STATE OF ARKANSAS
CLEAN WATER REVOLVING LOAN FUND PROGRAM
STATE FISCAL YEAR 2015
Federal Cap Grants 2013 & 2014
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
of the
ARKANSAS NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
June 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE
PAGE
Introduction…………… ..................................................................................................................1
CWRLF Goals………. ....................................................................................................................1
Objectives…………… ........................................................................................................1
Short-Term Goals…….........................................................................................................2
Long-Term Goals……. ........................................................................................................2
Priority List System………… .........................................................................................................2
Project Descriptions……………………………………………………………………….3
Bypass Procedures ...............................................................................................................3
Types of Communities Served & Financial Assistance. ......................................................4
Policy on Setting Lending Rates and Loan Terms………...............................................................4
Agriculture Water Quality Loans……….........................................................................................4
Green Project Reserve………..........................................................................................................5
Additional Subsidization/Disadvantaged Communities ..................................................................5
Financial Management……………..……………………………………………………….…….6
State Matching Funds ..........................................................................................................6
Service Fee….. .....................................................................................................................6
Program Administration.......................................................................................................6
Anticipated Cash Draw ........................................................................................................6
Transfer of Funds .................................................................................................................6
Sources and Uses .................................................................................................................7
Financial Management Strategies ........................................................................................7
ii
Assurances………………….. .........................................................................................................7
Binding Commitments .........................................................................................................7
Expeditious & Timely Expenditures ....................................................................................8
First Use of Funds ................................................................................................................8
Environmental Review Requirements .................................................................................8
Federal Requirements………………….. ........................................................................................8
Davis Bacon Act ..................................................................................................................8
Audits and Reporting.. .........................................................................................................9
Intended Use Plan Amendment Procedures .....................................................................................9
Appendix A: Public Review And Comment………….. ….……………………………………..10
CWRLF Cash Flow Chart……………………………..………………………………………...11
Appendix B: Project Priority List……..……………………………..…………………………..14
Charts:………………………………………………………………..…………..………………32
1.
Binding Commitments…...………………………………………………………33
2.
Statutory Limits On RLF Funds ……………………………………….………37
3.
Sources and Uses of Funds………………………………………………………38
4.
Disbursement Schedules…………………………………………………………39
5.
RLF Loan Projects……………………………………………………………….41
iii
INTRODUCTION
The State of Arkansas submits the Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund (CWRLF) Intended Use
Plan (IUP) for State Fiscal Year 2015. The CWRLF is administered by the Water Resources
Development Division (Division) of the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission (ANRC).
This IUP was prepared by the Division. The Arkansas Development Finance Authority (ADFA)
assists ANRC by acting as Agent, Financial Advisor and the Purchaser and Seller of Bonds.
This IUP contains a list of projects the State anticipates funding and information on how the
State plans to use the funds carried over from 2013 Clean Water cap grant, and the 2014 Clean
Water grant, the funds the State will provide as match, and the funds the State receives from the
repayment of loans previously made from the CWRLF program after allowance is made for debt
service on outstanding bonds issued to fund the Program. We estimate that over $80 million will
be available to provide assistance during SFY 2015. A sources and uses of funds schedule is
detailed in Chart 3. Arkansas uses the all project method.
This IUP will address the SFY 2015 Intended Use Plan. Also included ANRC will address how
the FFY 2013 and FFY 2014 cap grant/allotment funds will be used.
The CWRLF program expects to disburse over $26 million to projects in SFY 2015 as shown in
Chart 4 Part 1. All the projects listed are designed to help those areas ensure public health
protection and compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA).
The Division agrees to provide in its Annual Report information regarding key project
characteristics, milestones, and environmental protection results in the following areas: 1)
achievement of the outcomes established in the Intended Use Plan, 2) the reasons for delays if
any, 3) environmental results, 4) compliance with Green Project Reserve, and 5) compliance
with Additional Subsidization. Arkansas will summarize variations/changes from the IUP that
occur during the SFY ’15 in our Annual Report.
CWRLF GOALS
Arkansas is committed to support the three major objectives found in Title VI, and has
established its short and long term goals accordingly. Those objectives and our goals are set
forth below.
Objectives:
1. Hasten wastewater treatment facility construction in order to meet the enforceable
requirements of the CWA,
2. Emphasis nonpoint source pollution control and the protection of estuaries,
3. Facilitate the establishment of permanent institutions in each State that would provide
continuing sources of financing needed to maintain water quality.
-1-
Short-Term Goals:
1.
The Division agrees to comply with all requests for data related to the use of the funds
for Clean Water, and to report all uses of the funds no less than quarterly, as EPA
specifies for the Clean Water Project Benefits Reporting database and the Federal
Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) Requirement.
2.
The Division anticipates entering into binding commitments with four (4) Section 212
projects for a total of $15 million. Out of these four binding commitments the Division
anticipates closing two (2) loans.
3.
The Division will promote the RLF program at various conferences and conventions
during the SFY 2015.
4.
The Division will submit the Intended Use Plan in order to apply for the federal cap
grant/allotment within the first year that funds are appropriated.
Long Term Goals:
1.
Achieve statewide compliance with Federal and State water quality standards by
providing both traditional, low interest rate loans and innovative assistance to make
affordable wastewater treatment projects and other eligible environmental
improvements available to Arkansas communities and other qualified recipients.
2.
Progress toward achievement of our long-term water quality compliance goal by
achieving initiation of operation on projects in a timely manner.
3.
Maintain the purchasing power of the CWRLF into perpetuity through sound and
effective administration and fiscal management.
Priority List and System
The available funds will be allocated in accordance with the current priority system by priority
ranking, ability of the community to enter into a binding commitment and ability to proceed.
The priority list is found in Appendix B, and the allocated funds amounts are summarized by
quarter in Chart 1-1. Please note that Arkansas may use any projects found in the priority list that
is included in Appendix B.
All projects scheduled for funding with Arkansas' CWRLF have been reviewed for consistency
with appropriate plans developed and approved under Sections 205(j), 208, 303(e), 319 and 320
of the Clean Water Act, as amended. Evidence of this review and finding of consistency is
documented in each CWRLF project file.
Cross-cutter equivalency standards are applied to each Section 212 project. Each project will be
-2-
subject to a technical review sufficient to determine compliance with equivalency requirements.
The status of the National Municipal Policy (NMP) projects in this Intended Use Plan will not be
affected by the work contemplated. All of the Section 212 projects listed on the NMP List have
been:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Previously funded, or
In compliance, or
On an enforcement schedule, or
Have an enforcement action filed
The Division works with the NPDES Enforcement Section of the Water Division of the Arkansas
Department of Environmental Quality to implement long-term goals (see Long-Term Goals No.
1 and 2).
The current Priority System and List quantifies relative water quality and/or public health
importance of individual projects and adds an extra 5,000 points for those cities with executed
Memoranda of Agreement (MOA). Communities that have met with the Division and have
indicated they will enter the program but have not executed an MOA will have 2,500 points
added to their score.
Project Descriptions
Batesville is under a Consent Administrative Order. This project will address sewer system
overflows, effluent limits, and upgrades/improvements to the sewer collection system which will
help to bring the system back into compliance. This project is a Green project in the energy
efficiency category.
Bearden is a Principal Forgiveness loan for planning and design work on a potential green water
loss elimination in the distribution system. This project is for a disadvantaged community and
will be applied toward our additional subsidization requirement. This project is a Green project
in the energy efficiency category.
Magnolia is a green project that will pump effluent from the wastewater treatment plant to
industrial sites for use as process water. This project is for a disadvantaged community and will
be applied toward our additional subsidization requirement. This project is a Green project in the
energy efficiency category.
West Fork is under a Consent Administrative Order. This project will make improvements and
betterments necessary to transport wastewater to Fayetteville for treatment and demolition of the
city’s existing sewer treatment plant. This project is for a disadvantaged community and will be
applied toward our additional subsidization requirement.
Bypass Procedures
If a project’s readiness to precede status changes after it was placed on the Fundable List,
the Division reserves the right to put the project on hold and take another project from the
-3-
Priority List that is ready to proceed in its place. If a project is not ready to proceed, the
Division will substitute the next project on the priority list that is ready to proceed.
Arkansas’ intention is to fund every project on the Priority List as it becomes ready to proceed.
Type of Communities Served and Financial Assistance Needed
In accordance with the FFY 2013 and FFY 2014 capitalization grant/allotment and
P.L. 111-88, Arkansas will now provide additional subsidization in the form of principal
forgiveness, negative interest rate loans, or grants.
Because of the sufficiency of loan repayments and ANRC’s access to the municipal bond
market, financing or refinancing is available for both large and small communities. Arkansas
anticipates closing one loan to a community with populations of less than 5,000 during SFY
2015.
Policy on Setting Lending Rates and Loan Terms
The Lending Rate is composed of two parts: the interest rate and the servicing fee. The initial
objective for ANRC is to establish a Lending Rate for CWRLF loans at 80% of the current bond
market’s taxable or tax-exempt rate depending on whether the project qualifies for a taxable or
tax-exempt rate.
The Lending Rate will be determined at the time the Borrower is developing the Bond Purchase
Agreement and the Bond Ordinance. The Lending Rate is determined using a formula that starts
with a published list of daily market interest rates for a series of maturity dates for General
Obligation Bonds. Those rates are modified to take into account the fact that the CWRLF is a
Revenue Bond program and then the series is converted to an average weighted value. That
single rate is then multiplied by 80% to get the Lending Rate. The servicing fee is currently set at
1.0%, and interest rate is the difference between the Lending Rate and the servicing fee. The
servicing fee is the same for all projects, so the interest rate changes as the lending rate changes.
Arkansas varies the lending rate in this manner to encourage repayment of the loans as quickly as
possible in order for the CWRLF program to fund other projects. The 1% service fee is placed
into an account which is outside the CWRLF fund.
On February 18, 2014, the Lending Rate was 1.75% for a ten year repayment period, 2.90% for a
20 year repayment period, and 3.30% for a thirty year repayment period.
Agriculture Water Quality Loans
Arkansas has placed $25 million in linked deposits in commercial banks throughout the state.
Rural landowners are able to obtain below market interest rate loans to be used to implement
nonpoint source pollution control activities. ANRC has no plans to increase the $25 million;
however we do reserve the right to make modifications. The Agriculture Water Quality Loan
Program revolves like the SRF program with new loans processed from loan repayments. The
financing terms for the Agriculture Water Quality Loan Program are 3%.
-4-
Green Project Reserve
ANRC agrees to include in its IUP such qualified projects, or components of projects, that total
an amount as stated in each of our 2013 and 2014 capitalization grants.
