Agenda packet — Lomita City Council, November 5, 2024 (part 2 of 6)

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *146
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 basis. When coverage is provided on a " claims made basis," CONSULTANT will continue to renew the insurance for a period of three 3) years after this Agreement expires or is terminated. Such insurance will have the same coverage and limits as the policy that was in effect during the term of this Agreement, and will cover CONSULTANT for all claims made by CITY arising out of any errors or omissions of CONSULTANT, or its officers, employees or agents during the time this Agreement was in effect.

B. Endorsements. Each general liability, automobile liability and professional liability insurance policy shall be issued by a financially responsible insurance company or companies admitted and authorized to do business in the State of California, or which is approved in writing by CITY, and shall be endorsed as follows. CONSULTANT also agrees to require all CONSULTANTs, and subconsultants to do likewise.

1. " The CITY, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds with respect to liability arising out of work performed by or on behalf of the CONSULTANT, including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations."

2. This policy shall be considered primary insurance as respects CITY, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers. Any insurance maintained by CITY, including any self - insured retention CITY may have, shall be considered excess insurance only and shall not contribute with this policy.

3. This insurance shall act for each insured and additional insured as though a separate policy had been written for each, except with respect to the limits of liability of the insuring company.

4. The insurer waives all rights of subrogation against CITY, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, or agents.

5. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to CITY, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents, or volunteers.

6. The insurance provided by this policy shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, or reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty ( 30) days' written notice has been received by CITY.

C. CONSULTANT agrees to provide immediate notice to CITY of any claim or loss against CONSULTANT arising out of the work performed under this agreement. CITY assumes no obligation or liability by such notice, but has

Page 6 of 25 ends

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *147
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 the right ( but not the duty) to monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve CITY.

D. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by CITY. At CITY' s option, CONSULTANT shall demonstrate financial capability for payment of such deductibles or self -insured retentions.

E. CONSULTANT shall provide certificates of insurance with original endorsements to CITY as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein. Certificates of such insurance shall be filed with CITY on or before commencement of performance of this Agreement. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with CITY at all times during the term of this Agreement.

F. Failure on the part of CONSULTANT to procure or maintain required insurance shall constitute a material breach of contract under which CITY may terminate this Agreement pursuant to Section 11 above.

G. The commercial general and automobile liability policies required by this Agreement shall allow CITY, as additional insured, to satisfy the self - insured retention (" SIR") and/or deductible of the policy in lieu of the CONSULTANT ( as the named insured) should CONSULTANT fail to pay the SIR or deductible requirements. The amount of the SIR or deductible shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney and the Finance Director. CONSULTANT understands and agrees that satisfaction of this requirement is an express condition precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement. Failure by CONSULTANT as primary insured to pay its SIR or deductible constitutes a material breach of this Agreement. Should CITY pay the SIR or deductible on CONSULTANT' S behalf upon
CONSULTANT' S failure or refusal to do so in order to secure defense and indemnification as an additional insured under the policy, CITY may include such amounts as damages in any action against CONSULTANT for breach of this Agreement in addition to any other damages incurred by CITY due to the breach.

18. USE OF OTHER CONSULTANTS. CONSULTANT must obtain CITY' s prior written approval to use any CONSULTANTs while performing any portion of this Agreement. Such approval must include approval of the proposed CONSULTANT and the terms of compensation.

19. FINAL PAYMENT ACCEPTANCE CONSTITUTES RELEASE. The
acceptance by the CONSULTANT of the final payment made under this Agreement shall operate as and be a release of CITY from all claims and liabilities for compensation to the CONSULTANT for anything done, furnished or relating to the CONSULTANT' S work or services. Acceptance of payment

Page 7 of 25 ends

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *148
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 shall be any negotiation of CITY'S check or the failure to make a written extra compensation claim within ten ( 10) calendar days of the receipt of that check.

However, approval or payment by CITY shall not constitute, nor be deemed, a release of the responsibility and liability of CONSULTANT, its employees, subCONSULTANTs and agents for the accuracy and competency of the information provided and/ or work performed; nor shall such approval or payment be deemed to be an assumption of such responsibility or liability by CITY for any defect or error in the work prepared by CONSULTANT, its employees, sub- CONSULTANTs and agents.

20. CORRECTIONS. In addition to the above indemnification obligations, the CONSULTANT shall correct, at its expense, all errors in the work which may be disclosed during CITY' S review of CONSULTANT' S report or plans. Should the CONSULTANT fail to make such correction in a reasonably timely manner, such correction shall be made by CITY, and the cost thereof shall be charged to CONSULTANT. In addition to all other available remedies, CITY may deduct the cost of such correction from any retention amount held by CITY or may withhold payment otherwise owed CONSULTANT under this Agreement up to the amount of the cost of correction.

21. NON -APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS. Payments to be made to CONSULTANT by CITY for services preformed within the current fiscal year are within the current fiscal budget and within an available, unexhausted fund.

In the event that CITY does not appropriate sufficient funds for payment of CONSULTANT' S services beyond the current fiscal year, the Agreement shall cover payment for CONSULTANT'S only to the conclusion of the last fiscal year in which CITY appropriates sufficient funds and shall automatically terminate at the conclusion of such fiscal year.

22. NOTICES. All communications to either party by the other party will be deemed made when received by such party at its respective name and address as follows:

CITY
City of Lomita
24300 Narbonne Avenue
Lomita, CA 90717
ATTN: City Manager

CONSULTANT
Willdan Financial Services
27368 Via Industria,
Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590
ATTN: Chris Fisher, VP
Any such written communications by mail will be conclusively deemed to have been received by the addressee upon deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed as noted above. In all other instances, notices will be deemed given at the time of actual delivery. Changes may be made in the names or addresses of persons to whom notices are to be given by

Page 8 of 25 ends

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *149
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 giving notice in the manner prescribed in this paragraph. Courtesy copies of notices may be sent via electronic mail, provided that the original notice is deposited in the U. S. mail or personally delivered as specified in this Section.

23. SOLICITATION. CONSULTANT maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than CONSULTANT' s bona fide employee, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, CONSULTANT warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than CONSULTANT's bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. Should CONSULTANT breach or violate this warranty, CITY may rescind this Agreement without liability.

24. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. This Agreement and every provision herein is generally for the exclusive benefit of CONSULTANT and CITY and not for the benefit of any other party. There will be no incidental or other beneficiaries of any of CONSULTANT' s or CITY' s obligations under this Agreement.

25. INTERPRETATION. This Agreement was drafted in, and will be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and exclusive venue for any action involving this agreement will be in Los Angeles County.

26. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, and its Attachments, sets forth the entire understanding of the parties. There are no other understandings, terms or other agreements expressed or implied, oral or written.

27. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. Each Party had the opportunity to independently review this Agreement with legal counsel. Accordingly, this Agreement will be construed simply, as a whole, and in accordance with its fair meaning; it will not be interpreted strictly for or against either Party.

28. AUTHORITY/ MODIFICATION. The Parties represent and warrant that all necessary action has been taken by the Parties to authorize the undersigned to execute this Agreement and to engage in the actions described herein, This Agreement may be modified by written amendment with signatures of all parties to this Agreement. CITY' s city administrator, or designee, may execute any such amendment on behalf of CITY.

29. ACCEPTANCE OF FACSIMILE OR ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES. The Parties agree that this Agreement, agreements ancillary to this Agreement, and related documents to be entered into in connection with this Agreement will be considered signed when the signature of a party is delivered by facsimile transmission or scanned and delivered via electronic mail. Such facsimile or electronic mail copies will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

Page 9 of 25 ends

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *150
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519

30. FORCE MAJEURE. Should performance of this Agreement be impossible due to fire, flood, explosion, war, embargo, government action, civil or military authority, the natural elements, or other similar causes beyond the Parties' control, then the Agreement will immediately terminate without obligation of either party to the other.

31. TIME IS OF ESSENCE. Time is of the essence to comply with dates and schedules to be provided.

32. ATTORNEY' S FEES. The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that each will bear his or its own costs, expenses and attorneys' fees arising out of and/ or connected with the negotiation, drafting and execution of the Agreement, and all matters arising out of or connected therewith except that, in the event any action is brought by any party hereto to enforce this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in addition to all other relief to which that party or those parties may be entitled.

33. STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE. By executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT represents that it has demonstrated trustworthiness and possesses the quality, fitness and capacity to perform the Agreement in a manner satisfactory to CITY. CONSULTANT represents that its financial resources, surety and insurance experience, service experience, completion ability, personnel, current workload, experience in dealing with private CONSULTANTs, and experience in dealing with public agencies all suggest that CONSULTANT is capable of performing the proposed contract and has a demonstrated capacity to deal fairly and effectively with and to satisfy a public agency.

34. DISCLOSURE REQUIRED. ( CITY and CONSULTANT initials required at one of the following paragraphs)
By their respective initials next to this paragraph, CITY and CONSULTANT hereby acknowledge that CONSULTANT is a " CONSULTANT" for the purposes of the California Political Reform Act because CONSULTANT' S duties would require him or her to make one or more of the governmental decisions set forth in Fair Political Practices Commission Regulation 18700. 3( a)( 2) or otherwise serves in a staff capacity for which disclosure would otherwise be required were CONSULTANT employed by CITY.

CONSULTANT hereby acknowledges his or her assuming - office, annual, and leaving -office financial reporting obligations under the California Political Reform Act and the CITY' S Conflict of Interest Code and agrees to comply with those obligations at his or her expense. Prior to CONSULTANT commencing services hereunder, the City' s Manager shall prepare and deliver to CONSULTANT a memorandum detailing the extent of CONSULTANT' S

Page 10 of 25 ends

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *151
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B-4543-8ED8-4E216CBB1519 XV
disclosure obligations in accordance with the CITY' S Conflict of Interest Code.

City Initials [(;
CONSULTANT Initials i
By their initials next to this paragraph, CITY and CONSULTANT hereby acknowledge that CONSULTANT is not a " CONSULTANT" for the purpose of the California Political Reform Act because CONSULTANT' S duties and responsibilities are not within the scope of the definition of CONSULTANT in Fair Political Practice Commission Regulation 18700. 3( a)( 2) and is otherwise not serving in staff capacity in accordance with CITY'S Conflict of Interest Code.

City Initials
S
C
CONSULTANT Initials

Page 11 of 25 ends

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *152
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this contract the day and year first hereinabove written.

CITY OF LOMITA CONSULTANT
DocuSigned by:

Ryan oot". c ty anag r By: Chris Fisher, Vice President A T T33- 0302345
Ka t eenFiorn Gregdry, City Clerk Taxpayer ID No. APPROVED AS TO FORM: UI
DocuSigned
by: awr
ruslt& City
ttorney If
Page
12 of 25
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *153
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599-709B- 4543-8ED8-4E216CBB1519

EXHIBIT A - SCOPE OF WORK ( WFS)
Work Plans
WFS proposed work plans, described in detail by task, are provided below. WFS proposes to maximize efficiency and cost-effectiveness by combining meetings and data gathering efforts between the studies wherever possible. WFS explains how each task will be accomplished and identify associated meetings and deliverables. WFS wants to ensure our scope provides quality and clarity and is responsive to the City' s needs and specific local circumstances. WFS will work in concert with the City to adjust scopes as needed during the course of the studies.

Full and OMB Compliant Cost Allocation Plan
This proposed scope of services addresses the completion of both the full and OMB compliant versions of the Cost Allocation Plan ( CAP). WFS have noted where activities specific to the OMB compliant plan occur.

Task 1: Initial Document Request
Objective: Initial due diligence.

A written request for specific data will be sent to the City. The data provided in this task will provide the building blocks for later model development.

Our request may include ( but is not limited to):

Detailed budget and accounting data;
Prior year's financial data, salary, position and staffing data; Organizational structure;
Prior cost allocation plan and/ or user fee documentation and models; and Data related to various allocation bases that may be incorporated as part of the methodology, i. e.

City Council agenda frequencies by department, AP/AR transactions by department, IT equipment distribution by department, etc.

Deliverables: Willdan: Submit information request to City.

City: Provide requested data to Willdan ( prior to Task 2, Kick-off Call/ Refine Scope). WFS will follow up with the City to confirm in writing the data that WFS have received, or which is still outstanding.

Task 2: Kick- off Conference Call / Refine Scope
Objective: Confirm project goals and objectives. Identify and discuss policy issues raised by the study and
determine appropriate fee categories.

Description: Willdan will identify and discuss policy issues typically raised by these studies and address data gaps in order to gain a full understanding of the City' s goals for the cost allocation plan. WFS will establish effective lines of communication and processes for information gathering and review.

WFS will also discuss costs that may not be allocable for OMB purposes, and the potential impact on the OMB version of the CAP.

During this call, WFS will ask that the City assign a project manager to serve as its primary contact. The selected City project manager will ensure that available data is provided to Willdan in a timely manner, thereby maintaining adherence to the project' s schedule.

WFS will obtain and review the current cost allocation methodology and discuss with City staff. The objective of this review is to determine specific areas of focus as they relate to the City's objectives, and to discuss and evaluate current and potential allocation factors.

Meetings: One ( 1) project kick- off conference call to initiate the project, discuss data needs and methodologies
and to address policy issues. WFS would propose to conduct the user fee study kick- off during this same call, to maximize efficiency and cost effectiveness of staff and Willdan time.

Deliverables: Willdan: If needed, a revised project scope and schedule.

City: Provide further data requirements and select / introduce City' s project manager.

Page 13 of 25 ends

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *154
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Task 3: Gather Staffing Information and Develop Cost Allocation Plan Model Description: This task involves the gathering of specific information, directly from City staff, through interviews and discussion, related to the functions served by indirect staff and the departments served by their activities. This task also focuses on the development of, and/ or adjustment of existing, allocation bases, and the development and testing of a model that will ultimately be used to calculate the proper cost allocations derived from data gathered in prior tasks.

The model will be developed to incorporate any recent changes in the provision of City services, and fully allocate central service costs.

The model will also be developed to allocate only those costs eligible under 2 CFR Part 200. This is accomplished by loading relevant data into the model, identifying which costs are not allocable under the OMB guidelines. The OMB Super Circular compliant model is valuable as the City may receive Federal or State grant funding that mandates compliance with Federal OMB regulations.

WFS will utilize budget and organizational information, and other required information gathered from City staff to complete the work in this task. Specific discussions will be held to discuss bases, how central overhead services are provided to and utilized by other departments, cost categories and allocation criteria, and how these will factor into the overall cost allocation methodology.

The model and methodology will also produce indirect cost rates. These rates will be suitable for a variety of uses, including incorporation into the User Fee Study's personnel rates, billing to CIP projects, and in the OMB Super Circular compliant CAP, to Federal grants.

Meetings: Online meetings with staff to understand structure and operations as model and allocation bases are developed. Key staff will be interviewed to best understand central overhead staffing and functions and the departments served.

Deliverables: Willdan: One ( 1) user- friendly model in Microsoft Excel format that provides both a full cost allocation plan and an OMB Super Circular compliant cost allocation plan.

Task 4: Test and Review Cost Allocation Methodology
Objective: Test and review model and results with City.

Description: The draft cost allocation plan model will be reviewed with City staff, and adjusted as necessary, to ensure that preliminary allocations provide an accurate depiction of how the central overhead costs should be borne by the operating programs and funds. Over the past several years, WFS have successfully integrated online meetings by using WebExTm as an element to our approach. This allows us to remotely guide staff through the model review and allows you the opportunity to interactively change inputs and test approaches.

Meetings: One ( 1) WebEx meeting and demonstration with City Staff to review the model.

Deliverables: Willdan and City: Draft cost allocation plan model review.

Task 5: Prepare and Present Draft Report
Objective: Prepare the draft cost allocation report.

Description: This task involves the draft report preparation. The cost allocation plan' s background, model methodologies, and results will be discussed; calculations and supporting data will be presented textually and in easily understood tables and provided to the City.

Meetings: One ( 1) WebEx meeting to present the draft report to City Staff.

Deliverables: Willdan: Draft report for City review and input.

City: Review of draft report, with comments, and edits.

Task 6: Discuss and Revise Report
Objective: Review of draft report, cost distribution methods, and model.

Description: An in- depth review of the draft report and model will be conducted to arrive at an optimum allocation method for each expenditure type. Often, through the course of an engagement, comments usually revolve around issues of understandability; appropriate levels of enterprise funds' cost recovery, etc.; ease of calculation; and overhead costs' distribution methods.

WFS reports are structured to include both the full and OMB compliant plan, but in the course of review if a separate report is desired for each or just one of the plans, they will be split.

Page 14 of 25 ends

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *155
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B-4543-8ED8-4E216CBB1519 Following a round of comments from City staff concerning the draft report, the final report will be prepared for presentation to the Council.

Meetings: One ( 1) conference call with City staff to review the report with changes and revisions.

Deliverables: Draft report, and revised draft/ final report.

Task 7: Prepare and Present Final Report and Model
Objective: Prepare and present the final report to City Council. Educate City staff on the operation and use of the model for future modifications.

Description: This task is the culmination of the cost allocation plan project. Based on staff comments on the draft report, Willdan will prepare the final report for presentation to City Council.

Meetings: One ( 1) meeting with the City Council to present the final plan if necessary. This meeting would be held in conjunction with the presentation of the user rate study results.

WFS will also provide staff training on the operation and use of the model.

Deliverables: Willdan: Provide one ( 1) electronic PDF file copy of the final report and models (full and OMB Super Circular compliant); and two ( 2) bound copies, and one ( 1) unbound copy to the City. Using Microsoft Word and Excel, an updateable electronic copy of the study and models, as well as related schedules, will also be provided on CD/ ROM.

Comprehensive User Fee Study
Task 1: Initial Document Request
Objective: Initial due diligence; obtain study -related data.

Description: Prior to the kick-off meeting, WFS will obtain and review relevant documentation to further enhance WFS' s understanding of the services, fees, and rates to be studied. A written request for data will be sent to the City. Please note that Time Survey data is not part of this request and will be gathered during the on -site interviews described in Task 5.

WFS will request information and documentation on current fees and fee programs, activity levels, and budget and staffing information ( to the extent not already available) related specifically to programs and activities which have associated fees, and for which the City has this level of detail.

Deliverables: Willdan: Submit information request to City.

City: Provide requested data to Willdan ( prior to Task 3, Kick- off Meeting/ Refine Scope). As with the cost allocation plan, WFS will follow up with the City to confirm receipt of requested data and information and highlight data elements that are outstanding.

Task 2: Compile Inventory of Current and Potential Fees Objective: Willdan will identify a schedule of fees and methodology for calculating the fees.

Description: Based on the results of the initial document request and independent research, incorporate into WFS' s model the existing fees, provided by the City, to comprise the parameters of the fee study.

Meetings: It is possible that a conference call with the City may be necessary to discuss new fees to implement or existing fees that may no longer be required.

Deliverables: Willdan: One ( 1) draft list of current fees based on initial data provided (to be discussed and finalized during the kick-off call).

City: Review completed fee schedule with comments/ revisions to be discussed during the kick-off meeting.

Task 3: Kick- off Conference Call / Refine Scope
Objective: Confirm goals and objectives for the User Fee Study. Identify and resolve policy issues typically raised by a User Fee Study, address gaps in data, and refine appropriate existing or new fee categories ( based on Task 2).

Description: Verify WFS' s understanding of the City's goals, the City's cost -recovery policy for user fees, and to fill any gaps in data/ information necessary for the project. It is important for the City and Willdan to identify and address any foreseeable problems and maintain open communication throughout the process.

During this call, WFS will ask that the City identify a project manager who will serve as the primary contact for the project. The project manager shall have responsibility for ensuring that all available

Page 15 of 25 ends

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *156
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 data is provided in a timely manner, thereby maintaining adherence to the project's schedule.

Meetings: One ( 1) project kick- off call to initiate the entire project, discuss data needs, and address policy issues.

This will be held in conjunction with the kick-off for the cost allocation plan. As mentioned in the cost allocation plan work plan, WFS suggest combining the kick- off calls to increase efficiency.

Deliverables: Willdan: 1) Revised project scope and schedule ( if needed); and 2) brief summary of policy decisions ( if needed).

City: 1) Provide further data needs; and 2) determine/ introduce City' s project manager.

Task 4: Develop User Fee Model
Objective: Develop and test model.

Description: This task involves the development of the model ultimately used to calculate the departmental fees, based on data and information gathered in previous tasks and in the Time Survey Interviews described in Task 5. To ensure that City policies are met through the imposition of the calculated fees, the model will be formatted to include appropriate costs.

Key model inputs will include staff and allocated overhead costs per position, and relevant budget data on salaries and benefits. Most of this information will be developed during the cost allocation plan phase of this project and will be incorporated directly into the user fee model. WFS will request clarification and/ or additional data if necessary.

The model will build upon the cost allocation plan results, to provide an allocation of administrative and overhead costs to fee related activities and departments providing services to customers, so that fees and billable rate schedules incorporate applicable costs. Furthermore, the fees and rates charged to customers will also reflect the cost of the services being provided, to the extent possible given policy and/ or political considerations.

Deliverables: Willdan: One ( 1) user- friendly model in Microsoft Excel format, which, when finalized, City staff can use to calculate fee changes annually, or as often as deemed appropriate by the City Council.

Task 5: Time Survey Interviews and On -site Information Gathering Objective: Meet with City staff to complete Time Surveys and understand service delivery processes.

Description: In order to assist staff with the completion of the survey worksheets, WFS will schedule one 1) full day of on -site meetings with staff; however, the number of meetings needed may vary depending on the number of staff and departments involved.

The Willdan Team will conduct interviews with supervisors/ managers, as well as other staff, as deemed appropriate and/ or necessary, from each department involved in the user fee study to determine the average time required by City staff to provide each of the services for which a fee is collected.

The fee model is designed so that full cost recovery fees are calculated immediately upon input of staff time. These full costs are also compared to current cost recovery levels. This will allow Willdan and City staff to conclude with a final meeting to review the draft full cost recovery fees and adjust any times as necessary once all information has been compiled and input into the fee model. WFS will schedule the interviews with staff to minimize any disruption to their normal workflow.

Meetings: Up to two ( 2) business days of WebEx or on -site meetings/ staff interviews. The ability to conduct in person meetings will depend upon any Covid- 19 related health and safety restrictions that may be in place.

Deliverables: Willdan and City: Time surveys and draft full cost recovery fees.

Task 6: Common Fees Comparison
Objective: Examine selected user fees charged by up to five ( 5) comparable cities in Los Angeles County, or jurisdictions that are similar to the City of Lomita.

Description: WFS will access and use our knowledge of other jurisdictions to benchmark the City' s five 5) most
common fees or highest yielding fees with comparable jurisdictions agreed.

Page 16 of 25 ends

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *157
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B-4543-8ED8-4E216CBB1519 service, while the same permit in another jurisdiction may not, resulting in similar sounding services with widely varying costs. For this reason, Willdan takes a selection of the City' s most commonly used and/ or highest yielding fees.

The survey will contain the following, a comparison of common or similar fees and charges used by the City and other jurisdictions; current and proposed fees and charges unique to the City of Lomita; fees and charges used by other public entities not currently used in the City; and If possible, identify characteristics and processes unique to the City that account for significant variances in fees and charges used by other jurisdictions.

Deliverables: Willdan: Recommendations provided in Task 9 will incorporate the data gathered during our examination.

Task 7: Review of Development Tax and Business License Tax Objective: To review current City taxes for Business Licenses and Development/ Construction and provide
feedback.

Description: WFS will request City policies/ ordinances/ resolutions, and other documentation as available, related to
these mechanisms. WFS will discuss the taxes with staff to determine whether there are specific questions or areas of concern and whether they are achieving their objectives.

To the extent possible, depending on available information, WFS will provide feedback based on 3 to 5 similar neighboring cities with similar tax mechanisms; examining those cities' policies, approaches and structures as compared with Lomita.

Deliverables: Willdan: Recommendations provided in Task 9 will incorporate the data gathered during our examination.

Task 8: Data Analysis and Final User Fee Schedule
Objective: Incorporate information obtained from on -site surveys to fully develop model.

Description: WFS will update the model, based on information received during the on -site surveys, to generate a
comprehensive user fee schedule. In addition, it is very common that a supplemental data request may be necessary, based on new fees identified that the City is not currently collecting. Where appropriate, WFS will suggest and discuss with staff alternate approaches to existing fee programs ( i. e. building fees) and suggest potential areas where fees could be collected where they are not currently.

WFS will present the full cost recovery level for fees, both current and projected under the new calculated fees, and revenue projections, given certain assumptions about the levels of subsidy for different fees. Current levels of cost recovery will be compared to actual full costs calculated during the course of this study. Cost will be calculated at reasonable activity levels and include all appropriate direct and indirect costs and overhead. WFS will review fee programs for compliance with Propositions 218 and 26.
in developing the fee schedule, WFS will make recommendations for new fees where appropriate, based on our experience with other cities. Some areas for new fees may be due to changes in law ( legalized cannabis), or for activities that the City finds itself performing regularly, but for which no fee is collected.

Where possible, WFS will incorporate discussion of the City's economic development policies, and where these may intersect with fee programs, for instance setting fees in a manner that encourages certain activities.

The user fee data analysis and model development may take three (3) to four (4) weeks with frequent correspondence with City staff to discuss current cost recovery amounts, necessary to recover full cost and frequency activity.

Meetings: One ( 1) WebEx or in -person meeting, as necessary, to gather additional input, complete analysis and finalize fee schedule. The ability to conduct in person meetings will depend upon any Covid19 related health and safety restrictions that may be in place.

Deliverables: Final user fee model for City Council presentation and discussion.

Task 9: Prepare and Present Draft Report
Objective: Prepare draft report.

Page 17 of 25 ends

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *158
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Description: This task involves the preparation of the draft report that discusses the study' s background, the methodologies utilized in the study, and the results and presentation to various stakeholder groups.

As noted below, meetings may occur during this or the next task as appropriate. The calculations used to generate the user fee study will be included textually, as well as in easy to understand tables.

Individual fee summaries by department and a comprehensive fee schedule will be included. The draft report will include the following:

Key results and findings;
Basic descriptions of each service;
The full cost of each service and current cost recovery levels; Costs broken down graphically into indirect and direct components, with a graphic display of the level of cost recovery;
Fee recommendations with associate levels of cost recovery; Projections of potential fee revenue;
Assessment of reasonableness of each City' s costs;
Review of reasonableness of current consultant cost structure ( for Building Division services); As appropriate, recommend alternative methodologies for building permit fee calculation; and Summary and recommendations.

