COVID-19 Federal Assistance e311
Program
COVID-19 Federal Assistance e311Topics
Compliance & ReportingFunding Source
American Rescue Plan ActAre subrecipients of ARP funds required to submit an official attestation form prior to award?
There is no official attestation form that subrecipients are required to complete before receiving an award of funds under the American Rescue Plan (“ARP”). However, to receive a subaward, subrecipients are required to obtain a unique entity identifier by registering with the System for Award Management (“SAM.gov”).[1] As part of the registration process, subrecipients are obligated to disclose details about their organization. Additionally, municipalities can require subrecipients to provide pre-award information to aid in the determination of a subrecipient’s ability to successfully carry out the subaward.
SAM.gov Registration
The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s (“Treasury”) Compliance and Reporting Guidance makes clear that it is the responsibility of the recipient of ARP funds to ensure that subrecipients are compliant with registering and maintaining an updated profile on SAM.gov.[2] As part of the registration process, subrecipients are required to disclose information about their organization, including but not limited to the following:
- Legal business name, address, date of incorporation, state of incorporation, taxpayer identification number, IRS consent form (taxpayer name and address), organizational factors (e.g., S corporation, LLC, etc.), entity structure (e.g., corporate entity, tax exempt, sole proprietorship, etc.), website, bank account information (account type, routing number, account number), size of the organization, name and title of person(s) responsible for determining prices offered in bids and proposals, and other company information.
- Additionally, as part of the SAM.gov registration, organizations must answer numerous questions about the following, if applicable:
- criminal and civil cases resulting in judgments against the organization and principals;
- delinquent federal taxes;
- details about current federal contracts;
- recent terminations for cause;
- small disadvantaged business status; and,
- compliance with the submission of Equal Employment Opportunity compliance reports.[3]
To view a complete list of the information that organizations are required to provide as part of their SAM.gov registration and all of the questions that organizations are required to answer, review the SAM.gov Entity Registration Checklist.[4] Not all registration information is publicly available. To view publicly available information, organizations must first create a SAM.gov account and then enter the subject of their query into the search tool.
Subrecipient Risk Assessments
The Uniform Guidance requires recipients to evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring.[5] The Uniform Guidance does not require any particular type or extent of risk assessment, which is left to the judgement of the pass-through entity. However, municipalities can use the required evaluation process as an opportunity to create a pre-award template that will solicit information about an organization’s operations and financial status helpful in assessing the risk of each subrecipient failing to comply with federal requirements. As an example, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Office of Justice Programs (“OJP”) created a questionnaire that can be used as a guide to obtain critical information from subrecipients in order to complete a pre-award risk assessment.[6] Specifically, the OJP prepared pre-award questions that seek to elicit information about accounting practices, written policies and procedures, internal controls, record retention policy, grant management expertise, and other organizational information.
Although there is no official attestation form that subrecipients must complete to receive ARP funds, recipients are not prohibited from creating their own risk assessment process that includes an attestation. Creating such a process could assist a municipality in its required pre-award risk assessment.
Last Updated: July 7, 2022
[1] 2 CFR Section 25.300, “Requirement for recipients to ensure subrecipients have a unique entity identifier,” available at: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/subtitle-A/chapter-I/part-25.
[2] Department of Treasury, Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Guidance on Recipient Compliance and Reporting Responsibilities (as of June 17,2022), Version 4.1, at 22, available at: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRF-Compliance-and-Reporting-Guidance.pdf.
[3] SAM.gov, “Entity Registration Checklist,” available at: https://sam.gov/content/entity-registration.
[4] Id.
[5] 2 CFR Section 200.332 (b), “Requirements for pass-through entities,” available at: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/subtitle-A/chapter-II/part-200/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR031321e29ac5bbd/section-200.332.
[6] Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, “Pre-Award Risk Assessment,” available at: https://www.justice.gov/tribal/page/file/1113521/download.
Program
COVID-19 Federal Assistance e311Topics
Fund Planning & AllocationFunding Source
American Rescue Plan ActHow can municipalities access planning grants and technical assistance?
There are a variety of federal, state, and local funding programs offering funding for planning activities, project scoping activities, and technical assistance for municipalities.
FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grants
- Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (“BRIC”)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) manages the BRIC program. The BRIC program is administered by state governments. BRIC provides non-financial Direct Technical Assistance (“DTA”) and funding for Capability- and Capacity-Building (“C&CB”) activities, including for project scoping, mitigation planning, and planning-related activities, among others.
BRIC funding for C&CB activities is available as an allocation to each state and territory. In fiscal year (“FY”) 2021, the maximum allocation for a state or territory for these activities was $1,000,000.[1] The Notice of Funding Opportunity (“NOFO”) for FY2022 is expected to be released in August 2022 and may include an increase in funding for these activities. States set priorities and maintain discretion over the types of projects they submit to FEMA under this allocation. If a municipality wishes to submit a project for funding under the C&CB category, they are encouraged to contact their State Hazard Mitigation Officer (“SHMO”) to discuss if and how their project fits into the state’s strategy for use of these limited funds.