The applicant must be a POTW and the project must demonstrate that it will be a public entity
and the project must demonstrate that it will facilitate compliance with Clean Water Act. Projects
eligible for Green Project Reserve will be in following categories:




Energy Efficiency
Water Efficiency
Green Infrastructure
Environmentally Innovative
ANRC anticipates that Batesville #4 project will meet the FFY 2013 and FFY 2014 cap grant
allotments. The respective allotment amounts are $616,265 (13 grant) and $916,500 (14
grant/allotment).
Additional Subsidization/ Disadvantaged Communities
The Arkansas Natural Resources Commission (Commission) has developed the following system
to determine if a project is eligible for additional subsidization funds for the Clean Water
Revolving Loan Fund (the Fund).
To be eligible to receive additional subsidization from the Fund, a Borrower must show either:
1. The current utility rates or proposed utility rates for 4,000 gallons of water on an annual basis
are at least 1.5% of the Median Household Income (MHI) for the project area;
2. The customers who benefit from a project are at least 51% have either Low or Moderate
Income as defined by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Developments’ Community
Block Grant (CDBG) Program and are at least 1.25% of the Median Household Income (MHI)
for the project area.
Once a project has been determined to be eligible for additional subsidization from the Funds,
additional priority will be given to projects that meet the Green standards set by the Commission.
The amount available to be used for additional subsidization from the 2011cap grant has a
minimum of $894,875 and a maximum of $2,982,915. The 2012 cap grant has a minimum of
$513,470 and a maximum of $770,205, 2013 cap grant minimum is $410,843 maximum of
$616,265, and the 2014 cap grant/allotment is $498,738 and maximum of $748,107.
ANRC will be using $894,875 from the 2011 cap grant, $513,470 from the 2012 cap grant and
$410,843 from the 2013grant and $498,738 from the 2014 cap grant/allotment for projects who
meet the criteria for additional subsidization. ANRC may allocate full subsidization or a
combination of subsidization and loan to projects who meet the criteria. See Chart 1-4 for the
projects to be used for additional subsidization.
-5-
Financial Management
State Matching Funds
Arkansas will expense State Match for a Cap Grant before requesting federal funds. This is
because Arkansas is prohibited from disbursing State Match in any of the forms used for
Additional Subsidization. As long as federal funds are required to be spent on Additional
Subsidization, Arkansas will need to disburse State Match first before requesting federal cap
grant funds. The State of Arkansas will fund the required State Match by using State
appropriations, grants from State funding programs, bond proceeds, or servicing fees.
On April 11, 2013 Arkansas deposited $1,850,000 for state match which was applied to the 2013
cap grant and the amount stated above was disbursed on April 26, 2013. The remaining balance
of $105,600 will be applied to FFY 2014 allotments/grant. As of the end of April 2014,
Arkansas has expensed a total of $833,127.07 toward the FFY 2014 allotments/grant. This
leaves a balance of $999,872.93 to be deposited and disbursed for the FFY 2014 cap
grant/allotment.
Service Fee
The service fee is the same for all projects which is one percent. The service fees are deposited
into the Administrative account which is outside the CWRLF and not subject to the four percent
administration cap applicable to the CWRLF. Arkansas anticipates collecting over $2 million in
service fees for SFY 2014. Approximately $7 million in service fees are expected to be available
in SFY 2015. The projected administrative cost of the CWRLF program during SFY 2015 is over
$1 million as shown in Chart 4 Part 1. The service fee will be used for items such as travel,
supplies, contracts, state match, salary, and fringe.
Program Administration
The Division intends to use an amount equal to four percent (4%) of the federal grant funds for
payment of administrative expenses, and any additional administrative costs will be paid from
Fees and Administrative account. The 4% administrative funds will be used for the budgeted
categories of travel, supplies, salary, fringe, contracts, and indirect cost.
Anticipated Cash Draw Ratio
Because Arkansas is prohibited from disbursing State Match in any of the forms used for
Additional Subsidization, Arkansas will disburse State Match first before requesting any federal
funds. As long as federal funds are required to be spent on Additional Subsidization, Arkansas
will continue to disburse State Match first.
Transfer of Funds
Arkansas is reserving the authority to transfer up to 33 percent of the DWSRF 2014 federal
-6-
capitalization grant/allotment to the 2014 CWSFR allotment. These funds will be transferred
from Drinking Water construction to Clean Water construction.
Arkansas is reserving the authority to transfer up to 33 percent of the CWSRF 2014 federal
capitalization grant/allotment to the 2014 DWSFR allotment. These funds will be transferred
from Clean Water construction to Drinking Water construction.
Sources and Uses
Arkansas’ total funding sources for the CWRLF for SFY 2015 are identified in Chart 3. With the
capitalization grants for FFY 2013, and FFY 2014 cap grant allotments, the required State Match
for those capitalization grants/allotment, bond proceeds, interest earnings, fees collected, and
loan repayments, Arkansas will have over $80 million available during SFY 2015 for existing
projects and future eligible program purposes. Please note in Chart 3 that the remaining balances
on loans to be disbursed exceed resources carried over to following year. Chart 2 summarizes
requirement limits for administration fees, and state match for Arkansas.
Arkansas' EPA payment schedule is based on the State's projection of binding commitments for
selected projects included in Chart 1-1 of this IUP. Chart 4 Part 2 shows Arkansas' expected SFY
2015 disbursements. Chart 4 Part 1also shows the projected letter of credit draws proposed so
that the federal share of disbursements for the selected projects will not exceed a cumulative
average of 83.33%.
Financial Management Strategies
Arkansas leverages periodically to increase the funds available for assistance. Arkansas has no
plans to leverage the Clean Water program in State Fiscal Year 2015.
ASSURANCES AND SPECIFIC PROPOSALS
Arkansas provides the necessary assurances and certifications as part of the Operating
Agreement between the State of Arkansas and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Arkansas' Operating Agreement includes the following requirements of section 35.3150 (b) (4).
Binding Commitments (35.3135(c))
A binding commitment is defined as the execution of a contract called the Bond Purchase
Agreement between the borrower and ANRC. The Bond Purchase Agreement sets out the terms
of the bond that will be issued by the borrower and purchased by ADFA. The binding
commitment date is the date when both parties have signed that contract. The bond closing will
take place within six months of the execution of the Bond Purchase Agreement.
The State of Arkansas will enter into binding commitments for 120% of each quarterly payment
within one year of receipt of that payment.
-7-
Expeditious and Timely Expenditures (35.3135(d))
The State of Arkansas will expend all funds in the CWRLF in a timely and expeditious manner.
Federal EPA payments and the associated State Match shall be expended within sixteen (16)
quarters from scheduled payment dates. The bond proceeds shall be expended within three years
from the bond issue dates.
First Use of Funds (35.3135(e))
The State of Arkansas confirms that any publicly owned treatment works previously identified as
part of the National Municipal Policy (NMP) universe are either in compliance, on an
enforcement schedule, has an enforcement action filed, or has a funding commitment from a
prior year.
Environmental Review Requirements (35.3140)
The State of Arkansas will conduct environmental reviews as specified in the Project Review
Procedures of the Operating Agreement. To date, none of the projects that have gone through
the CWRLF program have required an Environmental Impact Statement. The projects were
either issued a Finding of No Significant Impact or a Categorical Exclusion.
Federal Requirements
Arkansas will be in compliance with the following federal requirements:
 Single Audit Act (OMB A-133)
 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise compliance (DBE)
 Federal Environmental crosscutters
 Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency ACT (FFATA) reporting
Davis-Bacon Act
ANRC agrees to include in all agreements to provide assistance for the construction of treatment
works carried out in whole or in part with such assistance made available by Arkansas Clean
Water Revolving Loan Fund as authorized by title VI of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), or with such assistance made available under section 205(m) of that Act
(33 U.S.C. 1285(m)), or both, a term and condition requiring compliance with the requirements
of section 513 of that Act (33 U.S.C. 1372) in all procurement contracts and sub-grants, and
require that loan recipients, procurement contractors and sub-grantees include such a term and
condition in subcontracts and other lower tiered transactions. All contracts and subcontracts for
the construction of treatment works carried out in whole or in part with assistance made available
as stated herein shall insert in full in any contract in excess of $2,000 the contract clauses as
attached hereto entitled “Wage Rate Requirements Under FY 2010 Appropriations.” This term
and condition applies to all agreements to provide assistance under the authorities referenced
herein, whether in the form of a loan, bond purchase, grant, or any other vehicle to provide
financing for a project. The agreements will follow the appropriate procedures/rules for the FFY
FFY 2013 cap grant, and the FFY 2014 cap grant.
-8-
Audits and Reporting
Arkansas’s Intended Use Plans and Annual Reports will be posted on our website:
http://www.anrc.arkansas.gov/.
An independent audit and single audit (as required) will be conducted by an outside CPA firm
annually.
Project milestones and information are reported through EPA’s Clean Water Benefits Reporting
database.
Arkansas will enter data into the CWSRF National Information Management System (NIMS)
and the CWSRF Benefits Reporting (CBR) system. We will submit the completed worksheets
for all loans closed in SFY15 with the Annual Report as reported in the CBR system.
INTENDED USE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCEDURES
Revisions to this IUP that are determined significant will require Public Notice and EPA
notification and approval.
Revisions to this IUP which are deemed to be insignificant shall be made by the Division with
notification to EPA.
Any changes in the project funding list shall be in accordance with procedures provided in the
CWRLF Priority System and List.
-9-
APPENDIX A
PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT
On June 1, 2014, the State of Arkansas published the required public notice advertisement for the
Clean Water Intended Use Plan in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, a statewide paper. A public
meeting was scheduled for June 16, 2014 and a deadline for submittal of written comments was
set for June 20, 2014. Copies of the IUP will be available for public inspection at the Water
Resources Development Division of the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission.
Representatives of ANRC will be available to answer questions about the Clean Water IUP.
- 10 -
ARKANSAS CLEAN WATER
CASH FLOW CHART
- 11 -
Clean Water
Narrative for Flow-of-Funds Chart
Starting with the Federal cap grant funds, 96% plus State Match are used to make loan
disbursements to borrowers. The other 4% is used for paying administration expenses.
Monthly installments of semi-annual loan repayments, principal and interest, are held in the
Pledged Receipts account or to the Revolving Loan Fund account depending upon whether or not
the loan is leveraged. The 1% financing fee goes into the Admin Account.
When wastewater revenue bonds are issued, a portion of total proceeds goes into Debt Service
Fund account. The remaining portion after expenses is net bond proceeds and goes into the Net
Bond Proceeds account and disbursed to loan recipients.
All receipts are transferred from the Pledged Receipts account to the Revenue Fund semiannually.
Revenue funds are transferred to the Debt Service Fund and from there, payments are made to
wastewater revenue bondholders. Revenue funds not needed for debt service requirements are
then transferred to the Revolving Loan Fund.
Funds from the Revolving Loan Fund are used to make qualified loans and for other eligible
purposes.
