What are common pitfalls in grant writing and planning? How can a municipality avoid those pitfalls and make grant applications more competitive?

Enhancing the competitive advantage of a grant application begins in the preparation and planning process. Below are some common pitfalls of the grant planning process and suggested solutions to develop a strong grant application, but municipalities should carefully consider their own needs and approaches to obtaining grants.

Lack of Investment in Opportunity Identification and Tracking

Problem: The lack of investment in opportunity identification and tracking can limit the amount of funding that can be applied for and awarded throughout the year. This can also affect the likelihood of finding a grant suitable for your organization.

Solution: Regularly tracking grant opportunities can increase the potential for funding. Consider allocating internal resources to search for grants across various sources, including agency websites and public interest groups. To help identify grant opportunities and meaningful program outcomes from grant applications, municipalities should examine the awarding agency’s Notice of Funding Opportunity (“NOFO”) or contact the funding agency for project guidance and direction regarding acceptable and anticipated outcomes. It is also important to recognize which funding opportunities fit your organization’s mission and needs to maximize the potential of award.

Lack of Measurable Goals Within an Application

Problem: Setting goals that are immeasurable or unsupported by data can limit the application’s credibility.

Solution: Explain that the plan and goals outlined in the application are achievable, sustainable, and impactful. Use data points and graphics where appropriate to support your organization’s capacity. This will demonstrate a previous record of success and may designate your organization or municipality as lower risk.

Since many grant applications include a scoring rubric or scoring considerations to help applicants develop program outcome measures, municipalities should use the rubric to determine how likely a proposed project or program is to be funded. Self-scoring also allows applicants to reflect and make adjustments to programs, outcomes, or other project-related components.

Further, municipalities may refer to the funders’ websites to access specific award requirements and archives of past awards, applications, and project abstracts. Municipalities can also connect with past award recipients for advice and to better understand program outcome measures and lessons learned.

Lastly, municipalities should carefully review the funders’ compliance and reporting requirements to ensure all of the necessary criteria are met. In addition, municipalities may benefit from conducting research on comparable grant-funded programs and reviewing the applicable outcomes and other data measurement tools related to those programs. 

Using Complicated Grant Writing Language

Problem: Using complex language and industry jargon in the application can detract from the application.

Solution: Present information concisely for a successful application. When writing a grant application, it is helpful to write in the present tense and mirror the funder’s language where possible (i.e., when describing the project or the project’s budget). This can indicate your organization’s alignment with the funder’s priorities.

Lack of Attention to Detail

Problem: Not applying attention to detail in drafting an application can cause an applicant to miss deadlines and neglect critical application requirements.

Solution: Closely read the NOFO to identify key deadlines and requirements, including preferred method of delivery. Proofread all components of the application for grammar and spelling. In addition, confirm that the budget figures provided are correctly reflected wherever they appear in the application. To ensure the application is received on time, applicants should submit a few days before the deadline to allow time to resolve any technical difficulties.

Failing to Reflect on the Process

Problem: Failing to evaluate your organization’s strengths and weaknesses following the grant planning and writing process can result in a lack of future improvement.

Solution: Carefully and honestly evaluate internal capacity to develop and deliver complete, competitive, and timely applications. Throughout the process, if your organization notices that gaps exist in the process, seek assistance in addressing these gaps so that you are better prepared for future application cycles.  

Last Updated: January 31, 2023

How can municipalities identify grant opportunities at the local level?

To identify grant opportunities at the local level, municipalities should consider taking the following steps, among others:

1. Assess and compile a list of community needs.
2. Develop a system to aggregate and process information from multiple sources.
3. Identify the relevant grant opportunities that fit the municipalities’ needs.

Assess and Compile a List of Community Needs

A first step a municipality seeking access to grant programs at the local level should consider is to analyze community needs and compare them to available grant programs. A list of community needs can be compiled by reviewing various sources, including budgets, planning documents, stakeholder engagement activities, and notes from discussions with internal staff. Capital Improvement Plans (“CIP”), Comprehensive Land Use Plans, Hazard Mitigation Plans (“HMGP”) and Transportation Plans often form the core information included on the community needs list.