The BRIC Direct Technical Assistance opportunity is very limited. FEMA will provide non-financial Direct Technical Assistance for up to 20 selected communities across the country.[2] The goal of this technical assistance is to help improve the community’s resilience, identify viable mitigation projects, prepare mitigation applications, or implement projects. FEMA may prioritize Direct Technical Assistance for communities that:
- Did not receive a project subaward under BRIC, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (“PDM”) program, Flood Mitigation Assistance (“FMA”), or the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (“HMGP”) within the past 5 years;
- Did not receive an Advance Assistance or C&CB subaward under BRIC, PDM, FMA, or HMGP within the past 5 years;[3]
- Are tribal entities;
- Are designated as economically disadvantaged rural communities (documentation to support this designation must be included with the letter of interest) or a disadvantaged community as defined by Executive Order 14008, Tacking the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, including tribal nations; or
- Demonstrate a compelling need (e.g., communities with significant disadvantaged populations, communities with multiple major disaster declarations within the past 5 years, etc.).[4]
If a municipality is interested in Direct Technical Assistance, they should contact their SHMO as soon as possible. Unlike C&CB and project activities, a sub-application is not required for Direct Technical Assistance, but an interested community must submit a letter of interest to their SHMO.
The application period for FY2022 is expected to open in late September 2022.[5]
For more information, municipalities may reference the BRIC NOFO for FY2021.[6]
- Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (“HMGP”)
The HMPG is also managed by FEMA and administered by state governments. HMGP funding becomes available to states and territories when authorized under a Presidential major disaster declaration. States prioritize certain goals and funding timelines for HMGP funding. Municipalities can submit sub-applications for mitigation planning, planning-related activities, and project scoping activities under HMGP.[7] As with BRIC, states have discretion over if and how this funding category is used. Municipalities interested in funding for project scoping or planning activities should contact their SHMO to understand if this opportunity is available and if there are any project ideas that align with state prioritization and funding goals. As part of mitigation planning activities, HMGP may be used to fund the creation of a hazard mitigation plan, which is required to receive funding for any hazard mitigation project through BRIC, HMGP, and FMA.[8]
- Flood Mitigation Assistance (“FMA”)
As is the case with the BRIC and HMGP programs, FMA is a FEMA-managed, state-administered program. This program specifically aims to reduce or eliminate repetitive flood damage to National Flood Insurance Program (“NFIP”) properties and communities. The planning dollars available through FMA are limited to $100,000 per state or territory and $25,000 for local flood mitigation plans. These funds can only be used for the creation of or updates to flood mitigation plans or flood-related sections of local mitigation plans.
Other Planning and Technical Assistance Grants
The following grants are available through the Department of Commerce (“DOC”) and support regional planning and local technical assistance. This list is non-exhaustive, as local agencies of commerce may have their own planning and technical assistance grants available to municipalities within their state. Although each location-specific opportunity below is administered by DOC, each grant awards funds to eligible recipients for the creation and implementation of regional economic development plans, designed to build capacity and guide the economic prosperity and resilience of an area or region. This program also supports feasibility studies, impact analyses, disaster resilience plans, and project planning. The award ceiling for each of the locations below is $300,000. Further, the following applications are accepted on a continuing basis and processed upon receipt. This Planning and Local Technical Assistance opportunity will remain in effect until superseded by a future announcement.
- Philadelphia FY2021 – FY2023 EDA Planning and Local Technical Assistance
- Seattle FY2021 – FY2023 EDA Planning and Local Technical Assistance
- Chicago FY2021 – FY2023 EDA Planning and Local Technical Assistance
- Denver FY2021 – FY2023 EDA Planning and Local Technical Assistance
- Austin FY2021 – FY2023 EDA Planning and Local Technical Assistance
- Atlanta FY2021 – FY2023 EDA Planning and Local Technical Assistance[9]
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (“IIJA”) Funding Sources
Several of the funding sources in the IIJA can be used to help a municipality become more resilient. To benefit from IIJA funding opportunities, municipalities must match their identified needs to potential funding streams.
- Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-Saving Transportation (“PROTECT”) Grants - $8.7 billion
The PROTECT formula program will support planning, resilience improvements, community resilience and evacuation routes, and at-risk coastal infrastructure from natural disasters. There is a total of $7.3 billion available in formula funding through states for planning and $1.4 billion available in competitive grants. The PROTECT program requires communities to engage in comprehensive, cross-department planning.[10] Many of the programs contained in the IIJA support national objectives such as safety, climate mitigation, and equity.[11] Projects in the PROTECT program will be well-served by considering ways to promote equity for all.[12] Guidance for the PROTECT program has not yet been issued. More program information is needed to determine the funding cap per applicant and the application opening date.
- Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program - $1 billion
The Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program will restore community connectivity by removing, retrofitting, or mitigating effects of highways or other transportation facilities that create barriers to community connectivity, including mobility, access, or economic development.10 The Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program is a discretionary grant program that “can support planning, capital construction, and technical assistance.”[13] Eligible facilities include those that create a barrier to mobility, access, or economic development as it relates to transportation.[14] Applications must be submitted by October 13, 2022.[15]
Last Updated: July 5, 2022
[1] Federal Emergency Management Agency, “Notice of Funding Opportunity for Fiscal Year 2021 Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Grants,” available at: https://www.fema.gov/fact-sheet/notice-funding-opportunity-fiscal-year-2021-building-resilient-infrastructure-and.
[2] Id.
[3] Advance Assistance “allows FEMA to provide up to 25 percent of the estimated costs for eligible hazard mitigation measures to a state or tribal grantee before eligible costs are incurred.” Federal Emergency Management Agency, “Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013,” available at: https://www.fema.gov/disaster/sandy-recovery-improvement-act-2013.
[4] Federal Emergency Management Agency, “BRIC Direct Technical Assistance,” available at: https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/building-resilient-infrastructure-communities/direct-technical-assistance.
[5] Federal Emergency Management Agency, “Notice of Funding Opportunity for Fiscal Year 2021 Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Grants,” available at: https://www.fema.gov/fact-sheet/notice-funding-opportunity-fiscal-year-2021-building-resilient-infrastructure-and.
[6] Id.
[7] FEMA, Hazard Mitigation Assistance Guidance (February 25, 2015), at 5–6, available at: https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fy15_HMA_Guidance.pdf.