Funds from the Admin account are used to pay administrative expenses such as travel, supplies,
salary and fringe benefits, and State Match.
- 12 -
- 13 -
APPENDIX B
PRIORITY LIST
- 14 -
PROJECT PRIORITY LIST
The following list is of projects submitted to ANRC for possible funding from the Clean Water
RLF program. The projects are listed in order of the ranking in the Priority System of each
entity that submitted the project and will fund the project. The list will be updated from time to
time as provided for in Title XVI of the ANRC. Projects will be removed from the list when
they receive funding commitment(s) for their project from any source(s) or when they request
their project be removed. Funding commitment for the Clean Water RLF program will mean an
executed Bond Purchase Agreement (Binding Commitment).
IUP
Year
Entity
NPDES
Permit
Eligible
#
Project
AR00
Points Cost
Type of
Assistance
Batesville
2011 20702
5,014
Bearden
Magnolia
2015 21474
2015 20702
2,507
2,565
200,000
250,000
West Fork
2013
2,524
5,300,000
TOTAL
10,200,000 Loan (212)
PF (212)
PF (212)
Loan/PF
(212)
Project Description
Expansion of the treatment plant
Expansion of the treatment plant
Pump effulent to different site
Transport wastewater to
Fayetteville for treatment
15,950,000
*For further information see Chart 1-4 and Project descriptions on Page 3.
- 15 -
PROJECT RANKING
The purpose of this system is to quantify the relative water quality and/or public health
importance of individual entities located throughout the State. The Revolving Loan Fund (RLF)
Priority System does not consider the type of project being considered or try to rank one type of
project over another type. The RLF Priority System considers the following criteria to evaluate
the relative merits of each entity:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Population
Segmented or Phased Projects
Receiving Stream Use Classification
Receiving Stream Flow
Enforcement Factor
NPDES Permit Compliance
Septic Tank Failure
Septic Tank Suitability
Executed Memorandum of Agreement
These factors are multiplied together (or added in the case of executed memorandum of
agreement) to determine each entity's priority points.
1)
Population
The population factor is determined by dividing an entity's 2000 census population by the
population total for all entities in the priority system and multiplying by 1,000. If a 2000
census figure does not exist, the current population will be used.
2)
Segmented or Phased Projects
All segmented or phased projects will be awarded a factor of 10.
3)
Receiving Stream Use Classification
This factor is based upon the receiving stream classification in the Arkansas Water
Quality Standards as contained in Regulation Number 2 (as amended) of October 28,
2002. The factors used are as follows:
Extraordinary Resource Waters
Natural and Scenic Waterways
Ecologically Sensitive Waterbodies
Trout Fishery
Primary Contact Recreation
Secondary Contact Recreation
No Discharge
-
- 16 -
8.00
4.00
-
8.00
8.00
8.00
2.00
1.00
The factor shall be awarded based upon the highest use classification of a given stream.
Entities that discharge into another sewer system will use the classification of that sewer
system's stream.
4)
Receiving Stream Flow
This factor is used as a quantitative indicator of receiving stream flow at seven day-ten
year (7Q10) low flow conditions. The factors used are as follows:
0 cubic feet/second
Greater than 0, but less than 10 cubic feet/second
Greater than 10, but less than 100 cubic feet/second
Greater than 100 cubic feet/second
8
4
2
1
If an entity discharges into receiving waters in two different categories, the factor will be
prorated based upon the quantity of each discharge and its receiving stream classification.
For unsewered entities, the largest stream within a one mile radius will be used in
determining the stream classification. Entities that discharge into another sewer system
will use the classification of that sewer system's stream.
5)
Enforcement Factor
Entities which have a sewer connection ban in effect pursuant to an order of the
Commission on Pollution Control and Ecology and which require construction of
facilities to meet the provisions of said order will be awarded a factor of 2000.
6)
NPDES Permit Compliance
Entities with permits that are currently expired or are under an enforceable compliance
schedule will have a factor of 10.
7)
Septic Tank Failure
This factor is the percentage of septic tank failure as reported to the Department by the
Arkansas Department of Health multiplied by 10. This factor applies only to unsewered
entities.
8)
Septic Tank Suitability
The soil suitability for septic tank use within an entity is determined from soil survey
information obtained from the Soil Conservation Service and uses their classification
- 17 -
system for septic tank use. Soils well suited for septic tanks are classified as SLIGHT
and given a point value of 1; MODERATE soils are those in which septic systems
sometimes fail and are given a point value of 2; and SEVERE soils unsuitable for septic
systems have a value of 3. The soils within a one mile radius of the unsewered entity are
used in the rating. The classification with the highest percentage in this area will have its
point value used in the priority system. This factor applies only to unsewered entities.
9)
Executed Memorandum of Agreement
Entities with executed MOA's from the Division will have 5,000 points added to their
score. Entities that have met with the Division and have indicated they will enter the
program, but have not executed a MOA will have 2,500 points added to their score.
The ranking for all entities is presented by rank.
- 18 -
ARKANSAS NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund Priority System Rankings
Population
Rank
Community
County
Factor
1 Batesville
Independence
3.533
2 Magnolia
Columbia
4.061
3 West Fork
Washington
0.764
4 Bearden
Ouachita
0.421
5 Hot Springs
Garland
13.372
6 Fayetteville
Washington
21.713
7 Jacksonville
Pulaski
11.190
8 Jonesboro
Craighead
20.766
9 Prairie Creek CDP
Benton
0.692
10 Parkers-Iron Spring CDP Pulaski
1.309
11 Baxter Co WWFB
Baxter
8.498
12 Benton
Saline
8.194
13 Conway
Faulkner
16.147
14 Bentonville
Benton
7.380
15 Rogers
Benton
14.524
16 Kibler
Crawford
0.362
17 Bella Vista CDP
Benton
6.203
18 Faulkner Co PFB
Faulkner
1.608
19 East End
Saline
2.103
20 Wooster
Faulkner
0.193
21 Russellville
Pope
8.858
22 Springdale
Washington
17.131
23 Paragould
Greene
8.236
24 Blytheville
Mississippi
6.835
25 Shirley
Van Buren
0.126
26 Belleville
Yell
0.139
27 Fort Smith
Sebastian
30.025
28 Cave Springs
Benton
0.413
29 McAlmont CDP
Pulaski
0.719
30 El Dorado
Union
8.053
31 Holland
Faulkner
0.216
32 Cedarville
Crawford
0.424
33 Humnoke
Lonoke
0.105
34 Hartford
Sebastian
0.289
35 Oxford
Izard
0.240
36 Dyer
Crawford
0.219
37 Forrest City
St. Francis
5.526
38 Alexander
Pulaski
0.230
39 Salem CDP
Saline
1.043
40 Poyen
Grant
0.102
41 Pine Bluff
Jefferson
20.605
42 Texarkana
Miller
9.893
43 Wickes
Polk
0.252
44 Harrison
Boone
4.546
45 Gum Springs
Clark
0.073
46 Mountain Home
Baxter
4.119
47 Grannis
Polk
0.215
48 Siloam Springs
Benton
4.056
Receiving Receiving Septic Septic
Stream
Stream Tank
Tank Expired Executed
Class
Flow
Failure Suitability Permit MOA
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
0
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
0
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
3.0
6.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
5.0
3
1
2.0
8.0
5.0
3
1
8.0
4.0
1.0
1
1
8.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
0
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
0
8.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
6.0
3
1
8.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
2.0
5.0
3
1
2.0
8.0
5.0
1
1
4.0
8.0
9.0
3
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
3.1
6.2
0.0
0
1
8.0
8.0
5.4
3
1
4.0
8.0
9.4
3
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
4.0
3.0
3
1
4.0
8.0
5.0
1
1
2.0
6.5
0.0
0
1
8.0
4.0
5.0
3
1
2.0
8.0
5.0
3
1
4.0
8.0
9.9
3
1
4.0
8.0
3.5
3
1
8.0
8.0
3.0
2
1
2.0
8.0
8.5
3
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
8.0
3
1
4.0
4.0
5.0
1
1
4.0
8.0
8.5
3
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
9.5
2
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
9.8
3
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
9.5
2
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
0
- 19 -
Total
Points
5,014
2,565
2,524
2,507
428
391
358
332
332
314
272
262
258
236
232
209
198
193
168
167
142
137
132
131
131
125
120
119
115
105
104
102
100
97
92
89
88
88
83
83
82
79
77
73
68
66
65
65
ARKANSAS NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund Priority System Rankings
Rank
Community
49 Tupelo
50 Hope
51 Walnut Ridge
52 Fairfield Bay
53 Bryant
54 Searcy
55 Cherokee Village
56 Damascus
57 Horseshoe Bend
58 Hunter
59 Hartman
60 Marion
61 Ratcliff
62 Oak Grove
63 Hot Springs Village CDP
64 Caulksville
65 Caldwell
66 Van Buren
67 Sweet Home CDP
68 Piney SID
69 Newport
70 Piggott
71 Avoca
72 Lynn
73 Allport
74 Jennette
75 Bellefonte
76 Briarcliff
77 Winslow
78 Greenwood
79 Burchwood Bay SID
80 Evening Shade
81 Bonanza
82 West Memphis
83 Cove
84 Islands SID
85 Highway 270 West SID
86 Dell
87 Dermott
88 Mulberry
89 Warren
90 Heber Springs
91 Bald Knob
92 Elkins
93 Bergman
94 Crossett
95 Greenbrier
96 Hector
County
Jackson
Hempstead
Lawrence
Van Buren
Saline
White
Sharp
Faulkner
Izard
Woodruff
Johnson
Crittenden
Logan
Carroll
Garland
Logan
St. Francis
Crawford
Pulaski
Garland
Jackson
Clay
Benton
Lawrence
Lonoke
Crittenden
Boone
Baxter
Washington
Sebastian
Garland
Sharp
Sebastian
Crittenden
Polk
Garland
Garland
Mississippi
Chicot
Crawford
Bradley
Cleburne
White
Washington
Boone
Ashley
Faulkner
Pope
Population
Factor
0.066
3.971
1.842
0.920
3.652
7.080
1.739
0.114
0.852
0.057
0.223
3.329
0.071
0.141
3.141
0.087
0.174
7.102
0.400
1.492
2.922
1.457
0.158
0.118
0.048
0.046
0.150
0.090
0.149
2.660
1.309
0.174
0.192
