Dear Mr. Glover,

The staff of the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft 2023 Funding Manual for the Resilient Virginia Revolving Fund (RVRF) and the Draft 2023 Funding Manual for the Community Flood Preparedness Fund (CFPF), which were posted for public comment by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) on July 7, 2023. Our comments reflect review by the HRPDC staff and coordination with our member jurisdictions and other regional stakeholders. We request DCR’s consideration of the following comments and suggestions.

Comments related to both the CFPF and RVRF Draft Funding Manuals:

Definitions

The definition of “locality-certified floodplain manager” (RVRF Draft Manual, p. 6; CFPF Draft Manual, p. 6) remains confusing and in conflict with the practice of local floodplain management. DCR’s interpretation of the state code language to mean a “Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM) according to the Association of State Floodplain Managers…who is in the employ of a local government” increases the burden on localities without providing a rationale for such a certification. Although helpful for many floodplain management tasks, the HRPDC does not consider a CFM designation to be necessary for determining the effectiveness of a proposed project for reducing flood risks. The HRPDC recommends that DCR allow for the locality floodplain administrator, chief administrative officer, public works director, or similar official be allowed to certify projects.

However, if DCR continues to require CFMs to certify projects, the HRPDC recommends removing the statement about contractors from the definition of “locality-certified floodplain manager.” Localities often use contracted professional and other services when the frequency of those tasks does not require a full-time staff person or when staff cannot be hired (for a variety of reasons), even when a locality would wish to hire someone.

The HRPDC appreciates the broad definition of “recurrent and repetitive flooding” (RVRF Draft Manual, p. 7; CFPF Draft Manual, p. 7) and that it goes beyond the definition of repetitive flooding as used by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). However, the statement that “all flooding should be tracked and managed by the community” should be removed, since it is not relevant to the definition, nor is it a requirement of either the CFPF or RVRF as legislated.

The HRPDC recommends that DCR define “disadvantaged communities” as contained in the definition for “underserved communities.” (RVRF Draft Manual, p. 7; CFPF Draft Manual, p. 7)

Indirect Costs

The HRPDC disagrees with DCR’s determination that indirect costs are not an eligible use of funds. Indirect costs are used to cover the inherent costs of running an organization that are not directly related to any one funded project. The HRPDC recommends that DCR allow for indirect costs to be included in the matching funds for any project if they are supported by an approved Indirect Cost Allocation Plan. In addition, the HRPDC recommends that indirect costs associated with any new staff also be allowed. (RVRF Draft Manual, p. 9; CFPF Draft Manual, p. 9)

Project Time Limits

Both draft funding manuals require that projects be completed within three years from the date of the executed agreement. (RVRF Draft Manual, p. 9, p.  13; CFPF Draft Manual, p. 8, p. 12) Although both programs allow for extensions, the HRPDC recommends that DCR increase the default time allowed for project completion to five years and to allow for applicants to request longer time periods as part of the application process.

Both draft funding manuals include a statement that extensions will only be allowed if the approved activity “commenced within the first nine months of the original agreement period.” (RVRF Draft Manual, p. 13; CFPF Draft Manual, p. 13) This requirement does not appear to be based on a common standard. In addition, neither manual includes a provision describing how to determine whether a project has commenced. The HRPDC recommends removing the limitation from both draft funding manuals.

Maintenance and Monitoring Requirements

Both draft funding manuals include a requirement for a “maintenance, management, and monitoring plan” that will demonstrate “how the project will be maintained with funds secured by the grant recipient independent of the Fund over the lifespan of the project.” This plan “must also outline procedures for monitoring the project, replacement at project owner expense should the project fail, and reporting over the life of the project.” (RVRF Drat Manual, p. 10; CFPF Draft Manual, p. 10) Although the HRPDC recognizes the importance of incorporating future maintenance requirements into funding decisions, the HRPDC questions the utility of requiring ongoing reports over the life of a project. In addition, projects may fail for a variety of reasons, many of which are outside the control of locality. The HRPDC recommends removing both requirements from both funding manuals. This recommendation also applies to the requirement on pages 20, 23, and 27 of the CFPF draft funding manual and page 22 of the RVRF draft funding manual.

DCR Review of Applications

The HRPDC requests that DCR identify who will be on the “Review Committee” (RVRF Draft Manual, p. 13; CFPF Draft Manual, p. 12), including whether the Review Committee will include only DCR staff. The HRPDC recommends that DCR consider inviting other departments (such as the Department of Transportation, the Department of Environmental Quality, the Department of Emergency Management, the Department of Housing and Community Development, etc.) to participate on the Review Committee. In addition, the HRPDC recommends that DCR provide final score determinations for all projects to improve transparency and illustrate the Review Committee’s priorities and interpretations of both programs.  

