information will grow.а FinanceNet users will be able to research topics more quickly and completely.аа Government users will able to network more efficiently with their peers and keep better track of innovative developments in financial management.а The general public will have better access to information on the activities of their own and other governments.

 

Limitations: аIf FinanceNet grows too fast and/or too much, it may become overloaded with information and users.а Information searches may be slowed by irrelevant material and heavy suer traffic.а There are also a lot of people who do not have (and may never have) Internet/World Wide Web access.а If information is distributed electronically, they will not be able to access it.

 

Reference for Further Information: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington Virginia 22230, Telephone: 703-303-1282.а Most importantly, FinanceNet itself can be accessed on the World Wide Web at http://www.financenet.gov.

 

 

 

LONG DISTANCE LEARNING

 

 

Description:а Long distance learning is the use of electronic technology to provide education and training to and between numerous remote locations.а The electronic technologies employed in long distance learning may include one-way transmission of voice, video, and/or data or two-way sharing of information with or without video.а Long distance learning can be applied in all areas of education, including primary and secondary schools, higher education, continuing education, corporate training,а military and government training, and professional meetings and conferences.

 

Actual Use:а Universities and colleges, businesses, governments, primary and secondary schools, private educational vendors, professional associations and organizations, and other groups incorporate long distance learning in their educational, training, and communications programs and activities.а For example, the University of Maryland at College Park held a Teleconference on Environmental Finance in September 1995.а Using satellite downlinks to sites in Tennessee and New Mexico, the teleconference was an interactive vehicle for environmental professionals to discuss options for financing environmental mandates.а The American Bar AssociationСs multi-site teleconference on brownfields redevelopment held in the spring of 1996 is another example.

 

Potential Use:а The long distance learning/teleconferencing technique could be employed much more extensively by governments, professional associations and organizations, and educational institutions to share information on all aspects of environmental protection and finance.а It could be especially valuable in helping to get the word out about new cleanup and financing technologies.ааааааа

Advantages:а Long distance learning permits individuals anywhere in the world with access to the necessary technical capabilities to participate in the education/training experience.а When two-way communication is available, it allows participants who might otherwise not meet to share information and discuss important issues.а Long distance learning can be less expensive than traveling to the primary site from which the education/training originates.

 

Limitations:а There may not be enough individuals at some remote sites to justify the expense of electronically hooking up with the long distance learning session(s).а Many remote sites may have poor technical capabilities or they may not have the technical capability to hook up at all.

 

Reference for Further Information:а Many colleges and universities nationwide and across the world have long distance learning departments or centers.а There are numerous sites on the World Wide Web accessible under the phrase Уlong distance learningФ by using common and popular search engines such as Alta Vista.

 

 

RATE MODELS

 

 

Description: Rate models are expert utilityа rate-setting, impact fee and financial planning software for water and wastewater managers.а These models prepare cost-of-service studies and multi-year budget, rate, and financial forecasts using widely accepted methods.а One such model used byа the network of eight Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-supported Environmental Finance Centers (EFCs) allows users to define up to thirty-three customer groups or four rate blocks.а This model automatically generates flat, minimum, uniform, and block rates, and impact fee schedules.а It also performs Уwhat ifФ analysis and designs inside/outside or wholesale rates, excess loading, and fire protection charges.а This particular model is suited for smaller systems, and for systems with up to 100,000 connections.

 

Actual Use: Rate models are being used by local utility managers and finance officers across the country to set user rates and impact fees.а They are also being used to examine alternative funding options, plan and schedule capital improvements, determine the impact of planned improvements on system and individual customer ability-to-pay, and forecast system budget and financial data.

 

Potential Use: While many medium to large communities can access and afford their own rate models and/or consultants, low cost models could help thousands of small communities nationwide to develop, set and test water and wastewater system rates and design.а They also could be used by State and federal officials in financing and regulatory agencies to determineа ability-to-pay, review rates and criteria, determine rates of return, underwrite and size grant/loan assistance packages and terms, and provide technical assistance to increase local financial and management capabilities.

 

Advantages: Small community managers can be trained to use models such as the one used by the EFCs at a low cost.аа These models can be easily customized by the user to meet the needs of a wide variety of system sizes.а They have multiple rate design options and УsmartФ defaults that guide users through rate-setting and cost allocation.а Variables affecting rates and finances are available for fast Уwhat if У analysis.а The model used by the EFCs comes with a user guide, QuickStart instructions, sample files, and telephone support.а On-site training is available directly or through the EFCs.а

 

Limitations: ааRate models require a personal computer and laser jet printer.а An Impact Fee Model must be acquired separately.а Some technical training is necessary with any model.