10.349
0.143
1.285
1.283
0.094
1.231
0.609
2.410
2.406
1.201
0.468
0.152
2.281
1.138
0.189
Receiving Receiving Septic Septic
Stream
Stream Tank
Tank Expired Executed
Class
Flow
Failure Suitability Permit MOA
4.0
8.0
10.0
3
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
5.0
3
1
8.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
9.9
3
1
4.0
8.0
2.5
3
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
7.5
3
1
2.0
8.0
7.5
3
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
6.0
3
1
2.0
8.0
8.8
2
1
3.8
1.8
0.0
0
1
4.0
2.0
5.0
3
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
0
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
3.0
3
1
2.0
8.0
8.0
3
1
4.0
8.0
9.9
3
1
4.0
8.0
10.0
3
1
4.0
4.0
6.0
3
1
4.0
8.0
5.0
3
1
2.0
8.0
6.0
3
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
4.0
2.5
3
1
2.0
8.0
4.5
3
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
9.0
2
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
9.0
3
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
2.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
2.5
1
1
2.0
8.0
5.0
3
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
4.0
3
1
- 20 -
Total
Points
64
64
59
59
58
57
56
55
55
54
54
53
51
51
50
50
49
49
48
48
47
47
46
45
45
45
43
43
43
43
42
42
42
41
41
41
41
41
39
39
39
38
38
37
37
36
36
36
ARKANSAS NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund Priority System Rankings
Rank
Community
97 England
98 Carpenter-Catherine SID
99 Coy
100 DeQueen
101 Mena
102 Alpena
103 Traskwood
104 Arkadelphia
105 Tontitown
106 Oden
107 College City
108 Dumas
109 Branch
110 Ward
111 Black Oak
112 Garner
113 Lowell
114 Beebe
115 Highland
116 Nashville
117 Stuttgart
118 Fordyce
119 Pea Ridge
120 Gibson CDP
121 Mammoth Spring
122 Monticello
123 Viola
124 Gurdon
125 Sherrill
126 Enola
127 Okolona
128 Woodson CDP
129 Bauxite
130 Wynne
131 Centerton
132 Lonoke
133 Stamps
134 Anthonyville
135 Booneville
136 Farmington
137 Halley
138 McNab
139 Brinkley
140 Lake City
141 Banks
142 Magnet Cove
143 Hughes
144 Paris
County
Lonoke
Garland
Lonoke
Sevier
Polk
Boone
Saline
Clark
Washington
Little River
Lawrence
Desha
Franklin
Lonoke
Craighead
White
Benton
White
Sharp
Howard
Arkansas
Dallas
Benton
Pulaski
Fulton
Drew
Fulton
Clark
Jefferson
Faulkner
Clark
Pulaski
Saline
Cross
Benton
Lonoke
Lafayette
Crittenden
Logan
Washington
Desha
Hempstead
Monroe
Craighead
Bradley
Hot Spring
St. Francis
Logan
Population
Factor
1.112
1.107
0.043
2.156
2.109
0.139
0.205
4.082
0.352
0.082
0.101
1.959
0.134
0.965
0.107
0.106
1.875
1.844
0.369
1.825
3.645
1.795
0.878
1.750
0.429
3.421
0.143
0.851
0.047
0.070
0.060
0.166
0.162
3.222
0.803
1.604
0.797
0.094
1.540
1.348
0.028
0.014
1.474
0.732
0.045
0.142
0.698
1.387
Receiving Receiving Septic Septic
Stream
Stream Tank
Tank Expired Executed
Class
Flow
Failure Suitability Permit MOA
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
8.5
3
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
5.0
3
1
2.0
8.0
10.0
1
1
8.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
3.0
6.0
5.0
1
1
8.0
4.0
6.0
2
1
2.0
8.0
6.5
3
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
9.7
3
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
6.0
3
1
4.0
8.0
9.0
1
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
0
2.0
8.0
5.0
1
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
2.0
3
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
9.0
2
1
2.0
8.0
8.0
3
1
2.0
8.0
9.3
3
1
4.0
8.0
5.0
1
1
2.0
8.0
10.0
1
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
5.5
3
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
3.0
6.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
9.0
3
1
8.0
8.0
9.0
3
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
8.0
2
1
2.0
8.0
5.0
2
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
- 21 -
Total
Points
36
35
35
35
34
33
33
33
32
32
31
31
31
31
31
31
30
30
30
29
29
29
28
28
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
26
26
26
26
26
25
25
24
24
24
24
23
23
23
22
22
ARKANSAS NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund Priority System Rankings
Rank
Community
145 Prescott
146 Greenland
147 Saratoga
148 North Crossett CDP
149 DeWitt
150 Waldron
151 London
152 Mount Vernon
153 Strawberry
154 Fargo
155 Greers Ferry
156 Corinth
157 Camden
158 Gravel Ridge SID
159 Lake Hamilton SID
160 Reader
161 Salem
162 Elm Springs
163 Lakeview
164 Hamburg
165 Guy
166 Rockwell CDP
167 Osage Basin WWTD
168 Beedeville
169 Omaha
170 Charleston
171 Garfield
172 Mountain View
173 Lake Village
174 Hoxie
175 Imboden
176 Wrightsville
177 Green Forest
178 Sherwood
179 Dover
180 Midland
181 Haskell
182 Maumelle
183 Decatur
184 Yellville
185 Marianna
186 Winchester
187 Pottsville
188 Prairie Grove
189 Winthrop
190 Lake Catherine SID
191 Danville
192 Johnson
County
Nevada
Washington
Howard
Ashley
Arkansas
Scott
Pope
Faulkner
Lawrence
Monroe
Cleburne
Yell
Ouachita
Pulaski
Garland
Ouachita
Fulton
Washington
Baxter
Ashley
Faulkner
Garland
Benton
Jackson
Boone
Franklin
Benton
Stone
Chicot
Lawrence
Lawrence
Pulaski
Carroll
Pulaski
Pope
Sebastian
Saline
Pulaski
Benton
Marion
Lee
Drew
Pope
Washington
Little River
Garland
Yell
Washington
Population
Factor
1.379
0.339
0.028
1.339
1.329
1.312
0.346
0.054
0.106
0.044
0.348
0.024
4.920
1.209
0.602
0.031
0.595
0.391
0.285
1.137
0.076
1.131
0.561
0.039
0.062
1.109
0.183
1.076
1.056
1.054
0.256
0.512
1.016
8.046
0.497
0.095
0.989
3.949
0.492
0.491
1.938
0.071
0.475
0.950
0.070
0.449
0.895
0.867
Receiving Receiving Septic Septic
Stream
Stream Tank
Tank Expired Executed
Class
Flow
Failure Suitability Permit MOA
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
2.0
1
1
4.0
8.0
8.0
3
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
5.0
3
1
2.0
8.0
8.0
3
1
2.0
4.0
8.0
3
1
2.0
8.0
9.5
3
1
8.0
8.0
0.3
3
1
4.0
8.0
8.5
3
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
4.0
6.5
3
1
8.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
2.0
3
1
8.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
5.0
3
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
9.5
3
1
2.0
8.0
6.0
3
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
2.0
3
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
0
1.0
2.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
3.5
3
1
0
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
0
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
2.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
9.0
3
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
0
8.0
1.0
9.0
3
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
2.0
1
1
- 22 -
Total
Points
22
22
22
21
21
21
21
21
20
20
20
20
20
19
19
19
19
19
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
17
17
17
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
ARKANSAS NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund Priority System Rankings
Rank
Community
193 Carlisle
194 Stephens
195 McGehee
196 Eureka Springs
197 Malvern
198 Molly Creek SID
199 Lonsdale
200 Cleveland
201 Osceola
202 Berryville
203 West Point
204 Harrisburg
205 Ozan
206 West Helena
207 Lepanto
208 Vilonia
209 Menifee
210 Fountain Lake
211 Ravenden
212 Bethel Heights
213 Shannon Hills
214 Smackover
215 Holiday Island SID
216 Little Mazarn SID
217 Pleasant Hills SID
218 Gosnell
219 Leachville
220 Blue Mountain
221 Rockport
222 Saint Paul
223 Sheridan
224 Huntsville
225 Clarksville
226 Goshen
227 Antoine
228 Smithville
229 Lavaca
230 Gravette
231 East Camden
232 Bay
233 Tinsman
234 Kensett
235 Knoxville
236 Murfreesboro
237 Tuckerman
238 Lincoln
239 Glenwood
240 Datto
County
Lonoke
Ouachita
Desha
Carroll
Hot Spring
Garland
Garland
Conway
Mississippi
Carroll
White
Poinsett
Hempstead
Phillips
Poinsett
Faulkner
Conway
Garland
Lawrence
Benton
Saline
Union
Carroll
Garland
Garland
Mississippi
Mississippi
Logan
Hot Spring
Madison
Grant
Madison
Johnson
Washington
Pike
Lawrence
Sebastian
Benton
Ouachita
Craighead
Calhoun
White
Johnson
Pike
Jackson
Washington
Pike
Clay
Population
Factor
0.862
0.431
1.709
0.852
3.374
0.421
0.044
0.028
3.320
1.658
0.061
0.820
0.030
3.250
0.798
0.788
0.116
0.153
0.191
0.267
0.750
0.750
0.748
0.374
0.374
1.484
0.741
0.049
0.296
0.061
1.448
0.722
2.887
0.281
0.058
0.027
0.683
0.677
0.337
0.673
0.028
0.670
0.191
0.660
0.657
0.655
0.655
0.036
Receiving Receiving Septic Septic
Stream
Stream Tank
Tank Expired Executed
Class
Flow
Failure Suitability Permit MOA
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
4.0
9.5
1
1
2.0
8.0
10.0
3
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
2.0
9.0
3
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
9.0
3
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
0
4.0
1.0
9.0
3
1
8.0
2.0
5.0
1
1
8.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
3.0
6.0
2.5
1
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
0
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
5.0
3
1
4.0
1.0
5.0
2
1
4.0
8.0
6.0
1
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
2.5
1
1
4.0
4.0
4.0
3
1
4.0
4.0
8.5
3
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
0
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
8.0
3
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
7.0
2
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
0
8.0
2.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
9.0
2
1
- 23 -
Total
Points
14
14
14
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
ARKANSAS NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund Priority System Rankings
Rank
Community
241 Trumann
242 Rose Bud
243 Beaver
244 Gassville
245 Chidester
246 West Crossett CDP
247 Hazen
248 Mayflower
249 Pocahontas
250 Jacksonport
251 Denning
252 Smale
253 Humphrey
254 Bradford
255 Waldo
256 Helena
257 Hampton
258 Mountain Pine
259 Manila
260 Earle
261 Scranton
262 Diamond City
263 Perryville
264 Success
265 Lamar
266 Eudora
267 Adona
268 Marked Tree
269 Marvell
270 Central City
271 Gateway
272 Twin Groves
273 Huntington
274 Mountainburg
275 Flippin
276 Caraway
277 Brookland
278 Horseshoe Lake
279 Marshall
280 Gould
