1 Success with Local Match NYC Recovery
2 NYC Strategy March 5, 2013 notice (78 FR 14330) CDBG-DR $ may be used as 10% cost share Allows HUD to adopt environmental reviews from other Stafford Act funded federal agencies Coordinated match FEMA-PA Category A and B work Permanent work under the FEMA 428 capped grant pilot program HUD/DOL Joint Letter Excepting some early emergency contracts from some CDBG-DR requirements
Challenge 1: Asymmetric Program Requirements Challenges Timing FEMA-PA: no time limit // CDBG-DR: expenditure deadline Grant Amounts FEMA-PA: can be open-ended // CDBG-DR: fixed Moving targets for local match: difficult to identify 10% of project cost while FEMA-PA amounts are negotiated Solutions Pursue FEMA-PA Cat. A and Cat. B as permanent work develops Use FEMA-PA 428 capped grant pilot program where possible for large projects 3
4 Challenge 2: Identifying the Local Match Challenges Identify which 10% of FEMA-PA amount will be paid for with CDBG-DR Different eligibility definitions complicate local match entirety of FEMA-PA costs may not be CDBG-DR eligible Solutions Coordinated match: Isolate 10% of eligible costs on project level rather than by line item (e.g. use CDBG-DR for design, FEMA-PA for construction) Reduces administrative burden for HUD and grantee Avoids duplication of benefits
Challenge 3: HUD Compliant Procurement and Documentation Challenges CDBG-DR procurement standards difficult to meet if contract let ahead of knowledge of CDBG-DR funding CDBG-DR more stringent than FEMA (e.g. emergency procurement standards, Davis Bacon, Section 3, etc.) Solutions HUD/DOL Joint Letter: if CDBG-DR grant agreement executed after construction work completed, Davis-Bacon does not apply If contract work ongoing at grant agreement date, Davis-Bacon must be retroactively incorporated into the contract Adapt current procedures to emergency situations Disaster events are challenging environments to adhere to procedures but documentation requirements cannot be ignored Establish policies and procedures to ensure City emergency procurement compatible with CDBG-DR procurement rules 5
CASE STUDIES 6
Case Study: NYPD Force Account Labor NYPD officers deployed across five boroughs for search/rescue operations and other emergency protective measures 7 Total eligible FEMA-PA spending = overtime costs from 3 days prior to storm through June 2013 City claimed $174 million in eligible force account labor charges
8 Case Study: NYPD Force Account Labor Challenges Reviewing 100% of payroll costs is logistically arduous and could have delayed drawdowns FEMA-PA PW location (citywide) vs. HUD service area Solutions Used coordinated match to isolate $17.4M of costs for CDBG-DR reimbursement 100% of OT costs for uniformed officers in 14 days following storm (removed pre-disaster declaration days and school safety agent/civilian hours) LMA Service area analysis Used individual precinct officer deployment information to determine service area Data showed that all officers from all precincts were deployed, demonstrating citywide service area NYC is 55% LMI, therefore activity is LMA
9 Case Study: STEP-NYC Rapid Repairs FEMA-PA Sheltering and Temporary Essential Power (STEP) program allowed residents to shelter in place Innovative program that restored heat, hot water, and electricity to 20,000 housing units in <100 days Emergency work on private homes Total project cost = $644 M Total FEMA claim = $593 M
10 Case Study: STEP-NYC Rapid Repairs Challenges Documentation: Contracts were executed prior to CDBG-DR award without knowledge that CDBG-DR funding would be used for local match Davis-Bacon: required for residential work in buildings with 8 or more units or for 8 or more contiguous single-family homes Rapid Repairs paid wage rates in compliance with local laws, which is greater than most but not all Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rates Procurement: demonstrate emergency procurements are HUD compliant Solutions Coordinated match: isolate CDBG-DR costs to single-family contractors where Davis Bacon did not apply Procurement: documentation collected demonstrates that contracts eligible under HUD procurement regulations