The objective of the report is to communicate the recommendation of appropriate fees, which include the appropriate subsidy percentage for those fees where full cost recovery may be unrealistic.

Meetings: One ( 1) conference call with City staff, to present draft results address questions and receive feedback.

Deliverables: Willdan: Draft report for City review and comment.

City: Review of draft report, with comments and edits.

Task 10: Revise Draft Report/Determine Cost Recovery Levels for Recommended Adoption
Objective: Review of draft report and fee model.

Description: The goal of this task is to conduct an in- depth review of the draft report and model, incorporate
feedback and changes as a result of previous discussions, and arrive at an optimum fee structure.

Often through the course of an engagement, City staff will volunteer insightful likes and dislikes regarding the existing fee structure. WFS listens to this feedback carefully because your staff members know the community best. Comments usually revolve around issues of:

Understandability;
Fairness to applicants;
Ease of calculation;
Appropriate levels of cost recovery; and
Full cost recovery hourly rates.

When adjusting fee recovery levels, WFS believe it is important to address these concerns.

Following one ( 1) round of comments from City staff on the draft report and feedback from City staff, WFS will prepare the final report for presentation to the City Council.

Meetings: One ( 1) online demonstration ( WebEx) to review the report and model, with any revisions.

Deliverables: Draft report, revised draft / final report.

Task 11: Prepare and Present Final Report/ Train Staff on Model Objective: Prepare and present final report to City Council. Train staff on the operation and use of the model for
future modifications.

Description: This task is the culmination of the entire project. Based on staff comments received regarding the draft
report, WFS will prepare the final report for presentation.

Page 18 of 25 ends

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *159
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Meetings: One ( 1) meeting with City Council to present the results and adopt the updated fee schedule.

WFS will also provide staff training on the operation and use of the model on the same day, during regular business hours.

Deliverables: Provide one ( 1) electronic PDF file copy of the final report and models; and if requested provide three ( 3) bound copies, and one ( 1) unbound copy to the City. Using Microsoft Word and Excel, an updateable electronic copy of the study and models, as well as related schedules, will also be provided on CD/ ROM.

Development Impact Fee Analysis
Willdan will consider and recommend modifications to the existing program structure, cost components, and fee amounts. In addition to the services for which the City presently charges fees, the study shall identify and recommend other potential impact fees consistent with the City' s goals and objectives.

Task 1: Identify and Resolve Policy Issues
Objective: Identify and resolve policy issues raised by the study.

Description: Review agency documents related to existing capital planning policies and funding programs including existing impact fees. Bring policy issues to City staff's attention, as appropriate, during the project and seek guidance prior to proceeding. Potential policy issues include:

Potential new impact fees for consideration
Adequacy of General Plan and other public facility planning policies ( e. g. level of service standards); impact fee ordinances and resolutions, and prior nexus studies; Availability of existing public facility master plans and CIPs to identify needed facilities; Types of facilities to be funded by each fee;
Land use categories for imposition of fees;
Nexus approach to determining facility standards;
Nexus approach to allocating cost burden among land uses, including need for separate fee zones;
Potential alternative funding sources, if needed;
Funding existing deficiencies, if identified; and
Implementation concerns and strategies.

Deliverables: ( 1) Information requests; ( 2) revised project scope and schedule ( if needed); and ( 3) brief summary of policy decisions ( if needed).

Task 2: Comparison
Objective: Provide a comparison of the current and proposed impact fees to those of comparable/ surrounding jurisdictions.

Description: Typically, this would be neighboring jurisdictions, and a few that are nearby and comparable to the City. Willdan will compare a total of five jurisdictions to be selected by the City. Typically, Willdan prepares an analysis of fees charged to a series of prototype developments ( such as residential, retail, etc.) in order to provide an " apples to apples" comparison, but the exact methodology will be set in consultation with the City. This comparison will be limited to five other jurisdictions.

Task 3: Prepare Report
Description: Provide a technical memorandum the summarizes Willdan' s findings and outlines a roadmap to future actions to consider ( such as a fee update study, adoption of additional fee categories, etc.).

Deliverables: WFS will provide up to five ( 5) hard copies of the technical memorandum, one ( 1) unbound copy, and a copy in Microsoft Word.

Task 4: Meetings
Objective: The project manager or other necessary Willdan staff will attend project meetings. A member of the Impact project team will attend up to two meetings throughout the Impact Fee Analysis portion of the City' s engagement. Phone conferences are not considered meetings for the purposes of this scope.

Additional meetings may be requested for an additional fee based on WFS hourly billing rates.

Page 19 of 25 ends

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *160
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Project Schedules
vvlldan understands time is of the essence for the City of Lomita to begin this engagement. These schedules can only be met with the cooperation of City staff. Delays in responding to our requests for data and review will result in corresponding delays to the project schedule. If that is the case, we will notify the City immediately of the possible impact on the schedule.

Cost Allocation Plan
Legend•
1: Information Request 11111116: Draft Report
x 2: Revised Project Scope and Schedule ( d n«edeo9 NO: Revised Draft Report/ Final Report 03: User-friendly Model in Microsoft Excel U7: Final Report —Hard and Electronic Copies i4: Draft Cost PJlocation Plan Model Review
1" WILLDAN CwtAe« anon wan, UrorkeSaMywtfD ebpmentlmpwtFe* D@vfcpm f1mpwtF" AnLy3is 37

Page 20 of 25 ends

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *161
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 City of tt]I ilia
User Fee Study
Legend
1: Information Request US: Revised Draft Report/ Final Report 2: Revised Project Scope and Schedule ( if needec) 7: Final Report - - hrd and Electronic Copies 3: Lser- friendly Model in Microsoft Excel t8: Draft List of Current Fees 4: Draft Fee and Rate Model Review NO: Trre Surveys and Draft Full Cost Recovery Fees 5: Draft Report SIO: Corrrron Fee Corperison
WILLDAN oostAAw. elm P?-, lMar F;"$ M wd o. wwpm. ntMowt F. 0rIW ~ tfmp, ct Fee AnNyala 39

Page 21 of 25 ends

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *162
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Development Impact Fee Analysis
ry WILLDAN Co$ tA#Iwwion F#w, Us F" SWdY wd DBvelapmentlmPwt Fee Dev* IOP ntfmPwtFae AnWysfs 39

Page 22 of 25 ends

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *163
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Schedule of Fees
Not to Exceed Fee
Wilidan Financial Services (" Willdan") proposes a not -to -exceed fixed fee of $49,170 for the Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study, and Development Impact Fee Analysis engagement. The tables below provide a breakdown of each fee by task and project team member.

Fee Proposal
C. Fisher T. Thrasher P. Patel R. Olmid
PthelpaHo- Tech Prated Aruly kA QNTarh
fetal
S 260 $ 185 $ 125 $ 210i Flours Cost
e of Services
1: Initial Document Request 1. 0 1. 0 2.0 $ 310
2: Kick- off / Refine Scope 1. 0 1. 0 2.0 310
3: Gather Staffing Information, Develop Cost Alocation Plan Model 1. 0 4. 0 16. 0 21. 0 2, 990 4: Test and Review Cost Allocation Methodology 1. 0 3. 0 8. 0 1. 0 13. 0 Z015 5; Prepare and Present Draft Report 2.0 20 10.0 1. 0 15.0 2,330 6: Discuss and Revise Report 1. 0 2, 0 6. 0 9.0 1, 370
7: Prepare and Present Final Report/ Train Staff on Model 1. 0 4. 0 1. 0 8.0 1, 115 ser Fee Study
Based on the corresponding work plan identified within the scope of services, we propose a not -to -exceed fixed fee of $24, 780 to prepare a User Fee Study.

Fee Proposal
Scope of Services
Task 1: Initial Document Request
Task Z Compile Inventory of Current and Potential Fees
Task 3: ift-off /Refine Scope
Task 4: Dewlap User Fee Model
Task 5: Time Surrey Interviews and Information Gathering Task 6: Common Fees Comparison
Task 7: Review of Development/ Business License Taxes
Task 6: Data Analysis and Final Fee and Rate Shcedu' e
Task 9: Prepare and Present Draft Report
Task 10: Revise DraftYDetermine, Cost Recovery Levels
Task 11: Prepare and Present Final Report/ Train Staff on Model C. Fisher T. Thrasher P. Paw
Prhndpal- R Tech Project Analytical
charge Manager--- -. support_.
250 $ 185 $ 1I
IL atald
QNTach

1. 0 1. 0 $ 125

1. 0 2. 0 3. 0 435

1. 0 1. 0 2. 0 4. 0 685
20 12.0 14. 0 1, 870

1. 0 10. 0 10. 0 21. 0 3, 350

1. 0 2. 0 16. 0
I 19. 0
2, 620

3. 0 3. 0 5. 0 1. 01 120 2, 140

1. 0 6. 0 34. 0 20 43. 0 1, 030

2. 0 4. 0 12. 0 1. 0 19. 0 2, 950

1. 0 8. 0 80 20 19. 0 3, 150

1. 0 5. 0 2.0 1 8. 0 1. 425
WN' I LLDAN CostAllocat/ on Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 40

Page 23 of 25 ends

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *164
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709E- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Development Impact Fee Analysis
Based on the corresponding work plan identified within the scope of services, we propose a not -to -exceed fixed fee of $13, 950 prepare a Development Impact Fee Analysis.

Fee Proposal
J. Edison C. Villarreal
Project Manager eniof_ s na" Total
240 S 165. Hours Cast
Scope of Services
Task 1: Identify and Resolve Policy Issues 8. 0 12. 0 20. 0 3, 900 Task 2: Comparison 6. 0 10. 0 16.0 3, 090
Task 3: Prepare Report 8. 0 12. 0 20. 0 3, 900
Task 4: Meetings 10. 0 4.0 14. 0 3, 060
Development Impact Fee Liutitutions
Our fees stated in the Development Impact Fee Budget include attendance at a total of two in - person meetings with City staff, stakeholders, and City Council. Attendance at more than two in -person meetings shall be billed at our current hourly rates, provided below.

Comprehensive written responses to resolve conflicts or preparation of more than one set of major revisions to the draft report, will be classified as Additional Services, and may require additional billing at hourly rates stated in the Hourly Rates table listed below. These additional fees shall only take effect once the fixed fee stated above has been exceeded.

Examples of Additional Services include:

Additional analysis based on revised assumptions requested by the City, including possible changes in Facilities needs list, infrastructure costs, populations projections, and related data once preparation of draft administrative report has been approved;
Negotiations with stakeholders once the report has been prepared ( beyond the two meetings included in the proposal); and
Time expended related to obtaining data assigned to City under " City Staff Support", as stated in our work plan.

Notes
Our fee includes all direct expenses associated with the project, We will invoice the City monthly based on percentage of project completed.

Additional services may be authorized by the City and will be billed at our then - current hourly overhead consulting rates.

City shall reimburse Willdan for any costs Willdan incurs, including without limitation, copying costs, digitizing costs, travel expenses, employee time and attorneys' fees, to respond to the legal process of any governmental agency relating to City or relating to the project. Reimbursement shall be at Willdan ' s rates in effect at the time of such response.

The cost of preparing the Fee Study can be included in the resulting new fee schedule. Therefore, over time, the City can recover the initial outlay of funds that was required to complete the studies.

Willdan will rely on the validity and accuracy of the City' s data and documentation to complete the analysis. Willdan will rely on the data as being accurate without performing an independent verification of accuracy and will not be responsible for any errors that result from inaccurate data provided by the client or a third party.

V/ W I LLDAN cost Allocatlon Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 41

Page 24 of 25 ends

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *165
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 7098- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Additional Professional Services
Hourly Fee Schedule
Our current hourly rates are listed below.

Position Team Member Hourly Rate
Group Manager Chris Fisher 250
Managing Principal James Edison 240
Principal Consultant Bob Quaid 210
Senior Project Manager Tony Thrasher 185
Project Manager Carlos Villarreal 165
Senior Project Analyst 136
Senior Analyst Priti Patel 125
Analyst II 110
Analyst 1 100
W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Alan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 42

Page 25 of 25 ends

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *166
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- BED8- 4E216CBB1519

EXHIBIT A
City of Lomita
Technical Proposal
Comprehensive User Fee &
Charges Rate Study
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *167
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519

W I LLDAN

FINANCIAL SERVICES
June 4, 2020
Ms. Kathleen Hill
City Clerk
City of Lomita
24300 Narbonne Avenue
Lomita, California 90717
Re: Proposal to Conduct a Comprehensive User Fees and Charges Rate Study for the City of Lomita Dear Ms. Hill:

Following the extended shutdown of most of the economy as a result of the COVID outbreak, now more than ever municipalities throughout California are challenged with doing more with less. As cities are faced with limited financial resources to address numerous competing priorities and objectives, they are always striving to maintain high standards of service to their communities. Considering this, it is critical for the City of Lomita (" City") to ensure that its fees for requested services have been developed and updated to ensure maximum appropriate cost recovery, so that the revenues generated by fees cover the cost of those services to the greatest extent possible. City Staff, and ultimately the City Council, need a clear understanding of standards, service levels and the associated costs. Recognizing this, the City has responded by soliciting proposals for a Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study Development Impact Fee Analysis.

Unique Combination of Services and Expertise/ Public Engagement — Willdan Financial Services (" Willdan") is a team of nearly 80 professionals who provide essential financial consulting services throughout California, and the United States. Willdan has provided the requested services to municipal clients for over two decades; and is the only firm providing these types of consulting services that also has a long history of providing contract staff support to public agencies for the delivery of municipal services. This direct experience as " agency staff' provides us with firsthand understanding of City operations and is uniquely useful in determining the full effort associated with service delivery and in developing a fee schedule that is easy to communicate and implement.

Please note: Willdan is submitting proposals in response to both of the RFPs recently issued by the City. We are one of the only firms who combine Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee, Development Impact Fee and Water Rate expertise and experience under one roof, without the need to team with other consultants — ensuring a seamless coordinated execution of these important projects for the City.

Broad Experience with Impact Fee Programs Statewide and Across the Country — Willdan has wide experience with the range of impact fees charged in the region and the state, and the typical pros, cons and challenges of each, both in implementation and management. Willdan will be pleased to bring its expertise to the City' s process of considering financial, practical and policy issues in deciding on its future impact fee program.

Extensive Experience with Similar Work for Los Angeles/ Orange County Area Cities — Willdan has worked recently with numerous cities in relative proximity to the City of Lomita on User Fee and Development Impact Fee projects, with objectives very similar to those for this study. This local experience enables us to bring valuable perspective and insight from other local cities' approaches to fees and their policies on fee setting and subsidies, and will also assist us in conducting meaningful and efficient fee comparisons. Recent studies include Paramount, Signal Hill, Lynwood, Monterey Park, Cerritos, Irvine, Chino Hills and Claremont, with ongoing studies in Arcadia, West Hollywood, El Monte and Fullerton.

Collaborative Approach and User- friendly Models and Reports — Willdan prides itself on working closely with City staff to develop an approach that is targeted toward your specific objectives and accounts for your reality, and then working together with you to gather first- hand information regarding the processes and tasks required to provide services to those requesting them.

This is a distinct advantage we will bring in our approach with the City of Lomita. A collaborative approach ensures we clearly understand your goals and challenges, and just as importantly, you understand the process and the results. We have included one full day of on -site data gathering and staff interviews to ensure we obtain the information we need efficiently and accurately, with limited need for follow- up.

T 951. 587. 3500 800, 755. 6864 1 F 951. 587. 3510 888. 326, 6864 1 27368 Via Industria, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92590 1 www. wilidan. com Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *168
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Ms. Kathleen Hill, City Clerk
City of Lomita
Proposal to Comprehensive User Fees and Charges Rate Study June 4, 2020
Page ii
We create user- friendly Excel - based models that the City can retain and conduct our analysis and develop the model collaboratively with City staff. Rather than using an inflexible proprietary software program, we construct our models from the ground up, mirroring the City' s budget format wherever possible. As a result, the information contained in our models is easy for City staff to interpret, and the familiar software ensures ease of navigation.

This also allows for easy on -the -fly adjustments and updates, inclusion of updated budgets, or changes in organizational structure. Created directly from the models, our reports clearly and graphically illustrate full and recommended levels of cost recovery and projections of revenue for fee programs, break down the costs into direct and indirect overhead categories, and present the fee methodologies.

Our models and project approach are geared toward delivering work on schedule and presenting results at public meetings and council workshops.

We are excited about this opportunity to serve the City of Lomita. To discuss any aspect of our proposal, please contact me; my contact information is provided in the table below.

Principal -in -Charge
Chris Fisher
Vice President
27368 Via Industria, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590
Tel#: ( 800) 755- 6864 1 Fax #: ( 888) 326- 6864
Email: CFisherCcDWilldan. com
As a Vice President of Willdan Financial Services, I am authorized to bind the firm to the terms of this proposal, as well as the subsequent agreement.

Sincerely,

WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES
Chris Fisher
Vice President - Group Manager
Financial Consulting Services
COMPREHENSIVE. INNOVATIVE. TRUSTED. W"
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *169
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Table of Contents
TABLEOF CONTENTS................................................................................................................................................. III EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS......................................................................................................................... 1 FirmProfile..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 WilldanFinancial Services...................................................................................................................................... 1 ProfessionalExpertise.................................................................................................................................................. 2 Unique Combination of Services and Expertise/ Public Engagement..................................................................... 2 Broad Experience Across the Country .................................................................................................................... 2 StaffContinuity........................................................................................................................................................ 2 ProjectDedication................................................................................................................................................... 2 FinancialStability.......................................................................................................................................................... 3 ProjectStatement.......................................................................................................................................................... 3 SimilarStudies............................................................................................................................................................... 4 ProjectTeam.................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Principal- in- Charge.................................................................................................................................................. 7 Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study............................................................................................................... 7 Development Impact Fee Analysis.......................................................................................................................... 7 Resumes................................................................................................................................................................. 7 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................................................. 19 Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study............................................................................................................. 19 Development Impact Fee Analysis........................................................................................................................ 20 CombinedStudies................................................................................................................................................. 22 PROJECTAPPROACH................................................................................................................................................ 23 ProjectUnderstanding................................................................................................................................................ 23 ProjectMethodologies................................................................................................................................................ 24 Cost Allocation Plan Methodology........................................................................................................................ 24 UserFee Study Methodology................................................................................................................................ 25 Development Impact Fee Analysis........................................................................................................................ 27 RelatedApproach Issues...................................................................................................................................... 28 StakeholderParticipation...................................................................................................................................... 28 WorkPlans................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Full and OMB Compliant Cost Allocation Plan...................................................................................................... 29 ComprehensiveUser Fee Study........................................................................................................................... 31 Development Impact Fee Analysis........................................................................................................................ 35 CityStaff Support .................................................................................................................................................. 36 ProjectSchedules........................................................................................................................................................ 37 CostAllocation Plan.............................................................................................................................................. 37 UserFee Study...................................................................................................................................................... 38 Development Impact Fee Analysis........................................................................................................................ 39 SCHEDULEOF FEES................................................................................................................................................... 40 Notto Exceed Fee........................................................................................................................................................ 40 CostAllocation Plan.............................................................................................................................................. 40 UserFee Study...................................................................................................................................................... 40 Development Impact Fee Analysis........................................................................................................................ 41 Notes............................................................................................................................................................................. 41 Additional Professional Services...............................................................................................................................42 HourlyFee Schedule............................................................................................................................................. 42 W"W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis iii Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *170
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Experience and Qualifications
Firm Profile
Willdan Financial Services is an operating division within Willdan Group, Inc. ( WGI), which was founded in 1964 as an engineering firm working with local governments. Today, WGI is a publicly owned company on NASDAQ ( WLDN). WGI provides technical and consulting services that ensure the quality, value, and security of our nation' s infrastructure, systems, facilities, and environment. WGI has been a consistent industry leader through its subsidiaries and provides professional technical and consulting services that ensure the quality, value and security of our nation' s infrastructure, systems, facilities, and environment.

The firm has pursued two primary service objectives since its I;w'
inception — ensuring the success of its clients and enhancing its complementary
surrounding
and
planning,
client
reputation
The
energy
responsiveness
communities.
company'
disciplines
efficiency
for technical
s service
In
and
in
that
doing
excellence,
providing
sustainability,
offerings
include
so, Willdan
span
superior
costengineering
financial
a
effectiveness,
has
broad co
gained
and
set
and
of
economic
a
consulting. Willdan has crafted this set of
integrated services so that, in the face of an evolving environment — whether economic, natural, or built — Willdan can continue to extend the reach and resources of its clients.

WGI has over 1, 300 employees operating from offices in Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Utah, Texas, and Washington.

Willdan Financial Services
Established on June 24, 1988, Willdan Financial Services, a California Corporation, is a national firm, and is one of the largest public sector financial consulting firms in the United States. Since that time, we have helped over 1, 200 public agencies successfully address a broad range of financial challenges, such as financing the costs of growth and generating revenues to fund desired services. Willdan assists local public agencies by providing the following services:

User fee studies;
Cost allocation studies;
Tax increment finance district formation and
amendment;
Housing development and implementation
strategies;
Financial consulting;
Real estate acquisition;
Feasibility studies;
Development Impact Fee establishment and analysis;
Utility rate and cost of service studies;
Municipal Advisory;
Real estate economic analysis;
Economic development plans and strategies;
Debt issuance support;
Long- term financial plans and cash flow modeling; and
Property tax audits.

Our staff of nearly 80 full-time employees supports our clients by conducting year-round workshops and on -site training to assist them in keeping current with the latest
developments in our areas of expertise. WI LLDAN

FINANCIAL SERVICES
The organization chart located to the right represents
Willdan' s reporting structure, principals, including the operating groups; it as well defines the assets
available to the City of Lomita.
36 Profs MMS 22 ProMsio" s 6 Ploft" oryls
W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *171
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Professional Expertise
Unique Combination of Services and Expertise/ Public Engagement Willdan has provided User Fee and Impact Fee services to municipal clients for over 20 years; and has prepared comprehensive impact fee studies, user fee studies, as well as cost allocation plans, and OMB compliant cost allocation plans for clients throughout California and the United States. Willdan' s proven and successful track -record conducting fee studies for public agencies dates to 1998. Since that time, we have developed the expertise to successfully integrate this service into the Financial Consulting Services group' s primary functions.

We are also one of the only firms who combine Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee and Development Impact Fee expertise and experience under one roof, without the need to team with other consultants — ensuring a seamless coordinated execution of this important project for the City.

Willdan' s Financial Consulting Services staff has assisted well over 100 California government agencies with the development and/ or update of all fee types. Each project has required defensible documentation and thorough coordination of fee program changes for different agency departments and stakeholders within the business community. In some cases, Willdan has been required to negotiate fees with stakeholders and, on occasion, defend them in meetings and public forums.

We are particularly strong in advising our clients on the advantages and disadvantages of different fee schedule structures ( citywide versus multiple -fee districts/ zones; more versus fewer land -use categories; etc.) and methods of fee calculation that are based on the City's and stakeholder priorities and applicable regulations that comply with Proposition 26 and Proposition 218.

Our record of success within the industry provides assurance of the professionalism and capability we will bring to this engagement. A team composed of project managers and analysts develop and/or, update user fee studies, cost allocation plans and development impact fees.

Broad Experience Across the Country
Willdan Financial Services is a team of professionals who provide essential financial consulting services throughout the United States. Willdan has provided the requested services to municipal clients for over two decades; and is the only firm providing these types of consulting services that also has a long history of providing contract staff support to public agencies for the delivery of municipal services. This direct experience as " agency staff' provides us with firsthand understanding of City operations and is uniquely useful in determining the full effort associated with service delivery and in developing a fee schedule that is easy to communicate and implement.

Willdan has extensive experience with the range of fees charged in the region and the state, and the typical pros, cons and challenges of each, both in implementation and management. Willdan will be bring its expertise to the City's process of considering financial, practical and policy issues in deciding on its future fee program.

Staff Continuity
Mr. Fisher has been assigned to serve as the City' s representative; he has been selected for this role due to his extensive experience, which includes the It /s Important to note that preparation and supervision of numerous fee studies, as well as his experience Mr. Fisher has been with presenting to governing bodies, stakeholders, and industry groups. Willdan for more than 21 years, ensuring the City
Project Dedication of Lomita of continuity
Willdan' s Financial Consulting Services group is composed of a team of over 20 and dedication in staffing senior -level professional consultants. While each member of the project team during the completion of currently has work in progress with other clients, the workload is at a manageable the project. level with sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the City specific to the schedule and budget for this engagement.

WWI LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *172
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 The team presented within this proposal has worked collectively on numerous projects, such as the one requested by the City of Lomita; an established work practice between the team members has been forged, this proven long- standing system has benefited our clients.

The proposed project team collectively maintains decades of experience providing financial consulting services, the project team' s key resources are comprised of the following individuals:

Mr. Chris Fisher, Vice President and Group Manager; Principal - in -Charge Mr. James Edison, Managing Principal-, Development Impact Fee Analysis Project Manager Mr. Robert Quaid, CPA, Principal Consultant; User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan QA/ QC Mr. Tony Thrasher, Senior Project Manager; User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan Project Manager Mr. Carlos Villarreal, Project Manager; Development Impact Fee Analysis Lead Analyst Ms. Priti Patel, Senior Analyst; User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan Lead Analyst Financial Stability
To establish our financial stability, we are providing the following information.

Willdan Group, Inc. ( WGI) has sustained a healthy financial performance record due to the outstanding performance of our operating divisions and a strong, dependable reputation in municipal consulting. A snapshot of WGI' s financial statistics are provided to the right demonstrating our financial position and stability. As a publicly traded company ( WLDN), must provide public financial information as required by the SEC.

Detailed financial statements and annual reports are included on our webpage ( http:// ir.wilidangroup. com/).