281 Little Flock
282 Rison
283 Mineral Springs
284 McCaskill
285 Kelso
286 Star City
287 Dierks
288 Newark
Population
County
Factor
Poinsett
2.577
White
0.160
Carroll
0.036
Baxter
0.638
Ouachita
0.125
Ashley
0.622
Prairie
0.612
Faulkner
0.610
Randolph
2.438
Jackson
0.088
Franklin
0.101
Monroe
0.020
Jefferson
0.301
White
0.299
Columbia
0.596
Phillips
2.365
Calhoun
0.591
Garland
0.289
Mississippi
1.143
Crittenden
1.136
Logan
0.083
Boone
0.273
Perry
0.545
Clay
0.067
Johnson
0.529
Chicot
1.054
Perry
0.070
Poinsett
1.047
Phillips
0.522
Sebastian
0.199
Benton
0.043
Faulkner
0.103
Sebastian
0.257
Crawford
0.255
Marion
0.508
Craighead
0.505
Craighead
0.498
Crittenden
0.120
Searcy
0.491
Lincoln
0.488
Benton
0.967
Cleveland
0.475
Howard
0.473
Hempstead
0.031
Desha
0.009
Lincoln
0.924
Howard
0.460
Independence
0.456
Receiving Receiving Septic Septic
Stream
Stream Tank
Tank Expired Executed
Class
Flow
Failure Suitability Permit MOA
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
8.0
1.0
1
1
8.0
8.0
4.5
1
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
10.0
1
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
9.2
3
1
4.0
8.0
1.0
3
1
2.0
8.0
10.0
3
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
2.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
9.0
3
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
2.0
8.0
2
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
2.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
2.5
3
1
4.0
2.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
3.5
3
1
4.0
8.0
2.0
3
1
2.0
4.0
10.0
1
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
0
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
5.5
3
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.5
1
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
5.0
3
1
4.0
8.0
9.0
3
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
- 24 -
Total
Points
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
ARKANSAS NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund Priority System Rankings
Rank
Community
289 Zinc
290 Austin
291 Ola
292 Ashdown
293 Altheimer
294 White Hall
295 Monette
296 Sparkman
297 Atkins
298 Marmaduke
299 Lead Hill
300 Highfill
301 Dalark
302 Mansfield
303 Dardanelle
304 Ladelle
305 Casa
306 Barling
307 Alma
308 Crawfordsville
309 Rector
310 Friendship
311 Bull Shoals
312 Horatio
313 Jasper
314 Judsonia
315 Mount Ida
316 Cave City
317 Reyno
318 Leslie
319 Moorefield
320 Cotton Plant
321 Vandervoort
322 Cabot
323 Willisville
324 McCrory
325 Cotter
326 Corning
327 Magazine
328 Weldon
329 Ozark
330 Subiaco
331 Wilton
332 Swifton
333 Everton
334 Norman
335 Melbourne
336 Gillett
Population
County
Factor
Boone
0.028
Lonoke
0.226
Yell
0.450
Little River
1.788
Jefferson
0.446
Jefferson
1.770
Craighead
0.441
Dallas
0.219
Pope
1.077
Greene
0.433
Boone
0.107
Benton
0.142
Dallas
0.028
Sebastian
0.410
Yell
1.582
Drew
0.013
Perry
0.078
Sebastian
1.562
Crawford
1.556
Crittenden
0.192
Clay
0.754
Hot Spring
0.077
Marion
0.748
Sevier
0.373
Newton
0.186
White
0.741
Montgomery
0.367
Sharp
0.728
Randolph
0.181
Searcy
0.180
Independence
0.060
Woodruff
0.359
Polk
0.045
Lonoke
5.708
Nevada
0.070
Woodruff
0.692
Baxter
0.345
Clay
1.376
Logan
0.342
Jackson
0.037
Franklin
1.319
Logan
0.164
Little River
0.164
Jackson
0.326
Boone
0.064
Montgomery
0.158
Izard
0.626
Arkansas
0.306
Receiving Receiving Septic Septic
Stream
Stream Tank
Tank Expired Executed
Class
Flow
Failure Suitability Permit MOA
4.0
8.0
8.0
1
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
3.8
1.7
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
1.0
3
1
2.0
8.0
5.0
3
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
5.0
3
1
4.0
8.0
2.5
1
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
6.5
3
1
8.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
0
8.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
2.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
1.0
3
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
8.0
1
1
1.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
5.0
1
1
4.0
2.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
9.0
1
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
5.0
1
1
8.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
- 25 -
Total
Points
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ARKANSAS NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund Priority System Rankings
Rank
Community
337 Western Grove
338 Keiser
339 Wildwood PFB
340 Rosston
341 Buckner
342 Wilmot
343 Collins
344 Lafe
345 Hermitage
346 Amity
347 Bono
348 Whelen Springs
349 Gillham Lake RWA
350 Hensley CDP
351 Palestine
352 Cushman
353 Patmos
354 Huttig
355 Oak Grove Heights
356 Holly Grove
357 Junction City
358 Quitman
359 Lockesburg
360 Cherry Valley
361 Sunset
362 Hackett
363 Umpire
364 Augusta
365 McNeil
366 McRae
367 Pangburn
368 Strong
369 Ben Lomond
370 Bodcaw
371 Letona
372 Pleasant Oaks SID
373 Powhatan
374 Chester
375 Arkansas City
376 Brickeys
377 Wilmar
378 Taylor
379 Bradley
380 Pleasant Plains
381 Morrison Bluff
382 Reed
383 Sidney
384 Joiner
Population
County
Factor
Newton
0.152
Mississippi
0.302
Union
0.299
Nevada
0.099
Lafayette
0.148
Ashley
0.294
Drew
0.010
Greene
0.144
Bradley
0.288
Clark
0.285
Craighead
0.566
Clark
0.031
Sevier
0.561
Pulaski
0.056
St. Francis
0.277
Independence
0.172
Hempstead
0.023
Union
0.273
Greene
0.272
Monroe
0.270
Union
0.270
Cleburne
0.267
Sevier
0.266
Cross
0.263
Crittenden
0.130
Sebastian
0.260
Howard
0.028
Woodruff
0.997
Columbia
0.248
White
0.247
White
0.245
Union
0.244
Sevier
0.047
Nevada
0.058
White
0.075
Saline
0.056
Lawrence
0.019
Crawford
0.037
Desha
0.220
Lee
0.018
Drew
0.214
Columbia
0.212
Lafayette
0.211
Independence
0.100
Logan
0.028
Desha
0.103
Sharp
0.103
Mississippi
0.202
Receiving Receiving Septic Septic
Stream
Stream Tank
Tank Expired Executed
Class
Flow
Failure Suitability Permit MOA
2.0
8.0
1.0
2
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
3.0
1
1
2.0
8.0
2.0
1
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
5.0
3
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
2.0
9.0
1
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
5.0
1
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.8
2
1
2.0
8.0
4.0
3
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
3.0
3
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
2.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
5.0
1
1
4.0
8.0
2.0
1
1
2.0
8.0
1.0
3
1
8.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
1.0
8.0
3
1
4.0
8.0
1.0
3
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
1.0
8.0
3
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.7
3
1
4.0
1.0
10.0
3
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
2.0
1
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
- 26 -
Total
Points
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ARKANSAS NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund Priority System Rankings
Rank
Community
385 Lake View
386 Montrose
387 Grady
388 Big Flat
389 Thornton
390 Springtown
391 Woodberry
392 Emmet
393 Pyatt
394 Sulpher Springs
395 HACT SID
396 Harris Brake SID
397 Saline Co SID
398 White Oak W&SID #49
399 Calico Rock
400 Madison
401 Clarendon
402 Ash Flat
403 Des Arc
404 Moro
405 Paraloma
406 Turrell
407 Biscoe
408 Daisy
409 Keo
410 Scott CDP
411 Patterson
412 Pine Bluff SID #38
413 Tyronza
414 Center Point
415 Kingsland
416 Carthage
417 Skyline SID #4
418 Grubbs
419 Elaine
420 Rudy
421 Saint Joe
422 Valley Springs
423 Norphlet
424 Morrilton
425 Fouke
426 Crittenden Co SID #3
427 Perla
428 Hatfield
429 Parkin
430 145th St WSID #345
431 Houston
432 Havana
County
Phillips
Ashley
Lincoln
Baxter
Calhoun
Benton
Calhoun
Nevada
Marion
Benton
Lonoke
Perry
Saline
Garland
Izard
St. Francis
Monroe
Sharp
Prairie
Lee
Sevier
Crittenden
Prairie
Pike
Lonoke
Pulaski
Woodruff
Jefferson
Poinsett
Howard
Cleveland
Dallas
Pope
Jackson
Phillips
Crawford
Searcy
Boone
Union
Conway
Miller
Crittenden
Hot Spring
Polk
Cross
Pulaski
Perry
Yell
Population
Factor
0.199
0.197
0.196
0.039
0.193
0.043
0.013
0.189
0.095
0.251
0.187
0.037
0.187
0.037
0.371
0.369
0.733
0.365
0.723
0.090
0.022
0.358
0.178
0.044
0.088
0.035
0.175
0.696
0.343
0.028
0.168
0.165
0.165
0.164
0.324
0.027
0.032
0.062
0.307
2.450
0.304
0.152
0.043
0.150
0.599
0.150
0.059
0.147
Receiving Receiving Septic Septic
Stream
Stream Tank
Tank Expired Executed
Class
Flow
Failure Suitability Permit MOA
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
5.0
1
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
3.0
3
1
2.0
8.0
5.0
3
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
2.0
1
1
6.0
2.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
5.0
1
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
5.0
1
1
8.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
4.0
1
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
2.0
1
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
5.0
1
1
8.0
2.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
2.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
2.0
3
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
1.0
3
1
8.0
2.0
5.0
1
1
2.0
4.0
5.0
1
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
1.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
7.0
1
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
2.5
1
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
- 27 -
Total
Points
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ARKANSAS NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund Priority System Rankings
Population
Rank
Community
County
Factor
433 Hickory Ridge
Cross
0.144
434 College Station CDP
Pulaski
0.287
435 Maynard
Randolph
0.143
436 Weiner
Poinsett
0.284
437 Higginson
White
0.141
438 Gillham
Sevier
0.070
439 Hilltop SID #6
Pope
0.140
440 Wheatley
St. Francis
0.139
441 Etowah
Mississippi
0.137
442 Blevins
Hempstead
0.137
443 Emerson
Columbia
0.134
444 Black Rock
Lawrence
0.268
445 Knobel
Clay
0.134
446 Tull
Grant
0.134
447 South Lead Hill
Boone
0.033
448 Runyan SID #211
Pulaski