[8] Federal Emergency Management Agency, “Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP),” available at: https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/hazard-mitigation.
[9] Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, “Notice of Funding Opportunity EDA Planning and Local Technical Assistance Programs,” available at: https://eda.gov/files/programs/eda-programs/FY21-23-Planning-and-LTA-NOFO_FINAL.pdf.
[10] U.S. Department of Transportation, “The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Innovation: Supporting Innovation Across America’s Transportation System”, available at: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-04/USDOT_BIL_Innovation_Fact_Sheet_Master.pdf.
[11] The White House, “A Guidebook to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Governments and Other Partners,” at 273–274, available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/BUILDING-A-BETTER-AMERICA_FINAL.pdf.
[12] Id., at 36.
[13] U.S. Department of Transportation, “Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program – Planning Grants and Capital Construction Grants,” available at: https://www.transportation.gov/grants/reconnecting-communities.
[14] Id.
[15] U.S. Department of Transportation, “Notice of Funding Opportunity for the Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP) Discretionary Grant Program,” available at: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-06/RCP_NOFO_FY22.pdf.
Program
COVID-19 Federal Assistance e311Topics
Community Engagement & Local PartnershipsFunding Source
American Rescue Plan ActWhat strategies exist for partnering on a funding opportunity when my municipality is not eligible to apply?
Understanding community needs and building and cultivating a network with mutual goals is an important aspect of fund seeking. Even when a municipality is not eligible for a funding opportunity, it can help advance community goals by sharing funding opportunities, collaborating with other fund seekers, and offering technical assistance and other needed support.
First, a municipality should confirm eligibility status with the funder. Sometimes, the funder may be aware of alternative funding avenues available to those who are otherwise ineligible and may be able to offer guidance regarding access to such opportunities. The funder may also be able to direct the city to eligible entities that have successfully received and administered funding in the past and that could serve as potential partners.
Successful partnerships rely on a municipality establishing strong rapport with eligible entities. This can be done by collaborating with potential partners such as regional planning councils, transportation planning organizations, economic development councils, chambers of commerce, community-based organizations, and nonprofit organizations. Often, boards and committees of these organizations will seek local government participation through one or more designated board positions. Because of this, municipalities should inquire about open roles and how to pursue an appointment. Municipalities can consider which individuals in their respective organizations will be the best individual to serve. Some boards expect elected officials and/or executive level participation, while others may look for more technical expertise such as professionals specializing in engineering, utility, or finance.
As part of a comprehensive grant management strategy, a municipality must develop an inventory of critical community needs and match these needs to potential funding sources. Part of this exercise can include identifying potential partners whose goals align on a given topic. Developing this understanding may require attendance at public meetings, informational Q&A sessions, council meetings and special sessions, or coordination with local planning forums. Participating in and planning events or meetings will further foster partnerships and communication, generally, and will help to establish a true understanding of community need. As a result, this will enhance cohesiveness in partnerships and help progress the network channels of communication. Investing the time and effort required to understand the community’s needs and engaging in regional planning efforts will ultimately help to facilitate multijurisdictional projects and partnerships.
Once relationships are established, municipalities should try to secure networking and maintain the lines of communication within regional partnerships and within known funded and prospective-funded initiatives. This is often accomplished through relationship building and establishing social capital by sharing opportunities with eligible entities. A municipality and its partners would benefit from conducting activities in collaboration with funded entities to support cohesiveness across programs, services, and infrastructure. This might include holding monthly meetings or assigning a designated contact through whom funded entities may communicate regularly with the municipality.
While a specific funding opportunity may provide a motivation of the initial development of this sort of relationship between a city and a potential partner, working to keep the relationship active beyond a single grant application could serve to advance the strategic goals of both the city and the partner. In particular, an ongoing relationship could serve as the basis for future efforts to braid funds from multiple sources in order to meet identified needs.
Last Updated: July 8, 2022
Program
COVID-19 Federal Assistance e311Topics
Fund Planning & AllocationFunding Source
American Rescue Plan ActWhat are the best ways to access my municipality’s expertise and capacity for managing a grant or how best to partner with other entities?
There is no one-size-fits-all in municipal grant administration. Each municipality is unique in its structure and capacity. It is also important to consider political will and interest.
A municipality’s ability to properly manage a grant requires the application of sound management principles including budgeting, communication, data collection, internal control, and reporting. As part of the decision to seek out grant funding, municipalities must evaluate the status of their compliance infrastructure to determine their ability to manage any grants that they do receive. Regardless of the funding source, grant awards are made with the understanding that funding will be used for intended purposes and in a responsible and accountable manner, which is a responsibility that not all municipalities have expertise with or capacity to handle. In particular, when the federal government is the funding source, municipalities may face significant compliance challenges related to the complexities of the Uniform Guidance (2 CFR Part 200 et seq.) or program-specific regulations and can generally expect to be held accountable through the Single Audit process. Additionally, certain private funding sources can have requirements that are just as complicated as federal requirements. As such, municipalities must develop strategies to build or reinforce their compliance infrastructure and general management capacity. These strategies include maximizing internal resources, partnering with other entities, and acquiring new support.
Maximizing Internal Resources
One of the best ways to understand a municipality’s expertise is to perform a situational analysis of the existing organization and structure to identify strengths, weaknesses, and needs, including staffing. This includes assessing the overall structure for managing grants, personnel involvement, and expertise, along with assessing existing grant programs and administration.