Financial Stability
In business for over 55 years
Market capitalization of $ 413M
as of end of 2nd Quarter, 2019)
Fiscal 2nd Quarter 2019 revenue
6 months) of $ 196M
Fiscal Year 2018 revenue of
272M
Willdan Financial Services is not currently involved in any condition e. bankruptcy, current or pending litigation, planned office closures, $ 50 million Line of Credit with the
9- P 9- 9
impending merger) that may impede our ability to complete this ability to increase up to $ 60 million engagement. (
as of end of 2" d Quarter, 2019)

27. 6M in cash and cash
equivalents
as of end of 2nd Quarter, 2019)
Project Statement
Willdan has read and understands, and agrees to, all statements in this request for proposal, and acknowledges receipt of all addendums and amendments, as well as to the terms, conditions, and attachments referenced. 1IO' W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 3 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *173
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Similar Studies
Listed in the table below, is an abbreviated list of the public agencies in which similar services are currently in progress, or have been completed, in the previous five years by the project team included within this submission.

Willdan Financial Services
5 Year Cost of Services Study
Agency Impact Fee Study
Experience
User Fee Study Cost Allocation Plan
City of Alameda, CA
City of Banning, CA
City of Bell, CA
City of Bell Gardens, CA
City of Bellflower, CA
City of Belmont, CA
City of Blythe, CA
City of Brea, CA
City of Carpinteria, CA
City of Cerritos, CA
City of Chino Hills, CA
City of Claremont, CA
City of Coalinga, CA
City of Colton, CA
City of Commerce, CA
City of Compton, CA
City of Corona, CA
City of Cudahy, CA
City of DeSoto, TX
City of Dinuba, CA
City of El Centro, CA
City of El Cerrito, CA
City of El Monte, CA
City of Emeryville, CA
City of Encinitas, CA
City of Fillmore, CA
City of Fountain Hills, AZ
City of Fremont, CA
City of Galt, CA
City of Gardena, CA
City of Garden Grove, CA
City of Gilroy, CA
City of Glendale, AZ
City of Hawthorne, CA
City of Hayward, CA
City of Hesperia, CA
City of Hollister, CA
City of Indian Wells, CA
W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 4 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *174
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599-
AVMW
709B- 4543- 8EDB- 4E216CBB1519
Year Cost
knpad
of Services
Fee Study
S
e
User Fee Cost Allocation Plan
City of Irvine, CA
City of Irwindale, CA
City of La Mesa, CA
City of La Mirada, CA
City of La Puente, CA
City of Laguna Hills, CA
City of Lake Elsinore, CA
City of Lynwood, CA
City of Menifee, CA
City of Mission Viejo, CA
City of Missouri City, TX
City of Montebello, CA
City of Monterey Park, CA
City of Monterey, CA
City of Morgan Hill, CA
City of Murrieta, CA
City of Napa, CA
City of National City, CA
City of Oroville, CA
City of Pacifica, CA
City of Palm Desert, CA
City of Patterson, CA
City of Petaluma, CA
City of Pismo Beach, CA
City of Pittsburg, CA
City of Rancho Mirage, CA
City of Rialto, CA
City of Richmond, CA
City of Rocklin, CA
City of Rosemead, CA
City of St. Helena, CA
City of Salinas, CA
City of San Anselmo, CA
City of San Bruno, CA
City of San Fernando, CA
City of San Jacinto, CA
City of Santa Ana, CA
City of Sierra Madre, CA
City of Signal Hill, CA
City of Soledad, CA
City of South San Francisco, CA
W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *175
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Willdan
5 Year Cost of Services Study
itrnpaat Fee Study
Experience
User Fee Study Cost Allocation Plan
City of Sunnyvale, TX
City of Surprise, AZ
City of Tehachapi, CA
City of Temecula, CA
City of Tulare, CA
City of Twenty -Nine Palms, CA
City of Union City, CA
City of Watsonville, CA
City of West Covina, CA
City of West Hollywood, CA
City of Yucaipa, CA
County of Los Angeles, CA
County of Riverside, CA
County of Sacramento, CA
County of San Benito, CA
County of San Diego, CA
County of Stanislaus, CA
County of Tulare, CA
Kentuckiana Works, KY
San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital, CA
Town of Loomis, CA
Town of Los Altos Hills, CA
Town of Paradise Valley, AZ
Truckee Fire Protection District, CA
1l W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *176
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Project Team
Our management and supervision of the project team is very simple: staff every position with experienced, capable personnel in sufficient numbers to deliver a superior product to the City, on time and on budget. With that philosophy in mind, we have selected experienced professionals for this engagement. We are confident that our team possesses the depth of experience that will successfully fulfill your desired work performance.

Our employees know and understand the problems facing local government under the current economic climate, and we have oriented our practice to support an agency' s modified budget policies and public service priorities.

Principal -in -Charge
Mr. Chris Fisher will administer the City of Lomita project as the Principal -in -Charge. He will apply his extensive financial rate design/ modeling experience and ability to clearly communicate results through the facilitation of numerous stakeholder forums. In this role, he will attend meetings and presentations, provide technical guidance, produce key study elements, and will be responsible for work deliverables.

Mr. Fisher is also proposed to serve as the Principal -in -Charge for the Water Rate Study. Guaranteeing continuity in the City' s projects, and maximizing the opportunity to leverage relationships, data and efforts between the two projects.

Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
Mr. Tony Thrasher will serve as the Technical Project Manager and primary contact for the Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study portion of the engagement. He will work closely with Mr. Fisher to develop the analyses under the City' s scope of services and develop complete and accurate models that will best fit the project needs.

Ms. Priti Patel will provide Analytical Support as the project analyst, she will work closely with Mr. Fisher and Mr.

Thrasher, and the City, to ensure that data is collected, interpreted, researched, and correctly entered into the model.

Mr. Robert Quaid, CPA, will provide quality assurance/ quality control to this engagement in the role of Quality Assurance/Technical Advisor. Mr. Quaid will review the models as a third -party internal reviewer prior to their submittal to City staff. His continual review of data entry and model development assures that the draft, and final products have been thoroughly evaluated for potential errors; thus, providing quality client deliverables, and high levels of integrity and outcomes throughout the duration of the project.

Development Impact Fee Analysis
Mr. James Edison, Managing Principal, will serve as the Project Manager for the Development Impact Fee Analysis portion of the project. His responsibilities will include leading tasks, overseeing the quality of work products, and assuring timely completion of the project; as well as serve as the primary contact and will be present at key meetings.

He has been selected for this role because of his familiarity with innovative approaches to funding public facilities and recent legislative and case -law changes that alter how California agencies can use the Mitigation Fee Act.

Mr. Edison is a former bond attorney; with this knowledge and expertise overseeing the City' s project, he can be of assistance in advising, and addressing matters that are related to the review or preparation of a nexus study.

Mr. Carlos Villarreal, a Willdan project manager, will serve as Lead Analyst for the Development Impact Fee Analysis engagement. Mr. Villarreal will be responsible for data gathering and report writing for the Development Impact Fee update engagement. He will also be responsible for coordinating with the client to ensure that data gathering proceeds smoothly and minimizes the burden on client staff.

Resuilles
Resumes for Willdan' s project team are presented on the following pages.

W"W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 7 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *177
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599-709B-4543-8ED8-4E216CBB1519 Chris Fisher
Principal -in -Charge
Education Mr. Chris Fisher, Vice President and Group Manager of Willdan' s Financial Consulting Services San Francisco State group, will serve as Principal -in -Charge for the City of Lomita' s project. He will also share his University, Bachelor of extensive knowledge related to cost -of -service principles with members of the project team.

Science, Finance
Mr. Fisher joined Willdan in April of 1999, and during that time has managed an array of financial Areas of Expertise consulting projects for public agencies in California, Arizona, Colorado, Texas, and Florida, Cost of Service coordinating the activities of resources within Willdan, as well as those from other firms working Analyses on these projects. He is one of the firm' s leading experts for special district financing related to public infrastructure, maintenance, and services, including public safety.

Multi -disciplinary Team
Management Related Experience
City of Irvine, CA — OMB Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study: Willdan Special District completed a cost allocation plan and user fee study for the City of Irvine. Mr. Fisher managed and Formations provided quality assurance to this project, ensuring the accuracy of the models, as well as the final Client Presentations reports. He also presented the results to the City' s Finance Commission and to the City Council.

City of Murrieta, CA — Cost Allocation and OMB Compliant Plan and Comprehensive User Proposition 218 Fee Study: Mr. Fisher served as the project manager on the City' s fee study. The primary objective for the cost allocation study was to ensure that general government costs were fairly and Affiliations equitably allocated to appropriate programs and funds.

California Society of
Municipal Finance City of West Covina, CA — Comprehensive Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study: Mr.

Officers Fisher served in the role of project manager for the City' s engagement. The cost allocation plan developed will aid the City in the recovery of overhead costs related to central service activities.

Municipal Management City of Laguna Hills, CA — Comprehensive Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Association of
Northern California Fee Study: Mr. Fisher oversaw the update of the City' s general overhead allocation plan and cost - of -service user fees.

California Municipal City of Palm Desert, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study:

Treasurers Association Mr. Fisher is the principal - in -charge for the ongoing full cost allocation plan and user fee study.

Willdan' s work includes the gathering of necessary data and information, interviews with City Staff 21 Years' Experience to identify overhead support services and how they are used and interviews to gather information related to fee -based services. We are also developing financial models to calculate overhead allocations and personnel rates and the full cost of services for which fees are charged. We are working with Staff to finalize cost recovery targets, prepare reports and present the results.

City of Indian Wells, CA — User Fee Study: Mr. Fisher was the principal - in -charge for the City' s user fee study for the Administrative, Building, Planning and Public Works Departments. Our team gathered and confirmed data, met with City Staff to discuss the City' s overhead support structure and how operating activities use and benefit from overhead support services. We conducted interviews to gather information related to fee -based services to be used in calculating the full cost of providing services. We developed financial models to calculate overhead allocations and the full cost of services and worked with Staff to develop fee -setting recommendations. We prepared reports and presented the results and met with the development community to address their questions about the study' s methodology and results.

City of National City, CA — Cost Allocation Plan, OMB Compliant Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study, and ISF Allocation Study: Mr. Fisher served as the principal -in -charge for the City of National City' s Cost Allocation Plan, OMB Compliant Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee, and ISF Allocation Study.

City of Hayward, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study: Mr. Fisher served as the project manager for the City' s full overhead cost allocation plan and OMB A- 87 cost allocation plan, along with a comprehensive master user fee study. He worked with the City and Willdan staff to gather the necessary data and is overseeing Willdan' s development of the cost allocation model. The City has a complicated and detailed budget and the cost allocation plan that Willdan developed is tailored to their structure and includes provision for several Internal Service Funds.

W' W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *178
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B-4543-8ED8-4E216CBB1519 City of Salinas, CA — Comprehensive Fee Study and Full Cost Allocation Plan: Mr. Fisher C. Fisher served as the project manager for the City of Salinas engagement, to prepare an OMB A-87- Resume Continued compliant full cost allocation plan and comprehensive fee study for the development of a master list of fees. Mr. Fisher led an all -departments overview meeting, where the framework and general process was reviewed, and global practical and policy questions were addressed. Immediately following the overview meeting, individual meetings were held with representatives from each department to discuss their specific fee related activities and gather necessary information to update fees.

City of Belmont, CA — Master Fee Study and Cost Allocation Refinement: Mr. Fisher served as the project manager for Willdan' s work with the City of Belmont and the Belmont Fire Protection District' s fee study. Willdan completed a Master Fee Study and an analysis and review of the existing Cost Allocation Plan for the City of Belmont, and a Fee and Rate Study for the Belmont Fire Protection District.

City of Union City, CA — Comprehensive Fee and Rate Study & Overhead Cost Allocation Plan: Mr. Fisher served as the principal - in -charge for the City' s fee study. He oversaw the development of an overhead cost allocation plan, OMB compliant cost allocation plan, as well as a comprehensive user fee study.

City of Signal Hill, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study: As principal -in -charge, Mr.

Fisher oversaw the development and review of a Full and OMB compliant cost allocation study and a comprehensive user fee and rate study for the City' s master list of fees.

City of Petaluma, CA — Overhead Cost Allocation Plan and OMB Circular A- 87 Plan, User Fee Study, CIP Rate Analysis, and Hourly Overhead Rate Study: Mr. Fisher served as project manager for the project team and provided oversight for this thorough and intensive study for the City of Petaluma.

City of Pittsburg, CA —Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study: Mr. Fisher provided policy guidance and quality assurance to the City' s update and development of a comprehensive user fee study for the development of a master user fee and rate schedule and a cost allocation plan to recover overhead costs related to central service activities.

City of Desoto, TX — User Fee Study: Mr. Fisher served as the principal -in -charge for City' s Comprehensive User Fee Study.

WWI IIDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *179
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Tony Thrasher
Technical Project Manager — Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study Education Due to his cost allocation and user fee analyses experience, Mr. Tony Thrasher has been selected Bachelor of Science in to serve as Technical Project Manager for the City' s User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan Economics; California engagement. Currently, Mr. Thrasher is a Project Manager within the Financial Consulting State Polytechnic Services group, whereby his responsibilities include managing projects and conducting fiscal University, Pomona analyses for cost allocation plans, user fees, and utility rate studies.

Areas of Expertise Mr. Thrasher's prior employment was as a financial analyst working in bond, equity, and mortgage - Cost Allocation Plans backed security markets for Wells Fargo Bank, Bank of New York Mellon, and Deutsche Bank.

His experience includes portfolio accounting, differential analysis, and forecasting.

Fiscal Analysis for Related Experience User Fees and Rates City of Chino Hills, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study: Mr.

District Administration Thrasher is serving as the technical project manager for the City' s Cost Allocation Plan and Services Comprehensive User Fee Study. He is working directly with the City contact throughout the engagement.

Utility Rate Studies City of Indian Wells, CA — User Fee Study: Mr. Thrasher served as the technical project manager for the City' s Administrative, Building, Planning and Public Works Departments. The 11 Years' Experience
study involved the identification of existing and potential new fees, fee schedule restructuring, data collection and analysis, orientation and consultation, quality control, communication and presentations, and calculation of individual service costs cost recovery levels.

City of Palm Desert, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study:

Mr. Thrasher is currently serving as the technical project manager for the City' s full cost allocation plan and user fee study. He is directly responsible for the creation of both models for the study, gathering and verification of the data, managing the analysts working to support him and presenting results to the City.

City of Mission Viejo, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study: Mr. Thrasher was assigned to work with the City on this project, providing analytical support, gathering data, working with staff to make refinements, and developing cost allocation and fee models to ensure full -cost recovery for building and safety, planning, community development, and public works departments.

City of Irvine, CA — OMB Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study: Serving as the project' s analyst, Mr. Thrasher provided analytical support; and designed micro - level allocation models to ensure full -cost recovery for public safety, public works, community development, community services, and administrative departments.

City of Cerritos, CA — Development Services User Fee Study: Mr. Thrasher served as the technical project manager for this engagement, whereby he designed micro - level allocation models to ensure full -cost recovery for building and safety, planning, community development, and public works departments.

City of Bellflower, CA — OMB Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study Update: In Willdan' s initial engagement with the City, Mr. Thrasher provided analytical support, with his primary duties including finalizing model figures and generating reports. In the subsequent update of both the CAP and the Fee Study, Mr. Thrasher assumed a lead technical role, working directly with the client to develop a new Cost Allocation Model, update the comprehensive fee model, and resolve policy and fee setting issues. He was directly responsible for delivery of reports and presentations to the City.

City of National City, CA — Cost Allocation Plan, OMB Compliant Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study, and ISF Allocation Study: Mr. Thrasher served as the technical project manager for the City of National City' s Cost Allocation Plan, OMB Compliant Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee, and ISF Allocation Study.
tlY WI LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 10 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *180
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8F_DR- 4F_216CRR1519 City of Hayward, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study: For this project, Mr.

T. Thrasher Thrasher provided analytical support, and was largely responsible for the development of the Resume Continued models. Primary duties include gathering and verifying necessary data, finalizing model figures and generating reports. The City hired Willdan to complete the original Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study, and has subsequently hired us for updates to both studies.

City of Petaluma, CA — Overhead Cost Allocation Plan and OMB Circular Plan, User Fee Study, CIP Rate Analysis, and Hourly Overhead Rate Study: Mr. Thrasher provided analytical support for this engagement. His primary duties were to work with City staff to gather data, provide assistance to the project manager, and produce reports. The City has hired Willdan for multiple updates since we completed the original study.

City of Richmond, CA — Cost Allocation Plan& User Fee Study: Mr. Thrasher is serving as the project manager for the City of Richmond' s fee study.

City of Salinas, CA — Full Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive Fee Study: Mr. Thrasher provided analytical support for the City of Salinas OMB A- 87- compliant full cost allocation plan and comprehensive fee study engagement. He worked closely with City staff to gather and analyze data to produce reports, participated in multiple meetings, and assisted the City appointed Project Manager in the adoption of the new fees.

City of Monterey, CA — Cost Allocation Plan: Mr. Thrasher is serving as the technical project manager for the City of Monterey Cost Allocation Plan engagement and updates. He is assisting in the development of the City's general overhead allocation plan, whereby he applies his expertise on alternative allocation methods. The City hired Willdan for the original study, and has since hired us for multiple updates.

City of Galt, CA — Cost Allocation Plan: As the assigned technical lead, Mr. Thrasher worked directly with City Staff to develop the Cost Allocation Model and report and worked with Staff to test and adjust the model and methodology where appropriate before finalizing. Following completion of the initial CAP, he worked with the City to update the model for the subsequent budget update.

Sacramento Public Library Authority, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and OMB Circular A- 87:

Mr. Thrasher provided analytical support. His primary duties included finalizing model figures and generating reports.

City of Desoto, TX — User Fee Study: Mr. Thrasher served as the technical project manager for City's Comprehensive User Fee Study.

City of Missouri City, TX — Comprehensive User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan: Mr.

Thrasher served as the technical project manager for City' s Fee Study.

City of Mesquite, TX — Cost Allocation Plan: Mr. Thrasher served as the technical project manager for City' s Cost Allocation Study.

City of Surprise, AZ — Cost Allocation Plan: Mr. Thrasher served as the technical project manager for the 2017 Cost Allocation Plan to identify the City's costs related to rendering internal central support services, and the allocation of those costs to operating departments.

Kentuckiana Works, KY — Cost Allocation Plan: Mr. Thrasher was the technical project manager for Kentuckiana Works Cost Allocation Plan.

W' W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 11 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *181
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Priti Patel
Project Analyst — Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study Education Ms. Priti Patel is a Senior Analyst within the Financial Consulting Services group, whereby she Bachelor of Arts; supports project managers in conducting utility rate analyses, fee studies, cost allocation plans, Business monitoring Proposition 218 compliance, and forming special districts.

Management,
Information Systems Coordinatingg and conductingg activities associated with Cost Allocation Plans and User Fee and Studies, including database integration and manipulation, revenue and expenditure analyses, and International Business, documentation preparation are just some of Ms. Patel' s duties. With these duties, she interacts University of Cincinnati with clients on a regular basis.

Areas of Expertise Ms. Patel joined Willdan as an analyst with the District Administration Group, while with DAS she Cost Allocation Plans performed research and analysis needed for local government financial issues related to district administration, including document data entry and updating, database management, research and User Fee Studies report preparation. She also provided general information on questions pertaining to Assessment Districts and special taxes ( such as Mello -Roos Pools), as well as the status of property Proposition 218 delinquencies. Ms. Patel came to Willdan with more than five years' experience as an Analyst.

R
7 Years' Experienceelated Experience
City of Palm Desert, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study:

Ms. Patel is assigned as the analyst to the City of Palm Desert' s full cost allocation plan and user fee study. She supports the project manager by gathering necessary data, preparing the initial draft models and reports, and working directly with City Staff to refine and update results during review iterations.

City of Indian Wells, CA — User Fee Study: Ms. Patel served as the analyst for the City' s user fee study for the Administrative, Building, Planning and Public Works Departments. She led the analytical efforts by developing the User Fee model and report, and gathering and evaluating the data necessary for the study. She also participated in the on -site interviews with Staff to discuss service delivery processes.

City of Chino Hills, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study:

Providing analytical support in the preparation of a cost allocation plan and comprehensive fee study, Ms. Patel is working to identify and take into account direct and indirect costs, along with changes in staffing, structure, and service delivery methods. She is also assisting in the preparation of user-friendly Excel -based models that City staff can easily update in the future to determine the proper allocation of expenditures and ongoing full cost of City -provided services.

City of Laguna Hills, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study:

Ms. Patel provided analytical support in the preparation of a full cost allocation plan and comprehensive fee study for the development of a master list of fees.

City of Lake Elsinore, CA — User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan: Ms. Patel provided analytical support and gathering budget and allocation basis data for this engagement.

City of National City, CA — Cost Allocation Plan, OMB Compliant Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study, and ISF Allocation Study: Ms. Patel is providing analytical support in the preparation of this study, her primary duties include development of the models, finalizing model figures and results, and generating reports.

City of San Fernando, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study:

Ms. Patel is currently providing support to senior team members in the preparation of a cost allocation plan, OMB compliant plan and comprehensive user fee study.

City of Yucaipa, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study: Provided analytical support in the preparation of a Cost Allocation Plan and OMB compliant cost allocation plan and comprehensive fee study for the development of a master list of fees. Ms. Patel worked to identify and take into account direct and indirect costs, along with changes in staffing, structure, and service delivery methods. She also assisted in the preparation of user-friendly Excel -based models that City staff could easily update in the future to determine the proper allocation of expenditures and ongoing full cost of City -provided services.

W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 12 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *182
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 City of Richmond, CA — Cost Allocation Plan & User Fee Study: Ms. Patel is the financial P. Patel analyst on the City of Richmond' s ongoing User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan. She is assisting the project manager with gathering and validation of data, development of the models Resume Continued
and related analysis, staff interviews and preparation of reports and presentations.

City of Pittsburg, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study: Ms. Patel was assigned to provide assistance to senior project team members on the City of Pittsburg Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study engagement. She will be a technical lead for the gathering of data, creation of the models and preparation of study reports and presentations. The City hired Willdan for the original study, and for two subsequent updates.

City of Monterey, CA — Cost Allocation Plan: Ms. Patel is serving as the financial analyst for the City of Monterey Cost Allocation Plan and updates. In this role she is responsible for obtaining updated information and data, reviewing overhead structure and functions and preparing the updated model and report. The City originally hired Willdan for the creation of the first Cost Allocation Plan, and has hired us for multiple updates since then.

City of Fillmore, CA — Full Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study: Ms. Patel helped develop a cost allocation plan and model that fully allocated central overhead costs to appropriate operating departments, funds, and/ or programs. She assisted in the completion of the model and report and worked directly with senior staff to their feedback and revisions.

Rainbow Municipal Water District, CA — Cost Allocation Plan and OMB Compliant Plan: Ms.

Patel provided analytical support to ensure that the District' s Cost Allocation Plan and OMB compliant cost allocation model and plan fairly allocated general and administrative overhead service costs to appropriate activities and departments.

City of Dinuba, CA — Cost Allocation Plan Update and Utility Rate Study: Ms. Patel assisted with a utility rate study and a cost allocation plan update for the City. Duties included reviewing relevant documentation, gathering information related to indirect staffing and functions, assisting in the preparation of a comprehensive draft cost allocation model and plan, and testing and reviewing the model and results with project management staff.

W"W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 13 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *183
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Robert Quaid, CPA
QA / Technical Advisor — Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study Education With his 35 years of extensive experience in public financing, Mr. Robert Quaid has been selected Bachelor of Science, to provide quality assurance/ quality control in the role of technical advisor. In his position as a University of Southern Principal Consultant at Willdan, Mr. Quaid provides project management, procedural support, California technical support, and quality review for Willdan' s District Administration group, as well as the Financial Services Consulting group specific to cost allocation plans, user fee studies, and special Areas of Expertise financial analysis.

Fiscal Analysis for User
Fees and Rates Prior to 1joiningg Willdan, Mr. Quaid worked in the private P industryry of real estate accountingg and finance. He began his career with the public accounting firm formerly known as Haskins & Sells Cost Allocation Plans ( currently known as " Deloitte & Touche"). His experience includes financial statement analyses, asset administration, computer conversion, and reporting to the Securities and Exchange Acquisition Audit Commission for several public real estate partnerships. In 1979, Mr. Quaid became a licensed Services California CPA.

Statutory Financial Related Experience
Reporting City of Thousand Oaks CA — Cost Allocation Plan: Mr. Quaid served as project manager for Fund Audits
Quality Review of
Community Facilities,
Lighting & Landscaping,
and Assessment
Districts
Affiliations
California Society of
Municipal Finance
Officers
California Society of
CPAs
Certifications/ Licenses
Certified Public
Accountant
35 Years' Experience
the development of an OMB A- 87 compliant cost allocation plan model using fiscal year actual costs as the basis for the allocations. He was responsible for the preparation of the Cost Allocation Plan report and provided cost allocation model training to City staff.

The objective of this project was to determine the appropriate allocation of indirect costs from City General Fund central service departments to the General Fund operating departments/ programs and the non -General Fund departments/ programs. The plan model included 16 allocation bases allocating costs to over 100 departments and divisions. Both full and OMB A- 87 cost allocation models were delivered to the City. Willdan was awarded a four- year contract.

Cities of Fontana, Gardena and Hawthorne, CA — Cost Allocation Plan Projects: For each of these cities, Mr. Quaid served in the role of task manager for the development of an OMB A- 87 compliant cost allocation plan model using Microsoft Excel. He was responsible for the preparation of the cost allocation plan report and trained City staff on how to use the cost allocation model.

City of Rialto, CA — Comprehensive User Fee Study: Project manager for the Comprehensive User Fee Study to develop a user fee model in Microsoft Excel and update fees for Planning, Engineering, Building, Public Works, Recreation, Police, Fire, City Clerk, Treasurer and Finance.

City of Cathedral City, CA — Comprehensive User Fee Study: Mr. Quaid served as project manager for a user fee study that required updating fees for Planning, Engineering, Building, Police, Fire, City Clerk, and Finance.

Mr. Quaid has provided Quality Assurance and Quality Control to multiple clients throughout California. Provided below are a few examples of clients in which services have been provided in the previous three years.