0.524
449 Lexa
Phillips
0.124
450 Luxora
Mississippi
0.493
451 Wabbaseka
Jefferson
0.121
452 Lewisville
Lafayette
0.481
453 Diaz
Jackson
0.480
454 Almyra
Arkansas
0.119
455 Bluff City
Nevada
0.059
456 Sulpher Rock
Independence
0.157
457 Delight
Pike
0.116
458 Princeton
Dallas
0.015
459 Jamestown
Johnson
0.028
460 Mountain Home SID #4 Baxter
0.112
461 Oak Manor WA
Union
0.112
462 Phillips Co PFB
Phillips
0.224
463 Washington
Hempstead
0.055
464 Gilmore
Crittenden
0.109
465 Redfield
Jefferson
0.433
466 Hardy
Sharp
0.216
467 Watson
Desha
0.108
468 Georgetown
White
0.047
469 Prattsville
Grant
0.105
470 Foreman
Little River
0.421
471 Pine Bluff SID #37
Jefferson
0.420
472 Portland
Ashley
0.206
473 Griffithville
White
0.098
474 Dyess
Mississippi
0.193
475 Edmonson
Crittenden
0.192
476 Concord
Cleburne
0.095
477 Delaplaine
Greene
0.048
478 Coal Hill
Johnson
0.374
479 Donaldson
Hot Spring
0.122
480 Mitchelville
Desha
0.186
Receiving Receiving Septic Septic
Stream
Stream Tank
Tank Expired Executed
Class
Flow
Failure Suitability Permit MOA
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
2.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
4.0
1
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
4.0
0.5
1
1
8.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
2.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
1.0
2
1
6.0
2.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
2.5
3
1
2.0
8.0
4.0
1
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
2.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
1.0
2
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
9.0
1
1
2.0
8.0
0.5
2
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
2.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
2.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
1.0
1
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
- 28 -
Total
Points
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
ARKANSAS NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund Priority System Rankings
Rank
Community
481 Higden
482 Waldenburg
483 Pineville
484 Greenway
485 LaGrange
486 Norfolk
487 Portia
488 Pollard
489 Tillar
490 Alicia
491 Rondo
492 Ravenden Springs
493 Wilson
494 Saint Charles
495 Burdette
496 Williford
497 Fulton
498 Black Springs
499 Campbell Station
500 Minturn
501 Russell
502 Suburban SID
503 Victoria
504 Oil Trough
505 Oakhaven
506 Ogden
507 Plumerville
508 Bear Creek SID
509 Cedar Mountain SID
510 Amagon
511 Pindall
512 Plainview
513 Haynes
514 Pine Bluff SID #39
515 Cammack Village
516 Birdsong
517 Jerome
518 Bigelow
519 Ulm
520 Altus
521 Fourche
522 Summit
523 O'Kean
524 Mount Pleasant
525 Gilbert
526 Leola
527 DeValls Bluff
528 Louann
Population
County
Factor
Cleburne
0.038
Poinsett
0.030
Izard
0.092
Clay
0.091
Lee
0.046
Baxter
0.181
Lawrence
0.181
Clay
0.090
Drew
0.090
Lawrence
0.054
Lee
0.089
Randolph
0.051
Mississippi
0.351
Arkansas
0.098
Mississippi
0.048
Sharp
0.024
Hempstead
0.092
Montgomery
0.043
Jackson
0.085
Lawrence
0.043
White
0.085
Jefferson
0.022
Mississippi
0.022
Independence
0.082
Hempstead
0.020
Little River
0.080
Conway
0.319
Lee
0.019
Garland
0.037
Jackson
0.036
Searcy
0.036
Yell
0.282
Lee
0.080
Jefferson
0.318
Pulaski
0.311
Mississippi
0.015
Drew
0.017
Perry
0.123
Prairie
0.077
Franklin
0.306
Perry
0.022
Marion
0.219
Randolph
0.075
Izard
0.150
Searcy
0.012
Grant
0.193
Prairie
0.293
Ouachita
0.073
Receiving Receiving Septic Septic
Stream
Stream Tank
Tank Expired Executed
Class
Flow
Failure Suitability Permit MOA
8.0
8.0
0.2
1
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
2.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
1.0
2.0
1
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
4.0
1
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
1.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
2.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
2.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.5
1
1
1.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
3.0
3
1
4.0
1.0
2.5
1
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
2.5
1
1
1.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
0.5
2
1
8.0
2.0
0.0
1
1
1.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
- 29 -
Total
Points
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ARKANSAS NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund Priority System Rankings
Rank
Community
529 McDougal
530 Peach Orchard
531 Parkdale
532 Perry
533 Colt
534 Franklin
535 Jericho
536 Oppelo
537 Blue Eye
538 Cantrell Rd SID
539 Biggers
540 Pine Bluff SID #40
541 Bassett
542 Widener
543 Little Rock
544 North Little Rock
545 Fifty Six
546 Tollette
547 Fountain Hill
548 Felsenthal
549 Bates
550 Cale
551 Poplar Grove SID
552 Pulaski Co SID #239
553 Salem SID #10
554 Cash
555 Harrell
556 Magness
557 Clinton
558 Caddo Valley
559 Davis Drive SID
560 Lands End SID #5
561 Wiederkehr Village
562 Gentry
563 Fisher
564 Calion
565 Perrytown
566 Saint Francis
567 Roe
568 Hindsville
569 Sedgwick
570 Aubrey
571 Salesville
572 Marie
573 Egypt
574 Nimmons
575 Oak Shadows SID
576 Guion
Population
County
Factor
Clay
0.073
Clay
0.073
Ashley
0.141
Perry
0.117
St. Francis
0.138
Izard
0.069
Crittenden
0.069
Conway
0.271
Carroll
0.013
Pulaski
0.009
Randolph
0.133
Jefferson
0.011
Mississippi
0.063
St. Francis
0.125
Pulaski
68.502
Pulaski
22.605
Stone
0.061
Howard
0.121
Ashley
0.059
Union
0.057
Scott
0.028
Nevada
0.028
Phillips
0.028
Pulaski
0.112
Saline
0.056
Craighead
0.110
Calhoun
0.110
Independence
0.071
Van Buren
0.854
Clark
0.211
Garland
0.026
Pope
0.052
Franklin
0.017
Benton
0.810
Poinsett
0.099
Union
0.193
Hempstead
0.095
Clay
0.094
Monroe
0.046
Madison
0.028
Lawrence
0.042
Lee
0.083
Baxter
0.163
Mississippi
0.040
Craighead
0.038
Clay
0.037
Pulaski
0.037
Izard
0.034
Receiving Receiving Septic Septic
Stream
Stream Tank
Tank Expired Executed
Class
Flow
Failure Suitability Permit MOA
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
2.0
0.0
0
1
1.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
4.0
0.5
1
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
5.0
1
1
4.0
2.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
0
0
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
0
0
2.0
8.0
0.0
1
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
1.0
1
1
2.0
8.0
2.0
1
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
2.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
1.0
3
1
1.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
1.0
3
1
1.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
2.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
1.5
1
1
4.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
4.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
1.0
0.5
1
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
2.0
8.0
0.0
0
1
8.0
1.0
0.7
3
1
- 30 -
Total
Points
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ARKANSAS NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund Priority System Rankings
Rank
Community
577 Pine Bluff SID #36
578 Faulkner Lake Rd SID
579 Garland
County
Jefferson
Pulaski
Miller
Population
Factor
0.136
0.067
0.132
Receiving Receiving Septic Septic
Stream
Stream Tank
Tank Expired Executed
Class
Flow
Failure Suitability Permit MOA
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
2.0
0.0
0
1
4.0
1.0
0.0
0
1
- 31 -
Total
Points
1
1
1
CHARTS
- 32 -
CHART 1-1: TOTAL BINDING COMMITMENTS (BC)
ARKANSAS NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
CLEAN WATER RLF
FOR SFY 2014
PROJECT NAMES
PROJ
COMMUNITIES
#
SERVED
Batesville
NEEDS
CS050 CATAGORY*
647
4A, 4B
West Fork
NPDES
Loan
Perm it
Closing
AR00
DATE
20702
1
PROJECTED BINDING COMMITMENTS
STATE FISCAL YEAR 2014
QTR 1
T 8/01/13
13,500,000
TOTAL
-
13,500,000
-
-
$ 607,034,247
$ 607,034,247
$ 607,034,247
-
-
$
-
$
8,038,402
PROGRAM ADM
$
-
$
8,134,972
96,570
CUM PROGRAM ADM
QTR 4
$
-
$
13,500,000
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
18,800,000
$
-
$
-
$
386,280
5,300,000
SECTION 319 BC TOTAL
CUM SECTION 319 BC TOTAL
SFY 2013
QTR 3
T 6/15/13
SECTION 212 BC TOTAL
CUM SECTION 212 BC TOTAL
QTR 2
5,300,000
$
612,334,247
$
-
$
8,231,542
96,570
$
-
$
8,328,112
96,570
96,570
SUMMARY BINDING COMMITMENTS
SECTION 212
13,500,000
-
-
5,300,000
$
18,800,000
SECTION 319
-
-
-
-
$
-
PROGRAM ADM
-
-
-
.
$
-
5,300,000
$
18,800,000
$
12,689,700
QUARTERLY BINDING COMMITMENT TOTALS
CUMULATIVE BINDING COMMITMENT TOTALS
** REQUIRED BINDING COMMITMENTS
** CUM REQ'D BINDING COMMITMENTS
13,500,000
-
-
$ 485,455,527
$485,455,527
$ 485,455,527
3,998,400
2,897,100
2,897,100
$ 254,248,566
$257,145,666
$ 260,042,766
191%
189%
187%
$
490,755,527
$
262,939,866
2,897,100
CUMULATIVE EQUIVALENT BC TOTALS
AS A % OF REQ'D BC AMOUNT
187%
NOTES: See expanded project description in IUP.
*1 = SECONDARY TREATMENT; 2 = ADVANCED TREATMENT; 3A = INFILTRATION/INFLOW; 3B = MAJOR REHABILITATION; 4A = NEW COLLECTORS;
4B = NEW INTERCEPTORS
A= Actual
** 120% OF FEDERAL EPA/ACH PAYMENTS LAGGED BY ONE YEAR
T= Target
- 33 -
CHART 1-2: TOTAL BINDING COMMITMENTS (BC)
ARKANSAS NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
CLEAN WATER RLF
FOR SFY 2015
PROJECT NAMES
PROJ
COMMUNITIES
#
SERVED
NEEDS
CS050 CATAGORY*
NPDES
Loan
Perm it
Closing
AR00
DATE
PROJECTED BINDING COMMITMENTS
STATE FISCAL YEAR 2015
QTR 1
QTR 2
SFY 2013
QTR 3
QTR 4
TOTAL
$
-
$
10,200,000
200,000
20702
T 8/01/14
Bearden
21474
T 5/05/15
-
-
200,000
$
Magnolia
20702
T 6/15/15
-
-
250,000
$
250,000
5,300,000
$
5,300,000
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
15,950,000
$
-
$
-
$
386,280
Batesville
647
4A, 4B
West Fork
1
10,200,000
T 5/22/15
SECTION 212 BC TOTAL
CUM SECTION 212 BC TOTAL
-
10,200,000
-
-
$ 612,334,247
$ 612,334,247
$ 612,334,247
-
-
SECTION 319 BC TOTAL
-
CUM SECTION 319 BC TOTAL
$
-
$
8,328,112
PROGRAM ADM
$
-
$
8,424,682
96,570
CUM PROGRAM ADM
5,750,000
$
618,084,247
$
-
$
8,521,252
96,570
$
-
$
8,617,822
96,570
96,570
SUMMARY BINDING COMMITMENTS
SECTION 212
10,200,000
-
-
5,750,000
$
15,950,000
SECTION 319
-
-
-
-
$
-
PROGRAM ADM
-
-
-
.