Based on the results of the initial assessment, a municipality can establish teams and working groups to convene for specific purposes and phases in grant administration or project management. Having assessed strengths and areas of need during the initial phase, teams and working groups can be readily activated based on skill and capacity. This grant team can work collectively to share knowledge and cultivate opportunities and capacity. This process may uncover many resources that already exist within the organization that could be adapted to form a part of a larger compliance infrastructure. For example, a city’s housing department may already have developed detailed tools for risk assessment and subrecipient monitoring that are used in connection with administering U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant funds, or an emergency management department may have detailed time tracking protocols developed for tracking post-disaster Federal Emergency Management Agency Public Assistance, both of which could be more widely applied to general grants management.
Partnering with Other Entities
Once a municipality has examined its own internal expertise, capacity, and grant funding needs and has sought engagement, the municipality may then be able to reach out to other potential partners to serve as co-recipients or subrecipients or to provide technical assistance. This external relationship building could be accomplished by examining previous grant partnerships or engagements, or it could look to organizations that have similar goals. There is considerable grant management experience in the private sector, as well as in entities such as regional planning or transportation organizations. Even larger cities or state agencies could be potential partners for grant management. Identifying these potential partners prior to seeking funding is critical, because the grant application and budget will need to reflect the work that these partners will do to administer the program. In the case where an award has already been made and a partner is being brought in for administration (or a subrecipient is being contemplated), a revision to the award may need to be negotiated with the funding entity. For federal awards, careful consideration of the Uniform Guidance regulations (and any supplemental program-specific rules) related to direct and indirect administrative costs is critical when creating a program budget that includes support for grant administration.
Acquiring New Support
Many municipalities face unprecedented funding opportunities, including the CARES Act, American Rescue Plan Act (“ARP”) and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (“IIJA”), so it may be necessary to acquire additional capacity to support grant management activities. This can be accomplished by including management costs in a proposed budget for a grant application and then contracting for services once the grant is awarded. However, this approach fails to provide the municipality with support for development of a holistic grant management program and development of a robust compliance infrastructure. In addition, the municipality would be without the services of that contractor for the application and contracting phases of that grant. Through the ARP’s Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (“CSLFRF”), municipalities can access funding to enhance public sector capacity, including hiring internal grants management staff and/or contracting for consulting support for grants management. There are several CSLFRF eligibilities that would permit these expenditures, depending on the exact nature of the scope of the work being performed. While CSLFRF funds are temporary, using these funds in this way would allow municipalities to build significant capacity for grants management that could persist well beyond the CSLFRF period of performance.
Last Updated: July 7, 2022
Program
COVID-19 Federal Assistance e311Topics
Workforce & Economic DevelopmentFunding Source
American Rescue Plan ActCan my municipality use American Rescue Plan funds to pay civil service exam fees for specific populations?
It may be possible for municipalities to use Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (“CSLFRF”) established through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (“ARP”) to pay for civil service exam fees for certain populations.
CSLFRF provides a variety of opportunities to help mitigate the negative economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.[1] The use of CSLFRF for civil service exam fees for specific populations is not directly addressed within the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s (“Treasury”) Final Rule. However, it is likely that CSLFRF may be used in this regard, assuming certain conditions are met.
A municipality may presume that households that have experienced unemployment have faced negative economic impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic.[2] The Final Rule identifies assistance to unemployed workers as an enumerated eligible use.[3]
Treasury further clarified that eligible costs include:
Assistance to individuals who want and are available for work, including job training, public jobs programs and fairs, support for childcare and transportation to and from a jobsite or interview, incentives for newly employed workers, subsidized employment, grants to hire underserved workers, assistance to unemployed individuals to start small businesses & development of job and workforce training centers.[4]
Based on the above guidance, a municipality may be able to use CSLFRF to reimburse the cost of civil service exam fees for individuals affected by the pandemic as part of a job training or public jobs program, or as an incentive program for newly employed workers through which workers were reimbursed for civil service exam fees.
There is also a possibility of eligibility under the third statutory eligible use category for the provision of government services up to the amount of revenue lost due to the pandemic.[5] If covering the cost of civil service exam fees was part of a previously provided government service by the municipality, then utilizing CSLFRF in this regard may also be eligible.
Treasury states:
Government services generally include any service traditionally provided by a government, including construction of roads and other infrastructure, provision of public safety and other services, and health and educational services. Funds spent under government services are subject to streamlined reporting and compliance requirements.[6]
As an example, if a municipality were to provide educational services as a traditional government function, specifically by structuring a program that assists in covering required civil service exam fees as a condition of public service employment, then there may be some degree of eligibility per the Treasury guidance described above.
Per Treasury’s guidance, this utilization of funds might be considered direct assistance, which “may take the form of loans, grants, in-kind assistance, technical assistance, or other services that respond to the negative economic impacts of the COVID-19 public health emergency.”[7] Treasury further outlines that municipalities must adhere to all applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations.[8]
Last Updated: July 8, 2022
[1] Treas. Reg. 31 CFR Part 35, at 58, available at: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRF-Final-Rule.pdf.
[2] Department of Treasury, Coronavirus State & Local Fiscal Recovery Funds: Overview of the Final Rule, (as of January 2022), at 17, available at: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRF-Final-Rule-Overview.pdf.
[3] Treas. Reg. 31 CFR Part 35, at 116-118, available at: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRF-Final-Rule.pdf.
[4] Department of Treasury, Coronavirus State & Local Fiscal Recovery Funds: Overview of the Final Rule, (as of January 2022), at 18 (emphasis added), available at: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRF-Final-Rule-Overview.pdf.
[5] Treas. Reg. 31 CFR Part 35, at 5, available at: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRF-Final-Rule.pdf.
[6] Department of Treasury, Coronavirus State & Local Fiscal Recovery Funds: Overview of the Final Rule, (as of January 2022), at 9, available at: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRF-Final-Rule-Overview.pdf.