City of Belmont, CA
City of Cerritos, CA
City of Claremont, CA
City of Coalinga, CA
City of El Cerrito, CA
City of Fillmore, CA
City of Galt, CA
City of Hayward, CA
City of Indian Wells, CA
City of Monterey, CA
City of Petaluma, CA
City of Rocklin, CA
City of St. Helena, CA
County of San Benito, CA
City of San Bruno, CA
Sacramento Public Library, CA
City of Salinas, CA
City of Union City, CA
City of Watsonville, CA
City of Yucaipa, CA
W' W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 14 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *184
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 James Edison, JD, MPP
Project Manager — Development impact Fee Analysis
Education Mr. James Edison specializes in the nexus between public and private, with expertise in publicJuds Doctorate, private partnerships, and the benefits of economic development to municipalities and state, Boat Hall School of provincial, regional and national governments. He possesses deep expertise in land use Law, University of economics, with a specialty in finance and implementation, including fiscal impact and the public California, Berkeley and private financing of infrastructure and development projects, both in the U. S. and Master of Public internationally. Mr. Edison' s public -sector experience includes local and regional economic impact Policy, Richard and studies; fiscal impact evaluations; new government formation strategies; and the creation of Rhoda Goldman impact fees, assessments, and special taxes to fund infrastructure and public facilities. He has School of Public conducted numerous evaluations of the economic and fiscal impact of specific plans and consulted Policy, University of on a wide variety of land use planning topics related to community revitalization and the economic California, Berkeley and fiscal impacts of development.

Bachelor of Arts, As a former bond attorney, Mr. Edison understands the legal underpinnings and technical magna cum laude, requirements of public financing instruments and has advised both public and private clients on Harvard University the use of individual instruments, and the interaction between those instruments and the needs of Professional developers and project finance.

Registrations Related Experience
Inactive Member of
State Bar, California City of Morgan Hill, CA — Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison managed the update of the City' s existing nexus study, which included general government, fire, police, parks and Licensed Real Estate recreation, library and storm drain fee categories. The project scope included stakeholder Broker, California outreach. The City has once again engaged Willdan to update their impact fees.

City of Santa Clara, CA — Parks Fee Update: Mr. Edison served as principal -in -charge of the Affiliations City' s park impact fee update. This project included a demographic analysis and estimation of the Council of cost of acquiring and improving public park land. Development Finance Agencies City of Alameda, CA — Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison led the Willdan team updating the impact fee programs of the City of Alameda and creating a separate impact fee CFA Society of program for Alameda Point, the former Alameda Naval Air Station.

San Francisco
County of Tulare, CA — Countywide Impact Fees: Mr. Edison served as project manager for a Congress for the study that involved the creation of an impact fee program for the County. The study includes a New Urbanism range of facilities including public protection, library and parks, as well as a transportation facilities impact fee, with different fees calculated for two zones in the County.

Urban Land Institute
City of Fremont, CA — Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison led the Willdan team in Seaside Institute the successful update of the impact fee programs for the City of Fremont. The effort included an update of the City's transportation impact fee program and capital improvement program.

International Economic County of Riverside, CA — Comprehensive Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison led the effort to Development Council establish a comprehensive fee program for the County, including facilities fees for fire, police, parks, criminal justice, libraries and traffic. He prepared the technical and analytical documents 20 Years' Experience necessary to calculate the fee and establish the necessary nexus to collect it, as well as presented the fees during public hearings to the County Board of Supervisors.

City of Manteca, CA — Fire Impact Fee Update: Mr. Edison served in the capacity of project manager for the update of the City's fire services impact fee program.

City of Pacifica, CA — Park Fee Update: Mr. Edison served as the City's project manager to update their park fee to include new costs and to impose fees for home expansion/ remodels, in addition to new development.

Stanislaus County Council of Governments, CA — Regional Transportation Fee Update: Mr.

Edison worked on an update of the County' s transportation impact fee program. Key tasks included a revised capital improvement program and fee model, along with a public participation process that ensures buy in from the communities of Stanislaus County and the County government itself.

W"W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 15 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *185
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 County of Imperial, CA — Solar Farm Fiscal and Economic Analysis: Mr. Edison was engaged J. Edison by the County of Imperial to evaluate the fiscal and economic impacts of a series of proposed Resume Continued solar -voltaic facilities ( or " solar farms") on land near the Town of Calipatria, which is within the County. For each, Mr. Edison calculated the tax revenues and service expenditures accruing to the County from development of the project. He also estimated the economic impacts of the project using IMPLAN, including the impact of the construction and ongoing operation of the solar farm, along with the negative impact of the removal of the project site from agricultural production.

City of Foster City, CA — Gilead, Chess Drive, and Mirabella Fiscal Impact Studies: The City of Foster City hired Mr. Edison to provide an evaluation of the fiscal impact of three specific plans in the City. He evaluated the impact on services of each plan, the anticipated new revenues and expenditures, and the necessity for new public facilities to serve the projects.

City of Vallejo, CA — Costco Expansion Urban Decay, Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis:

In response to the City of Vallejo' s request, Mr. Edison examined the economic impact of a proposed expansion of an existing Costco. The analysis included projections of the impact on sales tax, employment, property tax and the net impact to the City' s budget. Based on the analysis, the City Planning Commission approved the Costco expansion.

City of Vallejo, CA — Service Island Annexation Fiscal Impact Analysis: The City of Vallejo engaged Mr. Edison to provide an analysis of the fiscal impact of the annexation of three unincorporated areas within the boundaries of the City of Vallejo, areas commonly called " service islands." Solano County LAFCO requested the City examine the impact of annexation as part of a larger annexation proposal by the City. He provided an examination of the fiscal implications of the annexation of each area, including population, business activity, and the likely revenues and costs associated with adding each area to the City.

County of Placer, CA — Bohemia Lumber Site, Fiscal Impact and Urban Decay Analysis: The County of Placer engaged Mr. Edison to examine the fiscal impact and potential urban decay effects from the development of the former Bohemia Lumber site into a retail center. Mr. Edison prepared the analysis and presented the results to the County Board of Supervisors.

City of Redding, CA — Oasis Towne Centre Financing and Fiscal/ Economic Impact Analysis:

Hired by the Levenson Development Company ( LDC) to assist with an economic/ fiscal impact study and a financing plan for the Oasis Towne Center, a retail development of approximately one million square feet in Redding, California. Mr. Edison advised LDC on how to structure the financing of the development to provide public benefits for the project and minimize the need for public resources. He prepared an economic and fiscal analysis and negotiated a series of service plans and fiscal mitigation measures with the City of Redding. Mr. Edison also prepared a financing plan for infrastructure needed not only for the immediate project but also for development within the entire Oasis Road Specific Plan area.

YY W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 16 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *186
DocuSign Envelope In: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Carlos Villarreal, MPP
Lead Analyst - Development Impact Fee Analysis
Education Mr. Carlos Villarreal is proposed to serve in the role of lead analyst for the City of Lomita' s Master of Public engagement due to his experience documenting nexus findings for development impact fees, Policy, Richard and
Rhoda Goldman preparing capital improvement plans, facilitating stakeholder involvement, and analyzing the School of Public economic impacts of fee programs. He has supported adoption of fee programs funding a variety Policy, University of of facility types, including, but not limited to transportation, parks, library, fire, law enforcement and California, Berkeley utilities.

Bachelor of Arts, Related Experience
Geography, University City of Morgan Hill, CA — Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal served as project of California, Los manager for a study to update the City' s existing nexus study, including general government, fire, Angeles; Minor in police, parks and recreation, library and storm drain fee categories. The project scope included Public Policy and stakeholder outreach. The City has once again engaged Willdan and Mr. Villarreal is serving as Urban Planning the project manager on the project.

Areas of Expertise
Fiscal Impact City of Santa Clara, CA — Parks Fee Update: As assistant project manager to Mr. Edison, Mr.

Analyses Villarreal collected the necessary data to update the City' s park impact fee. This project included a demographic analysis and estimation of the cost of acquiring and improving public park land.

Development Impact
Fees City of Upland, CA — Impact Fee Study Update: Conducted a study to update the City' s impact fee program, including general government, regional transportation, water, sewer, storm drain and Public Facilities
park fees. Traffic fees were established within the San Bernardino Associated Governments' Financing Plans SANBAG) guidelines to provide a local funding source for improvements of regional significance.

GIS Analysis
City of Alameda, CA — Development Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal served as the lead 14 Years' Experience project analyst for this engagement to update the City's impact fee program. He coordinated with the City to gather the pertinent data for the project, and was instrumental in preparing the nexus study, in addition to participating in the presentation to stakeholders and the City Council County of Stanislaus, CA — Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Villarreal served in the role of project manager for a study updating the County' s existing impact fee program. The program includes a range of facilities, like public protection, library, and parks. The study also included a transportation facilities impact fee, with different fees calculated for two zones in the County. Considerable stakeholder outreach was an integral component of this project.

County of San Benito, CA — Comprehensive Impact Fee Study: In the role of project manager, Mr. Villarreal assisted the County of San Benito with the preparation of an updated and expanded impact fee program. The fee programs included: 1) Capital Improvements Impact Fee; 2) Road Equipment Impact Fee; 3) Fire Mitigation Impact Fee; and 4) Park and Recreation Impact Fee.

City of Soledad, CA — Development Impact Fee Study Update: Mr. Villarreal managed the update of the City' s impact fee program, specifically changes in demographics, growth projections, project costs, and facility standards. In particular, the City had to revise its capital facilities needs to accommodate a much lower amount of growth than what was projected before 2007. The resulting fees funded new development' s share of planned facilities, while not overburdening development with unnecessary costs.

County of Los Angeles/ City of Santa Clarita, CA — Law Enforcement Facilities Fee Study:

Mr. Villarreal assisted with the development of an impact fee program to fund law enforcement facilities serving the City of Santa Clarita, and other Antelope Valley jurisdictions within the County of Los Angeles. The analysis involved the comparison of law enforcement facilities serving incorporated and unincorporated areas.

Kern Council of Governments, CA — Regional Alternative Funding Program: Mr. Villarreal served in the role of project manager for the establishment of this program, which consisted of a deficiency analysis and nexus study to fund transportation projects in Kern County.

W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 17 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *187
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 City of Long Beach, CA — Park Impact Fee Update: Willdan assisted with an update to the City' s C. Villarreal existing park impact fees, with Mr. Villarreal serving in the role of project manager. The project Resume Continued included updating demographic data and facility planning to properly update park facility standards. He used this information to then calculate impact fees for single family and multi -family residential dwelling units and prepare a nexus study documenting the revised fees and the required legal findings under the Mitigation Fee Act.

Rodeo - Hercules Fire Protection District, CA — Fire Impact Fee Update: Mr. Villarreal served as project manager for the District' s fire impact fees update. The fee will be charged in two jurisdictions, the City of Hercules and the unincorporated community of Rodeo. The fees were adopted by the City Council in September 2009 and were presented to the Board of Supervisors in December 2009. At present, Mr. Villarreal is assisting the District with an update to their fire impact fee.

City of Sierra Madre, CA — Public Facilities Fee Study: Willdan was retained to prepare impact fee documentation for the City of Sierra Madre. The impact fee documentation included several fee categories, including a park facilities fee and a Quimby In -Lieu Fee for parkland dedication.

The analysis documented two separate park -related fees; one based on the Quimby Act and the other based on the Mitigation Fee Act. The City would collect the fee based on a standard of 3. 0 acres per 1, 000 residents if the development was subject to the Quimby Act land dedication requirement. For all other development, the City would collect based on the existing standard through the Mitigation Fee Act. The City would only collect one of the two fees depending on which fee was appropriate.

W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 18 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *188
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 References
Below are recent project descriptions, including client contact information, that are similar in nature to those requested by the City of Lomita engagement. We are proud of our reputation for customer service and encourage you to contact these clients regarding our commitment to completing the projects within budget and agreed upon timelines.

Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study
City of Lynwood, CA
Cost Allocation Plan, OMB Compliant Plan, and User Fee Study Willdan prepared a Cost Allocation Plan, OMB Compliant Cost Allocation Plan, and User Fee Study for the City of Lynwood. Willdan developed a cost allocation plan and model that fully allocated central overhead costs to appropriate operating departments, funds, and/ or programs. This portion of the project involved the development of two models: a full Cost Allocation Plan and an OMB compliant Cost Allocation Plan. The OMB compliant Plan was developed using the same model, utilizing a toggle to remove previously flagged costs that would not be allocable under OMB guidelines.

Utilizing the full CAP, Willdan completed the comprehensive user fee study. Willdan completed both studies concurrently, in a manner that fully identifies and takes into account direct and indirect costs, along with changes in staffing, structure, and methods of service delivery.

Since the completion of the original study, Willdan has been selected to complete annual updates of the Cost Allocation Plan and User Fees.

Client Contact: Mr. Jose Ometoetl, City Manager
5275 Orange Avenue, Lynwood CA 90630
Tel #: ( 310) 603- 0220 1 Email: jometeotl( ab_lynwood. ca. us Project Dates: April 2019 — Ongoing
City of Claremont, CA
Comprehensive User Fee Study and Full Cost Allocation Plan Willdan was engaged to prepare for the City of Claremont a Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study. Willdan developed a cost allocation plan and model that fully allocated central overhead costs to appropriate operating departments, funds, and/ or programs. Our primary objective for the cost allocation study was to ensure that general government costs are fairly and equitably allocated to appropriate programs and funds, based on tailored and well thought out allocation factors.

Willdan reviewed and analyzed existing user fee programs, and based upon conversations with staff, made suggestions, as necessary, for fees that may need to be added to the City' s fee schedule for which fees were not currently being charged. Utilizing the full CAP, the comprehensive user fee study phase was completed with full interviews and being conducted on site, and a comprehensive fee model developed.

Client Contact: Mr. Adam Pirrie, Finance Director
207 Harvard Avenue, Claremont CA 91711
Tel. #: ( 909) 399- 5328 1 Email: APirrie( cbci. Claremont. ca. us Project Dates: May 2017 — May 2018
WI LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 19 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *189
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC 599-709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 City of Chino Hills, CA Full
Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study The City of Chino Hills engaged Willdan to complete acomprehensive Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study. Willdan staff met with City staff to verify the City's objectives forthe study, independently gathered most of the necessary data for the development of the CAP model and methodology and worked directly with City staff to gather additional detail or clarify information where necessary. We worked City staff to understand the various functions served by indirect staff invarious City departments, and which operating departments orfunds they served. We worked directly with City staff to develop and verify allocation bases and make adjustments through several iterations ofthe CAP model as necessary. We
developed acost of service analysis and model that updated existing fees and incorporated new fees and used it to create an updated comprehensive fee schedule. Client Contact: Ms. Christa Buhagiar, Finance Director 14000
City Center Drive, Chino Hills, CA 91709 Tel. #: (
909) 364- 2642 1 Email: cbuhagiar( cchinohills. org Project Dates: May 2018 — Ongoing Annual Updates Development
Impact Fee Analysis County
of Riverside, CA Comprehensive
Impact Fee Study Willdan
assisted the County of Riverside with an update of its comprehensive impact fee program. The fee categories were broad and diverse including countywide facilities such as jail detention facilities and county parks and trails; unincorporated only facilities such as fire stations and libraries; and County planning area specific facilities including storm drain and traffic improvements. Other facilities needed to be differentiated between the Eastern and Western portions of the County due to separation by distance, as well as varying level of facilities by region.

The
process was lengthy, involving significant efforts to inform staff of methodological differences between the Willdan methodology and the methodology of the previous consultant. Willdan has recently, through competitive bid, been selected toupdate the Development Impact Fees. Client Contact: Ms. Serena Chow, Administrative Services Manager 3403 10th Street, Suite 400, Riverside, CA 92501 Tel #: (
951) 555- 6619 1 Email: schowlu'. rivcoeda. ora Project Dates: January 2013 — Ongoing City
of Garden Grove, CA Development
Impact Fee Study Willdan
completed the City of Garden Grove' s development impact fee study, which involved an update to the existing transportation and park and recreation facilities, and the creation of a storm drain fee. The park and recreation facilities fee included a Quimby Fee Act component charged to development occurring within subdivisions.

The
analysis accounted for a moderate amount of growth within the City through the study' s 2030 planning horizon, with much ofthe projected growth occurring asinfill development. The project also included responses toconcerns raised by the development community. Client
Contact. Mr. Ana Vegara- Neal, Senior Administrative Analyst 11222 Acacia Parkway, Garden Grove, CA 92842 Tel #: (
714) 741- 5176 1 Email: anarAci. garden- grove. ca.us Project Dates: October 2015 — July 2016 tlV
W ILLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 20 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *190
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 City of Pismo Beach, CA
Development Impact Fee Study
Willdan assisted the City of Pismo Beach with an update to their impact fee program. The program included the following facilities: police, fire protection, park and recreation improvements, water system improvements, wastewater, traffic and general government/ administrative facilities. This project was warranted due to the amount of time that had elapsed since the prior update, coupled with the adoption of new and revised public facility master plans that complemented the updated impact fees.

Prior to fee program adoption, Willdan held a stakeholder meeting to inform the public about the project, and to solicit feedback from the development community.

Client Contact: Ms. Nadia Feeser, Administrative Services Director 760 Mattie Road, Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Tel #: ( 805) 773- 7010 1 Email: nfeeser( cDpis mobeach.org Project Dates: April 2018 — March 2019 W
I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 21 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *191
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599-709B-4543-8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Combined Studies
County of San Benito, CA
Comarehensive Imaact Fee Studv & User Fee Stud
The Willdan prepared a Comprehensive User Fee Study for the County of San Benito. Willdan reviewed existing user fee programs, and based upon conversations with staff, made suggestions, as necessary, for fees that may need to be added to the County' s fee schedule for which fees were not currently being charged. We developed a cost of service analysis and model that updated existing fees and incorporated new fees and that were used to create an updated comprehensive fee schedule.

Willdan has assisted the County of San Benito with their development impact fees since 2007. Most recently, we updated and expanded the impact fees charged by the County on new development. Willdan prepared the study and presented the results at a stakeholder meeting and before the County Board of Supervisors. The fee categories included: 1) Capital Improvements Impact Fee, including the Law Enforcement Fee and the Jail and Juvenile Hall Fee; 2) Road Equipment Impact Fee; 3) Fire Mitigation Impact Fee; and 4) Park and Recreation Impact Fee.

Client Contact: Ms. Dulce Alonso, Management Analyst
481 4th Street, 1st Floor, Hollister, CA 95023
Tel #: ( 831) 636- 4000 1 Email: dalonso( cbcosb. us
Project Dates: May 2015 — October 2017
City of Laguna Hills, CA
Cost Allocation Plan Update, Comprehensive User Fee Study & Park Impact Fee Study The City of Laguna Hills was seeking an outside consultant to complete a review and update of their current cost allocation plan and the preparation of a comprehensive user fee study for the development of its master list of fees.

Our primary objective for the cost allocation study was to ensure that general government costs were fairly and equitably allocated to appropriate programs and funds, which are based on tailored and well thought out allocation factors. For the Fee Study, the primary objective was to ensure that fees for requested services were calculated to account for the full cost of providing the services, and set appropriately, given City policy and financial objectives.

Upon completion of the update to the cost allocation plan, Willdan utilized the final report to complete the comprehensive user fee study.

Willdan also assisted the City of Laguna Hills with the revision and updating of its park impact fee in 2015. The City had two primary goals specific to this engagement. First, the overall program had to be updated to reflect current demographics and park facility costs. Second, the City up to that point had relied exclusively on fees under the Quimby Act, which did not apply to projects subject to the Subdivision Map Act. The City had received proposals for several large apartment complexes that would be exempt from Quimby, and therefore asked Willdan to provide a fee program based on the Mitigation Fee Act.

Willdan updated the City' s demographic data and facility planning in order to properly update the Quimby Fee and implement an MFA impact fee. The project team then calculated the applicable impact fees for single family and multi -family dwelling units and prepared a nexus study that documented the fees and the necessary legal findings under both applicable Acts.

User Fee & CAP Client Contact: Ms. Janice Mateo - Reyes, Finance Manager 24035 El Toro Road, Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Tel #: ( 949) 707- 2623 1 Email: JReyes( @ci. laguna- hills. ca. us Impact Fee Study Client Contact: Mr. David Chantarangsu, AICP Community Development Director
24035 El Toro Road, Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Tel #: ( 949) 707- 2670 1 Email: dchantarangsu( @lagunahillsca. gov Project Dates: May 2015 — July 2016
W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 22 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *192
DocuSign Envelope ID. CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Project Approach
Project Understanding
Willdan Financial Services (" Willdan") is confident that we can meet the City of Lomita' s request for services for a Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Analysis. The overall objective of this project will be to develop an updated schedule of fees for City services, that accounts for the true costs of providing those services. Additionally, the City seeks to update its impact fees with the latest available facility costs and demographic data.

The end products will include user-friendly Excel -based models, which City staff will retain, and which can be easily updated to add or remove services and/ or costs, update budgets in future years, determine the proper allocation of expenditures, and on -going full cost of services provided by the City. Most importantly, we will ensure that the results and recommendations are clear and understandable, defensible, and easily implementable.

For these studies, we will meet directly with departmental representatives at the City at the beginning of the project, to discuss the approach and process for the studies. Discussions will include ways to combine tasks and efforts among the cost allocation plan and user fee study components to maximize efficiencies and ensure adherence to specified timelines.

Finally, this study will also include a review and survey of current City business license and development taxes to offer guidance as to local best practices and policies that might be incorporated into the City of Lomita' s approach.

A key building block of the calculation of updated fees is the development of defensible indirect overhead rates that reflect the cost of support services provided by the City's central service departments to the operating groups that provide end -user services to the public and customers of the City.

The completion of a CAP is a key component and first step in the analysis necessary to calculate the cost of providing services. A well thought out CAP ensures that indirect costs associated with central overhead services, such as finance or city clerk, are appropriately allocated to operating departments, and ultimately included as a cost component of fees for services. We will work collaboratively with City staff to identify the overhead support services that are provided to operating departments in Lomita and develop a fair and defensible means of allocating these costs. This CAP will also be compliant with 2 CFR Part 200 Federal regulations related to cost reimbursement and grant funding, formerly known as OMB A- 87 and 2 CFR Part 225 guidelines, which have now been superseded by the Omni Circular. The new circular did not completely overhaul the guidelines, and the intent is still the same, but it did add new limitations to consider and incorporate into a compliant CAP.

Rather than a costly and
inflexible proprietary software,
which can require expensive
licensing fees, Willdan builds
the Models utilizing Excel, from
the ground up, employing the
City' s budget as the gauge.

These Models, which are then
the City' s to retain, gives City
staff the control to make on -the -
fly adjustments and updates.

For the User Fee Study, we will work directly with personnel at the City who provide services and interact directly with residents and customers, to understand the personnel and procedures involved. By carefully examining these processes, we will be able to identify associated costs such as direct staff costs ( salaries and benefits) associated with personnel involved in the activities, and appropriate overhead allocations from both the department and city levels.

For the Development Impact Fee Analysis, Willdan will review the previous work prior to the kick- off meeting to determine what has changed in terms of facilities and needs for the fee categories. We will also communicate with the City in advance of the kickoff to determine whether there is any initial policy direction or guidance on new fees. We will update the demographics, and present the City with the facilities list and discuss the current status for each fee type.

We will work with the City to implement an impact fee program that ensures that new development pays its fair share of infrastructure while being mindful of the overall fee burden on new development.

For a successful and effective engagement, it is important to have a thorough understanding of specific City policies and objectives, the structure and organization of the City, and the relationships between the central and operating departments. We bring years of successful experience working directly with hundreds of cities throughout California.

Willdan possesses the resources, practical experience, creative thinking, and collaborative consulting skills necessary to complete this important project. Key distinct advantages that Willdan brings to the City include the following:

W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 23 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *193
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 On -site Data Gathering
Our experience has taught us that working together, via face- to- face discussions, is the most efficient and thorough way to ensure that results are accurate, and that studies are completed in a timely manner, which again, is critical in this proposed engagement.

Consequently, through on -site interviews with your staff, Willdan will collect the majority of required data for studies.

This method is better than the typical " time and motion surveys" that are provided to agency staff when studies like these are conducted. This process ensures that we gather the data we need in one coordinated step, rather than having to go through repeated follow- up and clarification.

This approach and the dedication of our staff will help ensure we meet the City' s timeline and objectives and provide important information to City staff and the Council as soon as possible.

Public Engagement
Our models and project approach are geared toward delivering our work on schedule and presenting our analysis results at public meetings and Council workshops. While we understand that the City Council and local business community may be generally supportive of increasing fees where necessary, it will be important to present recommendations to them in a way that clearly demonstrates the rationale and supporting analysis.

The Willdan Team is experienced at communicating complex analytical results in a manner that is easy to understand by non -finance - oriented individuals and facilitates discussion. Our proposed principal - in -charge for this engagement has coordinated or participated in numerous public and staff workshops regarding fees and cost of service -based charges. As previously mentioned, our objective is to provide useful, detailed information, and present recommendations to the City Council and public in a way that clearly demonstrates the rationale and supporting analysis. Our experience ensures that we can meet this objective.

User-friendly Models and Reports
Willdan prides itself on creating user-friendly Excel -based models that the City can retain and conducting our analysis and developing the models collaboratively with City staff. With City staffs immediate input and collaboration, Willdan will design extremely flexible, intuitive Excel -based models. In the future, as the City assumes new responsibilities, modifies existing processes, and/ or eliminates unnecessary services or programs, the models will be capable of adding or deleting funds, objects, departments, programs, staff positions, and activities. Willdan understands that issues facing the City are unique; consequently, we design our models to match your immediate and desired needs to ensure that end -results exceed staff expectations rather than using an inflexible proprietary software.

These models are then the City' s to retain, after our services are The models will be developed to completed, and allows for the creation of revenue projections, allow the City to run " what -if" highlighting potential new revenues, and levels of subsidy_ scenarios to address possible
A key element of these studies is presenting results and recommendations changes in staffing levels, in a straightforward manner, that allows Council and staff to confidently working hours, etc. make fee setting policy decisions and understand the impacts of those decisions. Rather than using an inflexible proprietary software program, we construct our models from the ground up, as previously discussed, mirroring the City' s budget format wherever possible. As a result, the information contained in our models are easy for City staff to interpret, and the familiar software ensures ease of navigation. As the models are being designed and constructed, we will work together with City staff to determine the best and most effective features to include. After the project is completed, we will provide training, so that staff can independently and efficiently evaluate the effects of changes in certain factors. Created directly from the models, our reports clearly and graphically illustrate the full cost recovery level of fee programs, and provide projections of revenue from fee programs.