 

Reference for Further Information: ааInformation on rate models and training conducted at EFCs is available through U.S. EPAТs Environmental Finance Program at 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, Mail Code: 2731R, E-mail contact: George Ames at: ames.george@epa.gov.а Information on the model used by the EFCs is also available from RateMod Associates, 4401-A Connecticut Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20008, Telephone: 202-237-2455, Fax: 202-237-2456.

 

 

THE ENVIRONMENTAL HOTLINE

EARTHТS 911

 

Description:. The Environmental Hotline, EarthТs 911,а is a 24 hour telephone education service that provides environmental information specific to any Уzip codeФ area in the United States.а By dialing a toll-free phone number, anyone in the country can receive current and detailed information concerning any environmental media area on issues ranging from recycling business/household waste products - i.e., paper, plastic, oil, glass, tires, etc to pesticide product registration to air and water pollution.аа Through the Hotline, citizens, businesses and governments can both access and provide environmental information by dialing a 1-800 phone number.а

 

The Hotline was established and expanded nationwide through a public-private partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and several other public/private partners.а It is sustained through the support of private companies and organizations who benefit from the hotline and/or companies and organizations who support its positive impact on the environment.

 

Actual Use:а The Hotline is online and available to everyone in the United States.а The hotline can be accessed by dialing the toll-free phone number, У1-800 CLEANUPФ, on any telephone from anywhere in the United States.а In its six years of existence, the Hotline has received more than 15 million calls nationwide.

 

Potential Use:а The Hotline concept could be adapted geographically to any environmental and/or other subject area of interest to the general public.а For example, the concept could be expanded to Mexico, other counties such as Canada, and even globally.

 

Advantages: The Hotline provides information free of charge without taxpayer/federal/State government funding. The fact of having one phone number to call nationwide greatly simplifies forа businesses, citizens, and governments the task of searching for environmental information.а The environmental benefits in terms of pollution prevention and conservation are immense.а The accompanying dollar savings are also large and growing (many millions).а The hotline concentrates on proactive solutions.

 

Limitations:а In terms of expanding the hotline concept to other subject areas or countries, the basic problem is simply convincing people of the value of this new way of doing business and providing information to the public.

 

Reference for Further Information: Hotline Address: 5110 North 44^th St., Suite L120, Phoenix, Arizona, 85018. The Environmental Hotline, EarthТs 911, can be also be accessed at its World Wide Web site address: http://www.1800cleanup.org/.а E-mail: webmaster@cleanup.org.

а

WORLD WIDE WEB

 

 

Description: аThe World Wide Web provides users on computer networks with a means of accessing information on a wide variety of subjects, from government legislation to personal home pages. The Web contains an international collection of sites, which are developed by governments,а private and commercial sectors, educational institutions and individuals. The Web operates through hypertext, which provides links (connections) within the text of a document to other documents or other sites.а This can be a link to text or other media, such as sounds, images or movies.а A user selects/clicks on a link to access the next document. This can lead to another source of information, creating a УwebФ.

 

Actual Use:а The World Wide Web is the fastest growing, largest means of locating information on a topic and disseminating information on a product or service. Web users come from all levels and age groups. Grade school students and scientists use the Web for research on projects. The Web has in many cases taken the place of the printed document.а It provides a central location for environmental information, such as the Environmental Protection AgencyТs Web site.а This site includes information on the Environmental Finance Program and other Agency initiatives, which describe their components and link to contacts and publications.а There are also search engines, such as Yahoo and Alta Vista which assist users in finding a number of different sites or documents on their subjects.а

 

Potential Use:а As more people access the Web, their sources and range of information will increase. They would be able to perform research more quickly and from one location.а Users who do not have physical access to hard copies of information could access them electronically. Examples are newspapers and government documents such as the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. Information providers could use the Web as a bulletin board to post current and upcoming events.

 

Limitations:а There is a growing overload of information on the Web, because of unlimited access.аа When users conduct searches using a Net Search Engine or even an internal search engine within a site, they could get many irrelevant hits.а In addition, many users have not caught up with the available and often-changing technology.а There are different browsers and several levels of software and hardware.а If a document is in one format, such as PDF, the user might not have the software to read it.а Finally, there are still many people who do not have access to the Web.а If information is only distributed electronically, they will not be able to acquire it.

 

Reference for More Information: Contact the access providers, such as America On Line,а Netscape, or Microsoft.а Use a Search Engine such as Yahoo! (TM), Lycos, or Infoseek to search forа terms on the World Wide Web.

 

 

 

OTHER

 

 

Description:а

 

 

 

 

 

Actual Use:а

 

 

 

 

 

Potential Use:а

 

 

 

 

Advantages:

 

 

 

 

Limitations:а

 

 

 

Reference for Further Information:а