Municipalities can then compare the list to available funding opportunities. Funding matches can then be prioritized for potential action considering factors such as application requirements (prerequisite studies or plans), program evaluation and scoring criteria (how likely a potential project is to be funded), availability of required nonfederal match, and capacity to complete the application (to be determined by evaluating internal and external resources).

Develop a System to Aggregate and Process Information from Multiple Sources

Finding grant opportunities to match identified needs may begin with developing a system to aggregate and process information from multiple sources. This is important as information relevant to certain grant opportunities can be in multiple places. As an example, there is no single source that provides all necessary information on the hundreds of programs contained within the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (“IIJA”).

Identify Relevant Grant Opportunities that Match the Municipalities’ Needs

There are numerous funding streams available to municipalities looking to identify grant opportunities at the local level, each with its own requirements, prerequisites, deadlines, and award processes. Below are several sources of information municipalities can use to guide their search.

The White House build.gov website provides useful survey-level information in the form of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Guidebook and an accompanying workbook provide general program overviews but do not address specific application requirements or deadlines.[1]  Detailed information for programs can be found on the Grants.gov portal or through the Grants.gov mobile app. More extensive information on grant programs is generally only uploaded once a Notice of Funding Opportunity (“NOFO”) has been released. Individual agency websites are usually the most timely and comprehensive sources of information on IIJA programs, including NOFOs, Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQs”), fact sheets, and webinars.

Professional and advocacy organizations can provide municipalities and general audiences with information about funding opportunities. For example, one resource, the Local Infrastructure Hub, is a partnership between the United States Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, Results for America, and Bloomberg Philanthropies, which may assist municipalities in their research on infrastructure funding opportunities.[2] 

Single agency websites can make finding information about other types of funding streams more straightforward. For example, if a municipality is interested in a Hazard Mitigation Grant, searching the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (“FEMA”) Hazard Mitigation Grant Assistance page for FEMA HMA Grants would provide the best possible information on the grant opportunity.[3] Similarly, if a municipality is interested in Transportation grants, monitoring the U.S. Department of Transportation Funding Opportunities website[4] or the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Grant Programs website[5] would provide additional information on potential grant opportunities.

Last Updated: February 27, 2023

Do employees hired as part of a specific CSLFRF program, such as staff for a mental health diversion center fully funded with CSLFRF, count against the “cap” for restoring or enhancing public sector staffing?

The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s (“Treasury”) Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (“CSLFRF”) Final Rule sets forth four distinct categories of eligible uses of program funding:

• Responding to public health and negative economic impacts;
• Providing premium pay to essential workers;
• Providing governmental services to the extent of revenue loss due to the pandemic; and
• Making necessary investments in water, sewer, and broadband.[1]

Moreover, the Final Rule affords recipients broad discretion to design programs that are responsive to specific public health and negative economic impacts of the pandemic.[2] These programs may be structured in various ways, provided they comply with program specific regulations and any applicable requirements outlined in the Uniform Guidance (2 CFR Part 200, et seq.).[3] 

In responding to negative economic impacts related to the pandemic, the Final Rule allows recipients “to restore and bolster public sector capacity.”[4] When defining eligible uses that bolster public sector capacity, the Final Rule includes both the payroll and covered benefits for public safety, public health, health care, human services, and similar employees for the portion of their time responding to COVID-19 and the payroll and covered benefits to restore and support public sector employment, which may include hiring back employees for pre-pandemic positions or hiring up to a pre-pandemic baseline adjusted for historic underinvestment.[5]

In the case of a mental health diversion center, the Final Rule’s definition of public health staff includes employees providing “mental health services to patients and supervisory personnel, including medical staff assigned to schools, prisons, and other such institutions.”[6] Municipalities should assess the portion of the staff’s time dedicated to responding “to the public health or negative economic impacts of the pandemic, apart from the typical pre-pandemic job duties.”[7]

Whether or not the staff hired as part of a specific CSLFRF program count towards the “cap” for restoring public sector employment may depend on which option the municipality selects. Under the first option, a municipality may hire employees for the same positions that existed on January 27, 2020, but that were unfilled or eliminated as a of March 3, 2021.[8] The Final Rule does not explicitly allow recipients to exclude staff dedicated to responding to COVID-19 public health emergency under this option.

