View a PDF of this comment letter here: https://vaflood.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/VFMA_CFPF-Comments_01.31.2020_final.pdf

(continued from comment Part 1)

Grant Award Criteria

This section mentions the use of a sliding scale for the match. Additional information is needed on this sliding scale to provide useful feedback. However, VFMA does support having a sliding scale and flexibility with match requirements. During VFMA’s outreach event with Deputy Secretary Saks, some of our members expressed the desire to allow communities to have a zero-match requirement. In-kind matches should be allowed, either to meet the entire match requirement or a portion of it.

This section of the Draft Guidelines again includes conflicting language related to whether a local resilience plan is required. This language needs to be clarified. This section also uses “local, regional or statewide significance”, but previous sections only refer to regional or statewide significance. VFMA supports allowing projects that are determined to be of local significance, but as mentioned above, criteria need to be established for how something will be considered significant.

Timing

The Draft Guidelines state there will be two grant rounds. VFMA supports having established grant rounds on a regular schedule, so localities can adequately prepare. However, we are concerned that the grant rounds identified will not allow for adequate time for DCR to review applications and make any necessary modifications to the Guidelines or Grant Manual. For example, round one is expected to end one June 1, with awards announced in August. This would give DCR roughly two months to review grant applications and approve awards. Round two is expected to begin on August 1, so if any changes are necessary after round one, there will not be time to incorporate them. Additionally, round two is expected to end on December 1, with awards announced in December, giving DCR less than one month to review grant applications and approve awards.

VFMA recommends establishing procedures for how the Guidelines and Grant Manual will be reviewed and modified. For instance, will there be one modification per year? Will that be based on the calendar year or fiscal year? When will the Grant Manual be released in relation to the application period? The grant round time periods should be revised to reflect this. VFMA recommends releasing the Grant Manual well in advance, at least 6 months, of the application period to give localities enough time to properly prepare applications and budget allocations.

Eligible Entities

The Draft Guidelines state that localities, PDCs (on behalf of localities), Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and Tribal Governments are eligible for grant funding. This conflicts with statute, which states the Fund is available to any “locality”, which is not defined. However, the statute does define “local government” as “any county, city, town, municipal corporation, authority, district, commission, or political subdivision created by the General Assembly or pursuant to the Constitution of Virginia or laws of the Commonwealth.”[7] Assuming that “locality” is synonymous with “local government”, the Draft Guidelines have restricted the eligible entities for the Fund.

Additional information on tribal government eligibility is needed. For instance, does this include federally recognized tribes, state recognized tribes, recognized tribes with land use authority, etc.? Will the application requirements and administration steps be the same for tribal governments as other entities? This needs to be clarified in the Draft Guidelines and forthcoming Grant Manual. We encourage DCR to coordinate with the various state and federal tribal liaisons currently working with the tribal governments in Virginia, as well as conducting outreach with the tribal governments themselves, to ensure this program appropriately addresses their needs.

During outreach events, including VFMA’s event with Deputy Secretary Saks, it was mentioned that the Fund could be used by localities to implement projects and although PDCs are listed as an eligible entity, they would serve more as a pass-through entity to assist the locality with grant management. We believe that PDCs should be an eligible entity, on their own as well as to assist localities, for the Fund. Several activities outlined in the Draft Guidelines under Planning Grants and Study Grants can be conducted on a regional scale, which would be better suited for a PDC to manage on their own. They should not be required to coordinate through one locality as the applicant, nor should one locality have to bear the burden for a regional, multi-jurisdictional project.

During our outreach event, there were questions about whether localities can hire consultants to implement their projects. The use of contractors and sub awards should be addressed in the Draft Guidelines and Grant Manual.

Loans

The Draft Guidelines outline several activities that will be prioritized by the Fund through the grant program. However, the Fund was established as a grant and loan program, and the Draft Guidelines do not address how loans will be managed. Will the same projects that are eligible for grant funds be eligible for loans? How will the loans be managed? Who will be eligible for loans? How will loan forgiveness[8] for low-income geographic areas be managed? This must be addressed in the Draft Guidelines.

Program Administration in General

Throughout the Draft Guidelines, the terms project and activity are used. Project appears to refer to on-the-ground projects that will be implemented, which along with plans and studies would be an activity. This should be clarified in the Draft Guidelines and Grant Manual to avoid confusion.

Many localities do not have the resources necessary to properly prepare a grant application. It would be helpful for DCR to have grant administrator staff dedicated to providing technical assistance to localities to help them through the grant application process.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment on DCR’s Draft Guidelines for the implementation of the Community Flood Preparedness Fund. VFMA strongly supports this new Fund, and we welcome the opportunity to answer any questions or provide additional details on any of the comments provided above.

Sincerely,

Kristin Owen, AICP, CFM

President

Virginia Floodplain Management Association