January 31, 2021

Lisa McGee, Policy and Planning Director

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation

600 East Main Street, 24th Floor

Richmond, Virginia 23219

RE: Community Flood Preparedness Fund Draft Guidelines

The Virginia Center for Innovative Technology (CIT) respectfully submits these comments in response to The Department of Conservation and Recreation’s (DCR) Public Notice to establish guidelines for implementation of the Community Flood Preparedness Fund (hereby referenced as “the Fund”), released December 7, 2020.

CIT reports to the Virginia Secretary of Commerce & Trade and its mission is to create technology-based economic development strategies to accelerate innovation, imagination, and the next generation of technology and technology companies. Advancing flood sensor technology is a part of this larger statewide economic development strategy.

CIT represents the Commonwealth of Virginia in a partnership with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate to advance innovative flood sensor technology that was developed through a national RFP process. These flood sensor deployments are being led by CIT throughout Virginia, in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM). As a Commonwealth entity representing Virginia in a larger national partnership with DHS, CIT has immense interest in the effects the Community Flood Preparedness Fund can have on current and future flood sensor technology advancements and implementation. We believe the best outcome for the Commonwealth involves synergies between these and similar programs throughout the Commonwealth.

Based on grant administration that CIT does on behalf of the Commonwealth, here are some lessons we have learned that helped smooth our grant administration process:

• Define eligible applicants: In this case, it is strongly recommended that local governments, or a political subdivision thereof, be the primary applicant, serving as the contract prime to receive award funds. Co-applicants are encouraged, as localities can leverage the expertise. Eligible co-applicant recommendations include - but are not limited to - non-profits, academic institutions, utilities (e.g. Appalachian Electric Power for its interests in hydroelectric power production), and for-profit firms that provide necessary technology and materials for the proposed project. If a Planning District Commission (PDC) applies, it should be noted that they are applying on behalf of one or more of the local governments that it represents, because most do not have authority to implement construction projects, or engage in similar project activities.
• One application per local government: To reduce paperwork and staff review time/resource expenditures, there should only be one application per locality, even if that means there are several projects clearly identified within the application. If grant funding alteration is deemed appropriate for the Fund by DCR (e.g. funding remains, but not enough to award for the entire application), project areas within the application can be adapted, rather than rejecting the entire application to ensure project areas still get funded. To fund some of the projects from within an application, it is recommended that each project have its own budget. By providing an application and budget template, DCR could facilitate this process for all parties involved. Any altered project areas that were not awarded can be applied for in the next funding cycle.

It is recommended that co-applicants (e.g. non-profit, academic partner, or private sector technology firm) can apply with more than one unit of local government. This should not limit local governments from submitting applications with multiple co-applicants, based on project needs, nor from including project areas that cross jurisdictional boundaries (i.e. regional projects).