Under the second option, a municipality may pay for the payroll and covered benefits associated with increasing its full-time equivalent employees to 7.5% above its budgeted FTE level on January 27, 2020.[9] When calculating its “actual number of FTEs,” a municipality may exclude FTEs dedicated to responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency.[10] The Final Rule provides the following illustrative example:

A hypothetical recipient with 1000 budgeted FTEs on January 27, 2020 (950 filled FTE positions and 50 unfilled FTE positions). The recipient’s pre-pandemic baseline is 1000 FTEs; its adjusted pre-pandemic baseline is 1000 * 1.075 = 1075 FTEs. Now, assume that on March 3, 2021, the recipient had 800 budgeted FTEs in total (795 filled FTE positions and 5 unfilled FTE positions), with 50 FTEs primarily dedicated to responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency. The recipient would have the option of using either 800 FTEs or 750 FTEs as its actual number of FTEs for the calculation; assuming it chooses the lower number, it would be able to fund up to 325 FTEs with [C]SLFRF funds (that is, 1075 – 750 = 325 FTEs). Specifically, the recipient would be able to use [C]SLFRF to fund payroll and covered benefits for up to 325 FTEs that begin their employment on or after March 3, 2021, for costs obligated by December 31, 2024, and expended by December 31, 2026, consistent with the Uniform Guidance’s Cost Principles, as long as [C]SLFRF funds are used for additional FTEs hired over the recipient’s 750 FTE level (which is its March 3, 2021 budgeted FTE level).[11]

In conclusion, if a municipality chooses the second option to restore pre-pandemic employment, then staff hired after March 3, 2021, that are primarily dedicated to COVID-19 response, may be excluded from the calculation when determining the number of full-time equivalent employees that can be funded with CSFRF. Municipalities should carefully consider the underlying regulations. 

Last Updated: February 28, 2023

What are some of the administrative burdens related to designing and implementing premium pay? Are there any strategies to reduce these burdens?

Premium pay, as defined by the American Rescue Plan (“ARP”) Final Rule, is designed to compensate workers who, by virtue of their employment, were forced to take on additional burdens and make great personal sacrifice as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.[1] When designing and implementing premium pay, there are several steps municipalities must take.

1. The municipality must consider the Final Rule’s definition of an eligible worker.[2]
2. The municipality must determine whether the eligible worker performs work that is essential to the COVID-19 pandemic, as defined by the Final Rule.[3]
3. The municipality must confirm the premium pay is a response to the pandemic.[4]
4. The premium pay must be limited to $13 per hour and $25,000 per employee over the period of performance.[5]

To ease the administrative burdens related to design and implementation of premium pay, municipalities may consider a few simple guidelines:

• As a threshold matter, any work performed by an employee of a state, local, or tribal government is considered performed by an eligible worker, which include workers “needed to maintain continuity of operations of essential critical infrastructure sectors.”.[6]  A non-exhaustive list of these sectors and occupations can be found in the Overview of the Final Rule.[7] Premium pay may not be paid to volunteers.[8]
• The municipality must ensure that all eligible workers receiving premium pay are performing “essential work.”[9] This does not include work performed while teleworking from a residence. Essential work includes either: regular, in-person interactions with patients, the public, or coworkers of the individual who is performing the work, or regular physical handling of items that were handled by, or are to be handled by, patients, the public, or coworkers of the individual who is performing the work.[10]
• Premium pay must be a response to the COVID-19 pandemic.[11]
• Income and premium pay must not exceed the following caps:
  • Premium pay cannot exceed $13 per hour or a total of $25,000 over the entire period of performance.[12] Municipalities have discretion over how premium pay is delivered as long as it does not exceed the hourly limit or the total maximum allowable pay of $25,000 during the performance period.[13]
  • A written justification of the need for premium pay must be submitted to Treasury if the worker’s pay (with or without premium pay) exceeds 150% of the median income of the residing state or county’s average annual wage for all occupations and the eligible work is exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) overtime provisions.[14]
• Eligible workers who are exempt under the FSLA do not need to meet the income test and will automatically be eligible for premium pay without a written justification.[15]

Premium pay must be paid in addition to wages already received and cannot be a reimbursement of premium pay or hazard pay already received by the worker.[16]

Additionally, premium pay is subject to all applicable taxes and withholding per the IRS and must be included in a worker’s gross income for tax purposes.[17]

Last Updated: February 15, 2023

Under PROTECT and the Coastal Zone Management programs, are both tsunami and hurricane flooding/evacuation eligible?