Required Documentation

The HRPDC recommends that DCR reduce the number of documents required in Appendix A in both draft funding manuals to include only those that are directly relevant to effective consideration of the proposals. Specifically, the HRPDC recommends reducing the number of years for required financial statements and removing the requirements to submit the ten largest employers and the ten largest taxpayers in the applicant’s jurisdiction. These requirements do not appear to be relevant and add an extra burden on localities.

Comments related to the CFPF Draft Funding Manual:

Definitions

The CFPF Draft Funding Manual defines a “Community Scale Project” to include a project that benefits “an area encompassing a US Census Block or greater” or providing benefits to “a ‘substantial’ number of the total population within a locality,” defined as “at least 10%.” The HRPDC contends that this definition would create a substantial threshold for qualification and burden both rural localities with lower populations and urban localities with higher populations. The HRPDC recommends that DCR instead use other means to determine community scale benefits, such as whether a project would benefit or protect a community facility or infrastructure or extend across multiple parcels.

The definition of “flood prevention or protection” should be expanded to include pluvial flooding in addition to coastal and riverine flooding.

The definition of “flood prevention and protection study” should be expanded to include flood-prone areas (in addition to “floodplains”) and pluvial flooding (in addition to “coastal and riverine flooding”).

Project Scoring

The HRPDC recommends that DCR incorporate a metric into the scoring of projects that reflects the frequency and severity of flooding that is being addressed, such as high tide flooding or the 1% annual chance flood. (CFPF Draft Funding Manual, Appendix B)

The HRPDC recommends removing the requirement to use FEMA’s Benefit-Cost-Analysis (BCA) tool for projects or establishing a cost threshold under which a BCA would not be required. Use of FEMA’s BCA tool is time consuming, expensive, and burdensome. The amount of work taken to complete a BCA does not align with the relatively low number of points assigned for the resultant BCA score. In addition, BCA tools are known to prioritize monetary value of protected assets over concerns. The HRPDC instead recommends that DCR consider metrics such as the number of buildings or people protected or benefitting from a project to score its impact. (CFPF Draft Funding Manual, Appendix B, p. 3)

Comments related to the RVRF Draft Funding Manual:

General Comments

The HRPDC recommends that DCR consider structuring the RVRF to use a rolling application process, which would allow for localities to better coordinate RVRF applications with applications for federal grant funds. Restricting the RVRF to a single annual application period will undoubtedly result in missed opportunities for many communities who might otherwise wish to use state funding or loans to assist with meeting federal match requirements.

Loans Disbursed at Beginning of Project

The HRPDC recommends that DCR replace Part II, Section A, Section 6 (RVRF Draft Funding Manual, p. 9) from the RVRF Draft Funding Manual with the language used in the same section for the CFPF Draft Funding Manual (CFPF Draft Funding Manual, p. 9), which includes separate disbursement policies for grants and loans.

Funding for Matching Federal Programs

The HRPDC recommends that the Department of Defense’s Defense Community Infrastructure Program (DCIP) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program be added to the list of federal programs for which the RVRF can be used as nonfederal match. (RVRF Draft Funding Manual, p. 16)

Eligible Projects

The HRPDC recommends adding demolition-reconstruction projects to the “examples of eligible projects.” (RVRF Draft Funding Manual, p. 18)

Establishment of Local Programs

The RVRF Draft Funding Manual requires localities to establish “a funding program to provide low-interest loans or grants to any persons of the Commonwealth eligible for projects for resilience purposes” for both the Local Program Capacity-Building Grants and the Capitalization for Local Flood Resilience Programs. (RVRF Draft Funding Manual p. 19 and p. 20) Considering that DCR intends to require localities to have already established these programs before applying and that the specific requirements of such programs are part of the funding manual, HRPDC recommends that DCR consider an application deadline that will provide localities with sufficient time to develop and establish such local programs, given that they will likely require substantial action by locality staff and local governing bodies.

We appreciate DCR’s efforts in developing these programs and appreciate your consideration of these comments and suggestions. We would be happy to discuss these comments further. Please contact either Whitney Katchmark (wkatchmark@hrpdcva.gov) or Benjamin McFarlane (bmcfarlane@hrpdcva.gov) if we can be of any further assistance. 

Sincerely,

Benjamin J. McFarlane

Chief Resilience Officer

Hampton Roads Planning District Commission