Project Methodologies
The following describes our proposed approach, and work plan to prepare a Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study, and Development Impact Fee Analysis.

Cost Allocation Plan Methodology
The purpose of this cost allocation plan engagement is to ensure that the City of Lomita is maximizing the recovery of indirect costs from identified operating departments, as well as enterprise and other chargeable funds and capital projects. Furthermore, a sound cost allocation plan is a foundational element of a user fee study, and the development of internal hourly rates, including CIP billing rates. We will work closely with staff in identifying the proper balance of allocation factors appropriate for the City. To achieve the maximum cost recovery objective, the City must have a tlV W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 24 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *194
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 method of identifying and distributing administrative costs that is fair, comprehensive, well documented, and fully defensible. A cost allocation plan coupled with comprehensive overhead rates will enable the City to achieve this goal.

The allocation models utilize an iterative method which is the most accurate allocation methodology. Unlike a direct or step-down" methodology, an iterative method uses the chosen distribution bases and allocates central service costs iteratively until all allocable costs have been distributed.

Using this method, the model can detail the allocation for each central function individually for complete transparency and accountability, while removing bias that might result from the order in which allocations occur in a step- down approach. A direct methodology is essentially a one -iteration methodology, while a step- down method is typically only two iterations and is less precise and unable to accurately track the allocations from start to finish.

Approach for Managing the Project
Willdan' s " hands- on" supervision of Cost Allocation Plan studies, include the following methods:

Effective Project Management — Principal - in -Charge Chris Fisher will manage the entire project with an eye toward high responsiveness, while ensuring that all stakeholders are " on board" with the direction of the project, as well as with the final results. Mr. Fisher will ensure that regular status updates are provided to City staff, conference calls are scheduled, and that in -person meetings are conducted ( as necessary).

Adherence to Time Schedule — Willdan recognizes that the use of "timelines" is highly effective in meeting all required deadlines. To keep the project on schedule, there are several tasks that must be completed in a timely manner. Therefore, we will present a project timeline at the kick- off meeting that should be closely followed.

Although the establishment of an experienced project team and a detailed project timeline work extremely well in general, Willdan understands that outside influences can create uncontainable situations for everyone involved in the project. In rare circumstances like these, our team quickly adapts to changes, and communicates our recommended schedule adjustments to the City.

Approach in Communicating with the City
Willdan staff is accustomed to interfacing with local government councils, boards, staff, community organizations, and the public in general in a friendly and helpful manner; we are always mindful that we represent the public agency.

We are sensitive to the need of delivering a quality product, with the highest level of service and professionalism.

Therefore, as the work on the project progresses, we understand that it will be necessary for our staff to work closely with you and City personnel. To accomplish this, we employ a variety of tools, including monitoring project status and budget costs; and ensuring effective communication through several options that are based on the City' s preferences.

Experience with Development Service Processes
A unique aspect of our firm is our relationship with our Engineering Division. For many agencies throughout California and other Western states, this division provides contracted services in planning, engineering, and building and safety.

When conducting cost recovery studies, we regularly consult with our engineering and land -development staff of experts on development -related issues. By working with our planners, engineers, and building officials, we understand development -related agency service procedures and workflow functions, which often make the entire user fee study process smoother for your staff.

User Fee Study Methodology
To comprehensively update fees, the City should develop a comprehensive user fee schedule that accurately accounts for the true cost of providing services. Once the study is complete, the fee study model must be flexible so that the City can add, delete, and revise fees in the future. To meet this goal, we will bring our expertise and unique perspectives to your fee study by approaching the project with these three principles:

J Defensibility
Our user fee projects have not been legally challenged since the inception of this practice area in our firm. We have accomplished this by closely working with legal counsel familiar with user fee studies, our engineering division and with agency staff. In this way, we can tailor the correct approach to ensure full cost recovery combined with a sound and reasonable basis for each user fee you implement.

While Proposition 218 does not directly apply to non -property -related fees, we employ principles from this important constitutional article to make certain that your user fee and rate schedule is developed with fairness, equity, and proportionate cost recovery principles in mind. With the addition of Proposition 26, Willdan will review each analyzed user fee for compliance and appropriateness to ensure continued defensibility.

W"W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 25 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *195
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 2) Project and Staff Time
The City must have a sound and technically defensible fee schedule to ensure costs are appropriately recovered, as applicants approach the City for its services. Our standards and approaches serve to get to the issues of your fee study quickly. Starting with the project kick- off, we will make certain that your staff understands the purpose and scope of the study and its corresponding on -site departmental interview. As Willdan is able to communicate directly with the service providers, this face- to- face interaction provides valuable time estimates. 3) Responsiveness
We take great pride in providing responsive service to our client agencies. Frequent communication is critical to a successful user fee study experience. We will provide a list of data requirements in advance of the project kick- off. Due to this simple step, the introductory meeting can focus on the survey input process, answering questions, determining policy goals, and defining next steps in the project. We will follow up weekly with you at each step in the fee study process to make sure that staff "buys in" to the fee study approach and results.

Approach
Our approach to preparing the user fee study and documentation for Lomita includes:

Close coordination with your staff to devise a consensus approach. Different programs and/or different service delivery methods will necessitate different approaches. We will discuss specific pros and cons with City staff as we determine which methods work best for each fee category; Strict adherence to key legal and policy issues with regard to user fees, including the percent of cost recovery that the City seeks to achieve. A user fee shall not be set higher than the reasonable cost of providing a fee -generating service. Our approach provides you with a fee schedule that achieves maximum legal cost recovery while ensuring that each fee is supported by technically defensible documentation; and Technical analysis necessary to ensure State compliance, and to anticipate and resolve potential policy issues using a combination of industry standards as well as City specific methods.

As described below, there are two basic approaches to calculating user fees:

Approach 1: Case Study Method
This is also sometimes referred to as a cost
build- up approach. Using a time and
materials approach, the " Case Study
Method" examines the tasks, steps and City
staff involved in providing a particular ` unit' of
service, such as a permit review, and then
uses that information to develop estimates of
the actual labor and material costs
associated with providing a unit of service to
a single user. It is often used when a service
is provided on a regular basis, and staff and
other costs associated with the service can
be segregated from available budget data.

A typical case study fee model should
comprise the following three general cost
layers:
1) Central Services Overhead: This
category may involve such costs as labor,
services, and supplies that benefit more than
one department, division, or project. The
exact benefits to specific areas are
impossible to ascribe to a single activity.

Examples are purchasing, human resources,
and liability insurance. As part of the user fee
study, these costs are calculated in the
overhead cost review.

CSerentral
vices
Qwerhead
Departmental
Overhead
W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 26 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *196
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599-709B-4543-8ED8-4E216CBB1519 2) Department Overhead: This category may include expenses related to such items as office supplies, outside consultants, and membership dues. It may include management, supervision, and administrative support that are not provided to a direct fee -generating service. Typically, these items are charged, on an item -by -item basis, directly to the department, division, or project.
3) Personnel Costs: This category refers to direct salary and benefit costs of staff hours spent on providing a fee - generating service ( e. g., on -site building inspector).

Approach 2.• A verage Cost Method
This is also sometimes referred to as a programmatic approach, because it looks at costs at a program level, and then allocates them to participants on an occurrence basis. By taking total service costs across a substantial sample period a year) and dividing by the total number of service units delivered over that same period, costs per unit of service is estimated.

This approach is useful when services or programs are provided in a more aggregate manner, where it might be difficult to identify a specific sequence of steps associated with one user or participant; or where it is not feasible to costeffectively segregate costs associated with specific activities.

Development Impact Fee Analysis
Study Objectives
The objective of this project is to review the City' s development impact fees. This will include the categories charged, the legal basis for the current fees, and fees charged in comparable jurisdictions. Willdan will provide a technical memorandum that provides guidance on any changes in fee levels, supporting studies, or new fees that the City should consider.

Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 40 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Four dominant trends stand out:

1. The passage of a string of tax limitation measures starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996;

2. Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses;

3. Steep reductions in Federal and State assistance; and

4. Permanent shifting by the State of local tax resources to the State General Fund to offset deficit spending brought on by recessions.

Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of "growth pays its own way." This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing rate and taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees, also known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require approval of property owners or registered voters and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property.

Development fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit development jurisdiction - wide. Development fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption.

Summary of Approach
Wilidan will meet with City staff and review documents to understand the current development impact fees and how they are used, as well as understand any capital needs currently unfunded by impact fees that could be added to the City' s fee program. Willdan will also bring the City information for comparable jurisdictions and statewide to understand new fees that could be charged. Finally, Willdan will evaluate the current fee program and its compliance with state law ( AB 1600), especially nexus, proportionality, and reporting requirements ( such as annual reporting and five year reviews).

Flexibility is important so we can tailor our approach to the available data, and the agency' s policy objectives. Our understanding of the technical standards established by statutes and case law suggests that a range of approaches are technically defensible. Consequently, we can address policy objectives related to the fee program, such as economic development and affordable housing.

IWW I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 27 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *197
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Related Approach Issues
Funding and Financing Strategies
In our experience, one of the most common problems with impact fee programs and with many CIPs is that the program or plan is not financially constrained to anticipated revenues. The result is a " wish list" of projects that generate community expectations that often cannot be fulfilled. Our approach is to integrate the impact fee program into the local agency' s existing CIPs while encouraging those plans to be financially constrained to available resources. We clearly state the cost of correcting existing deficiencies, if any, to document the relationship between the fee program and the need for additional non -fee funding.

We can also address one of the most significant drawbacks of an impact fee program — the inability to support conventional public debt financing, so projects can be built before all fee revenues have been received. In collaboration with financial advisors and underwriters, we have developed specific underwriting criteria so that fees can be used to pay back borrowing as long as another source of credit exists. Typically, this approach involves the use of Certificates of Participation or revenue bonds that are calibrated so that they can be fully repaid using impact fee revenues.

Economic Development Concerns
The development community often is concerned that fees and other exactions will become too high for development to be financially feasible under current market conditions. Local agencies have a number of strategies to address this concern, including:

Conducting an analysis of the total development exaction burden to see if feasibility may be compromised by the proposed fees;
Gathering similar data on the total fee burden imposed by neighboring or competing jurisdictions; Developing a plan for phasing in the fees over several years to enable the real estate market to adjust; Providing options for developers to finance impact fees through assessment and other types of financing districts; and
Imposing less than the maximum justified fee.

If less than the maximum justified fee is imposed, we will work with staff to identify alternative revenues sources for the CIP. The CIP should remain financially feasible to maintain realistic expectations among developers, policy - makers, and the public.

Our proposed scope will include an analysis of neighboring and comparable jurisdictions.

Stakeholder Participation
Stakeholder participation throughout the study supports a successful adoption process. Our approach is to create consensus first around the need for facilities based on agreed upon facility standards. Second, we seek consensus around a feasible funding strategy for these needs, leading to an appropriate role for impact fees.

Gaining consensus among various groups requires a balanced discussion of both economic development and community service objectives. Often, our approach includes formation of an advisory committee to promote outreach to and input from the development community and other stakeholders. We have extensive experience facilitating meetings to explain the program and gain input. This proposal provides for three stakeholder meetings. Willdan can add additional meetings based upon a time and materials basis if needed.

WW I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 28 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *198
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Work Plans
Our proposed work plans, described in detail by task, are provided below. We propose to maximize efficiency and cost-effectiveness by combining meetings and data gathering efforts between the studies wherever possible.

We explain how each task will be accomplished and identify associated meetings and deliverables. We want to ensure our scope provides quality and clarity and is responsive to the City' s needs and specific local circumstances. We will work in concert with the City to adjust scopes as needed during the course of the studies.

Full and OMB Compliant Cost Allocation Plan
This proposed scope of services addresses the completion of both the full and OMB compliant versions of the Cost Allocation Plan ( CAP). We have noted where activities specific to the OMB compliant plan occur.

Task 1: Initial Document Request
Objective: Initial due diligence.

Description: Prior to the kick- off call, relevant documentation will be obtained and reviewed in order to enhance our understanding of the City' s current cost allocation plan and internal structure of the agency. A written request for specific data will be sent to the City. The data provided in this task will provide the building blocks for later model development.

Our request may include ( but is not limited to):

Detailed budget and accounting data;
Prior year's financial data, salary, position and staffing data; Organizational structure;
Prior cost allocation plan and/or user fee documentation and models; and Data related to various allocation bases that may be incorporated as part of the methodology, i. e.

City Council agenda frequencies by department, AP/AR transactions by department, IT equipment distribution by department, etc.

Deliverables: Willdan: Submit information request to City.

City: Provide requested data to Willdan ( prior to Task 2, Kick-off Call/Refine Scope). We will follow up with the City to confirm in writing the data that we have received, or which is still outstanding.

Task 2: Kick-off Conference Call / Refine Scope
Objective: Confirm project goals and objectives. Identify and discuss policy issues raised by the study and determine appropriate fee categories.

Description: Willdan will identify and discuss policy issues typically raised by these studies and address data gaps in order to gain a full understanding of the City's goals for the cost allocation plan. We will establish effective lines of communication and processes for information gathering and review.

We will also discuss costs that may not be allocable for OMB purposes, and the potential impact on the OMB version of the CAP.

During this call, we will ask that the City assign a project manager to serve as its primary contact. The selected City project manager will ensure that available data is provided to Willdan in a timely manner, thereby maintaining adherence to the project' s schedule.

We will obtain and review the current cost allocation methodology and discuss with City staff. The objective of this review is to determine specific areas of focus as they relate to the City's objectives, and to discuss and evaluate current and potential allocation factors.

Meetings: One ( 1) project kick- off conference call to initiate the project, discuss data needs and methodologies and to address policy issues. We would propose to conduct the user fee study kick-off during this same call, to maximize efficiency and cost effectiveness of staff and Willdan time.

Deliverables: Willdan: If needed, a revised project scope and schedule.

City: Provide further data requirements and select / introduce City' s project manager.

W"'WI LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 29 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *199
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Task 3: Gather Staffing Information and Develop Cost Allocation Plan Model Description: This task involves the gathering of specific information, directly from City staff, through interviews and discussion, related to the functions served by indirect staff and the departments served by their activities. This task also focuses on the development of, and/ or adjustment of existing, allocation bases, and the development and testing of a model that will ultimately be used to calculate the proper cost allocations derived from data gathered in prior tasks.

The model will be developed to incorporate any recent changes in the provision of City services, and fully allocate central service costs.

We will utilize budget and organizational information, and other required information gathered from City staff to complete the work in this task. Specific discussions will be held to discuss bases, how central overhead services are provided to and utilized by other departments, cost categories and allocation criteria, and how these will factor into the overall cost allocation methodology.

The model and methodology will also produce indirect cost rates. These rates will be suitable for a variety of uses, including incorporation into the User Fee Study' s personnel rates, billing to CIP projects, and in the OMB Super Circular compliant CAP, to Federal grants.

Deliverables: Willdan: One ( 1) user- friendly model in Microsoft Excel format that provides both a full cost allocation plan and an OMB Super Circular compliant cost allocation plan.

Task 4: Test and Review Cost Allocation Methodology
Objective: Test and review model and results with City.

Description: The draft cost allocation plan model will be reviewed with City staff, and adjusted as necessary, to ensure that preliminary allocations provide an accurate depiction of how the central overhead costs should be borne by the operating programs and funds. Over the past several years, we have successfully integrated online meetings by using WebEx11 as an element to our approach. This allows us to remotely guide staff through the model review and allows you the opportunity to interactively change inputs and test approaches.

Meetings: One ( 1) web meeting and demonstration with City Staff to review the model.

Deliverables: Willdan and City: Draft cost allocation plan model review.

Task 5: Prepare and Present Draft Report
Objective: Prepare the draft cost allocation report.

Meetings: One ( 1) web meeting to present the draft report to City Staff.

Deliverables: Willdan: Draft report for City review and input.

City: Review of draft report, with comments, and edits.

Task 6: Discuss and Revise Report
Objective: Review of draft report, cost distribution methods, and model.

Description. An in- depth review of the draft report and model will be conducted to arrive at an optimum allocation method for each expenditure type. Often, through the course of an engagement, comments usually revolve around issues of understandability; appropriate levels of enterprise funds' cost recovery, etc.; WI LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 30 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *200
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599-709B-4543-8ED8-4E216CBB1519 ease of calculation; and overhead costs' distribution methods.

Our reports are structured to include both the full and OMB compliant plan, but in the course of review if a separate report is desired for each or just one of the plans, they will be split.

Following a round of comments from City staff concerning the draft report, the final report will be prepared for presentation to the Council.

Meetings: One ( 1) conference call with City staff to review the report with changes and revisions.

Deliverables: Draft report, and revised draft/ final report.

Task 7: Prepare and Present Final Report and Model
Objective: Prepare and present the final report to City Council. Educate City staff on the operation and use of the model for future modifications.

Description: This task is the culmination of the cost allocation plan project. Based on staff comments on the draft report, Willdan will prepare the final report for presentation to City Council.

Meetings: One ( 1) meeting with the City Council to present the final plan if necessary. This meeting would be held in conjunction with the presentation of the user rate study results.

We will also provide staff training on the operation and use of the model.

Deliverables: Willdan: Provide one ( 1) electronic PDF file copy of the final report and models ( full and OMB Super Circular compliant); and two ( 2) bound copies, and one ( 1) unbound copy to the City. Using Microsoft Word and Excel, an updateable electronic copy of the study and models, as well as related schedules, will also be provided on CD/ ROM.

Comprehensive User Fee Study
Task 1: Initial Document Request
Objective: Initial due diligence; obtain study -related data.

Description: Prior to the kick- off meeting, we will obtain and review relevant documentation to further enhance our understanding of the services, fees, and rates to be studied. A written request for data will be sent to the City. Please note that Time Survey data is not part of this request and will be gathered during the on -site interviews described in Task 5.

We will request information and documentation on current fees and fee programs, activity levels, and budget and staffing information ( to the extent not already available) related specifically to programs and activities which have associated fees, and for which the City has this level of detail.

Deliverables: Willdan: Submit information request to City.

City: Provide requested data to Willdan ( prior to Task 3, Kick- off Meeting/ Refine Scope). As with the cost allocation plan, we will follow up with the City to confirm receipt of requested data and information and highlight data elements that are outstanding.

Task 2: Compile Inventory of Current and Potential Fees Objective: Willdan will identify a schedule of fees and methodology for calculating the fees.

Description: Based on the results of the initial document request and independent research, incorporate into our model the existing fees, provided by the City, to comprise the parameters of the fee study.

Meetings: It is possible that a conference call with the City may be necessary to discuss new fees to implement or existing fees that may no longer be required.

Deliverables: Willdan: One ( 1) draft list of current fees based on initial data provided ( to be discussed and finalized during the kick- off call).

City: Review completed fee schedule with comments/ revisions to be discussed during the kick- off meeting.

WWI LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 31 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *201
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599-709B-4543-8ED8-4E216CBB1519 Task 3: Kick-off Conference Call / Reflne Scope
Objective: Confirm goals and objectives for the User Fee Study. Identify and resolve policy issues typically raised by a User Fee Study, address gaps in data, and refine appropriate existing or new fee categories based on Task 2).

Description. Verify our understanding of the City's goals, the City' s cost -recovery policy for user fees, and to fill any gaps in data/ information necessary for the project. It is important for the City and Willdan to identify and address any foreseeable problems and maintain open communication throughout the process.

During this call, we will ask that the City identify a project manager who will serve as the primary contact for the project. The project manager shall have responsibility for ensuring that all available data is provided in a timely manner, thereby maintaining adherence to the project' s schedule.

Meetings: One ( 1) project kick-off call to initiate the entire project, discuss data needs, and address policy issues.

This will be held in conjunction with the kick- off for the cost allocation plan. As mentioned in the cost allocation plan work plan, we suggest combining the kick- off calls to increase efficiency.

Deliverables: Wilidan: 1) Revised project scope and schedule ( if needed); and 2) brief summary of policy decisions if needed).

City: 1) Provide further data needs; and 2) determine/ introduce City' s project manager.

Task 4: Develop User Fee Model
Objective: Develop and test model.

Key model inputs will include staff and allocated overhead costs per position, and relevant budget data on salaries and benefits. Most of this information will be developed during the cost allocation plan phase of this project and will be incorporated directly into the user fee model. We will request clarification and/ or additional data if necessary.

Deliverables: Wilidan: One ( 1) user- friendly model in Microsoft Excel format, which, when finalized, City staff can use to calculate fee changes annually, or as often as deemed appropriate by the City Council.

Task 5: Time Survey Interviews and On -site Information Gathering Objective: Meet with City staff to complete Time Surveys and understand service delivery processes.

Description. In order to assist staff with the completion of the survey worksheets, we will schedule one ( 1) full day of on -site meetings with staff; however, the number of meetings needed may vary depending on the number of staff and departments involved.

The fee model is designed so that full cost recovery fees are calculated immediately upon input of staff time. These full costs are also compared to current cost recovery levels. This will allow Willdan and City staff to conclude with a final meeting to review the draft full cost recovery fees and adjust any times as necessary once all information has been compiled and input into the fee model. We will schedule the interviews with staff to minimize any disruption to their normal workflow.

Meetings: Up to two ( 2) business days of web or on -site meetings/ staff interviews. The ability to conduct in person meetings will depend upon any Covid- 19 related health and safety restrictions that may be in place.

Deliverables: Willdan and City: Time surveys and draft full cost recovery fees.

I W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 32 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *202
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Task G: Common Fees Comparison
Objective: Examine selected user fees charged by up to five ( 5) comparable cities in Los Angeles County, or jurisdictions that are similar to the City of Lomita.

Description: We will access and use our knowledge of other jurisdictions to benchmark the City' s five ( 5) most common fees or highest yielding fees with comparable jurisdictions agreed.

Fee schedules are rarely readily or directly comparable from agency to agency due to definitional and operational differences. For example, a grading permit in one jurisdiction may include the plan check service, while the same permit in another jurisdiction may not, resulting in similar sounding services with widely varying costs_ For this reason, Willdan takes a selection of the City' s most commonly used and/ or highest yielding fees.

Deliverables: Willdan: Recommendations provided in Task 9 will incorporate the data gathered during our examination.

Task 7: Review of Development Tax and Business License Tax Objective: To review current City taxes for Business Licenses and Development/Construction and provide feedback.

Description: We will request City policies/ ordinances/ resolutions, and other documentation as available, related to these mechanisms. We will discuss the taxes with staff to determine whether there are specific questions or areas of concern and whether they are achieving their objectives.

To the extent possible, depending on available information, we will provide feedback based on 3 to 5 similar neighboring cities with similar tax mechanisms; examining those cities' policies, approaches and structures as compared with Lomita.

Deliverables: Willdan: Recommendations provided in Task 9 will incorporate the data gathered during our examination.

Task 8: Data Analysis and Final User Fee Schedule
Objective: Incorporate information obtained from on -site surveys to fully develop model.

Description: We will update the model, based on information received during the on -site surveys, to generate a comprehensive user fee schedule. In addition, it is very common that a supplemental data request may be necessary, based on new fees identified that the City is not currently collecting. Where appropriate, we will suggest and discuss with staff alternate approaches to existing fee programs ( i. e. building fees) and suggest potential areas where fees could be collected where they are not currently.

We will present the full cost recovery level for fees, both current and projected under the new calculated fees, and revenue projections, given certain assumptions about the levels of subsidy for different fees. Current levels of cost recovery will be compared to actual full costs calculated during the course of this study. Cost will be calculated at reasonable activity levels and include all appropriate direct and indirect costs and overhead. We will review fee programs for compliance with Propositions 218 and 26.
in developing the fee schedule, we will make recommendations for new fees where appropriate, based on our experience with other cities. Some areas for new fees may be due to changes in law ( legalized cannabis), or for activities that the City finds itself performing regularly, but for which no fee is collected.

Where possible, we will incorporate discussion of the City' s economic development policies, and where these may intersect with fee programs, for instance setting fees in a manner that encourages certain activities.

The user fee data analysis and model development may take three ( 3) to four ( 4) weeks with frequent correspondence with City staff to discuss current cost recovery amounts, necessary to recover full cost and frequency activity.

W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 33 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *203
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Meetings: One ( 1) web or in -person meeting, as necessary, to gather additional input, complete analysis and finalize fee schedule. The ability to conduct in person meetings will depend upon any Covid- 19 related health and safety restrictions that may be in place.

Deliverables: Final user fee model for City Council presentation and discussion.

Task 9: Prepare and Present Draft Report
Objective: Prepare draft report.

Description: This task involves the preparation of the draft report that discusses the study' s background, the methodologies utilized in the study, and the results and presentation to various stakeholder groups.

Individual fee summaries by department and a comprehensive fee schedule will be included. The draft report will include the following:

Key results and findings;
Basic descriptions of each service;
The full cost of each service and current cost recovery levels; Costs broken down graphically into indirect and direct components, with a graphic display of the level of cost recovery;
Fee recommendations with associate levels of cost recovery; Projections of potential fee revenue;
Assessment of reasonableness of each City' s costs;
Review of reasonableness of current consultant cost structure (for Building Division services); As appropriate, recommend alternative methodologies for building permit fee calculation; and Summary and recommendations.

The objective of the report is to communicate the recommendation of appropriate fees, which include the appropriate subsidy percentage for those fees where full cost recovery may be unrealistic.

Meetings: One ( 1) conference call with City staff, to present draft results address questions and receive feedback.

Deliverables: Willdan: Draft report for City review and comment.

City: Review of draft report, with comments and edits.

Task 10: Revise Draft Report/Determine Cost Recovery Levels for Recommended Adoption Objective: Review of draft report and fee model.

Description: The goal of this task is to conduct an in- depth review of the draft report and model, incorporate feedback and changes as a result of previous discussions, and arrive at an optimum fee structure.

Often through the course of an engagement, City staff will volunteer insightful likes and dislikes regarding the existing fee structure. We listen to this feedback carefully because your staff members know the community best. Comments usually revolve around issues of:

Understandability;
Fairness to applicants;
Ease of calculation;
Appropriate levels of cost recovery; and
Full cost recovery hourly rates.

When adjusting fee recovery levels, we believe it is important to address these concerns.

Following one ( 1) round of comments from City staff on the draft report and feedback from City staff, we will prepare the final report for presentation to the City Council.

Meetings: One ( 1) online demonstration ( WebEx) to review the report and model, with any revisions.