$
-
5,750,000
$
15,950,000
$
12,689,700
QUARTERLY BINDING COMMITMENT TOTALS
CUMULATIVE BINDING COMMITMENT TOTALS
** REQUIRED BINDING COMMITMENTS
** CUM REQ'D BINDING COMMITMENTS
10,200,000
-
-
$ 490,755,527
$490,755,527
$ 490,755,527
3,998,400
2,897,100
2,897,100
$ 262,939,866
$265,836,966
$ 268,734,066
187%
185%
183%
$
496,505,527
$
271,631,166
2,897,100
CUMULATIVE EQUIVALENT BC TOTALS
AS A % OF REQ'D BC AMOUNT
183%
NOTES: See expanded project description in IUP.
*1 = SECONDARY TREATMENT; 2 = ADVANCED TREATMENT; 3A = INFILTRATION/INFLOW; 3B = MAJOR REHABILITATION; 4A = NEW COLLECTORS;
4B = NEW INTERCEPTORS
A= Actual
** 120% OF FEDERAL EPA/ACH PAYMENTS LAGGED BY ONE YEAR
T= Target
- 34 -
CHART 1-3 ARKANSAS NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
CLEAN WATER REVOLVING LOAN FUND
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE AND ADDITIONAL SUBSIDIZATION
FOR 2011 & 2012 & 2013 & 2014 CAPITALIZATION GRANT/ALLOTMENT
Conw ay
Midland
2011
2011
Energy Eff.
West Fork
2011
Cap Grant
Cap Grant
Categorically Green
P/F Loan
Cap Grant
Requirem ents
GPR
Add. Sub
Totals
1. Cap Grant Allotm ents
$
9,657,000
2 Min Am ount of Subsidization Required $
894,875
3 Green Project Reserved Required
2012
Cap Grant
1. Cap Grant Allotm ents
$
1,931,400
$
$
9,239,000
2 Min Am ount of Subsidization Required $
513,470
$
923,900
$
3 Green Project Reserved Required
2013
Cap Grant
1. Allotm ents
$
2013
Allotm ent
Requirem ents
8,722,000
2 Min Am ount of Subsidization Required $
410,843
$
872,200
$
$
-
923,900
-
872,200
$
894,875
$
1,931,401
West Fork
P/F Loan
Add. Sub
$
2012
Cap Grant
Totals
513,470
$
Batesville #4
Energy Eff.
GPR
$
3 Green Project Reserved Required
1,931,401
Conw ay
2012
Energy Eff.
Cap Grant
Categorically Green
Requirem ents
GPR
$
894,875
-
$
513,470
$
923,900
West Fork
P/F Loan
Add. Sub
$
2013
Allotm ent
Totals
410,843
$
-
$
$
-
872,200
Bearden
2014
2014
Batesville #4
Magnolia
2013
Cap Grant
Allotm ent
Energy Eff.
P/F Loan
Allotm ent
Requirem ents
GPR
Add. Sub
Totals
1. Allotm ents
$
9,165,000
2 Min Am ount of Subsidization Required $
498,738
$
498,738
$
$
916,500 $
916,500 $
**Note Add. Sub = Additional Subsidy P/F = Principal Forgiveness GPR = Green Project Reserve
$
3 Green Project Reserved Required
- 35 -
-
$
916,500
CHART 1-4 :CLEAN WATER PRIORITY FUNDABLE LIST
Green Project Reserve
IUP
Year
NPDES
Permit No
Project Name
Needs
Category
Green
Project
Reserve
Amt
Additional Subisidy
Interest
Rate
Term
Year
N/A
20
2013
2.50%
20
2011
$1,532,765
Energy
$250,000
N/A
20
2015
$250,000
Energy
$5,300,000
TBD
20
2012
Total
Assistance
Bus. Project
Case
GPR Cat.
Additional
Subsidy
Amt
Principal
Forgiveness
Binding
Commitmen
t Date
Project Description*
Section 212
2015
Bearden
21474
4A, 4B
$200,000
2011
Batesville #4
20702
4A, 4B
$10,200,000
2015
Magnolia
43613
2013
West Fork
22373
1
Section 212 Total
200,000
$15,950,000
$200,000
5/26/2015 T Planning and design w ork
10/08/14 T
Expansion of treatm ent plant w hich is done
in phases
250,000
$250,000
6/15/15 T
Pum p effluent from plant to tw o industrial
sites
1,615,300
1,615,300
04/15/15 T
Im provem ents and betterm ents necessary
to transport w astew ater
$1,782,765
$2,065,300
$2,065,300
$1,782,765
$2,065,300
$2,065,300
Section 319
Section 319 Total
$0
Grand Total
$15,950,000
*Expanded
project descriptions found in IUP Page 3
**TBD - To Be Determined
2011 Federal Cap Grant Requirements
Projects
Green
Conway
Yes
Midland
No
West Fork
2012 Federal Cap Grant Requirements
Addt'l
1,931,400
Sub
1,931,401
No
-
Grand totals
Green
1,931,401
Addt'l Sub
410,843
894,875
-
Yes
373,888
Yes
520,987
Projects
Green
923,900
Conway
Yes
923,900
West Fork
No
0
2013 Allotment
Green
616,265
894,875
Batesville #4
West Fork
Totals
616,265
No
0
616,265
Projects
923,900
Totals
Green
Batesville #4
Yes
410,843
410,843
513,470
No
Yes
513,470
0
580843
Projects
Addt'l Sub
2014 Allotment
916,500 Addt'l Sub
498,738
916,500
Bearden
No
0
Yes
200,000
Magnolia
No
0
Yes
250,000
West Fork
No
0
Yes
916,500
Totals
- 36 -
48,738
498,738
513,470
CHART 2: STATUTORY LIMITS ON RLF FUNDS
ARKANSAS NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
CLEAN WATER RLF
STATE FISCAL YEARS 2011 THROUGH 2014
Cap Grants
Cap Grants
Cap Grants
Cap Grants
2011
2012
2013
2014
$9,657,000
$9,239,000
$8,722,000
$9,165,000
$386,280
$369,560
$348,880
$366,600
MINIMUM AMOUNT OF FUNDS TO BE
1. USED FOR 212 PROJECTS WHICH MEET
TITLE II REQUIREMENTS.
2. MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF EPA/ACH FUNDS
TO BE USED FOR RLF ADMINISTRATION.
3. Minim um am ount of subsidization
$894,875
$513,470
$410,843
$498,738
$2,982,915
$770,205
$616,265
$748,107
4. Green Project Reserve
$1,931,400
$923,900
$872,200
$916,500
5. AMOUNT OF STATE MATCH
$1,931,400
$1,847,800
$1,744,400
$1,833,000
$1,931,400
$1,847,800
$1,744,400
$1,833,000
Maximum amount of subsidization
MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF FUNDS AVAILABLE
6. FOR 212 PROJECTS WHICH DO NOT
HAVE TO MEET TITLE II REQUIREMENTS.
7. CUM TOTAL WHICH DO NOT HAVE TO MEET
$214,288,051
TITLE II REQUIREMENTS.
- 37 -
$223,527,051
$232,249,051
$241,414,051
CHART 3 SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS STATEMENT
ARKANSAS NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
CLEAN WATER RLF
FOR STATE FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2015 & 2014
2015
SOURCES:
Revolving Loan Fund Balance
Federal Cap Grant (2013)
Federal Cap Grant/Allotment (2014)
State Match (2014)
Bond Proceeds
Loan Repayments-principal
Loan Repayments-interest
Earnings on Investments
TOTAL SOURCES
2014
$
53,252,185
9,165,000
1,000,000
12,529,582
4,717,687
200,000
$
76,125,379
2,056,386
833,000
24,871,874
5,850,000
200,000
$
80,864,454
$ 109,936,639
$
26,348,280
$
USES:
Section 212:
Project Loan Disbursements
Section 319:
Project Loan Disbursements
Administration Expense (Federal portion only)
Debt Service on Leveraged Bonds:
Principal + Interest
Amortized issuance costs
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS
Resources carried over to following year
TOTAL USES
Remaing Balances on Loans to be disbursed
Resources available
Funds needed
- 38 -
75,000
80,115
366,600
348,880
5,099,037
2,949,475
13,356,237
250,000
34,838,392
56,684,454
46,026,062
53,252,185
$
80,864,454
$
$
06/30/15
52,632,030
46,026,062
$
42,649,222
$ 109,936,639
$
$
(6,605,968) $
06/30/14
62,456,654
53,252,185
(9,204,469)
CHART 4 PART 1: PROJECTED RLF DISBURSEMENTS
ARKANSAS NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
CLEAN WATER RLF
FOR SFY 2015
PROJECTED $ DISBURSEMENTS SFY 2015
PREVIOUS
DISBURS.
BGT. FRWD.
SECTION 212 LOAN DISBURSEMENTS :
Cash Draws from EPA
Cum Cash Draw From EPA
State Match Share of Disbursements
Cum State Match Share of Disbursements
Bond Issues Fully Disbursed-91A,92A,93A,95A,96A,99A
Cum IssuesFully Disb-91A,92A,93A,95A,96A,99A
RLF Loan Repayments Disbursed
Cum RLF Loan Repayments Disbursed
TOTAL SEC. 212 LOAN DISBURSEMENTS
Cum Tot Sec. 212 Loan Disbursements
Cum EPA Draw as a % of Cum. Disb.
SECTION 319 LOAN DISBURSEMENTS
CASH DRAWS FROM EPA
Cum Cash Draw From EPA
State Match Share of Disbursements
Cum State Match Share of Disbursements
RLF Loan Repayments Disbursed
Cum RLF Loan Repayments Disbursed
Outside RLF Share of Disbursements
Cum Outside RLF Share of Disbursements
TOTAL SEC. 319 LOAN DISBURSEMENTS
Cum Total Sec. 319 Loan Disbursements
Cum EPA Draw as a % of Cum. Disb.
ADMINISTRATION DISBURSEMENTS:
Cash Draw From EPA
Cum Cash Draw From EPA
Outside RLF Funds
Cum Outside RLF Share of Disbursements
TOTAL ADMINISTRATION DISBURSEMENTS
Cum Administration Disbursements
Cum ACH Draw as a % of Cum. Disb.