[7] Treas. Reg. 31 CFR Part 35, at 156, available at: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRF-Final-Rule.pdf.
[8] Id., at 137.
Program
COVID-19 Federal Assistance e311Funding Source
Infrastructure Investments and Jobs ActHow can municipalities access Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (“BRIC”) set-asides?
Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities ("BRIC") funds are awarded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) to eligible applicants, which include states, tribes, and territories. Other types of entities wishing to apply for BRIC funds must submit sub-applications to their respective state, tribe, or territory to receive “pass-through” funding. These states, tribes, and territories must review, prioritize, and approve each sub-application and include them in their grant application to FEMA.
Applicants often determine mitigation priorities, which are generally aligned with the program's visions and goals. Contacting the State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO), or equivalent representative for a respective Tribal government (federally recognized) or territory can be helpful in choosing which hazards pose the greatest threat and determining the best strategy for mitigation. From these broad mitigation strategies, sub applicants weigh public interest while targeting specific mitigation projects beneficial to their communities.
...For local governments, please contact your State Hazard Mitigation Officer to learn about the applicant’s priorities, deadlines, and additional requirements.[1]
Depending on the grant year’s Notice of Funding Opportunity (“NOFO”), set-aside priorities may be ranked by FEMA or by each individual state, tribe, or territory. An applicant’s hazard mitigation priorities are sometimes outlined in their Hazard Mitigation Administrative Plan and typically influence how applicants allocate their set-aside funding. Funding may be extremely competitive depending on the desired project type and number of applications received.
BRIC NOFOs are typically posted on the www.grants.gov website during the fall of each year. FEMA may decide to utilize features from a past year’s NOFO or redesign any portion of the grant requirements not specified in the statute. For information on past year’s NOFOs, see BRIC Notice of Funding Opportunity | FEMA.gov.[2]
Last Updated: July 8, 2022
[1] FEMA, “Building Resilient Infrastructure Communities, Eligibility,” available at: https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/building-resilient-infrastructure-communities/before-apply.
[2] FEMA, “BRIC Notice of Funding Opportunity,” available at: https://www.fema.gov/node/bric-notice-funding-opportunity.
Program
COVID-19 Federal Assistance e311Topics
Federal Funding Streams, Fund Planning & AllocationFunding Source
American Rescue Plan Act, CARES Act, FEMA, HUD, Infrastructure Investments and Jobs ActWhat options are available to my municipality to secure matching funds if they are not currently available in our municipality’s existing budget?
Municipalities should first ensure that their budgeting capacity is sufficiently established. A robust budgeting system will allow for efficient resource allocation and accurate financial planning.
Given the importance of large-scale asset procurement and long-term projects, establishing a Capital Improvement Plan (“CIP”) to address all capital funding needs for a period of at least five years is imperative. Accurate planning allows a municipality to provide an organizational vision and establish targets during budget cycles. In addition to the CIP, a municipality should maintain an agreed-upon funding needs list and strategy to address programmatic and funding needs.
Advanced and documented planning efforts will help facilitate the creation of a detailed budget that considers potential matching fund needs. To the extent possible, any team members who work on grant funded projects and programs should be involved early in the process, as effectively harnessing the collective knowledge of the team will reduce gaps in identifying matching needs.
Municipalities should develop and keep an inventory of potential funding streams that may be utilized alongside additional braided or blended funding sources to serve as potential matches.[1]
Within the realm of stakeholder engagement, municipalities may also look to external stakeholders in their jurisdictions for funding opportunities or partnerships. Leveraging existing external relationships can also help municipalities gain a deeper understanding of funding streams, community projects, and generalized grant funding pursuits in their regions.
Furthermore, municipal leadership and officials should stay engaged with the larger community of public administrators. Membership and involvement in organizations that represent governments and/or government officials, such as the National Association of Counties or the United States Conference of Mayors, can be a valuable resource for local leaders. These organizations often provide a host of resources to members, including education on new and emerging funding opportunities.
Finally, funding under the American Rescue Plan Act (“ARP”), insofar as it is available, should be evaluated for potential utilization as non-federal matching funds. Although ARP funding is federal, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s (“Treasury”) Final Rule on the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (“CSLFRF”) states that, for funding categorized as “revenue loss”:
the funds available under sections 602(c)(1)(C) and 603(c)(1)(C) of the Social Security Act for the provision of government services, up to the amount of the recipient’s reduction in revenue due to the public health emergency, generally may be used to meet the non-federal cost-share or matching requirements of other federal programs.[2]
Treasury has also enumerated ineligible uses of CSLFRF funds to serve as non-federal match:
[C]SLFRF funds may not be used as the non-federal share for purposes of a state’s Medicaid and CHIP programs because the Office of Management and Budget has approved a waiver as requested by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services pursuant to 2 CFR 200.102 of the Uniform Guidance and related regulations.[3]
Municipalities should further evaluate the Final Rule for all inquiries regarding match eligibility, including inquiries related to blending and/or braiding funds.[4]
Finally, municipalities can evaluate in-kind resources such as undevelopable land or other capital structures that can be liquidated to use as match leverage to maximize awards. Municipalities may also consider developing an indirect cost rate or formal election of a de minimis rate, the waiver of which may serve as a match for other federal funding streams.
[1] AGA, “Blended and Braided Funding: A Guide for Policy Makers and Practitioners,” December 2014, at 17-18, available at: https://www.agacgfm.org/Intergov/More-Tools/Blended-and-Braided-Funding-A-Guide-for-Policy-Ma.aspx.
[2] Treas. Reg. 31 CFR Part 35 at 368, available at: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRF-Final-Rule.pdf.