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (“IIJA”) defines the term “emergency event” as a natural disaster or catastrophic failure resulting in either an emergency declared by the Governor of the state or by the President of the United States.[1] As such, a tsunami or hurricane with the potential to cause harm to life, property, public health, and safety are likely considered eligible events for funding under the Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-Saving Transportation (“PROTECT”) program, though municipalities should carefully analyze the underlying regulations.[2]

The term “evacuation route” refers to a transportation route or system that is owned, operated, or maintained by a federal, state, tribal, or local government and which is either used to transport the public away from emergency events or to transport emergency responders and recovery resources. An evacuation route must also serve the designated purposes of reducing the magnitude and duration of impacts from current and future weather events and natural disasters or having the absorptive capacity, adaptive capacity, and recoverability to decrease vulnerability to current and future weather events or natural disasters.[3] 

Under the PROTECT program, the type of emergency event is not limited; therefore, both tsunami and hurricane evacuation routes are likely eligible. In addition, several evacuation activities are explicitly identified as being eligible for funding. These include:

• improvements to the efficiency of evacuations and disaster relief;[4]
• evacuation planning and preparation;[5]
• improving the ability of the evacuation route to provide safe passage during an evacuation;[6]
• reducing the risk of damage to evacuation routes as a result of future emergency events, including:
  • restoring or replacing existing evacuation routes that are in poor condition;
  • restoring or replacing existing evacuation routes that are not designed to meet the anticipated demand during an emergency event;
  • taking steps to protect routes from mud, rock, or other debris slides; and,
  • expanding the capacity of evacuation routes to swiftly and safely accommodate evacuations in the event that existing evacuation routes are not equipped to adequately facilitate evacuations.[7]

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) Coastal Zone Management program, however, is limited to ecosystem conservation pursuant to section 12502 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.[8] Evacuation routes are not an eligible project type of the NOAA Coastal Zone Management program. This grant program focuses on:

• Protecting natural resources;
• Managing development in high hazard areas;
• Giving development priority to coastal-dependent uses;
• Providing public access for recreation;
• Prioritizing water-dependent uses; and,
• Coordinating state and federal actions.[9]

Last Updated: July 13, 2023

Can a municipality award SLFRF funds to a nonprofit to support the municipality’s elections administration expenses such as staffing costs, technology expenses, public awareness campaigns, etc.?

A municipality can likely award Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (“SLFRF”)  to a nonprofit to support the municipality’s election administration. The American Rescue Plan Act (“ARP”) established Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (“SLFRF”) to broadly support local communities, which likely extends to support local election administration.

First, municipalities may likely use SLFRF for election administration costs under two of the four “eligible use” categories: (1) Revenue Replacement and (2) Public Health and Negative Economic Impacts, as set forth in more detail below.

Second, municipalities can likely use SLFRF to fund nonprofits who assist in election administration. Under section 602(c)(3) of the Social Security Act, nonprofits and private organizations are allowed to be subrecipients of these funds to carry out “an eligible activity on behalf of the SLFRF recipient (transferor), as long as they comply with the SLFRF Award Terms and Conditions and other applicable requirements.”[1]  Municipalities should carefully consider the underlying regulations and related guidance. 

Revenue Replacement Eligible Use Category

The Revenue Replacement eligible use category allows municipalities to fund government services up to the amount of revenue loss due to the pandemic. Government services include “any services traditionally provided by a government.”[2] While not explicitly stated in the Final Rule, if the services are traditionally provided by the municipality, elections administration costs may be considered an eligible use of revenue replacement funding. Under this category, recipients “may use funds up to the amount of revenue loss for government services.”[3] Revenue loss is calculated as either a part of the standard allowance of up to $10 million, or through a full revenue loss calculation.[4] Revenue replacement is the most flexible eligible use category.

