Chapter NR 166

NR 166.23(4)(u) (u) Four points shall be awarded if the project improves the intake structure for a surface water plant.

NR 166.23(4)(v) (v) Four points shall be awarded if the public water system currently has non-revenue water in excess of 30 percent of the total amount of water that enters the distribution system, or water losses exceeding 25 percent for public water systems with 1,000 customers or less, or water losses exceeding 15 percent for public water systems with more than 1,000 customers, and the project reduces the amount of non-revenue water within the system.

NR 166.23(4)(w) (w) Four points shall be awarded if the project includes removal of watermains that pass through sanitary sewer manholes, or correction of other types of undesirable cross connections as determined by the department.

NR 166.23(4)(x) (x) Four points shall be awarded if the applicant has a wellhead protection plan for all active source water wells in their water system constructed prior to May 1, 1992.

NR 166.23(5) (5) System capacity points. The department shall assign negative points to a project based on an applicant’s lack of required technical, financial, and managerial capacity for the existing public water system as follows:

NR 166.23(5)(a) (a) Negative 5 points shall be assigned if the applicant does not have a written emergency action plan for the public water system.

NR 166.23(5)(b) (b) Negative 5 points shall be assigned if the applicant has not implemented a private well abandonment ordinance for the public water system.

NR 166.23(5)(c) (c) Negative 5 points shall be assigned if the applicant’s public water system operator is not certified or the applicant has a certified operator but does not have provisions for a certified back–up operator for the public water system.

NR 166.23(5)(d) (d) Negative 5 points shall be assigned if the applicant does not have a cross connection control program for the public water system.

NR 166.23(6) (6) Consolidated systems capacity points. For consolidating existing systems that are eligible in accordance with s. NR 166.06 (1) (c), the department shall award 30 points for each existing water system that is consolidated which is having technical, financial, or managerial difficulties. The maximum number of points that shall be awarded under this subsection is 90 points.

NR 166.23(7) (7) Project priority score. The total points from subs. (1) to (6) shall be summed to determine the final project priority score.

NR 166.23(8) (8) Intended use plan. The department may include additional or modify existing scoring criteria through the annual SDWLP intended use plan.

NR 166.23 Note Note: The intended use plan is required of the department by the U.S. environmental protection agency as part of the application package for the federal capitalization grant for the SDWLP.

NR 166.23 History History: CR 22-068: cr. Register October 2023 No. 814, eff. 11-1-23; correction in (6) made under s. 35.17, Stats., Register October 2023 No. 814.

NR 166.24 NR 166.24 Procedure for determining and updating project priority scores. A municipality intending to apply for SDWLP financial assistance under this chapter shall submit to the department project priority evaluation and ranking form information in the department’s online format and by the date required by the department. The submittal shall include all required documentation to justify points requested in the form. The department may not assign a priority score greater than 0 to a project until the applicant has submitted complete priority evaluation and ranking form information to the department for evaluation. The procedure for determining and updating project priority scores shall be detailed in the SDWLP annual intended use plan under s. NR 166.05 (1).

NR 166.24 History History: CR 22-068: cr. Register October 2023 No. 814, eff. 11-1-23.

NR 166.25 NR 166.25 Project ranking system.

NR 166.25(1) (1) The department shall maintain a project priority list for each state fiscal year, based on the priority evaluation and ranking information submitted by municipalities under s. NR 166.08 (1), and shall rank the projects for which the department has determined priority scores. The projects shall be ranked in the order of descending priority score, with the project with the highest priority score ranked first. The department shall develop an annual funding list consisting of all projects for which applications are submitted under s. NR 166.08 (3) to (5).

NR 166.25(2) (2) If 2 or more projects have the same priority score, the project serving the larger population shall have the higher priority.

NR 166.25(3) (3) Funds shall be allocated to projects in the order in which they appear on the funding list, except that projects may be given priority or removed from the list, upon written notice by the department, if any of the following situations occur:

NR 166.25(3)(a) (a) Ranking the projects in descending order does not result in at least 15 percent of the funds allocated to small systems serving less than 10,000 persons. In this case, systems serving less than 10,000 persons shall be given priority until the 15 percent funding allocation requirement is met.

NR 166.25(3)(b) (b) The requirements of s. NR 166.08 (3) to (5) are not met.

NR 166.25(3)(c) (c) A project is canceled, or the funding request is withdrawn by an applicant.

NR 166.25(3)(d) (d) The applicant is unable to provide bidding documentation to the department by a date that allows enough time for a loan closing to occur by the loan closing deadline for the project.

NR 166.25 Note Note: The amount of time needed between submittal of bidding documentation and loan closing can vary by project. Typically, though, several weeks are needed to accomplish all of the steps that must be taken by various players in the process prior to loan closing — review the bidding documents, prepare a financial assistance agreement, have bond documents drafted, review invoices for the first disbursement of funds, conduct final reviews of the applicant’s revenues and expenses, pass a bond resolution and sign the financial assistance agreement, mail signed documents to appropriate agencies, and arrange for the wiring of funds to the municipality’s account.

NR 166.25(3)(e) (e) The project fails to meet the engineering review requirements under s. NR 166.10 (2) (b) to (c) or does not have department approval of the project.

NR 166.25(3)(f) (f) The applicant has reached the 25 percent biennial funding cap, as established under s. 281.61 (8) (bL), Stats.

NR 166.25 Note Note: In any biennium, no municipality may receive more than 25 percent of the SDWLP funds projected by DOA to be available for that biennium.

NR 166.25(3)(g) (g) DOA is not satisfied that the municipality has the financial capacity as described in ch. Adm 35 to assure sufficient revenues to operate and maintain the project for its useful life and to pay the debt service on the obligations it issues for the project.

NR 166.25(3)(h) (h) Federal or state refinancing or reimbursement restrictions prevent funding of the project with SDWLP monies.

NR 166.25 History History: CR 22-068: cr. Register October 2023 No. 814, eff. 11-1-23.