[3] Id., at 369.
[4] Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, Frequently Asked Questions (as of April 27, 2022) – FAQ #4.8, at 30-31, available at: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRF-Final-Rule.pdf.
Program
COVID-19 Federal Assistance e311Topics
Fund Planning & Allocation, Infrastructure & Maintenance InvestmentsFunding Source
Infrastructure Investments and Jobs ActCan an application for funding originally submitted via RAISE be repackaged and submitted via the Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program?
The Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (“RAISE”) Grant Program (specifically, the Local and Regional Project Assistance Program) is a competitive grant program significantly expanded in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (“IIJA”).[1] The 2022 RAISE Notice of Funding Opportunity (“NOFO”) closed on April 14, 2022.[2] The Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program, also established under the IIJA, is a competitive grant program that will open for applications in Summer 2022.[3]
A review of the IIJA text, the program descriptions as listed in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Guidebook, the RAISE NOFO and amendment, and other program-specific guidance that has been published by the U.S. Department of Transportation does not explicitly indicate any prohibition on submitting applications for funding to both programs for a project that is substantially similar in nature.
However, while both programs offer various types of funding opportunities, including planning and construction grants, prospective grant applicants should note crucial differences in eligible uses, federal cost sharing restrictions, and other eligibility requirements. For example, RAISE permits various state, regional, and local governments to apply for both planning and construction projects,[4] while the Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program requires the applicant for construction projects to be the owner of the transportation facility in question, usually the state or local government agency with jurisdiction over transportation.[5]
For additional information on the similarities and differences in characteristics between the respective programs, refer to the IIJA Guidebook,[6] or original IIJA text.
Last Updated: July 10, 2022
[1] The White House, A Guidebook to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Governments and Other Partners, (as of January 31, 2022), at 18, available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/BUILDING-A-BETTER-AMERICA_FINAL.pdf.
[2] Department of Transportation, “RAISE Discretionary Grants Program,” available at: https://www.transportation.gov/RAISEgrants.
[3] Department of Transportation, “Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program,” available at: https://www.transportation.gov/grants/reconnecting-communities.
[4] Department of Transportation, “RAISE Discretionary Grants,” available at: https://www.transportation.gov/RAISEgrants.
[5] Department of Transportation, “Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program,” available at: https://www.transportation.gov/grants/reconnecting-communities.
[6] The White House, A Guidebook to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Governments, and Other Partners, (as of January 31, 2022), at 18 and 34, available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/BUILDING-A-BETTER-AMERICA_FINAL.pdf.
Program
COVID-19 Federal Assistance e311Topics
Community Engagement & Local PartnershipsFunding Source
American Rescue Plan Act, CARES Act, FEMA, HUD, Infrastructure Investments and Jobs ActAre private entities’ donations to municipalities in support of matching requirements considered part of a public-private partnership?
The definition of a “public-private partnership” may vary across funding programs. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (“IIJA”) defines a public-private partnership as “an agreement between a public agency and a private entity to finance, build, and maintain or operate a project.”[1]
However, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (“CDC”) definition is broader. The CDC defines public-private partnerships as:
relationships between CDC and the private sector that are formal and informal in nature where skills and assets are shared to improve the public’s health and each partner shares in the risks and rewards that result from the partnership.[2]
The U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) does not address private entities’ donations of matching funds in support of municipalities or a definition of “public-private partnerships” in the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (“CSLFRF”) Final Rule.[3] However, the White House’s Advancing Equity through the American Rescue Plan report consistently mentions partnering with “community organizations.”[4] The report “serves as a call for continued action by the broad range of federal and non-federal partners.”[5]
One example of such a partnership is the State Small Business Credit Initiative (“SSBCI”), an existing program, to which the American Rescue Plan (“ARP”) allocated additional funds for expansion.[6] One type of program available under SSBCI is the Venture Capital Program, described below.
Jurisdictions may set up public-private partnerships for equity investing or [to] invest in venture capital funds. These investments are focused on providing capital to underserved startups and democratizing venture capital across geography and to diverse founders.[7]
Public-private partnerships may utilize both CARES Act funding and ARP funding. One example of a public-private partnership that utilized CARES Act funding is the Manufacturing Extension Partnership in Northeast Ohio. This partnership utilized CARES Act resources to help local manufacturers safely restart operations and refocus on new products and markets, among other benefits relative to the “long-term productive potential” of “businesses and workers.”[8]
Matching funds from private partners can also be used in conjunction with ARP funding to further existing programs and “strategies” that are already in progress.[9] For example, in Cleveland, Ohio, city leadership, foundations, the regional chamber, and a local community development corporation utilized ARP funding to further their efforts to bring jobs back to the area through a food-tech hub which “[includes] . . . a workforce development center to prepare people to attain and advance in a career.” Further, “parts of ARP run through the Economic Development Administration (‘EDA’).” And the EDA and the Department of Agriculture have programs that could support the type of business and workforce development initiatives seen in Cleveland.[10]
Another strategy for fully tapping into the available funds from ARP and other sources is by utilizing recovery-focused regional councils comprised of “small businesses, neighborhood leaders, social service agencies, philanthropic leaders, and corporate heads” to help “execute strategic investments and monitor [program] impact.”[11] Such a council can be tasked with “aggregating and supplementing existing recovery plans, setting goals, recommending investments, and tracking results.”[12]
Last Updated: June 15, 2022
[1] Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. No. 117-558, at 11508(a), available at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text.
[2] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “CDC’s Guiding Principles for Public-Private Partnerships,” available at: https://www.cdc.gov/partners/pdf/partnershipguidance-4-16-14.pdf.
[3] Treas. Reg. 31 CFR Part 35, available at: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRF-Final-Rule.pdf.
