AR

The Water Wastewater Advisory Committee consists of all of the above agencies and was created in 1992.

AZ

Called the RIC (Rural Infrastructure Committee) and has been meeting in one form or another since 1990.

CO

State Water and Sewer Needs Committee creates a categorization list of needs based upon public health, short or long term deficiencies, and begins to cause folks to examine appropriate funding strategies; Prior to collaboration USDA made not one infrastructure loan or grant in the state as other entities stole their projects. Since collaboration USDA uses all its Colorado allocation and goes back to national pool for supplemental funding; CO and USDA collaborated on USDA rural development plan to take advantage of state planning efforts funded by the legislature through economic development commission and HUD mandated plans for CDBG/HOME; State staff were key authors of original USDA plan; relationships between RD and State Development and Housing partners is excellent.

DE

Informally

FL

CDBG in Florida gives additional points in our competitive applications for leveraging other dollars through these programs. In addition, we work informally with RD, SWWRF and SWRF on specific projects that need amounts beyond what CDBG can afford (we rarely do a system and are most likely to be the funds that help a low and moderate income neighborhood hook up to the new system); We also are in an informal partnership with these agencies under the Small Towns Environment Program (STEP) but we have no funded grants under that program at this time.

GA

Georgia DCA makes an effort to coordinate funding for infrastructure. Before our agency makes CDBG grant awards, and as part of our rating and ranking system, we contact other agencies included as funding sources in CDBG applications from local governments. In particular we contact USDA/RDA and our SRLF to determine the status of their funding, projected time schedules, etc. One thing we look at is being sure that we contact them; they rarely contact us. It may be more accurate to call this process "consultation" rather than coordination.

IA

We have a sewer/water team with members representing the CDBG program, USDA infrastructure programs and state revolving funds for water and sewer. We meet on a monthly basis to discuss agency initiatives and funding processes. One of the purposes is to improve funding coordination. The team does not make actual funding decisions. Then CDBG staff meet separately with staff from the other three funding programs to discuss specific applications before making awards.

ID

The Advantage Group is made up of the infrastructure agencies (housing has a similar effort called The Resource Coordination Forum). Generally the program managers who control the funding decisions attend the meetings. The main function of the meetings is to develop the face to face contact and develop the informal networking necessary for the programs to work together. We have been meeting for over nine years. Some twenty people attend: CDBG, RD, EDA, EPA, University, Rural Development Council, RCAC (regional non-profit), state fire marshal, bond brokers, water and wastewater loan programs, STEP program, Association of Cities, Association of Counties, Governor's office, disaster services, transportation dept and local transportation council, medical facility finance authority, state recreation and parks, arts council, and historic society SHPO. Its formal name is The Advantage Group but is fondly known as the Money Club. It has no legal creation or existence but is supported and operates by unwritten agreement of all the people who attend. We get, on occasion, somebody that calls and wants an invite. Some agencies send multiple representatives for different programs. Everybody is interested and looks forward to the meetings. We discuss programs, dollars and services available, application schedules, and application lists, common problems, developed sign protocol and common signs, working on common engineering and bid document language. Smoothed out RD and CDBG funding schedules and HOME schedules. We developed the Advantage Handbook, which is a ring binder of all program descriptions organized by infrastructure category-water, sewer, streets, housing, emergency/medical, recreation, etc. Each section contains a two-page description of each funding program requirements with local or state contact, addresses and phone numbers. It is distributed to all agencies and local governments, economic development groups, grant writers, engineers, etc. Currently updating the book (about every two years). When we receive the CDBG applications, the Advantage members are sent a list of applicants and we arrange a meeting to solicit information and opinions from the agencies. This is a key piece of the review process since it helps to know the regulator's and funder's opinions of a local project. The locals know of our process so they are more prone to involve those agencies in the development of their projects. It adds another level of confidence to our decisions and develops better projects to have these agencies involved. It creates a more open process and reduces the second-guessing of our decisions. From all the contacts we learn more about the bonding process, engineering, technology, congressional action and regulatory changes, internal decision making processes, the current issues within and between agencies and industries. The benefits are better projects, faster construction and expenditure, larger projects with joint funding, quicker decisions on whether a project is suitable for a funding program, faster problem resolution, smoother administration of multiple funding sources, more professional contacts and more friends, more direct access to the right person, greater exchange of important current information. Fewer compliance problems.

IL

Illinois Rural Bond Bank will be joining the group.

IN

Indiana has an environmental infra group that reviews projects monthly.

KS

Kansas Interagency Advisory Committee: CDBG (KDOCH), Health and Environment (SRF), NSDA, Rural Development.

KY

We currently consult with the different agencies with regard to funding projects. We also are working with these agencies to further open lines of communication.

MD

We have representatives from our State's Department of the Environment and from USDA RD on our application rating committee to evaluate all infrastructure projects. It has been very helpful in verifying who's paying for what and the readiness of the project. CDBG funds are generally used to fill the gap that can't be covered by the other sources.

MA

We have had meetings and discussions with our state RLF managers, offered training to our CDBG and municipal staff, shared knowledge with the two agencies but no coordinator.

MS

We cooperate, but do not have a coordination group.

MN

We coordinate the use of CDBG, RD, water and waste, and EPA clean water and safe drinking water funding.

