33 CFR 241.5 – Procedures for estimating the alternative cost-share
(a) Step one, the benefits test. Determine the maximum possible reduction in the level of non-Federal cost-sharing for any project.
(1) Calculate the ratio of flood control benefits (developed using the Water Resources Council’s Principles and Guidelines—ref. § 241.3(b)) to flood control costs for the project based on the discount rate which the Corps is currently using to evaluate projects. Costs include operations and maintenance as well as first costs. Divide the result by four. For example, if the project’s (or separable element’s) benefit-cost ratio is 1.2:1, the factor for this project equals 0.3. If a project has been authorized for construction without a benefit-cost ratio calculated in accordance with the Principles and Guidelines, determination of the ratio is a prerequisite for consideration under the ability to pay provision.
(2) If the factor determined in § 241.5(a)(1), when expressed as a percentage, is greater than the standard level of cost-sharing, the standard level will apply.
(3) If the factor determined in § 241.5(a)(1), when expressed as a percentage, is less than the standard level of cost-sharing, projects may be eligible for either a reduction in the non-Federal share to this “benefits based floor” (BBF), or for a partial reduction to a share between the standard level and the BBF, as determined by the procedures in step two, § 243.5. In no case however, will the non-Federal cost-share be less than five percent.
(b) Step two, the income test. Projects may qualify for the full amount of the reduction in cost-sharing calculated in Step one, or for some fraction of the reduction in cost-sharing, depending on a measure of the current economic resources of the project area and of the state or states in which the project is located.
(1) To assure consistency, the calculations in § 241.5(b) (2) and (3) will be performed by HQUSACE and distributed to all FOA’s via Engineering Circulars. The information will be updated and distributed to HQUSACE and to the field as soon as new data are available. The procedures may be verified for any single county or state using the sources cited.
(2) For each of the three latest calendar years for which information is available, determine the level of per capita personal income in the state in which the project beneficiaries are located, and compare this to the national average of per capita personal income. Source: Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, as published yearly in the April Survey of Current Business. (If the project beneficiaries are located in Alaska or Hawaii, divide the per capita personal income figure by one plus the percentage used in the Federal Government’s cost of living pay differential for Federal workers who purchase local retail and who use private housing, employed in Anchorage, AK or Oahu, HI as contained in References § 241.3(c) and (d).) Determine the state’s per capita personal income as an index number in comparison to the national average (U.S. = 100), and calculate the three year average of the state’s index number.
(3) For each of the three latest calendar years for which information is available, determine the level of per capita personal income in the county where the project beneficiaries are located (the “project area”), and compare this to the national average of per capita personal income. Source: Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, as published yearly in the April Survey of Current Business. (If the project beneficiaries are located in Alaska or Hawaii, divide the county’s per capita personal income figure by one plus the percentage used in the Federal Government’s cost of living pay differential for Federal workers who purchase local retail and who use private housing, employed in Anchorage, AK or Oahu, HI.) Calculate the index for the county’s per capita personal income to the national average (U.S. = 100), and calculate the three year average of the county’s index number.
(4) When the project area, as determined by the location of the project’s beneficiaries, includes more than one county, calculate a composite project area index by taking a weighted average of the county index numbers, the weights being equal to the relative levels of benefits received in each county. When the project area includes more than one state, the state index for the project should be calculated using the same weighting technique.
(5) Calculate an “Eligibility Factor” for the project according to the following formula:
(6) Since estimates (available from the Bureau of Economic Analysis) of per capita personal income for Puerto Rico, Guam and other U.S. territories are well below the national average, the eligibility factor for projects in these areas is administratively established to be equal to 1.
(7) For flood control projects sponsored by Native American tribes or villages, the EF shall be calculated using information on tribe or village income as a replacement factor for both the area and state factor (that is multiply the replacement income factor by both b
(c) Application of the Ability to Pay Formula to the Basic Cost-sharing Provisions of Section 103. If a flood control project has a BBF which is less than the standard cost-share and an EF which is greater than zero, the non-Federal cost-share will be reduced. The alternative non-Federal share will be calculated and reported to the nearest one tenth of one percent. The actual reduction is determined by applying the ability to pay formula to the basic flood control cost-sharing provisions of section 103 of Pub. L. 99-662, 33 U.S.C. § 2213, as follows:
(1) When EF ?1, non-Federal cost-share = BBF
(2) For structural projects covered by section 103(a), when 0 (i) If LERRD equals or exceeds 45 percent: (ii) If LERRD exceeds 20 percent but is less than 45 percent: (iii) If LERRD is less than 20 percent: (3) For non-structural projects covered by section 103(b), when 0 (4) In no case however, can the non-Federal share be less than five percent, even if the calculation made in § 241.5(c) (1), (2), or (3) results in a smaller number. (5) (d) Additional consideration for high cost projects. For any project where the normal non-Federal share exceeds 35 percent, and the per capita non-Federal cost (i.e., normal non-Federal share of total construction costs divided by the population in the sponsor’s geographic jurisdiction) exceeds $300, the non-Federal share under the ability to pay provision will be either LERRD’s (i.e., no cash requirement) or 35 percent, whichever is greater. If LERRD’s exceed 50 percent, the non-Federal share remains at 50 percent. Projects which qualify under the benefits and income tests will receive the reduction under the high cost criteria only if the high cost criteria results in a greater reduction in the non-Federal cost share.