[4] The White House, “Advancing Equity through the American Rescue Plan,” available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/ADVANCING-EQUITY-THROUGH-THE-AMERICAN-RESCUE-PLAN.pdf.
[5] Id., at 11.
[6] Id., at 117.
[7] Id., at 118.
[8] Brookings Institute, “How should local leaders use their American Rescue Plan funding?” available at: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2021/03/23/how-should-local-leaders-use-their-american-rescue-plan-funding/.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
Program
COVID-19 Federal Assistance e311Topics
Housing & Rental Assistance, Infrastructure & Maintenance InvestmentsFunding Source
American Rescue Plan ActMy municipality is using CSLFRF for capital projects involving non-public facilities. How can we ensure that the projects remain affordable, or in their current state, long-term, without developers/business owners selling the property short-term?
It is incumbent on recipients and subrecipients to ensure that funding is used for eligible purposes. One mechanism to ensure compliance is to include enforceable contract or grant provisions in any subawards for capital projects that mandate how the funds may be used; for example, provisions that require the funds to be used for affordable housing or long-term projects.
The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (“ARP”) provides Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (“CSLFRF”) to alleviate the negative public health and economic impacts of the COVID-19 public health emergency on communities. The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s (“Treasury”) Final Rule clarifies that, under the Public Health and Negative Economic Impacts eligible use category,
recipients may use funds for capital expenditures that support an eligible COVID-19 public health or economic response. For example, recipients may build certain affordable housing, and other projects consistent with the requirements in this final rule and the Supplementary Information.[1]
Per the Final Rule, eligible uses include: “Development, repair, and operation of affordable housing and services or programs to increase long-term housing security.”[2]
Further, Treasury’s Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQ”) #2.14 includes guidance regarding the development of affordable housing:
Under the final rule, “Development, repair, and operation of affordable housing and
services or programs to increase long-term housing security” is an enumerated eligible use to respond to impacts of the pandemic on households and communities.
Affordable housing projects must be responsive and proportional to the harm identified. This test may be met by affordable housing development projects—which may involve large expenditures and capital investments—if the developments increase the supply of long-term affordable housing for low-income households. While there may be less costly (or non-capital) alternatives to affordable housing development, a comprehensive response to the widespread housing challenges underscored by the pandemic will require the production of additional affordable homes, and targeted affordable housing development is a cost-effective and proportional response to this need.[3]
This FAQ underscores the need to focus on long-term solutions to affordable housing needs in the use of the CSLFRF assistance.
CSLFRF award recipients and subrecipients should pay particular attention to the Guidance on Recipient Compliance and Reporting Responsibilities (“Reporting Guidance”) to ensure that uses of funds are eligible and comply with all applicable statutes at each stage of project development:
The Award Terms and Conditions of the SLFRF financial assistance agreement sets forth the compliance obligations for recipients pursuant to the SLFRF statute, the Uniform Guidance, Treasury’s final rule, and applicable federal laws and regulations. Recipients should ensure they remain in compliance with all Award Terms and Conditions.[4]
For housing development projects executed through CSLFRF to be considered and remain eligible, they must continually meet the program terms and conditions set forth in the Final Rule, including increasing the long-term supply of affordable housing. The Reporting Guidance further details compliance requirements for award recipients and subrecipients as follows:
As outlined in the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E regarding Cost Principles, allowable costs are based on the premise that a recipient is responsible for the effective administration of Federal awards, application of sound management practices, and administration of Federal funds in a manner consistent with the program objectives and terms and conditions of the award.[5]
In addition to affordable housing, Treasury’s enumerated eligible uses include rehabilitation of commercial properties, storefront improvements, and façade improvements for disproportionally impacted small business.[6] Municipalities may also fund capital expenditures beyond those enumerated by Treasury if supported by a written justification.[7]
In summary, recipients and subrecipients of CSLFRF assistance should ensure that the federal funding for capital expenditures is used to address the negative effects of the public health emergency. Therefore, it is incumbent on recipients to include enforceable contract or grant provisions that mandate the funds be used to address these long-term negative effects and that prohibit the beneficiary from disposing of the property in the short term.
Last Updated: June 15, 2022
[1] Treas. Reg 31 CFR Part 35, at 6, available at: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRF-Final-Rule.pdf.
[2] Id., at 419 (emphasis added).
[3] Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, Frequently Asked Questions (as of January 2022) – FAQ #2.14, at 10-11 (emphasis added), available at: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRPFAQ.pdf.
[4] Department of Treasury Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Compliance and Reporting Guidance at 12 (emphasis added), available at: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRF-Compliance-and-Reporting-Guidance.pdf.
[5] Id., at 8 (emphasis added).
[6] Department of Treasury Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds: Overview of the Final Rule, at 22, available at: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRF-Final-Rule-Overview.pdf.
[7] Id., at 30.
Program
COVID-19 Federal Assistance e311Topics
Compliance & ReportingFunding Source
American Rescue Plan ActIf money is given to a nonprofit as beneficiary to compensate for lost income and the nonprofit spends that money on capital projects, must a municipality report on the expenditures as capital projects?
The U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) does not explicitly require recipients or subrecipients that provide Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (“CSLFRF”) direct assistance to beneficiaries to report on the beneficiaries’ use of funds—including capital expenditures—as beneficiaries are not subject to the monitoring and reporting requirements associated with CSLFRF.[1] Treasury provides recipients “substantial discretion”[2] regarding the distribution and use of CSLFRF.