MI

Informal communication and ad hoc coordination.

MO

Dept of Economic Development CDBG and MIDOC 3% loan program. Dept of Natural Resources (DNR) Drinking Water and Clean Water Revolving Loan and 40% Grant Program and Rural Water and Wastewater Program. USDA Rural Development.

MT

The state has coordinated a multi-program funding team called the Water, Wastewater, and Solid Waste Action Coordinating Team. It has been in existence for 10 years, and meets regularly on a bimonthly basis. Representatives from State and Federal funding agencies meet and discuss current projects and agency updates. Subcommittees with the team have worked on several projects this past year including: 1) numerous workshops on infrastructure program applications, and planning and financing public facility projects. 2) One multi-programs application form packet that can be used for any of the participating funding programs. 3) One multi-program environmental form packet that can be used for any of the participating funding programs. 4) Community planning and environmental regulation committee that assists communities to address accumulated environmental mandates. 5) Development of a brochure to assist communities with engineering procurement. 6) Development of a common bid/specifications and engineering contract. 7) Development of tracking sheets to be used by grantees for tracking project expenditures. The team is active in issues that affect all public facility funding agencies, i.e. Census 2000, State Legislature, and regional projects.

NE

Single application - local government doesn't designate funding resource provider.

NH

CDBG, SRR (Water and Sewer) and Rural Development.

NM

New Mexico Participates in a "One Stop Shop" effort that brings together all infrastructure funding agencies to advise local officials on funding procedures, opportunities, etc.

NC

North Carolina does not have any formal process to coordinate funding for infrastructure projects (specifically water or sewer) among all the funding agencies. When funds from other agencies are in a CDBG project, we do check on the availability of those funds before we award a grant to the project. Currently, infrastructure is part of the community revitalization category. In 2000 it will become a separate category and we hope to move towards a more collaborative effort with other funding agencies.

ND

For CDBG Disaster funds we do coordinate with a Hazard Mitigation Team. Some of the Regional Councils do coordinate with other funding sources, i.e. rural development, State Health Department RLF. But because of the way the State has set up our CDBG distribution, we do not have control of coordinating programs.

OH

All are represented via the Small Communities Environmental Infrastructure Group: State EPA, Ohio Water Development Authority (OWDA), Ohio Public Works Commission (OPWC), USDA Rural Development.

OK

The State of Oklahoma has an informal group which is referred to as the "Funding Agency Coordinating Team" (FACT). The team has no authority to make funding decisions, but members do share information on projects and try to work together when more than one source of funds is involved in the project.

PA

This is mostly an informal effort where we call other funding sources that are identified in applications. Some of the regional offices of the Dept of Environmental Protection hold meetings periodically to make all funding sources aware of their priority water and sewer projects.

RI

The State does attempt to coordinate funding resources for infrastructure, including the State's Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund and Rural Development Programs, as well as other purposes. Since the CDBG program supports limited water and wastewater projects, coordination has been minimal. The majority of RI's funds are currently provided for housing. The State's role in these other infrastructure programs has been primarily that of a distributor of information to its constituency (small cities and towns).

SD

South Dakota does try to coordinate funding sources among different agencies.

TX

While there is no formal coordination on all programs, we do have the Border Infrastructure Funding Group. The group was set up to share information regarding border projects. The following agencies participate: Texas Dept of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA), Texas Water Development Board, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), Attorney General's Office, Secretary of State's Office, NADBANK, BECC, Rural Development, and EPA. TDHCA and Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) have a memorandum of understanding that requires coordination on Economically Distressed Area Program Projects. TWDB notifies TDHCA when they have an EDAP project that is near completion so we can start working with the community to provide funding for connections. In addition, TDHCA and Secretary of State's Office agree to provide $10,000 and $14,000 respectively toward a search engine that can be used by all agencies to acquire information regarding funding being provided for colonia projects. TDHCA also participates in the Small Towns Environment Program (STEP), which includes the following partners: General Land Office, TNRCC, TWDB, and the Texas Dept of Health. We contract with the Rensselaerville Institute to provide technical assistance.

UT

The State of Utah has a rural development council but it has not been functioning as a coordination body. It is our intent to increase its scope in the future. There is some unofficial coordination that goes on when an applicant initiates applications to multiple funding sources.

VT

CDBG makes sure any projects have pursued other appropriate funds. Rare that CDBG would fund water/sewer without leveraging other dollars, especially the state RLFs you cited. We also share our Letter of Intent list with Rural Development and the State agency.

WA

Washington state has three collaborative approaches to coordinating infrastructure assistance that are worthy of note: 1) the Infrastructure Assistance Coordinating Council - been in operation under different names and levels of activity since 1987. Started as a means of staff that represent infrastructure resource providers getting together to share information. At the moment, primarily operates as a vehicle for sharing information, distribute funding lists, etc. 2) Washington Community Economic Revitalization Team - has developed out of Northwest Timber Initiative. Communities establish project priorities at the county level, resource providers collaborate on project packaging and funding. 3) CTED's Resource Team - Internal agency coordination for project packaging, development and funding. CDBG actively engages with Rural Development and others through the Community Investment Fund Program - linked to both resource team and WaCERT as described above.