OTHER RLF PROGRAM DISBURSEMENTS:
TOTAL OTHER RLF PROGRAM DISBURSEMENTS
Cum Total Other RLF Program Disbursements
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS:
Cash Draw From EPA
Cum Cash Draw From EPA
State Match Share of Disbursements
Cum State Match Share of Disbursements
Outside RLF Disbursements
Cum Outside RLF Share of Disbursements
Bonds Fully Disbursed-91A,92A,93A,95A,96A,99A
Cum Bonds Fully Disbused
RLF Loan Repayments Disbursed
Cum RLF Loan Repayments Disbursed
Total Disbursements
Cum Total Disbursements
Cum EPA Draw as a % of Total
Federal EPA Available
Cum Before ADM & RLF Disb.
Cum after ADM & RLF Disb.
QTR 1
July - Sept
QTR 2
Oct - Dec
QTR 3
Jan - Mar
QTR 4
Apr - June
212,357,606
1,000,000
45,718,592
108,825,598
4,701,780
163,837,895
5,701,780
555,425,628
38.23%
3,348,250
215,705,856
45,718,592
108,825,598
4,700,000
168,537,895
8,048,250
563,473,878
38.28%
3,348,250
219,054,106
45,718,592
108,825,598
4,600,000
173,137,895
7,948,250
571,422,128
38.33%
219,054,106
45,718,592
108,825,598
4,650,000
177,787,895
4,650,000
576,072,128
38.03%
4,158,396
1,032,996
35,000
615,115
2,980,000
8,786,507
47.33%
4,158,396
1,032,996
615,115
2,980,000
8,786,507
47.33%
4,158,396
1,032,996
615,115
2,980,000
8,786,507
47.33%
4,158,396
1,032,996
40,000
655,115
2,980,000
8,826,507
47.11%
24,487,178
37.94%
9,289,962
270,000
15,467,216
270,000
24,757,178
37.52%
9,289,962
270,000
15,737,216
270,000
25,027,178
37.12%
366,600
9,656,562
270,000
16,007,216
636,600
25,663,778
37.63%
9,656,562
270,000
16,277,216
270,000
25,933,778
37.24%
2,868,072
2,868,072
2,868,072
2,868,072
2,868,072
212,357,606
44,718,592
108,825,598
159,136,115
549,723,848
38.63%
4,158,396
1,032,996
580,115
2,980,000
8,751,507
47.52%
9,289,962
15,197,216
242,926,556
47,281,620
15,067,028
108,825,598
166,050,074
580,150,876
41.87%
232,766,055
5,717,900
242,926,556
1,000,000
48,281,620
15,067,028
108,825,598
4,701,780
170,751,854
5,701,780
585,852,656
41.47%
232,766,055
(10,160,501)
- 39 -
3,348,250
246,274,806
48,281,620
15,067,028
108,825,598
4,700,000
175,451,854
8,048,250
593,900,906
41.47%
9,165,000
241,931,055
(4,343,751)
3,714,850
249,989,656
48,281,620
15,067,028
108,825,598
4,600,000
180,051,854
8,314,850
602,215,756
41.51%
241,931,055
(8,058,601)
249,989,656
48,281,620
15,067,028
108,825,598
4,650,000
184,701,854
4,650,000
606,865,756
41.19%
241,931,055
(8,058,601)
ANNUAL
TOTALS
6,696,500
1,000,000
18,651,780
26,348,280
75,000
-
366,600
1,080,000
1,446,600
-
7,063,100
1,000,000
18,651,780
26,714,880
9,165,000
CHART 4 PART 1: PROJECTED RLF DISBURSEMENTS
ARKANSAS NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
CLEAN WATER RLF
FOR SFY 2014
PROJECTED $ DISBURSEMENTS SFY 2014
PREVIOUS
DISBURS.
BGT. FRWD.
SECTION 212 LOAN DISBURSEMENTS :
Cash Draws from EPA
Cum Cash Draw From EPA
State Match Share of Disbursements
Cum State Match Share of Disbursements
Bond Issues Fully Disbursed-91A,92A,93A,95A,96A,99A
Cum IssuesFully Disb-91A,92A,93A,95A,96A,99A
RLF Loan Repayments Disbursed
Cum RLF Loan Repayments Disbursed
TOTAL SEC. 212 LOAN DISBURSEMENTS
Cum Tot Sec. 212 Loan Disbursements
Cum EPA Draw as a % of Cum. Disb.
SECTION 319 LOAN DISBURSEMENTS
CASH DRAWS FROM EPA
Cum Cash Draw From EPA
State Match Share of Disbursements
Cum State Match Share of Disbursements
RLF Loan Repayments Disbursed
Cum RLF Loan Repayments Disbursed
Outside RLF Share of Disbursements
Cum Outside RLF Share of Disbursements
TOTAL SEC. 319 LOAN DISBURSEMENTS
Cum Total Sec. 319 Loan Disbursements
Cum EPA Draw as a % of Cum. Disb.
ADMINISTRATION DISBURSEMENTS:
Cash Draw From EPA
Cum Cash Draw From EPA
Outside RLF Funds
Cum Outside RLF Share of Disbursements
TOTAL ADMINISTRATION DISBURSEMENTS
Cum Administration Disbursements
Cum ACH Draw as a % of Cum. Disb.
OTHER RLF PROGRAM DISBURSEMENTS:
TOTAL OTHER RLF PROGRAM DISBURSEMENTS
Cum Total Other RLF Program Disbursements
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS:
Cash Draw From EPA
Cum Cash Draw From EPA
State Match Share of Disbursements
Cum State Match Share of Disbursements
Outside RLF Disbursements
Cum Outside RLF Share of Disbursements
Bonds Fully Disbursed-91A,92A,93A,95A,96A,99A
Cum Bonds Fully Disbused
RLF Loan Repayments Disbursed
Cum RLF Loan Repayments Disbursed
Total Disbursements
Cum Total Disbursements
Cum EPA Draw as a % of Total
Federal EPA Available
Cum Before ADM & RLF Disb.
Cum after ADM & RLF Disb.
QTR 1
July - Sept
QTR 2
Oct - Dec
QTR 3
Jan - Mar
QTR 4
Apr - June
968,178
206,044,149
44,290,640
108,825,598
12,647,362
136,843,842
13,615,540
520,690,166
39.57%
3,568,075
209,612,224
44,290,640
108,825,598
7,993,935
144,837,777
11,562,010
532,252,176
39.38%
2,702,659
212,314,883
423,752
44,714,392
108,825,598
5,670,262
150,508,039
8,796,673
541,048,849
39.24%
42,723
212,357,606
4,200
44,718,592
108,825,598
8,628,076
159,136,115
8,674,999
549,723,848
38.63%
4,158,396
1,032,996
500,000
2,980,000
8,671,392
47.96%
4,158,396
1,032,996
75,447
575,447
2,980,000
75,447
8,746,839
47.54%
4,158,396
1,032,996
3,700
579,147
2,980,000
3,700
8,750,539
47.52%
4,158,396
1,032,996
968
580,115
2,980,000
968
8,751,507
47.52%
23,133,204
38.65%
8,941,082
233,459
14,425,581
233,459
23,366,663
38.26%
348,880
9,289,962
264,339
14,689,920
613,219
23,979,882
38.74%
9,289,962
237,296
14,927,216
237,296
24,217,178
38.36%
9,289,962
270,000
15,197,216
270,000
24,487,178
37.94%
2,868,072
2,868,072
2,868,072
2,868,072
2,868,072
205,075,971
44,290,640
108,825,598
124,196,480
507,074,626
40.44%
4,158,396
1,032,996
500,000
2,980,000
8,671,392
47.96%
8,941,082
14,192,122
235,296,041
46,853,668
15,067,028
108,825,598
131,110,439
537,152,774
43.80%
223,527,055
5,717,900
968,178
236,264,219
46,853,668
15,067,028
108,825,598
12,647,362
143,757,801
13,615,540
550,768,314
42.90%
223,527,055
(12,737,164)
- 40 -
3,916,955
240,181,174
46,853,668
15,067,028
108,825,598
7,993,935
151,751,736
11,910,890
562,679,204
42.69%
9,239,000
232,766,055
(7,415,119)
2,702,659
242,883,833
423,752
47,277,420
15,067,028
108,825,598
5,670,262
157,421,998
8,796,673
571,475,877
42.50%
232,766,055
(10,117,778)
42,723
242,926,556
4,200
47,281,620
15,067,028
108,825,598
8,628,076
166,050,074
8,674,999
580,150,876
41.87%
232,766,055
(10,160,501)
ANNUAL
TOTALS
7,281,635
427,952
34,939,635
42,649,222
80,115
80,115
348,880
1,005,094
1,353,974
-
7,630,515
427,952
34,939,635
42,998,102
9,239,000
CHART 5: DISBURSEMENTS, PRINCIPAL REPAYMENT/OUTSTANDING , INTEREST
ARKANSAS NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
CLEAN WATER RLF
FOR SFY 2015
YEAR
SFY 2010
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
SFY 2011
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
SFY 2012
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
SFY 2013
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
(Projected SFY 2014)
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
(Projected SFY 2015)
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE
DISBURSEMENTS
PRINCIPAL
REPAYMENT
PRINCIPAL
OUTSTANDING
INTEREST
PAYMENTS
$
$
14,311,744
372,233,979
$
$
21,485,345
209,132,855 $
245,903,133
$
$
5,776,024
77,726,922
$
$
11,411,052
383,645,031
$
$
21,759,113
230,891,968 $
224,144,020
$
$
5,661,999
83,388,921
$
$
15,845,789
373,768,024
$
$
23,781,874
254,673,842 $
226,061,008
$
$
5,850,000
89,238,921
$
$
56,117,153
429,885,177
$
$
23,781,874
278,455,716
$
5,850,000
95,088,921
$
$
39,088,706
422,733,737
$
$
24,871,874
303,327,590 $
206,077,260
$
5,850,000
$ 100,938,921
$
$
26,423,280
449,157,017
$
$
12,529,582
315,857,172 $
203,747,678
$
4,717,687
$ 105,656,608
- 41 -
217,279,134

1) Blank Petition Sheets, download and distribute!

Meeting No. 474 of the Board of Directors - Agenda

Second List of selected Candidates for Admission to LKG for the

REG-LND-001670 2014 LND Q3 HELOAN Quick Guide Update.indd

1 2014 JLPT Test Site Information – Fayetteville, AR

a study on customer preference towards loans and advances with

VACANT PROPERTIES INITIATIVE

The Karnataka Minodties Development Corporation Ltd.

SmartSaver Home Loan Fact Sheet - Adelaide Bank

Have You Got Your Apps Yet?