Public Health and Negative Economic Impacts Eligible Use Category

The Public Health and Negative Economic Impacts eligible use category is specifically intended to increase public sector capacity.[5] There are three main public sector categories under the Public Health and Economic Impacts eligible use category:

• Public Safety, Public Health, and Human Services Staff;
• Government Employment and Rehiring Public Sector Staff; and
• Effective Service Delivery.[6]

Election administration would likely be eligible under the Effective Service Delivery subcategory. However, because election administration is not an enumerated use under any of these categories, municipalities should consult the “Framework for Eligible Uses Beyond Those Enumerated”[7] to determine whether the specific project could be funded under the Other Economic Support expenditure category.[8]

Using this framework, recipients should identify the COVID-19 public health or economic impact and design a response that addresses or responds to the identified impact.[9] It is a good practice for recipients to maintain detailed documentation supporting any eligibility assessments undertaken for non-enumerated uses.

Use of Nonprofits to Assist in Election Administration

A nonprofit is likely eligible to receive SLFRF as a subrecipient to assist in election administration. Nonprofits acting as subrecipients must carry out “an eligible activity” on behalf of the municipality (SLFRF recipient) and must “comply with the SLFRF Award Terms and Conditions and other applicable requirements.”[10]

Last Updated: February 23, 2023

How can municipalities balance the need to build community capacity with the need to move quickly on grant deadlines?

Grants typically have deadlines to hold municipalities accountable for utilizing the funds awarded to them. For expansive projects, such as those designed to mitigate long-term issues like capital infrastructure resiliency, tight deadlines can have consequences for implementing municipal projects. Below are suggested good practices that can help municipalities balance building community capacity while moving quickly on grant deadlines.

A tight period of performance may intimidate municipalities to not use funds at all rather than tackle the nuances of using the funds appropriately. Municipalities should seek to develop a sound plan to use those funds responsibly, and municipalities should consider proactively identifying needs before grants are made available.

The following good practices are focus areas that can improve a project's implementation timeline when faced with a tight performance period.

Proactively assess needs and try to get a head start

Projects designed to build community capacity require time and effort to determine areas of insufficient capacity and develop a plan to appropriately address these areas of opportunity. Under a tight performance period, municipalities should immediately focus on starting these awareness-building tasks while simultaneously beginning next steps.

Increase capacity to get the job done

For projects with a tight period of performance, resources are essential. In addition to the funds allotted in a grant award, a municipality will need personnel and capital. While a grant may allow for the acquisition of such assets, the materialization of these assets takes additional time.

For tight timelines, municipalities must equip themselves with the resources to fully implement the project as soon as possible, preferably in its early stages. This will allow municipalities to limit delays in the project's implementation phase.

Make an informed decision to outsource administration responsibilities

Where possible, municipalities can consider outsourcing as much as possible to free up time and resources. This allows the project designers to focus on other important areas, such as expanding the project to use more grant funds or addressing challenges that arise from administering the project.

For municipalities pursuing this strategy, making an informed decision on who is contracted to carry out these responsibilities is critical. Quickly contracting with an organization with poor performance outcomes can cost more time and money in the long run. Again, municipalities must make these decisions in the early stages of the project. 

Focus on efficiency and resiliency

If the goal of the grant award is to promote community resiliency, municipalities should make this the focus of their efforts rather focusing on spending the full grant award. Though a project may use fewer funds this way, it satisfies the objective more than a larger project. For example, a large project poorly managed could have less resiliency than a smaller project with more intentional scope and focus.

Municipalities must assess their capacity after factoring in the above recommendations, such as outsourcing administrative responsibilities and increasing staff and resources available for the project.

Conclusion

Municipalities should maximize grant awards to provide the most benefit to their constituents. When faced with a short period of performance or tight grant deadlines, municipalities must create a project that reflects their own capacity, even as they try to expand that capacity and build resiliency within the community. This may not always match the funding level allocated toward such projects, but instead focuses on the impact of spent dollars.