Deliverables: Draft report, revised draft / final report.

Task 11: Prepare and Present Final ReportlTrain Staff on Model W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 34 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *204
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599-709B-4543-8ED8-4E216CBB1519 Objective: Prepare and present final report to City Council. Train staff on the operation and use of the model for future modifications.

Description: This task is the culmination of the entire project. Based on staff comments received regarding the draft report, we will prepare the final report for presentation.

Meetings: One ( 1) meeting with City Council to present the results and adopt the updated fee schedule. We will also provide staff training on the operation and use of the model on the same day, during regular business hours.

Deliverables: Provide one ( 1) electronic PDF file copy of the final report and models; and if requested provide three 3) bound copies, and one ( 1) unbound copy to the City. Using Microsoft Word and Excel, an updateable electronic copy of the study and models, as well as related schedules, will also be provided on CD/ ROM.

Task 1: Identify and Resolve Policy Issues
Objective: Identify and resolve policy issues raised by the study.

Description: Review agency documents related to existing capital planning policies and funding programs including existing impact fees. Bring policy issues to City staffs attention, as appropriate, during the project and seek guidance prior to proceeding. Potential policy issues include:

Potential new impact fees for consideration
Adequacy of General Plan and other public facility planning policies ( e.g. level of service standards); impact fee ordinances and resolutions, and prior nexus studies; Availability of existing public facility master plans and CIPs to identify needed facilities; Types of facilities to be funded by each fee;
Land use categories for imposition of fees;
Nexus approach to determining facility standards;
Nexus approach to allocating cost burden among land uses, including need for separate fee zones;
Potential alternative funding sources, if needed;
Funding existing deficiencies, if identified; and
Implementation concerns and strategies.

Deliverables: ( 1) Information requests; ( 2) revised project scope and schedule ( if needed); and ( 3) brief summary of policy decisions ( if needed).

Task 2• Comparison
Objective: Provide a comparison of the current and proposed impact fees to those of comparable/ surrounding jurisdictions.

Tank 3: Prepare Report
Description: Provide a technical memorandum the summarizes Willdan' s findings and outlines a roadmap to future actions to consider ( such as a fee update study, adoption of additional fee categories, etc.).

Deliverables: We will provide up to five ( 5) hard copies of the technical memorandum, one ( 1) unbound copy, and a copy in Microsoft Word.

IWW I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 35 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *205
DocuSign Envelope In: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216C661519 Task 4: Meetings
Objective: The project manager or other necessary Willdan staff will attend project meetings. A member of the Impact project team will attend up to two meetings throughout the Impact Fee Analysis portion of the City' s engagement. Phone conferences are not considered meetings for the purposes of this scope.

Additional meetings may be requested for an additional fee based on our hourly billing rates.

City Staff Support
To complete our tasks, we will need the cooperation of City staff. We suggest that the City of Lomita assign a key individual to represent the City as the project manager who can function as our primary contact. We anticipate that the City' s project manager will:
1) Coordinate responses to requests for information;
2) Coordinate review of work products; and
3) Help resolve policy issues.

Willdan will endeavor to minimize the impact on City staff in the completion of this project. We will ask for responses to initial information requests in a timely manner. If there are delays on the part of the City, we will contact the City' s project manager to steer the project back on track. We will keep the City's project manager informed of data or feedback we need to keep the project on schedule.

W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 36 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *206
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Project Schedules
Willdan understands time is of the essence for the City of Lomita to begin this engagement. These schedules can only be met with the cooperation of City staff. Delays in responding to our requests for data and review will result in corresponding delays to the project schedule. If that is the case, we will notify the City immediately of the possible impact on the schedule.

Cost Allocation Plan
Legend:

X1: Information Request X5: Draft Report
X2: Revised Project Scope and Schedule ( if needed) X6: Revised Draft ReportiFinal Report X3: User-friendly Model in Microsoft Excel X7: Final Report— Hard and Electronic Copies X4: Draft Cost Allocation Plan Model Review
WI LLDAN Cast Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 37 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *207
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 User Fee Study
coin of Services
Project Schedule
3 10 17 24 311. 7 14 21 281 5 12 19 2612 1 9 116123 : 30 Task 1: Initial Document Request Hi
Task 2: Compile Inventory of Current and Potential Fees ma Task 3: Kick- off / Refine Scope ( conference call) 12
Task 4: Develop User Fee Model 7X3
Task 5: Time Survey Interviews and On -site Information Gathering ( meetings) 9 Task 6: Common Fees Comparison 910
Task 7: Review of Development/ Business License Taxes
Task 8: Data Analysis and Final User Fee Schedule ( conference calls) 94 Task 9: Prepare and Present Draft Report ( conference call)$ 5 Task 10: Revise Draft Report/ Determine Cost Recovery Levels ( conference call) 6 Task 11: Prepare and Present Final ReporVTrain Staff on Model mreriri 1 Legend:

X1: Information Request X6: Revised Draft Report/ Final Report X2: Revised Project Scope and Schedule ( if needed) X7: Final Report — Hard and Electronic Copies X3: User-friendly Model in Microsoft Excel X8: Draft List of Current Fees X4: Draft Fee and Rate Model Review X9: Time Surveys and Draft Full Cost Recovery Fees XS: Draft Report X10: Common Fee Comparison
W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 38 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *208
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Development Impact Fee Analysis
W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 39 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *209
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 7098-4543-8ED8-4E216CBB1519 Schedule of Fees
Not to Exceed Fee
Wilidan Financial Services (" Willdan") proposes a not -to -exceed fixed fee of $49, 170 for the Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study, and Development Impact Fee Analysis engagement. The tables below provide a breakdown of each fee by task and project team member.

Cost Allocation Plan
Based on the corresponding work plan identified within the scope of services, we propose a not -to -exceed fixed fee of $10, 440 to prepare a Full and OMB Compliant Cost Allocation Plan, Fee Proposal
C. Fisher T. Thrasher P. Patel
Principal - in- Tech Project Analytical
e of Services
1: Initial Document Request
2: Kick-off ]Refine Scope
3: Gather Staffing Information, Develop Cost Allocation Plan Model 4: Test and Review Cost Allocation Methodology
5: Prepare and Present Draft Report
6: Discuss and Revise Report
7: Prepare and Present Final Report/ Train Staff on Model 185
R. Quaid
QA/ Tech
Advisor Total
210 Hours I

1. 0 1. 0 2. 0 $ 310

1. 0 1. 0 2.0 310

1. 0 4. 0 16. 0 21. 0 2, 990

1. 0 3. 0 8. 0 1. 0 13. 0 2, 015

2. 0 2. 0 10. 0 1. 0 15. 0 2, 330

1. 0 2. 0 6. 0 9. 0 1, 370

1. 0 4. 0 1. 0 6. 0 1. 115
User Fee Study
Based on the corresponding work plan identified within the scope of services, we propose a not -to -exceed fixed fee of $24, 780 to prepare a User Fee Study.

Fee Proposal
C. Fisher
Principal -inCharge
250
T. Thrasher P. Patel
Tech Project Analytical
Manager Support
185 $ 125
R. Quaid
QA/ Tech
Advisor
210 Hours
Total
Cost
pe of Services
k 1: Initial Document Request 1. 0 1. 0 125
k 2: Compile Inventory of Current and Potential Fees 1. 0 2. 0 3. 0 435 k 3: Kick- off / Refine Scope 1. 0 1. 0 2. 0 4. 0 685
k 4: Develop User Fee Model 2. 0 12. 0 14. 0 1, 870
k 5: Time Survey Interviews and Information Gathering 1. 0 10. 0 10. 0 21. 0 3, 350 k 6: Common Fees Comparison 1. 0 2. 0 16. 0 19. 0 2, 620 k 7: Review of Development/ Business License Taxes 3. 0 3. 0 5. 0 1. 0 12. 0 2, 140 k 8: Data Analysis and Final Fee and Rate Schedule 1. 0 6. 0 34. 0 2. 0 43. 0 6, 030 k 9: Prepare and Present Draft Report 2. 0 4. 0 12. 0 1. 0 19. 0 2, 950 k 10: Revise Draft/ Determine Cost Recovery Levels 1. 0 8. 0 8. 0 2. 0 19. 0 3, 150 k 11: Prepare and Present Final Report/ Train Staff on Model 1. 0 5. 0 2. 0 8. 0 1, 425 WWI L LDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 40 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *210
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599- 709B- 4543- 8ED8- 4E216CBB1519 Development Impact Fee Analysis
Based on the corresponding work plan identified within the scope of services, we propose a not -to -exceed fixed fee of$ 13, 950 prepare a Development Impact Fee Analysis.

Scope of Services
Task 1: Identify and Resolve Policy Issues
Task 2: Comparison
Task 3: Prepare Report
Task 4: Meetings
Fee Proposal
J. Edison C. Villarreal
Project Manager Senior AnaVq
240 165
Total
Hours _ Cost

8. 0 12. 0 20. 0 $ 3, 900

6. 0 10. 0 16. 0 3, 090

8. 0 12. 0, 20. 0 3, 900

10. 0 4. 0 14. 0 3, 060
Development Impact Fee Limitations
Our fees stated in the Development Impact Fee Budget include attendance at a total of two in -person meetings with City staff, stakeholders, and City Council. Attendance at more than two in -person meetings shall be billed at our current hourly rates, provided below.

Examples of Additional Services include:

Notes
Our fee includes all direct expenses associated with the project.

We will invoice the City monthly based on percentage of project completed.

Additional services may be authorized by the City and will be billed at our then -current hourly overhead consulting rates.

W I LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 41 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *211
DocuSign Envelope ID: CBFCC599-709B-4543- 8ED8-4E216CBB1519 Additional Professional Services
Hourly Fee Schedule
Our current hourly rates are listed below.

Position Team Member Hourly Rate
Group Manager Chris Fisher 250
Managing Principal James Edison 240
Principal Consultant Bob Quaid 210
Senior Project Manager Tony Thrasher 185
Project Manager Carlos Villarreal 165
Senior Project Analyst 135
Senior Analyst Priti Patel 125
Analyst II 110
Analyst 1 100
WI LLDAN Cost Allocation Plan, User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Development Impact Fee Analysis 42 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *212
r
1 —
e
i- - q
i..J
y {

WILLDAN
27368 Via Industria, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92S90-48S6
S1. S87. 3S00 1800. 7SS. 6864 ( Fax: 9S1. S87.3S10
www. wilidan. com
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *213
1 TO: City Council
FROM: Andrew Vialpando, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Lina Hernandez, Deputy City Manager/Public Works Director MEETING DATE: November 5, 2024
SUBJECT: First Amendment to the Agreement with Willdan Engineering Services for CIP and Water Related Project Management

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the First Amendment to Agreement No. 2024-27 with Willdan Engineering Services for Capital Improvement Program and Water Related Project Management Services for a three-year term ending December 31, 2027, in an amount not to exceed $130,000 in the first year, $181,000 in the second year, and $190,000 in the third year; appropriate an additional $130,000 from the Water Fund and General Fund available balance in the current FY 24-25 Adopted Budget; and authorize the City Manager to execute.

BACKGROUND
At its meeting on June 4, 2024, the City Council approved an agreement with Willdan Engineering for Capital Improvement Projects (CIP). and water-related project management services in response to the high priority in advancing and completing CIPs.

Moreover, the installation of a Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) system at the Cypress Water Production Facility is among the City’s highest priorities, along with other critical street, water, and facility improvements. Willdan Engineering was commissioned to augment staff to ensure CIPs stay on track and meet the City’s goals.

DISCUSSION
Progress has been made on the various CIP and water-related projects within the last year, however with the personnel shortages coupled with the growing backlog of CIP projects at various stages of completion, it is recommended that the City extend the professional services agreement with Willdan Engineering.

CITY OF LOMITA

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
Item No. 7f
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *214
2 Willdan is a highly qualified engineering firm that can continue to supplement staff efforts and provide additional manpower and expertise during peak project phases to see Lomita’s Capital Improvement Program and water-related projects to completion.

The scope of work will include the management of projects from design to construction and provide recommendations to the Public Works Director to ensure resource efficiency and timely completion. The primary goal will be to keep our CIP projects on track, particularly the CWPF – GAC Project and allow the new Public Works Director to focus on higher level administrative functions of the Public Works Department.

The current agreement is set to end on December 31, 2024. The attached amendment, if approved by the City Council, would extend the term with Willdan Engineering to December 31, 2027, with the option to renew for two additional one-year terms.

FISCAL IMPACT
The original six-month agreement with Willdan Engineering Services for CIP/Water Related Project Management was for an amount not to exceed $65,688 funded from General Fund and Water Fund within the Public Works Department budget. Staff is recommending authorizing an appropriation in the amount of $130,000 to cover the additional first year of service, $181,000 for the second, and $190,000 for third year. The City would have the option to extend the agreement two additional one-year terms upon the consultant’s successful demonstration of exemplary performance and the City‘s operational need.

OPTIONS

1. Approve recommended action.

ATTACHMENTS

1. First Amendment to the Agreement with Exhibit A

2. Agreement 2024-27 with Willdan Engineering
Reviewed by: Approved by:
_______________________ ______________________
Gary Y. Sugano Andrew Vialpando
Assistant City Manager City Manager
Prepared by:
.
__________________________
Lina Hernandez
Deputy City Manager/Public Works Director
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *215
Agree No 2024-27

CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

BETWEEN

THE CITY OF LOMITA AND WILLDAN ENGINEERING
This AGREEMENT for GIP/Water-Related Project Management and Public Works Operational Analysis is entered into this 4th day of June, 2024, by and between the CITY OF LOMITA, a general law city and municipal corporation (" CITY") and Willdan Engineering ("CONSULTANT").

REC I T A L S
A. CITY does not have the personnel able and/or available to perform the services required under this agreement.

B. Therefore, CITY desires to contract out forGIP/Water-Related Project Management and Public Works Operational Analysis.

C. CONSULTANT warrants to CITY that it has the qualifications, experience and facilities to perform properly and timely the services under this Agreement.

D. CITY desires to contract with CONSULTANT to perform the services as described in.

Exhibit A of this Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, based on the foregoing recitals, CITY and CONSULTANT agree as follows:

1. CONSIDERATION AND COMPENSATION.

A. As partial consideration, CONSULTANT agrees to perform the work listed in the SCOPE OF SERVICES, attached as Exhibit A;
B. As additional consideration, CONSULTANT and CITY agree to abide by the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement;
C. As additional consideration, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT an hourly rate of 238 per hour for CONSULTANT' s services, for a total amount not to exceed 65,688 unless otherwise specified by written amendment to this Agreement.

D. No additional compensation shall be paid for any other expenses incurred, unless first approved by the City Manager or his designee.

E. CONSULTANT shall submit to CITY, by not later than the 10th day of each

Page 1 of 12 ends

DocuSign Envelope ID: CA7C1C12- 13F3-4F50-8A02- 9865DFAFC1C0 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *216
month, its bill for services itemizing the fees and costs incurred during the previous month. CITY shall pay CONSULTANT all uncontested amounts set forth in the CONSULTANT' S bill within 30 days afterit is received.

2. SCOPE OF SERVICES.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

A. CONSULTANT will perform the services and activities set forthin the SCOPE OF SERVICES attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

If any part of Exhibit A is inconsistent with the terms of this Agreement, the terms, of this Agreement shall control.

B. Except as herein otherwise expressly specified to be furnished by CITY, CONSULTANT will, in a professional manner, furnish all of the labor, technical, administrative, professional and other personnel, all supplies and materials, equipment, printing, vehicles, transportation, officespace, and facilities necessary or proper to perform and complete the work and provide the professional services required of CONSUL TANTby this Agreement.

PAYMENTS. For CITY to pay CONSULTANT as specified by this Agreement,· CONSULTANT must submit an invoice to CITY which lists the reimbursable costs, the specific tasks performed, and, for work that includes deliverables, the percentage of the task completed during the billing period.

TIME OF PERFORMANCE. The services of CONSULTANT are to commence upon receipt of a notice to proceed from CITY and shall continue until all authorized work is completed to CITY's reasonable satisfaction, in accordance with the schedule incorporated in "Exhibit A," unless extended in writing by CITY.

FAMILIARITY WITH WORK. By executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT represent that CONSULTANT has ( a) thoroughly investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed; ( b) carefully considered how the services should be performed; and·· (c) understands the facilities, difficulties, and restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement.

KEY PERSONNEL. CONSULTANT's key person assigned to performwork under this Agreement is JeffStewart. CONSULTANT shall not assign another person to be in charge of the work contemplated by this Agreement without the prior written authorization of CITY.

TERM OF AGREEMENT. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon execution by both parties and shall expire on December 31, 2024, unless earlier termination occurs under Section 12 of this Agreement, or extended in writing in advance by both parties.

CHANGES. CITY may order changes in the services within the general scope of this Agreement, consisting of additions, deletions, or other revisions, and the contract sum and the contract time will be adjusted accord.ingly. All such changes must be authorized in writing, executed by CONSULTANT and CITY. The cost or credit to CITY

Page 2 of 12 ends

DocuSign Envelope ID: CA7C1C12- 13F3-4F50-8A02- 9865DFAFC1C0 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *217

9. resulting from changes in the services will be determined in accordance with written' agreement between the parties.

TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER. CONSULTANT will provide CITY with a Taxpayer Identification Number.

10. PERMITS AND LICENSES. CONSULTANT will obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement all permits, licenses, and certificates that may be required by local, state and federal laws in connection with the performance of services under this Agreement, including a business license as specified in Title VI, Chapter 2 of the Lomita Municipal Code.

11. Laws and Regulations; Employee/Labor Certification. CONSULTANT shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affectingthe performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law.

CONSULTANT shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with the Services and this Agreement. All violations of such laws and regulations shall be grounds for CITY to terminate the Agreement forcause.

12. TERMINATION.

A. Except as otherwiseprovided, CITY may terminate this Agreement at anytimewith or without cause. Notice of termination shall be in writing.

B. CONSUL TANT may terminate this Agreement. Notice will be in writing at least 30 days before the effectivetermination date.

C. In the event of such termination, CONSULTANT shall cease services as of the date of termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, drawings, maps, and other materials prepared by CONSULTANTshall, at CITY's option, become CITY's property, and CONSULTANT will receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed up to the effectivedate of notice of termination.

D. Should the Agreement be terminated pursuant to this Section, CITY may procure on its own terms services similar to those terminated.

13. INDEMNIFICATION.

A. CONSUL TANT shall indemnify, defend with counsel approved by CITY, and hold harmless CITY, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against all liability, loss, damage, expense, cost ( including without limitation reasonable attorneys fees, expert feesand all other costs and feesof litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with CONSUL TANT's performanceof work hereunder or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this AGREEMENT, regardless of CITY'S passive negligence, but excepting such loss or damage which is caused by the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of CITY. Should CITY in its sole discretion find

Page 3 of 12 ends

DocuSign Envelope ID: CA7C1C12- 13F3-4F50-8A02-9865DFAFC1C0 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *218
CONSULTANT'S legal counsel unacceptable, then CONSULTANT shall reimburse CITY its costs of defense, including without limitation reasonable attorneys fees, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation.

CONSULTANT shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against CITY and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers) covered by this indemnity obligation. It is expressly understood and agreed that the foregoing provisions are intended to be as broad and inclusive as is permitted by the law of the State of California and will survive termination of this Agreement.

B. The requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by CONSULTANTas required by Section 18, and any approval of said insurance by CITY, are not intended to and will not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement, including, without limitation, to the provisions concerning indemnification.

14. ASSIGNABILITY. This Agreement is for CONSULTANT's professional services.

CONSULTANT's attempts to assign the benefits or burdens of this Agreement without CITY's written approval are prohibited and will be null and void.

15. INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT. CITY and CONSULTANT agree that CONSULTANT will act as an independent CONSULTANT and will have control of all work and the manner in which is it performed. CONSULTANT will be free to contract for similar service to be performed for other employers while under contract with CITY. CONSUL TANT is not an agent or employee of CITY and is not entitled to participate in any pension plan, insurance, bonus or similar benefits CITY provides forits employees. Any provision in this Agreement that may appear to give CITY the right to direct CONSULTANT as to the details of doing the work or to exercise a measure of control over the work means that CONSULTANT will followthe direction of the CITY as to end results of the work only.

16. AUDIT OF RECORDS.

A. CONSULTANT agrees that CITY, or designee, has the right to review, obtain, and copy all records pertaining to the performance of this Agreement.

CONSULTANT agrees to provide CITY, or designee, with any relevant information requested and will permit CITY, or designee, access to its premises, upon reasonable notice, during normal business hours for the purpose of interviewing employees and inspecting and copying such books, records, accounts, and other material that may be relevant to a matter under investigation forthe purpose of determining compliance with this Agreement.

CONSUL TANT further agrees to maintain such records fora period of three (3) years following final payment under this Agreement.

B. CONSULTANT will keep all books, records, accounts and documents pertaining to this Agreement separate from other activities unrelated to this Agreement.

Page 4 ends

DocuSign Envelope ID: CA7C1C12- 13F3-4F50-8A02-9865DFAFC1C0 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *219

17. CORRECTIVE MEASURES. CONSULTANT will promptly implement any corrective measures required by CITY regarding the requirements and obligations of this Agreement. CONSULTANT will be given a reasonable amount of time as determined by CITY to implement said corrective measures. Failure of CONSULTANT to implement required corrective measures shall result in immediate termination of this Agreement.

18. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.

A. CONSULTANT, at CONSULTANT'S own cost and expense, shall procure and maintain, forthe duration of the contract, the followinginsurance policies:

1. Workers Compensation Insurance as required by law. CONSULTANT shall require all subconsultants similarly to provide such compensation insurance fortheir respective employees. Any notice of cancellation or non-renewal of all Workers' Compensation policies must be received by CITY at least thirty 30) days prior to such change. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against CITY, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by CONSULTANT forCITY.

2. General Liability Coverage. CONSULTANT shall maintain commercial general liability insurance in an amount of not less than one million dollars 1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. If a commercial general liability insurance form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit.

3. Automobile Liability Coverage. CONSUL TANT shall maintain automobile liability · insurance covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of CONSULTANT arising out of or in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage forowned, hired, and non-owned vehicles, in an amount of not less than one million dollars 1,000,000) combined single limit foreach occurrence.

4. Professional Liability Coverage. CONSUL TANT shall maintain professional errors and omissions liability insurance for protection against claims alleging negligent acts, errors, or omissions which may arise from CONSULTANT' S operations under this Agreement, whether such operations be by CONSULTANT or by its employees, subconsultants, or subconsultants. The amount of this insurance shall not be less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) on a claims-made annual aggregate basis, or a combined single-limit-per-occurrence basis. When coverage is provided on a "claims made basis," CONSULTANT will continue to renew the insurance fora period of three (3) years afterthis Agreement expires or is terminated.

Such insurance will have the same coverage and limits as the policy that was in effect during the term of this Agreement, and will cover

Page 5 of 12 ends

DocuSign Envelope ID: CA7C1C12- 13F3-4F50-8A02-9865DFAFC1C0 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *220
CONSULTANT for all claims made by CITY arising out of any errors or omissions of CONSULTANT, or its officers, employees or agents during the time this Agreement was in effect.

B. Endorsements. Each general liability, automobile liability and professional liability insurance policy shall be issued by a financially responsible insurance company or companies admitted and authorized to do business in the State of California, or which is approved in writing by CITY, and shall be endorsed as follows. CONSUL TANT also agrees to require all CONSUL TANTs, and subconsultants to do likewise.

1." The CITY, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds with respect to liability arising out of work performedby or on behalf of the CONSULTANT, including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations."

2. This policy shall be considered primary insurance as respects CITY, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers.

Any insurance maintained by CITY, including any self-insured retention CITY may have, shall be considered excess insurance only and shall not contribute with this policy.

3. This insurance shall act foreach insured and additional insured as though a separate policy had been written for each, except with respect to the limits of liability of the insuring company.

4. The insurer waives all rights of subrogation against CITY, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, or agents.

5. Any failur to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to CITY, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents, or volunteers.

6. The insurance provided by this policy shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, or reduced in coverage or in limits except afterthirty (30) days' written notice has been received by CITY.

C. CONSULTANT agrees to provide immediate notice to CITY of any claim or loss against CONSULTANT arising out of the work performedunder this agreement.

CITY assumes no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty) to monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve CITY.

D. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by CITY. At CITY's option, CONSULTANT shall demonstrate financial capability for payment of such deductibles or self-insured retentions.

Page 6 of 12 ends

DocuSign Envelope ID: CA7C1C12- 13F3-4F50-8A02-9865DFAFC1C0 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *221
E. CONSULTANT shall provide certificates of insurance with original endorsements to CITY as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein.

Certificates of such insurance shall be filed with CITY on or before commencement of performance of this Agreement. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with CITY at all times during the term of this Agreement.

G. The commercial general and automobile liability policies required by this Agreement shall allow CITY, as additional insured, to satisfy the self-insured retention ("SIR") and/or deductible of the policy in lieu of the CONSULTANT as the named insured) should CONSULTANT fail to pay the SIR or deductible requirements. The amount of the SIR or deductible shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney and the Finance Director. CONSULTANT understands and agrees that satisfaction of this requirement is an express condition precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement. Failure by CONSUL TANT as primary insured to pay its SIR or deductible constitutes a material breach of this Agreement. Should CITY pay the SIR or deductible on CONSULTANT'S behalf upon CONSULTANT'S failure or refusal to do so in order to secure defenseand indemnification as an additional insured under the policy, CITY may include such amounts as damages in any action against CONSUL TANT for breach of this Agreement in addition to any other damages incurred by CITY due to the breach.

19. USE OF OTHER CONSULTANTS. CONSULTANT must obtain CITY's prior written approval to use any CONSULTANTs while performing any portion of this Agreement. Such approval must include approval of the proposed CONSULTANT and the terms of compensation.

20. FINAL PAYMENT ACCEPTANCE CONSTITUTES RELEASE. The acceptance by the CONSULTANT of the final payment made under this Agreement shall operate as and be a release of CITY from all claims and liabilities for compensation to the CONSUL TANT for anything done, furnished or relating to the CONSULTANT'S work or services. Acceptance of payment shall be any negotiation of CITY'S check or the failureto make a written extra compensation claim within ten (10) calendar days of the receipt of that check. However, approval or payment by CITY shall not constitute, nor be deemed, a release of the responsibility and liability of CONSULTANT, its employees, sub-CONSULTANTs and agents forthe accuracy and competency of the information provided and/or work performed; nor shall such approval or payment be deemed to be an assumption of such responsibility or liability by CITY forany defector error in the work prepared by CONSULTANT, its employees, sub-CONSULTANTs and agents.