Treasury has provided helpful guidance regarding the applicability of the CSLFRF reporting requirements to recipients’ respective subrecipients and beneficiaries. In particular, Treasury has explicitly stated:
The Uniform Guidance definitions for both subaward and subrecipient specify that payments to individuals or entities that are direct beneficiaries of a federal award are not considered subrecipients. The final rule adopts this definition of a beneficiary and outlines that households, communities, small businesses, nonprofits, and impacted industries are all potential beneficiaries of projects carried out with [C]SLFRF funds. Beneficiaries are not subject to the requirements placed on subrecipients in the Uniform Guidance, including audit pursuant to the Single Audit Act and 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F or subrecipient reporting requirements.[3]
Moreover, Treasury has outlined reporting required of recipients and subrecipients in FAQ #1.20 of its Project and Expenditure Report User Guide in “Appendix 1 – Frequently Asked Questions.”[4] The reporting requirements outlined by Treasury’s Compliance and Reporting Guidance[5] only explicitly apply to recipients and subrecipients. Regarding the compliance and reporting requirements for CSLFRF and subrecipient monitoring, Treasury has explicitly stated:
[C]SLFRF recipients that are pass-through entities as described under 2 CFR 200.1 are required to manage and monitor their subrecipients to ensure compliance with requirements of the [C]SLFRF award pursuant to 2 CFR 200.332 regarding requirements for pass-through entities.
First, your organization must clearly identify to the subrecipient:
- that the award is a subaward of [C]SLFRF funds;
- any and all compliance requirements for use of [C]SLFRF funds; and
- any and all reporting requirements for expenditures of [C]SLFRF funds.[6]
A recipient or subrecipient must follow capital expenditure compliance and reporting requirements if the recipient’s or its respective subrecipient’s use of CSLFRF includes capital expenditures.[7] However, these requirements do not explicitly apply to beneficiaries.
Instead, Treasury provides that:
In addition to determining a given project’s eligibility, recipients are also responsible for determining subrecipient’s or beneficiaries’ eligibility, and must monitor subrecipients’ use of [C]SLFRF award funds.[8]
Accordingly, when providing CSLFRF funding to a beneficiary, recipients must ensure that:
- the use of funds is eligible to provide to a beneficiary; and
- the beneficiary is eligible to receive the funds.
For example, when a municipality provides direct assistance to a nonprofit organization, it must ensure that it addresses a public health or negative economic impact that the nonprofit has experienced due to the pandemic.[9] It also must ensure that there is a “reasonable connection between the assistance provided and an impact on the beneficiaries.”[10] Treasury goes on to provide the following scenario:
For example, if a nonprofit organization experienced impacts like decreased revenues or increased costs (e.g., through reduced contributions or uncompensated increases in service need), and a recipient provides funds to address that impact, then it is providing direct assistance to the nonprofit as a beneficiary under Subsection (c)(1) of Sections 602 and 603. Direct assistance may take the form of loans, grants, in-kind assistance, technical assistance, or other services that respond to the negative economic impacts of the COVID-19 public health emergency.[11]
Once the recipient or its subrecipient has provided this direct assistance to a nonprofit beneficiary to address the economic impact it has experienced, the beneficiary’s use of this direct assistance is not explicitly required to be monitored and reported to Treasury.
Last Updated: June 6, 2022
[1] Treas. Reg. 31 CFR Part 35, at 210-211, available at: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRF-Final-Rule.pdf.
[2] U.S. Department of the Treasury, Compliance and Reporting Guidance: State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, (as of February 28, 2022), at 4, available at: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRF-Compliance-and-Reporting-Guidance.pdf.
[3] Treas. Reg. 31 CFR Part 35, at 210, available at: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRF-Final-Rule.pdf.
[4] U.S. Department of the Treasury, Project and Expenditure Report User Guide: State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, (as of April 1, 2022), at 112, available at: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/April-2022-PE-Report-User-Guide.pdf.
[5] U.S. Department of the Treasury, Compliance and Reporting Guidance: State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, (as of February 28, 2022), available at: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRF-Compliance-and-Reporting-Guidance.pdf.
[6] Id., at 10-11.
[7] Treas. Reg. 31 CFR Part 35, at 193-208, available at: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRF-Final-Rule.pdf.
[8] U.S. Department of the Treasury, Compliance and Reporting Guidance: State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, (as of February 28, 2022), at 5, available at: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRF-Compliance-and-Reporting-Guidance.pdf (emphasis added).
[9] Treas. Reg. 31 CFR Part 35, at 156-157, available at: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRF-Final-Rule.pdf.
[10] Id., at 218.
[11] Id., at 156.
Program
COVID-19 Federal Assistance e311Topics
Due Diligence & Fraud ProtectionFunding Source
American Rescue Plan ActAre cities required to verify lawful presence when ARP funds are used for programs providing services to community members?
The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (“ARP”) provides Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (“CSLFRF”) to alleviate the negative public health and economic impacts of the COVID-19 public health emergency on communities. The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s (“Treasury”) Final Rule identifies populations considered to have been “impacted” or “disproportionately impacted” by the pandemic, allowing CSLFRF recipients to respond to a broad set of households and entities without requiring additional analysis.[1]
The Final Rule does not specify whether a municipality must verify the lawful presence of community members being served by CSLFRF-funded programs. Treasury allows for the broad use of CSLFRF funds, with a great deal of flexibility, as long as the funds are used to address the negative public health and economic impact of the COVID-19 public health emergency.
Although the Final Rule does not explicitly state that municipalities must verify recipients’ lawful presence, if a program serves members of an impacted or disproportionately impacted community and responds to the negative economic impact of the COVID-19 public health emergency, it is likely an allowable use of funds.
Last Updated: May 30, 2022
[1] Treas. Reg. 31 CFR Part 35, at 41-42, available at: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRF-Final-Rule.pdf.