Taking the appropriate time to plan, increasing the capacity to complete the project, outsourcing responsibilities where appropriate, and focusing on efficiency and resiliency are strategies to maximize the time available to complete a project. Municipalities should focus above all else on their primary goal— building community capacity.

Last Updated: February 15, 2023

What are common pitfalls in grant writing and planning? How can a municipality avoid those pitfalls and make grant applications more competitive?

Enhancing the competitive advantage of a grant application begins in the preparation and planning process. Below are common pitfalls of the grant planning process and suggested solutions to develop a strong grant application.

Lack of Investment in Opportunity Identification and Tracking
Problem: The lack of investment in opportunity identification and tracking can limit the amount of funding that can be applied for and awarded throughout the year. This can also affect the likelihood of finding a grant suitable for your organization.

Solution: Regularly tracking grant opportunities increases the potential for funding. Consider allocating internal resources to search for grants across various sources, including agency websites and public interest groups. To help identify grant opportunities and meaningful program outcomes from grant applications, municipalities should examine the awarding agency’s Notice of Funding Opportunity (“NOFO”) or contact the funding agency for project guidance and direction regarding acceptable and anticipated outcomes. It is also important to recognize which funding opportunities fit your organization’s mission and needs to maximize the potential of award.

Lack of Measurable Goals Within an Application

Problem: Setting goals that are immeasurable or unsupported by data can limit the application’s credibility.

Solution: Explain that the plan and goals outlined in the application are achievable, sustainable, and impactful. Use data points and graphics where appropriate to support your organization’s capacity. This will demonstrate a previous record of success and may designate your organization or municipality as lower risk.

Since many grant applications include a scoring rubric or scoring considerations to help applicants develop program outcome measures, municipalities should use the rubric to determine how likely a proposed project or program is to be funded. Self-scoring also allows applicants to reflect and make adjustments to programs, outcomes, or other project-related components.

Further, municipalities may refer to the funders’ websites to access specific award requirements and archives of past awards, applications, and project abstracts. Municipalities can also connect with past award recipients for advice and to better understand program outcome measures and lessons learned.

Lastly, municipalities should carefully review the funders’ compliance and reporting requirements to ensure all of the necessary criteria are met. In addition, municipalities may benefit from conducting research on comparable grant-funded programs and reviewing the applicable outcomes and other data measurement tools related to those programs. 

Using Complicated Grant Writing Language

Problem: Using complex language and industry jargon in the application can detract from the application.

Solution: Present information concisely for a successful application. When writing a grant application, it is helpful to write in the present tense and mirror the funder’s language where possible (i.e., when describing the project or the project’s budget). This can indicate your organization’s alignment with the funder’s priorities.

Lack of Attention to Detail

Problem: Not applying attention to detail in drafting an application can cause an applicant to miss deadlines and neglect critical application requirements.

Solution: Closely read the NOFO to identify key deadlines and requirements, including preferred method of delivery. Proofread all components of the application for grammar and spelling. In addition, confirm that the budget figures provided are correctly reflected wherever they appear in the application. To ensure the application is received on time, applicants should submit a few days before the deadline to allow time to resolve any technical difficulties.

Failing to Reflect on the Process

Problem: Failing to evaluate your organization’s strengths and weaknesses following the grant planning and writing process can result in a lack of future improvement.

Solution: Carefully and honestly evaluate internal capacity to develop and deliver complete, competitive, and timely applications. Throughout the process, if your organization notices that gaps exist in the process, seek assistance in addressing these gaps so that you are better prepared for future application cycles.  

Last Updated: January 31, 2023

Is it permissible to report expenditures incurred by a sub-recipient prior to the award date? If so, how should "term-start date" be defined?