Page 7 of 12 ends

DocuSign Envelope ID: CA7C1C12- 13F3-4F50-8A02-9865DFAFC1C0 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *222

21. CORRECTIONS. In addition to the above indemnification obligations, the CONSULTANT shall correct, at its expense, all errors in the work which may be disclosed during CITY'S review of CONSULTANT' S report or plans. Should the CONSULTANT fail to make such correction in a reasonably timely manner, such correction shall be made by CITY, and the cost thereof shall be charged to CONSULTANT. In addition to all other available remedies, CITY may deduct the cost of such correction from any retention amount held by CITY or may withhold payment otherwise owed CONSULTANTunder this Agreement up to the amount of the cost of correction.

22. NON-APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS. Payments to be made to CONSULTANT by CITY for services preformed within the current fiscal year are within the current fiscal budget and within an available, unexhausted fund. In the event that CITY does not appropriate sufficient funds for payment of CONSULTANT' S services beyond the current fiscal year, the Agreement shall cover payment for CONSULTANT'S only to the conclusion of the last fiscal year in which CITY appropriates sufficientfunds and shall automatically terminate at the conclusion of such fiscal year.

23. NOTICES. All communications to either party by the other party will be deemed made when received by such party at its respective name and address as follows:

CITY
City of Lomita
24300 Narbonne Avenue
Lomita, CA 90717
ATTN: City Manager

CONSULTANT
Willdan Egineering
13191 Crossroad Parkway
Suite 405
lndustrv, CA 91745
ATTN: Vanessa Munoz PE
Any such written communications by mail will be conclusively deemed to have been received by the addressee upon deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed as noted above. In all other instances, notices will be deemed given at the time of actual delivery. Changes may be made in the names or addresses of persons to whom notices are to be given by giving notice in the manner prescribed in this paragraph. Courtesy copies of notices may be sent via electronic mail, provided that the original notice is deposited in the U.S. mail or personally delivered as specified in this Section.

24. SOLICITATION. CONSULTANT maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than CONSULTANT's bona fide employee, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, CONSULTANT warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than CONSULTANT' s bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, giftor other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. Should CONSULTANT breach or violate this warranty, CITY may rescind this Agreement without liability.

Page 8 of 12 ends

DocuSign Envelope ID: CA7C1C12- 13F3-4F50-8A02-9865DFAFC1C0 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *223

25. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. This Agreement and every provision herein is generally forthe exclusive benefit of CONSULTANT and CITY and not for the benefit of any other party. There will be no incidental or other beneficiaries of any of CONSULTANT' sor CITY's obligations under this Agreement.

26. INTERPRETATION. This Agreement was drafted in, and will be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and exclusive venue for any action involving this agreement will be in Los Angeles County.

27. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, and its Attachments, sets forth the entire understanding of the parties. There are no other understandings, terms or other agreements expressed or implied, oral or written.

28. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. Each Party had the opportunity to independently review this Agreement with legal counsel. Accordingly, this Agreement will be construed simply, as a whole, and in accordance with its fair meaning; it will not be interpreted strictly for or against either Party.

29. AUTHORITY/ MODIFICATION. The Parties represent and warrant that all necessary action has been taken by the Parties to authorize the undersigned to execute this Agreement and to engage in the actions described herein. This Agreement may be modified by written amendment with signatures of all parties to this Agreement. CITY's city administrator, or designee, may execute any such amendment on behalf of CITY.

30. ACCEPTANCE OF FACSIMILE OR ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES. The Parties agree that this Agreement will be considered signed when the signature of a party is delivered by facsimile transmission, scanned and delivered via electronic mail, or delivered using digital signature technology approved by CITY. Such facsimile or electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effectas an original signature.

31. FORCE MAJEURE. Should performanceof this Agreement be impossible due to fire, flood, explosion, war, embargo, government action, civil or military authority, the natural elements, or other similar causes beyond the Parties' control, then the Agreement will immediately terminate without obligation of either party to the other.

32. TIME 15 OF ESSENCE. Time is of the essence to comply with dates and schedules to be provided.

33. ATTORNEY'S FEES. The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that each will bear his or its own costs, expenses and attorneys' fees arising out of and/or connected with the negotiation, drafting and execution of the Agreement, and all matters arising out of or connected therewith except that, in the event any action is brought by any party hereto to enforce this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in addition to all other relief to which that party or those parties may be entitled.

Page 9 of 12 ends

DocuSign Envelope ID: CA7C1C12- 13F3-4F50-8A02-9865DFAFC1C0 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *224

34. STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE. By executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT represents that it has demonstrated trustworthiness and possesses the quality, fitness and capacity to perform the Agreement in a manner satisfactory to CITY.

CONSULTANT represents that its financial resources, surety and insurance experience, service experience, completion ability, personnel, current workload, experience in dealing with private CONSULTANTs, and experience in dealing with public agencies all suggest that CONSULTANT is capable of performing the proposed contract and has a demonstrated capacity to deal fairly and effectively with and to satisfya public agency.

35. DISCLOSURE REQUIRED. ( CITY and CONSULTANT initials required at one of the followingparagraphs)
OR
By their respective initials next to this paragraph, CITY and CONSULTANT hereby acknowledge that CONSULTANT is a "CONSULTANT' for the purposes of the California Political ReformAct because CONSULTANT' S duties would require him or her to make one or more of the governmental decisions set forthin Fair Political Practices Commission Regulation 18700.3(a)(2) or otherwise serves in a staff capacity for which disclosure would otherwise be required were CONSULTANT employed by CITY. CONSULTANT hereby acknowledges his or her assumingoffice, annual, and leaving-officefinancial reporting obligations under the California Political ReformAct and the CITY'S Conflict of Interest Code and agrees to comply with those obligations at his or her expense. Prior to CONSULTANTcommencing services hereunder, the City's Manager shall prepare and deliver to CONSULTANT a memorandum detailing the extent of CONSULTANT'S disclosure obligations in accordance with the CITY'S Conflict of Interest Code.

City Initials ___
CONSULTANT Initials ---
By their initials next to this paragraph, CITY and CONSULTANT hereby acknowledge that CONSULTANT is not a "CONSULTANT' for the purpose of the California Political Reform Act because CONSULTANT'S duties and responsibilities are not within the scope of the definition of CONSULTANT in Fair Political Practice Commission Regulation 18700.3(a)(2) and is otherwise not serving in staffcapacity in accordance with CITY'S Conflict of Interest Code.

City Initials __ _
CONSULTANT Initials ---

Page 10 of 12 ends

DocuSign Envelope ID: CA7C1C12- 13F3-4F50-8A02-9865DFAFC1C0 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *225
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this contract the day and year first hereinabove written.

CITY OF LOMITA CONSULTANT
Andrew Vialpando, City Manager By: Vanessa Munoz, President ATTEST:

Kathleen Horn Gregory, CMC City Clerk Taxpayer ID No.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Trev

Page 11 of 12 ends

DocuSign Envelope ID: CA7C1C12- 13F3-4F50-8A02-9865DFAFC1C0 95- 2295858
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *226
Exhibit A - Scope of Work
GIP/Water-Related Project Management
Oversee and administer the Cypress Water Production Facility (CWPF) and Distribution System upgrade project; and
Oversee and administer various Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Operational Assessment Report
Assess management efficiencies, communication and interrelationships between all levels of the Public Works staff, including management and supervisorial staff.

Provide recommendations for improvements.

Recommendations to improve current CIP process from design/engineering to construction.

Hourly Rate
238/hr.

Page 12 of 12 ends

DocuSign Envelope ID: CA7C1C12- 13F3-4F50-8A02-9865DFAFC1C0 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *227
Agree No 2024-xx
1 First Amendment to Agreement between
Willdan Engineering Services and the City of Lomita
for Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) and Water Related Project Management This First Amendment to the Agreement is made and entered into between the City of Lomita (“City”) and Willdan Engineering Services (“Consultant”). The City and Consultant mutually agree to amend the existing Agreement entered into on the 4th of day June, 2024, as follows:

RECITALS
A. On June 4, 2024, the City entered into an Agreement with Consultant for CIP/Water-Related Project Management (“Agreement”).

B. The City and Consultant now desire to amend Agreement and extend the term until December 31, 2027 with the option to extend by two additional one-year terms upon Consultant’s successful demonstration of exemplary contract performance.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Section 2 – Scope of Services. The City and Consultant agree to add the services and activities set forth in the scope of services attached hereto as Exhibit A for CIP/Water-Related Project Management Services.

2. Section 7 – Term of Agreement. The City and Consultant agree to extend the term of the Agreement for three (3) years and shall expire on December 31, 2027. This Agreement may be extended by two additional one-year terms, at the City’s sole discretion, upon written notice to Consultant.

3. All terms, conditions, and other provisions of the Agreement, including all exhibits, not affected by this First Amendment shall remain in full force and effect.

4. The Parties agree that this First Amendment to the Agreement will be considered signed when the signature of a party is delivered by facsimile transmission, scanned, and delivered via electronic mail, or delivered using digital signature technology approved by the City. Such facsimile or electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this First Amendment on the 5th day of November 2024, at Lomita, California.

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *228
Agree No 2024-xx
2 City of Lomita Willdan Engineering Services
By______________________________ By _____________________________ Andrew Vialpando, City Manager Vanessa Munoz, President Attest:
________________________________
Kathleen Horn Gregory, CMC, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
_________________________________
Trevor Rusin, City Attorney
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *229
October 15, 2024
Ms. Lina Hernandez
Deputy City Manager/Public Works Director
City of Lomita
24300 Narbonne Avenue
Lomita, CA 90717
Subject: Proposal to Provide Project Management Services Dear Ms. Hernandez:

Willdan Engineering (Willdan) is pleased to submit this proposal to provide the City of Lomita with project management services. Willdan brings to the City of Lomita more than 60 years of experience and a record of unmatched services to over 500 public agencies.

We currently provide project management, city engineering and staff augmentation services to several cities in the Southern California area.

As a multidisciplinary firm, we have a full complement of resources under one roof, enabling us to provide a complete range of services to the City of Lomita. Our firm has over six decades of experience providing a wide range of support services to local government agencies throughout Southern California and the Western United States, including project and program management, public works, city engineering, staff augmentation, civil and traffic engineering, water/wastewater engineering, structural design, landscape architectural, master planning, building and safety services, assessment district engineering, labor compliance, special funding administration, geotechnical services, and construction management and inspection. Because we focus solely on the needs of the public sector, we have a perspective on public agency issues that are unique among private consulting firms.

Willdan is pleased to offer Mr. Al Cablay (see attached resume), with more than 45 years of municipal experience, to serve as the Project Manager for the City of Lomita. Mr. Cablay has extensive experience in project planning and management where he has managed CIP projects ranging from $100k to $47 million. His administrative and organizational experience includes arranging and participating on project selection committees; writing and managing requests for proposals (RFPs) and qualifications (RFQs); project scopes; scheduling; budgeting; contract negotiations; pre-construction meetings; PS&E review and approval. Mr. Cablay is adept at conducting field inspections as he is overseeing Town Hall meeting formats and all other forums that encourage and welcome public engagement to appropriately communicate public information. He has excellent collaboration skills and Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *230
October 15, 2024

Page 2 ends

is adept at interfacing with local and state agencies, as well as experience with presenting to city council, commissions, and community groups. Mr. Cablay has outstanding writing and communication skills.

SCOPE OF WORK

1. Manage Capital Improvement Program projects from design to construction completion.

2. Monitor project’s budgets and schedules.

3. Prepare requests for proposals for professional services and negotiate contracts for design and construction management.

4. Monitor contract expenditures and consultant performance. Process invoices.

5. Coordinate with utility companies/agencies and act as City’s representative to facilitate timely relocation of facilities.

6. Prepare reimbursement requests and invoices to Caltrans and other funding agencies.

7. Attend meetings with City staff to provide project updates.

8. Represent the City of Lomita at meetings as necessary.

9. Prepare the necessary staff reports and budget document.

10. Maintain project files in accordance with the City’s format.

11. Provide timely reviews of plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E).

12. Check contract documents for compliance with State and Caltrans funding requirements, as required.

13. Coordinate with City staff and consultants to have bid notices advertised and posted in various trade publications and on the City’s website.

14. Coordinate responses to bidders’ questions and prepare addenda.

15. Coordinate evaluation of bids and review award recommendation of lowest responsive, responsible, qualified bidder from consultant project manager.

16. Review insurance, bonds, and other required documents.

17. Draft City Council staff report for award of construction contract and coordinate processing of the contract agreement with the lowest responsible bidder.

18. Attend pre-construction meetings, as requested by the City.

19. Provide general oversight of contract administration during project construction, including recommending solutions when issues arise.

20. Review and recommend approval/disapproval of monthly progress pay estimates.

21. Assist with review of contract change orders.

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *231
October 15, 2024

Page 3 ends

22. Coordinate job walk for preparation of punch list items.

23. Coordinate project closeout activities, including as-builts, staff report, Notice of Completion, release of retention, and warranty walk.

FEE
Willdan proposes to provide the project management services of Mr. Al Cablay to the City of Lomita at a discounted hourly billing rate of $165.00.

Please indicate the City’s approval and authorization to proceed by either printing out and signing two originals and returning one hard copy original to our office, or by scanning one signed original and returning it by e-mail.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to be of service to the City of Lomita. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Adel Freij at (562) 760-7752 or [email protected].

Respectfully submitted, Approval and Authorization to Proceed By:

WILLDAN ENGINEERING CITY OF LOMITA
Adel M. Freij, PE __________________________________
Director - Engineering Signature
__________________________________
Date
910005/WW.00.30/P24-418_26793
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *232
Education
MBA, Engineering
Management, Northcentral
University
Ph.D. (ABD), Business
Administration, Northcentral
University
MS, Civil Engineering/
Transportation, Columbia
Pacific University
BS, Civil Engineering,
Columbia Pacific University
Certifications
Certified Stormwater
Inspector – #8080, American
Stormwater Center
Public Works Leadership
Fellow – American Public
Works Association
Transportation Planning - Air
Quality, UC Riverside
Registered Construction
Inspector – Div. I #5004,
ACIA
Sewer Collection Operator –
Grade III #600, CWEA
Water Distribution Operator -
Grade I #5145, AWWA
Mini-Law School Program -
University of West Los
Angeles
Project Management – San
Diego State University
Certified Engineering
Technician - Traffic
Operations #071251, NICET
45 Years’ Experience
Al Cablay
Project Manager
Mr. Al Cablay is a Willdan Engineering Principal Project Manager with 45 years of experience in engineering and public works fields. Mr. Cablay started his career as an Engineering Aide and eventually rose to become a City Department Director. Mr. Cablay has managed CIP projects ranging from $100k to $47 million. His administrative and organizational experience include arranging and participating on project selection committees; writing and managing requests for proposals (RFPs) and qualifications (RFQs); project scopes; scheduling; budgeting; contract negotiations; pre-construction meetings; PS&E review and approval. Mr. Cablay is adept at conducting field inspections as he is overseeing Town Hall meeting formats and all other forums that encourage and welcome public engagement to appropriately communicate public information. He has excellent collaboration skills and is adept at interfacing with local and state agencies, as well as experience with presenting to city council, commissions, and community groups.

Mr. Cablay has outstanding writing and communication skills.

Relevant Project Experience
Contributing to numerous public infrastructure Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects that benefit a broad spectrum of the Community.

Examples of these Municipal projects are:
▪ Hampton, GA-2023 Water Audit and 2023 CCR
▪ New Bern, NC-Initiating 2022 ARPA Projects
▪ Ontario, OR-Downtown Moore Park Gazebo
▪ Burlington, NC –Downtown Centralized Dumpsters
▪ Santa Ana, CA–Public Works Agency Realignment
▪ Bell, CA – Financial Recovery
▪ Loma Linda, CA – Barton Road Xeriscape Median

SUMMARY OF WORK HISTORY
Past positions as Director of Public Works:
▪ City of Hampton, GA
▪ City of New Bern, NC
▪ City of Ontario, OR
▪ City of Burlington, NC
▪ City of Maywood, CA
Past positions as City Engineer:
▪ City of Santa Ana, CA
▪ City of Bell, CA
Past positions as Public Works Superintendent/Manager:
▪ City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
▪ City of El Cajon, CA
▪ City of Encinitas, CA
▪ City of Maywood, CA
Past positions providing Municipal Engineering and Operations support:
▪ City of Yorba Linda, CA
▪ City of San Juan Capistrano, CA
▪ City of West El Monte, CA
▪ City of Newport Beach, CA
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *233
Al Cablay
Continued
▪ City of La Mesa, CA
▪ City of Palm Desert, CA
▪ City of Vista, CA
▪ City of Carlsbad, CA
Mr. Cablay’s unique perspective is a blend of knowledge and experience that provide staff an ideal and workable balance of theory and practice. His depth of public works practices fold-in both past and present practices with today’s ever-changing technology trends. A natural consensus builder and team player who brings a hard work ethic, energy and enthusiasm to an organization. Adept in trouble-shooting, he is a team player who also possesses a strong ‘customer service’ as a core value. This perspective is ever present in all actions that attempt to exemplify servant leadership as a tenet he brings to public service. These are the primary assets Mr. Cablay will bring into every organization he becomes a part of.

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *234

WILLDAN ENGINEERING
Schedule of Hourly Rates
Effective July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025
** For Non-Prevailing Wage Project *** For Prevailing Wage Project Mileage/Field Vehicle usage will be charged at the rate in accordance with the current FTR mileage reimbursement rate, subject to negotiation.

Additional billing classifications may be added to the above listing during the year as new positions are created. Consultation in connection with litigation and court appearances will be quoted separately. The above schedule is for straight time. Overtime will be charged at 1.5 times, and Sundays and holidays, 2.0 times the standard rates. Blueprinting, reproduction, messenger services, and printing will be invoiced at cost plus fifteen percent (15%). A sub consultant management fee of fifteen percent (15%) will be added to the direct cost of all sub consultant services to provide for the cost of administration, consultation, and coordination. Valid July 1, 2024 thru June 30, 2025, thereafter, the rates may be raised once per year to the value between the 12-month % change of the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles/Orange County/Sacramento/San Francisco/San Jose area and five percent. For prevailing wage classifications, the increase will be per the prevailing wage increase set by the California Department of Industrial Relations.

Rev V01 05.22.2024

DESIGN ENGINEERING
Technical Aide I $81
Technical Aide II $103
Technical Aide III $120
CAD Operator I $128
CAD Operator II $148
CAD Operator III $165
GIS Analyst I $168
GIS Analyst II $184
GIS Analyst III $191
Environmental Analyst I $144
Environmental Analyst II $161
Environmental Analyst III $171
Environmental Specialist $185
Designer I $173
Designer II $179
Senior Designer I $188
Senior Designer II $197
Design Manager $196
Senior Design Manager $206
Project Manager I $186
Project Manager II $207
Project Manager III $217
Project Manager IV $234
Principal Project Manager $238
Program Manager I $197
Program Manager II $209
Program Manager III $228
Assistant Engineer I $141
Assistant Engineer II $157
Assistant Engineer III $166
Assistant Engineer IV $175
Associate Engineer I $184
Associate Engineer II $192
Associate Engineer III $196
Senior Engineer I $199
Senior Engineer II $204
Senior Engineer III $207
Senior Engineer IV $211
Supervising Engineer $219
Traffic Engineer I $219
Traffic Engineer II $234
City Engineer I $234
City Engineer II $238
Deputy Director $243
Director $249
Principal Engineer $270

BUILDING AND SAFETY
Code Enforcement Technician $106
Code Enforcement Officer $121
Senior Code Enforcement Officer $143
Supervisor Code Enforcement $173
Fire Plans Examiner $173
Senior Fire Plans Examiner $189
Fire Inspector $159
Senior Fire Inspector $173
Fire Marshal $204
Plans Examiner Aide $114
Plans Examiner $173
Senior Plans Examiner $189
Assistant Construction Permit
Specialist
$121
Construction Permit Specialist $128
Senior Construction Permit
Specialist
$150
Supervising Construction Permit
Specialist
$159
Assistant Building Inspector $143
Building Inspector $159
Senior Building Inspector $173
Supervising Building Inspector $189
Inspector of Record $202
Deputy Building Official $205
Building Official $210
Plan Check Engineer $205
Supervising Plan Check Engineer $215
Principal Project Manager $238
Deputy Director $243
Director $249

PLANNING
CDBG Technician $86
CDBG Specialists $103
CDBG Analyst $122
CDBG Coordinator $152
CDBG Manager $183
Housing Program Coordinator $151
Planning Technician $130
Assistant Planner $162
Associate Planner $176
Senior Planner $200
Principal Planner $208
Planning Manager $221
Deputy Director $243
Director $249

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
Labor Compliance Specialist $146
Labor Compliance Manager $183
Utility Coordinator $167
Office Engineer I $147
Office Engineer II $167
Assistant Construction Manager $160
Construction Manager $185
Senior Construction Manager $201
Resident Engineer I $208
Resident Engineer II $216
Project Manager IV $234
Deputy Director $243
Director $249

INSPECTION SERVICES
Public Works Observer ** $131
Public Works Observer *** $159
Senior Public Works Observer** $143
Senior Public Works Observer *** $159

MAPPING AND EXPERT SERVICES
Survey Analyst I $147
Survey Analyst II $169
Senior Survey Analyst $187
Supervisor - Survey & Mapping $203
Principal Project Manager $238

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
Assistant Landscape Architect $153
Associate Landscape Architect $176
Senior Landscape Architect $193
Principal Landscape Architect $204
Principal Project Manager $238

ADMINISTRATIVE
Administrative Assistant I $99
Administrative Assistant II $120
Administrative Assistant III $140
Project Accountant I $112
Project Accountant II $132
Project Controller I $140
Project Controller II $158
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *235
1 TO: City Council
FROM: Andrew Vialpando, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Lina Hernandez, Deputy City Manager/Public Works Director MEETING DATE: November 5, 2024
SUBJECT: First Amendment to the Agreement with Stephen Doreck Equipment Rentals for Construction of the 247th Street Area Water Main Replacement Project

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the First Amendment to Agreement 2024-18 with Stephen Doreck Equipment Rentals for construction of the 247th Street Area Water Main Replacement Project; and authorize the City Manager execute the Amendment.

BACKGROUND
The 247th Street Area Water Main Replacement Project is listed in the City’s Water Master Plan as a priority 2 project and ranked as No. 6. The existing water main around 247th Street area runs north and south within private properties crossing 246th Street, 247th Street, 247th Place, and 248th Street. This existing water main includes a 4-inch diameter pipe for approximately 955 feet and a 6-inch diameter pipe for the rest of the area. The water mains were constructed in 1928 and have exceeded their useful life. The age of these water mains makes them particularly at risk for main breaks and leaks, especially as a result of an earthquake.

The proposed new water main will extend from 246th Street beyond the City boundaries, looping within the City of Los Angeles right of way and along Western Avenue (which is Caltrans right of way), and connecting back to the City of Lomita along 247th Street, 247th Place, 248th Street and Lomita Blvd. This project consists of constructing approximately 3,300 linear feet of 6-inch PVC water pipeline and appurtenances (fire hydrants, valves, services, and fittings). The existing pipeline located in private property will be abandoned.

On May 7, 2024 the City Council awarded the construction project to Stephen Doreck Equipment Rentals and the project is expected to be completed by March 2025.

CITY OF LOMITA

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
Item No. 7g
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *236
2 DISCUSSION
This project is partially funded by FEMA in the amount of $1,124,846.00. To ensure that the City receives these funds, the City must adhere to several FEMA requirements and other guidelines as part of the grant conditions.

Subsequently, it has come to staff’s attention that some revisions to the executed contracts are necessary to avert any risk of retention of grant funds from the City. These revisions are relatively minor as listed below:
• FEMA Guidelines were mentioned on page B-3 of the bid documents but were not attached to the original contract. This document has now been attached to the amendment as Appendix VII.
• NDPES Permit Requirements were mentioned on page E-15 of the project documents but were not attached. This document has now been attached to the amendment as Appendix VIII.

FISCAL IMPACT
There are no financial implications resulting from this recommendation.

OPTIONS

1. Approve staff’s recommendation.

2. Provide alternative direction.

ATTACHMENTS

1. First Amendment Agreement to Agreement 2024-18

2. Public Works Agreement 2024-18
Reviewed by: Approved by:
_______________________ ______________________
Gary Y. Sugano Andrew Vialpando
Assistant City Manager City Manager
Prepared by:
.
__________________________
Lina Hernandez
Deputy City Manager/Public Works Director
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *237
First Amendment to Agreement Between
Stephen Doreck Equipment Rentals and the City of Lomita This First Amendment to the Agreement is made and entered into between the City of Lomita (“City”) and Stephen Doreck Equipment Rentals, Inc. (“Contractor”). The City and Contractor mutually agree to amend the existing Agreement entered into on May 7th, 2024, as follows:

RECITALS
A. On May 7, 2024, the City entered into that certain Agreement with Contractor for construction services for the 247th Street Area Water Main Replacement Project(“Agreement”).

B. The City and Contractor now wish to enter into this First Amendment to the Agreement to add two appendices related to Federal Emergency Management Agency and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System guideline requirements. The City and Contractor acknowledge that the appendices were inadvertently omitted from the Agreement at the time of signing. The City and Contractor agree to a retroactive application of the requirements in the added appendices.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. AMENDMENT. Appendix VII (FEMA GUIDELINES) and Appendix VIII (NDPES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS) are hereby added and incorporated to the Agreement with retroactive effect of May 7, 2024.

2. NO OTHER CHANGES. All terms, conditions, and other provisions of the Agreement, including all exhibits, not affected by this First Amendment shall remain in full force and effect.