• Identify and clarify scoring criteria and weighting: To minimize applicant confusion and reduce the workload for DCR staff, it is highly recommended to be specific in elaborating on scoring categories, specific criteria within those categories, and percentage of weighting for the scoring categories. An example would be providing a detailed project timeline within a project readiness category. This can aid in strengthening applications while reducing DCR staff time and effort supporting the Fund application process.
• Encourage regional local government collaboration: Since flooding conditions cross jurisdictional boundaries, it is recommended to encourage regional local government collaboration for proposals submitted to the Fund. This can be accomplished through awarding scoring points to applications that leverage regional projects. These projects have the added benefit of lowering transaction costs, which can increase investment impact.
• Encourage cross-sector Commonwealth collaboration: Dollars invested by the Fund should benefit Virginia entities, whenever possible. For instance, precipitation modeling should be encouraged through government partnerships with Virginia Higher Education Institutions. An example would be to encourage a border locality, like Henry County, to collaborate with Virginia Tech for project research, as opposed to Appalachian State University (App State) – even though App State is within closer geographic proximity.
• Align the Fund projects with preexisting Virginia flood management efforts: When awarding projects, the Fund should provide consideration to projects that are part of, or will be included in, larger Commonwealth of Virginia flood management efforts such as the DHS/Commonwealth of Virginia flood sensor partnership led by CIT, in cooperation with VDEM. This can be accomplished by awarding scoring criteria points to application projects that participate in statewide efforts. This can help avoid project siloing and duplication, while uniting localized efforts. As a sister Commonwealth of Virginia entity, CIT volunteers to provide any expertise, make recommendations, encourage local governments to apply, and/or provide any other assistance to support DCR in advancing the Fund to benefit the Commonwealth of Virginia.
• Leverage the Commonwealth Data Trust:  One of the three grant categories is Statewide Data Collection. CIT is working with the Chief Data Officer and local governments to provide flood sensor data for larger statewide data collection efforts. We encourage DCR to consider a similar path for data collection and sharing. This will enhance data ownership, privacy, and security. Additionally, this will help make data sharing between localities and the state and academic institutions for research much easier, while also freeing the Fund to invest dollars in other grant categories. As a sister Commonwealth of Virginia entity, CIT volunteers to do what it can to communicate this approach and benefits with DCR and to encourage applicants to leverage the Commonwealth Data Trust. This will aid local governments and statewide sister entities, like VDEM, in performing public safety duties utilizing vital data to enhance flood preparedness.
• FOIA exemption: Does DCR have Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption status in place for the Fund? If not, it is recommended that DCR go to the Virginia General Assembly to gain the legal authority to become exempt from mandatory disclosure provisions of the Virginia FOIA related to a grant application that would reveal trade secrets, sensitive financial information of a grant applicant that is not a local government, research-related information produced or collected by an applicant, and information that will negatively impact the competitive position of an applicant.
• Align with Federal funding: The Fund application deadlines should be set to align with other funding sources – especially federal grants. Additionally, utilize national criteria, such as Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Risk Index (NRI) - or a similar federal emergency standard - to align with larger Federal grant opportunities that create the greatest return on investment for Commonwealth dollars by leveraging external funding.
• Applicant match: Consider a cap (e.g. 80%) for total project amount paid by the Fund. Project applicants can be rewarded through application scoring points to encourage funding a greater percentage of the project on their own, thereby using the Fund as a supplement, not an exclusive project revenue source. Require ALL applicants to have cash and/or in-kind funding to supplement the rest. In-kind funding assists localities that have difficulty funding such projects monetarily. Examples of in-kind funding can be staff time dedicated to the permitting process, or performing site surveys. Other topics to consider: can other grant sources be used as a match for the Fund? Can the Fund be used for a match for other grant sources?
• Commonwealth of Virginia education and outreach: It is recommended that the Fund require local government outreach and education projects be tied into a larger Commonwealth of Virginia branded effort for consistency, quality control, and brand recognition, with applicant adaptation based on local circumstances. This will likely have a fiscal impact for DCR, other state entities, and/or local governments.
• Support local expertise acquisition: It is noteworthy that localities often experience one or more of the following issues, which leads some to have problems moving from planning to action: resource constraints, personnel limitations, and/or insufficient expertise. Current draft guidelines allow for the Fund to be used for “technical staff training.” This use could be expanded also allow applicants to augment expertise needs by using the Fund to hire personnel and/or supplement technical staff costs, whether contracted, or local government employees. These funds are designed to supplement temporary, project based, staffing costs - not pay for recurring long-term staffing salaries.
• Discourage repeated flood management studies by localities: As an application requirement, please request that applicants list all preexisting flood management studies within X number of years (perhaps the last 5 years), to prevent funding numerous flood preparedness and resilience plans within the same locality – whether individual or in a regional effort. Multiple studies - and/or updates to study data - is a consequence of localities needing expertise support to act on sound plans; funding such studies can be an inefficient use of the Fund.
• Minimum Project Value can be abused: A study may come in under the proposed guideline of $25K for a smaller community. To get funded, that study scope may be expanded, or augmented, to meet the proposed minimum project value requirement - but the project may now be less cost effective. There are two potential solutions: 1) Encourage more regional efforts, or 2) set aside up to a specific percentage of the annual funds specifically for smaller projects. Encouraging regional efforts enhances economy of scale. Whereas, a small project set aside is beneficial to close “doughnut holes” in flood resiliency efforts targeting isolated flood prone areas that may not be cost effective. This is more likely to be seen in areas with rivers further inland, and can be used to benefit local governments further west, away from the Atlantic coast.
• Institute a separate panel of experts to make funding recommendations: It is highly recommended that an independent panel of experts is established to make funding recommendations to DCR. This minimizes issues associated with a conflict of interest. It is unfair to expect the Department of Conservation and Recreation to help make the rules, enforce them, handle potential appeals, and make funding decisions. Things to consider: determine how that group of experts scores each application. For instance, they can 1) meet as a group and make scoring decisions together, 2) have each member judge individually and the median (or mean) score can be used for scoring each application, or 3) do both – score individually, then meet to discuss the scoring as a group. The group method encourages broad and deep discussion that incorporates multiple viewpoints. The individual method removes “peer pressure” generated by one or more panel experts that could influence the scoring process. The combination leverages strengths from both perspectives.
• Challenge process: Is a challenge process needed? If so, what challenge criteria will be required of challengers, what will the challenge rebuttal entail (by the original applicant and DCR), and how long will the challenge process window be open?
• Implementation deadline: How long do applicants have to complete the funded project? While the timeframe may vary by project type, it is recommended to “start the clock” on a specific date by which applicants must begin the project(s), following award announcement. There should also be a process that allows for implementation deadline extensions due to unforeseen circumstances.
• Project outcomes: As part of the application process, it is essential to include a section on the applicant’s projected outcomes. When applicants complete this section, what are their project expectations? When do they expect to see project milestones (short, mid, and long-term)? This provides DCR staff and the review panel the flexibility to ask for more information, with the goal of removing barriers, rather than adding to them.
• Post award evaluation report: It is vital to ensure that Commonwealth dollars invested by the Fund are effectively utilized. Did the Commonwealth get what it paid for through the Fund? It is recommended to build into the final contract that awardees perform award verification follow-up reports annually for a span of years to be determined by DCR. The reporting span could be determined by project type and scope. If anything went wrong, DCR can verify and learn from these reports to minimize the likelihood that a similar project failure happens again for future Fund awards. Additionally, DCR can use success stories for publicity that benefits the awardees, DCR, and the Fund. Clarifying expectations versus results benefits all parties involved.

In closing, thank for you the opportunity to provide public comment to establish guidelines for implementation of the Community Flood Preparedness Fund. The DCR is most fortunate to have such a beneficial program under its purview. Please know that as a sister state entity, CIT wants to see DCR and this Fund succeed. CIT is willing to do what it can to assist you with the process and/or the Fund now and in the future.

Sincerely,

Chuck Kirby, Vice President of Smart Communities

Center for Innovative Technology

2214 Rock Hill Road, Suite 600

Herndon, Virginia 20170