At present and subject to future modifications, it is not permissible to report expenditures incurred by a subrecipient prior to the award date. The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s (“Treasury”) Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (“CSLFRF”) reporting portal does not presently allow recipients to enter subrecipient expenditures incurred prior to the Subaward Award Date. The “Expenditure Start Date,” as utilized in the CSLFRF reporting portal, must occur after the Subaward Award Date, or the system will reject the entry. Treasury defines the Expenditure Start Date as the “start date for the range of time when the expenditure(s) occurred.”[1] Additionally, Treasury defines the Subaward Award Date as the “date the Recipient obligated funds to a Subrecipient.”[2] These dates may not necessarily be the same date.

Last Updated: February 15, 2023

What are strategies for ensuring grant-funded initiatives are inclusive and aligned with community needs?

A municipality should ensure that grant-funded programs and activities are compliant with grant requirements, including but not limited to civil rights laws, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) regulations, and Fair Housing regulations. If a municipality monitors and conducts legislative analysis, it should incorporate any updates into its strategy for ensuring compliance, inclusivity, and equity relative to specific grant programming.  

An equity framework and public involvement plan should be considered from the outset through completion of municipal programs and projects. To consider equity considerations, it is important to have an open and transparent planning process that includes routine engagement with elected officials, stakeholders, and the public.

A key ongoing component is a public involvement plan (“Plan”) to address how it will engage with the community and engage diverse populations so there is equal access to program services.  The Plan should outline strategies to reach underserved populations with messaging regarding grant funded services to the broadest possible audience, including in locations where underserved populations live and socialize. Municipalities should hold public meetings and civic gatherings—and provide information and make targeted outreach to underserved populations—before and throughout the duration of the grant programming.

The Plan should consider how to provide meaningful access to limited English proficient (“LEP”) individuals. Municipalities should provide agency training to ensure staff comprehension of regulatory compliance requirements and inclusive approaches under any given grant program.

In developing the plan, a municipality should utilize in-house Geographic Information Services (“GIS”) to update demographic data and identify and meet program objectives for populations that are underserved or marginalized. If the municipality does not have a GIS resource, the municipality may use the analysis tools from the US Census Bureau’s website, including maps of underserved areas and identified Qualified Census Tracts (“QCTs”).[1]

Metropolitan Planning Organizations and regional or state municipalities may also have other demographic information resources.

Municipalities may also consider engaging with community-based organizations (“CBOs”), non-profits, and the public to help build an understanding of the community’s needs and to help facilitate impact. Such organizations may increase municipal awareness of local and national political, social, and economic events which impact community health and viability, such as employment rates, job availability, education and workforce training, food deserts, and public transportation, among other issues. It may also help foster ongoing and long-term collaboration between these stakeholders and the municipality.

Finally, municipalities should aim to garner trust within the community. An example of this can be to highlight community updates and advertise local opportunities for engagement and community input. This may be done on the municipality website but can also be shared through CBOs and media outlets. Fostering an inclusive environment for community members to voice concerns regarding inequities will help solidify trust and facilitate critical feedback. It will also become an invaluable resource for determining program needs more generally.

Last Updated: February 15, 2023 

What are good practices for engaging community stakeholders when planning to use Capital Projects funding?

Municipalities can deploy many strategies to incorporate community stakeholders in project planning for projects funded by the Coronavirus Capital Projects Fund (“Capital Projects”), including but not limited to:

• Hosting community engagement forums,
• Conducting needs and risks assessments,
• Analyzing empirical data, and
• Intensifying municipality responsiveness.

Municipalities can engage community stakeholders when planning how to use Capital Projects funds. Helpfully, costs associated with community engagement are considered ancillary costs to investments in capital assets and can likely be claimed as such, as per the Treasury.[1] Community stakeholders include but are not limited to, community leaders, nonprofit organizations, community residents, teachers, and other individuals and organizations invested in a community's economic and social development.

Community Engagement Forums

Municipalities can create public forums to channel a community's opinions on its infrastructure needs. Public forums should be accessible to all community members by having multiple engagement avenues, such as online and in-person forums.

For example, elderly community members or community members without broadband access may find it difficult to engage in an online forum. An in-person forum may better suit these residents' needs, allowing them to express concerns or present opportunities to community leaders. Conversely, working parents may not have time to attend an in-person forum and may find it easier to meet with their community leaders remotely.

Needs and Risk Assessments

Conducting an official needs and/or risk assessment in a community is another way to engage community stakeholders in Capital Projects planning. This strategy seeks to understand the needs, opinions, and concerns of community stakeholders and members who may not otherwise volunteer this information and allows for a focus on specific communities that may be under- represented. Municipalities should focus on the most under-resourced and at-risk populations in their communities for both needs and risk assessments.

Empirical Data

Where public forums and needs assessments can offer anecdotal evidence of a community’s needs, analyzing empirical data can offer generalized statistics on a community’s living conditions. This approach allows an empirical foundation for Capital Projects planning, potentially identifying opportunities municipalities can miss utilizing other strategies.

Looking at neighborhood-level or Census tract data, municipalities can find “hyperlocal” areas for Capital Projects funding opportunities. For example, Raj Chetty's Opportunity Atlas allows municipalities to trace the roots of today's affluence and poverty back to the neighborhoods where people grew up, see where and for whom opportunity is missing, and develop local solutions to help more children rise out of poverty.[2]

Intensifying Responsiveness

Municipalities should seek to respond to the concerns and recommendations of community stakeholders. When using an online forum for example, municipalities should respond to posts from community stakeholders. Failure to respond to or address concerns may result in community stakeholders becoming disengaged.

Any strategy by which a municipality chooses to engage with its community stakeholders should seek to keep the conversation flowing from community leaders to stakeholders. In addition to responding to posts on online forums, community leaders could personally follow up with community stakeholders after an in-person forum. These approaches will help to maintain community stakeholders' engagement in the planning and implementation of Capital Projects.

Conclusion

Seeking the opinions of all community stakeholders can help a municipality maximize its use of Capital Projects funding by addressing the most severe needs in a community using a combination of the above- strategies. For example, a municipality can use the Opportunity Atlas to discover the best location for an in-person public forum. Likewise, a needs assessment can uncover what a community thinks of its leadership's accessibility when the community desires to express its concerns, as well as leadership’s responsiveness to such concerns. It is also important to remember that the Project and Expenditure Reports submitted quarterly to Treasury should include data regarding community engagement efforts.[3]

Last Updated: February 14, 2023

Under PROTECT, are flooding risks from rivers and Great Lakes considered “coastal”?

Under the Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-Saving Transportation (“PROTECT”) Program established by the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act (“IIJA”), flooding risks from the Great Lakes are generally considered “coastal,” but flooding risks from rivers are not.  Municipalities should carefully consider the underlying statutes.   

The Great Lakes Coastal Barrier Study Act of 1987 amended the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 to include the coastal barriers of the Great Lakes in its definition of “coastal”.[1] Therefore, under the PROTECT Program, projects located in areas subject to flooding from the Great Lakes themselves would typically qualify for benefits made available under the “coastal” definition.[2]

Certain eligible projects include:

• Improving surface transportation assets like a tide gate to protect highways;
• Improving assets that protect and enhance ecosystem conditions that ensure adequate flows in rivers and estuarine systems (upsized culverts);
• Constructing or modifying storm surge, flood protection, or aquatic ecosystem restoration elements that are connected to a transportation improvement; and
• Protecting a public transportation or port facility.[3]

On the other hand, PROTECT generally does not consider rivers “coastal.”[4] PROTECT allows for certain funding for Special Flood Hazard Areas (as defined by 44 CFR § 206.251 (e)), which are areas at risk due to “riverine flooding.”[5] Under 44 CFR § 59.1, riverine flooding means “relating to, formed by, or resembling a river (including tributaries), stream, brook, etc.”[6] Thus, certain projects targeting Special Flood Hazard Areas may be eligible for funding under PROTECT, depending on the project type. Certain eligible projects include:

• Elevating a roadway to increase marsh health and the total area adjacent to a highway right-of-way to promote additional flood storage;
• Upgrading and installing culverts designed to withstand 100-year flood events;
• Upgrading and installing tide gates to protect highways;
• Upgrading and installing flood gates to protect tunnel entrances;
• Improving the functionality and resiliency of stormwater controls, including inventory inspections, and improving best management practices to protect surface transportation infrastructure.[7]

Last Updated: February 14, 2023