3. ACCEPTANCE OF FACSIMILE OR ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES. The Parties agree that this First Amendment to the Agreement will be considered signed when the signature of a party is delivered by facsimile transmission, scanned and delivered via electronic mail, or delivered using digital signature technology approved by CITY. Such facsimile or electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this First Amendment on the 5th day of November 2024, at Lomita, California. [Signatures on following page]
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *238
Attachment No. 1
City of Lomita Stephen Doreck Equipment Rentals
By______________________________ By _______________________________ Andrew Vialpando, City Manager Pablo Viramontes, Manager Attest: Approved as to Form:
________________________________ _____________________________ Kathleen Horn Gregory, MMC, City Clerk Trevor Rusin, City Attorney Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *239

APPENDIX VII

FEMA REQUIREMENTS
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *240
Hazard Mitigation
Assistance Guidance
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, and Flood Mitigation Assistance Program
'FCSVBSZ

Federal Emergency Management Agency
Department of Homeland Security
500 C Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20472
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *241
Titles of Opportunities:
i Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
i Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program
i Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program
Funding Opportunity Numbers:

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) numbers for the three Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) programs are:
i 97.039 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
i 97.047 Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program
i 97.029 Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program
Federal Agency Name:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Announcement Type:

Initial
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *242

STATEMENT FROM THE DEPUTY

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR

MITIGATION
I recognize and embrace the opportunity to align our programs to the 2014–2018 FEMA Strategic Plan and Whole Community approach to resiliency. To achieve this aim, I am pleased to share with you the Fiscal Year 2015 (FY15) Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Guidance.

This updated guidance is an essential instrument for our internal and external stakeholders. It carefully outlines strategies for the mitigation process by interpreting the Federal statutes, regulations, and best practices. This update is a collaborative effort of my staff, with input from external stakeholders.

We revised the HMA Guidance with an eye toward creating more programmatic flexibility.

Some of the major adjustments are:
i Integrating climate change / resilience considerations i Simplifying Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) requirements (e.g., Hurricane Residential Wind Retrofit BCA)
i Linking the implementation of disaster-resistant building codes WR projects funded under the Additional HMGP 5 Percent initiative
In addition to the changes listed above, we developed HMA Job Aids to enhance the fiscal processes and outreach materials for homeowners and federally-recognized tribes to better serve their needs. Lastly, we have incorporated provisions to promote accessibility as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The FY15 HMA Guidance is the definitive policy document for the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA) and it is my expectation that this document be treated as FIMA’s official position on HMA-related matters.

The FY15 HMA Guidance will help move communities towards a more resilient future. Let us continue to work together to make the HMA programs the best they can be.

Roy E. Wright
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *243

CONTENTS
Part I. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 A. HMA Commitment to Resilience and Climate Change Adaptation ................................... 2 B. Authorization and Appropriation ........................................................................................ 4 B.1 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program ..............................................................................4 B.2 Pre-Disaster Mitigation ..............................................................................................4 B.3 Flood Mitigation Assistance .......................................................................................5 C. Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................................................. 5 D. HMA Application Process .................................................................................................. 6 E. Organization of this Document ........................................................................................... 7 F. Programmatic Changes ....................................................................................................... 8 Part II. Frontloading HMA Program Eligibility Requirements ........................................ 13 A. Mitigation Planning .......................................................................................................... 15 B. Climate Change and Resiliency Considerations ............................................................... 16 C. Universal Accessibility and Mitigation ............................................................................ 16 D. Technical Feasibility and Effectiveness............................................................................ 17 E. Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands ....................................................... 17 F. Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation Review and Compliance .................. 18 G. Cost-Effectiveness ............................................................................................................ 21 H. Cost Review ...................................................................................................................... 21 I. Project Development ......................................................................................................... 21 J. Section 404 and Section 406 ............................................................................................. 22 K. Advance Assistance .......................................................................................................... 22 L. Strategic Funds Management ............................................................................................ 23 M. Project Monitoring ............................................................................................................ 23 N. Closeout ............................................................................................................................ 24 Part III. Eligibility Information .............................................................................................. 25 A. Eligible Applicants............................................................................................................ 25 B. Eligible Subapplicants ...................................................................................................... 25 C. Cost Sharing ...................................................................................................................... 26 C.1 Federal Funds Allowed to Be Used as Non-Federal Cost Share ..............................28 C.2 Increased Cost of Compliance as Non-Federal Cost Share ......................................28 C.2.1 Steps for the Assignment of Coverage D – Increased Cost of Compliance Coverage ................................................................................. 29 D. Restrictions ....................................................................................................................... 30 i
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *244
D.1 Non-discrimination Compliance ..............................................................................30 D.2 Conflict of Interest ...................................................................................................30 D.3 Procurement .............................................................................................................31 D.4 Duplication of Programs ..........................................................................................31 D.5 Duplication of Benefits ............................................................................................31 E. General Program Requirements........................................................................................ 32 E.1 Eligible Activities.....................................................................................................32 E.1.1 Mitigation Projects ...................................................................................... 34 E.1.2 Ineligible Stand-Alone Activities................................................................ 38 E.1.3 Hazard Mitigation Planning ........................................................................ 39 E.1.4 Technical Assistance ................................................................................... 40 E.1.5 Management Costs ...................................................................................... 41 E.2 Ineligible Activities ..................................................................................................42 E.3 Cost-Effectiveness....................................................................................................44 E.4 Feasibility and Effectiveness....................................................................................44 E.5 Hazard Mitigation Plan Requirement.......................................................................44 E.5.1 Applicant Mitigation Plan Requirement ..................................................... 45 E.5.2 Subapplicant Mitigation Plan Requirement ................................................ 45 E.5.3 Extraordinary Circumstances ...................................................................... 45 E.5.4 Tribal Hazard Mitigation Plan Requirement............................................... 46 E.5.5 Conformance with Hazard Mitigation Plans............................................... 47 E.6 Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation Requirements ..........................47 E.6.1 Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands ................................. 48 E.7 National Flood Insurance Program Eligibility Requirements ..................................49 E.7.1 Special Flood Hazard Area Requirements .................................................. 49 E.8 Statutory, Regulatory, and Other Requirements ......................................................50 Part IV. Application and Submission Information............................................................... 52 A. Address to Request Application Package ......................................................................... 52 B. Content and Form of Application ..................................................................................... 52 C. Submission Dates and Times............................................................................................ 53 D. Intergovernmental Review................................................................................................ 53 E. Funding Restrictions ......................................................................................................... 53 E.1 HMGP Funding Restrictions....................................................................................53 E.2 PDM Funding Restrictions.......................................................................................54 E.3 FMA Funding Restrictions.......................................................................................54 E.4 Management Costs Funding Restrictions.................................................................54 F. Other Submission Requirements....................................................................................... 55 ii
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *245
F.1 Application Consideration under Multiple HMA Programs ....................................55 F.2 Pre-award Costs........................................................................................................55 G. Applicant Guidance .......................................................................................................... 56 G.1 General Applicant Guidance ....................................................................................56 G.2 Minimum Eligibility Criteria ...................................................................................56 H. Scoping Narrative: Scope of Work, Schedule, and Cost Estimate ................................... 58 H.1 Required Components ..............................................................................................58 H.2 Considerations for Management Costs ....................................................................60 H.2.1 Activities Description.................................................................................. 60 H.2.2 Personnel ..................................................................................................... 60 H.2.3 Cost Estimate............................................................................................... 60 H.3 Considerations for Planning Subapplications ..........................................................60 H.3.1 Activities Description.................................................................................. 60 H.3.2 Deliverables, Tasks, and Schedule.............................................................. 61 H.4 Considerations for Project Subapplications .............................................................63 H.4.1 Property Location........................................................................................ 63 H.4.2 Activities Description.................................................................................. 63 H.4.3 Cost Estimate............................................................................................... 64 I. Cost-Effectiveness ............................................................................................................ 64 I.1 Substantial Damage Waiver .....................................................................................65 I.2 Aggregation..............................................................................................................65 I.3 5 Percent Initiative ...................................................................................................65 I.4 Pre-calculated Benefits (Safe Rooms)......................................................................65 I.5 Greatest Savings to the Fund....................................................................................65 I.6 Environmental Benefits............................................................................................66 I.7 Pre-calculated Benefits for Acquisitions and Elevations in Special Flood Hazard Areas ............................................................................................................66 I.8 Integrating Sea Level Rise in Mitigation .................................................................67 I.9 Landslide Property Acquisition................................................................................68 I.10 Pre-calculated Benefits for Residential Hurricane Wind Retrofit Measures ...........68 I.11 Alternative BCA Methodologies..............................................................................69 J. Feasibility and Effectiveness Documentation................................................................... 70 K. Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation Documentation ................................ 70 Part V. Application Review Information ............................................................................. 74 A. Review Criteria ................................................................................................................. 74 A.1 Application Eligibility Review.................................................................................74 A.2 Technical Review.....................................................................................................74 iii
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *246
A.2.1 Cost-Effectiveness Review ......................................................................... 74 A.2.2 Feasibility and Effectiveness Review ......................................................... 75 A.2.3 Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation Review ....................... 75 A.3 HMA Efficiencies ....................................................................................................75 A.3.1 Safe Room Projects ..................................................................................... 76 A.3.2 Wind Retrofit Projects................................................................................. 76 A.3.3 Certain Flood Mitigation Projects ............................................................... 76 B. Selection and Notification Process ................................................................................... 76 B.1 Selection ...................................................................................................................77 B.2 Notification...............................................................................................................77 B.3 Reconsideration Process...........................................................................................77 B.3.1 Consideration of Additional Information.................................................... 78 C. Requests for Information .................................................................................................. 78 C.1 Request for Information Timelines ..........................................................................78 Part VI. Award Administration Information........................................................................ 81 A. Notice of Award................................................................................................................ 81 B. Risk Assessment Prior to PDM and FMA Award ............................................................ 82 C. Requirements for Pass-Through Entities .......................................................................... 82 C.1 Termination ..............................................................................................................83 C.1.1 Additional Specific Award Conditions or Terminations in the PDM and FMA Programs ..................................................................................... 83 D. Administrative and National Policy Requirements........................................................... 84 D.1 Cost-Share Documentation ......................................................................................84 D.2 Scope of Work Changes...........................................................................................84 D.3 Budget Changes........................................................................................................85 D.3.1 Non-construction Projects ........................................................................... 85 D.3.2 Construction Projects .................................................................................. 85 D.3.3 Cost Overruns and Underruns ..................................................................... 85 D.3.4 Contingencies .............................................................................................. 85 D.4 Program Period of Performance...............................................................................86 D.4.1 Extensions ................................................................................................... 86 D.5 Requests for Advances and Reimbursements ..........................................................87 D.6 Program Income .......................................................................................................87 D.7 Federal Income Tax on Mitigation Project Funds....................................................87 D.8 Remedies for Noncompliance ..................................................................................88 D.9 Davis-Bacon Act ......................................................................................................88 E. Reporting Requirements ................................................................................................... 88 iv
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *247
E.1 Federal Financial Reports.........................................................................................89 E.2 Performance Reports ................................................................................................89 E.3 Final Reports ............................................................................................................90 F. Closeout ............................................................................................................................ 90 F.1 Subaward Closeout...................................................................................................90 F.1.1 Subrecipient Records Retention .................................................................. 91 F.2 Award Closeout........................................................................................................92 F.2.1 Recipient Records Retention....................................................................... 93 F.2.2 Update of Repetitive Loss Database ........................................................... 93 Part VII. FEMA Contacts......................................................................................................... 95 Part VIII. Additional Program Guidance................................................................................. 96 A. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program .................................................................................... 96 A.1 Recipient Request for HMGP Funds........................................................................96 A.2 State Administrative Plan.........................................................................................96 A.2.1 Designation of Recipient and State Hazard Mitigation Officer .................. 97 A.2.2 Staffing Requirements and the Mitigation Team ........................................ 97 A.2.3 Procedures to Guide Implementation Activities ......................................... 98 A.2.4 Sliding Scale................................................................................................ 98 A.2.5 Management Costs ...................................................................................... 99 A.2.6 Submission and Approval Deadlines .......................................................... 99 A.3 Program Administration by States ...........................................................................99 A.4 HMGP Funding ......................................................................................................100 A.5 HMGP Management Costs.....................................................................................102 A.6 Eligible Subapplicants............................................................................................104 A.7 Submission of HMGP Subapplications..................................................................104 A.8 Award Cost-Share Requirements ...........................................................................104 A.9 Strategic Funds Management .................................................................................105 A.10 HMGP Disaster Spend Plan ...................................................................................106 A.11 Post-Disaster Code Enforcement Projects..............................................................106 A.12 Advance Assistance................................................................................................108 A.13 Phased Projects.......................................................................................................110 A.13.1 Pre-screening Process................................................................................ 110 A.13.2 Phase I Conditional Approval ................................................................... 111 A.13.3 Phase II Approval – Construction Process................................................ 111 A.14 The 5 Percent Initiative ..........................................................................................111 A.14.1 Availability of Additional Funds for Mitigation Activities ...................... 112 v
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *248
A.15 Appeal Process .......................................................................................................113 B. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program .................................................................................... 114 B.1 Allocation ...............................................................................................................114 B.2 Small Impoverished Communities .........................................................................114 B.3 Information Dissemination .....................................................................................114 B.4 Applicant Ranking of Subapplications ...................................................................115 B.5 Selection .................................................................................................................115 C. Flood Mitigation Assistance Program ............................................................................ 116 C.1 Eligible Properties ..................................................................................................116 C.2 Repetitive Loss Strategy .........................................................................................117 C.3 Cost Sharing ...........................................................................................................117 C.4 Applicant Ranking of Subapplications ...................................................................118 C.5 Selection .................................................................................................................118 C.6 Failure to Make Federal Award within 5 Years .....................................................118 Part IX. Appendices ............................................................................................................... 119 A. Acronyms ........................................................................................................................ 119 B. Glossary .......................................................................................................................... 122 C. Additional Resources ...................................................................................................... 133 D. Referenced Regulations, Statutes, Directives, and Guidance ......................................... 138 E. EHP Checklist ................................................................................................................. 146 F. Minimum Criteria Checklist for Project Subapplications ............................................... 148 G. Minimum Criteria Checklist for Planning Subapplications ............................................ 151 List of Figures
Figure 1: Application Process ..........................................................................................................7 Figure 2: Overall Project Lifecycle................................................................................................13 Figure 3: General Steps in Project Scoping Process ......................................................................14 Figure 4: Frontloading EHP and the Formal Review Process .......................................................20 Figure 5: RFI Flowchart.................................................................................................................80 Figure 6: Award Process ................................................................................................................81 Figure 7: HMGP Ceiling Review Process ...................................................................................102 vi
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *249
List of Tables
Table 1: Eligible Subapplicants .....................................................................................................26 Table 2: Cost-Share Requirements ................................................................................................27 Table 3: Eligible Activities by Program ........................................................................................33 Table 4: Green Open Space and Riparian Benefits .......................................................................66 Table 5: Pre-determined Benefit Amounts for Wind Retrofit Projects .........................................69 Table 6: RFI Timelines ..................................................................................................................79 Table 7: FEMA Regions ................................................................................................................95 List of Textboxes
Whole Community...........................................................................................................................2 Universal Design............................................................................................................................16 Critical Action Definition ..............................................................................................................17 Examples of 404 and 406 Mitigation.............................................................................................22 Advance Assistance .......................................................................................................................22 Strategic Funds Management.........................................................................................................23 Private Nonprofit Definition..........................................................................................................25 Duplication of Benefits..................................................................................................................31 Generators......................................................................................................................................35 Mitigation Planning-Related Activities .........................................................................................39 Examples of Indirect Costs Categories ..........................................................................................41 Practicable Alternatives Definition................................................................................................47 Decision-Making for Critical Action vs. Critical Facility .............................................................48 Federal Laws Prohibiting Discrimination in Emergency Programs on the Basis of Disability ........................................................................................................................50 Maximum Amounts of FMA Mitigation Planning Grant..............................................................54 Minimum Eligibility Requirements ...............................................................................................56 Examples of Direct Cost Categories..............................................................................................64 Inclusion of Environmental Benefits into the BCA Toolkit ..........................................................66 Integrating Sea Level Rise in Mitigation.......................................................................................67 Immediate Threat...........................................................................................................................68 Pre-determined Benefits for Wind Retrofits..................................................................................69 HMA Efficiencies ..........................................................................................................................75 Request for Information.................................................................................................................78 Scope Change.................................................................................................................................84 Budget Change...............................................................................................................................85 vii
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *250
Tribal HMGP Presidential Major Disaster Declaration Request ...................................................96 The HMGP Final Lock-In ............................................................................................................100 Strategic Funds Management, Phased Projects, Pre-award Costs, and Advance Assistance .....................................................................................................................105 HMGP Fiscal Processes ...............................................................................................................106 Extraordinary Post-disaster Code Enforcement Costs .................................................................106 Advance Assistance .....................................................................................................................108 Additional 5 Percent Intiative Funding ........................................................................................112 viii
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *251
PART I. INTRODUCTION
Part I of the Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Guidance introduces the three HMA programs, identifies roles and responsibilities, and outlines the organization of the document.

This guidance applies to Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) disasters declared on or after the date of publication unless indicated otherwise. This guidance is also applicable to the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Programs; the application cycles are announced via http://www.grants.gov/. The guidance in this document is subject to change based on new laws or regulations enacted after publication. For additional information, contact the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) FEMA HMA programs present a critical opportunity to reduce the risk to individuals and property from natural hazards, while simultaneously reducing reliance on Federal disaster funds. On March 30, 2011, the President signed Presidential Policy Directive 8 (PPD-8): National Preparedness, and the National Mitigation Framework was finalized in May 2013. The National Mitigation Framework comprises seven core capabilities, including:
i Threats and Hazard Identification
i Risk and Disaster Resilience Assessment
i Planning
i Community Resilience
i Public Information and Warning
i Long-Term Vulnerability Reduction
i Operational Coordination
HMA programs provide funding for eligible activities that are consistent with the National Mitigation Framework’s Long-Term Vulnerability Reduction capability. HMA programs reduce community vulnerability to disasters and their effects, promote individual and community safety and resilience, and promote community vitality after an incident. Furthermore, HMA programs reduce response and recovery resource requirements in the wake of a disaster or incident, which results in a safer community that is less reliant on external financial assistance.

Hazard mitigation is defined as any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural hazards and their effects. This definition distinguishes actions that have a long-term impact from those that are more closely associated with immediate preparedness, response, and recovery activities. Hazard mitigation is the only phase of emergency management specifically dedicated to breaking the cycle of damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage. Accordingly, States, territories, federally-recognized tribes, and local Part I. Introduction 1
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *252
communities are encouraged to take advantage of funding that HMA programs provide in both the pre- and post-disaster timelines.

In addition to hazard mitigation, FEMA’s Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning (Risk MAP) Program provides communities with education, risk communication, and outreach to better protect its citizens. The Risk MAP project lifecycle places a strong emphasis on community engagement and partnerships to ensure a whole
community approach that reduces flood risk and
builds more resilient communities. Risk MAP risk
assessment information strengthens a local
community’s ability to make better and more
informed decisions. Risk MAP allows
communities to better invest and determine
priorities for projects funded under HMA. These
investments support mitigation efforts under HMA
that protect life and property and build more
resilient communities.

Part I. Introduction 2
The whole community includes children,
individuals with disabilities, and others with
access and functional needs; those from
religious, racial, and ethnically diverse
backgrounds; and people with limited
English proficiency. Their contributions
must be integrated into mitigation/resilience
efforts, and their needs must be
incorporated as the whole community plans
and executes its core capabilities.

WHOLE COMMUNITY
A. HMA Commitment to Resilience and Climate Change
Adaptation
FEMA is committed to promoting resilience as expressed in PPD-8: National Preparedness; the President’s State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience; the Administrator’s 2011 FEMA Climate Change Adaptation Policy Statement (Administrator Policy 2011-OPPA-01); and the 2014–2018 FEMA Strategic Plan. Resilience refers to the ability to adapt to changing conditions and withstand and rapidly recover from disruption due to emergencies. The concept of resilience is closely related to the concept of hazard mitigation, which reduces or eliminates potential losses by breaking the cycle of damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage. Mitigation capabilities include, but are not limited to, community-wide risk reduction projects, efforts to improve the resilience of critical infrastructure and key resource lifelines, risk reduction for specific vulnerabilities from natural hazards and climate change, and initiatives to reduce future risks after a disaster has occurred.

FEMA is supporting efforts to streamline the HMA programs so that these programs can better respond to the needs of communities nationwide that are addressing the impacts of climate change. FEMA, through its HMA programs:
i Develops and encourages adoption of resilience standards in the siting and design of buildings and infrastructure
i Modernizes and elevates the importance of hazard mitigation FEMA has issued several policies that facilitate the mitigation of adverse effects from climate change on the built environment structures and infrastructure. Consistent with the 2014–2018 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *253
FEMA Strategic Plan, steps are being taken by communities through engagement of individuals, households, local leaders, representatives of local organizations, and private sector employers and through existing community networks to protect themselves and the environment by updating building codes, encouraging the conservation of natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain, investing in more resilient infrastructure, and engaging in mitigation planning.

FEMA plays an important role in supporting community-based resilience efforts, establishing policies, and providing guidance to promote mitigation options that protect critical infrastructure and public resources.

FEMA encourages better integration of Sections 404 and 406 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended (Stafford Act), Title 42 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) 5121 et seq., to promote more resilience during the recovery and mitigation process. FEMA regulations that implement Sections 404 and 406 of the Stafford Act allow funding to incorporate mitigation measures during recovery activities. Program guidance and practice limits Section 406 mitigation to the damaged elements of a structure. This limitation to Section 406 mitigation may not allow for a comprehensive mitigation solution for the damaged facility; however, Section 404 funds may be used to mitigate the undamaged portions of a facility.

Recognizing that the risk of disaster is increasing as a result of multiple factors, including the growth of population in and near high-risk areas, aging infrastructure, and climate change, FEMA promotes climate change adaptation by:
i Incorporating sea level rise in the calculation of Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) i Publishing a new HMA Job Aid on pre-calculated benefits for hurricane wind retrofit measures, see HMA Job Aid (Cost Effectiveness Determination for Residential Hurricane Wind Retrofit Measures Funded by FEMA)
i Encouraging floodplain and wetland conservation associated with the acquisition of properties in green open space and riparian areas
i Reducing wildfire risks
i Preparing for evolving flood risk
i Encouraging mitigation planning and developing mitigation strategies that encourage community resilience and smart growth
i Encouraging the use of building codes and standards (the American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute [ASCE/SEI] 24-14, Flood Resistant Design and Construction) wherever possible
For additional information, see http://www.fema.gov/climate-change.

Part I. Introduction 3
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *254
B. Authorization and Appropriation
This section discusses the authorization and appropriation of funding for each of the HMA programs. Together, these programs provide significant opportunities to reduce or eliminate potential losses to State, territories, federally-recognized tribes, and local assets through hazard mitigation planning and project grant funding. Each HMA program was authorized by separate legislative action, and as such, each program differs slightly in scope and intent. More information about each of the HMA programs can be found on the FEMA HMA website at https://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-assistance.

B.1 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
HMGP is authorized by Section 404 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5170c. The key purpose of HMGP is to ensure that the opportunity to take critical mitigation measures to reduce the risk of loss of life and property from future disasters is not lost during the reconstruction process following a disaster.

HMGP funding is available, when authorized under a Presidential major disaster declaration, in the areas of the State requested by the Governor. Federally-recognized tribes may also submit a request for a Presidential major disaster declaration within their impacted areas (see http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/85146). The amount of HMGP funding available to the Applicant is based on the estimated total Federal assistance, subject to the sliding scale formula outlined in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 206.432(b) that FEMA provides for disaster recovery under Presidential major disaster declarations. The formula provides for up to 15 percent of the first $2 billion of estimated aggregate amounts of disaster assistance, up to 10 percent for amounts between $2 billion and $10 billion, and up to

7.5 percent for amounts between $10 billion and $35.333 billion. For States with enhanced plans, the eligible assistance is up to 20 percent for estimated aggregate amounts of disaster assistance not to exceed $35.333 billion.

The Period of Performance (POP) for HMGP begins with the opening of the application period and ends no later than 36 months from the close of the application period.

For additional HMGP Guidance, see Part VIII, A.

B.2 Pre-Disaster Mitigation
PDM is authorized by the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5133. PDM is designed to assist States, territories, federally-recognized tribes, and local communities to implement a sustained predisaster natural hazard mitigation program to reduce overall risk to the population and structures from future hazard events, while also reducing reliance on Federal funding in future disasters.

Congressional appropriations provide the funding for PDM.

Part I. Introduction 4
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *255
The total amount of funds distributed for PDM is determined once the appropriation is provided for a given fiscal year. It can be used for mitigation projects and planning activities.

The POP for PDM begins with the opening of the application period and ends no later than 36 months from the date of subapplication selection.

For additional PDM Guidance, see Part VIII, B.

B.3 Flood Mitigation Assistance
FMA is authorized by Section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended (NFIA), 42 U.S.C. 4104c, with the goal of reducing or eliminating claims under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FMA was created as part of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act (NFIRA) of 1994. The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-141) consolidated the Repetitive Flood Claims and Severe Repetitive Loss grant programs into FMA. FMA funding is available through the National Flood Insurance Fund (NFIF) for flood hazard mitigation projects as well as plan development and is appropriated by Congress. States, territories, and federally-recognized tribes are eligible to apply for FMA funds. Local governments are considered subapplicants and must apply to their Applicant State, territory, or federally-recognized tribe.

The POP for FMA begins with the opening of the application period and ends no later than 36 months from the date of subapplication selection.

For additional FMA Guidance, see Part VIII, C.

C. Roles and Responsibilities
States, territories, and federally-recognized tribes are eligible Applicants for HMA programs.

The Applicant is responsible for soliciting subapplications from eligible subapplicants and assisting in the preparation of, reviewing, and submitting eligible, complete applications to FEMA. HMA grant funds are awarded to Applicants. When funding is awarded, the Applicant then becomes both the Recipient (formerly known as Grantee) and the pass-through entity (defined as a non-Federal entity that provides a subaward to a subrecipient to carry out part of a Federal program). A Recipient receives a Federal award directly from FEMA to carry out an activity under an HMA program. A pass-through entity provides a subaward to a subrecipient.

Pass-through entities are accountable for the use of the funds, responsible for administering the grant, and responsible for complying with program requirements and other applicable Federal, State, territorial, and tribal laws and regulations. The pass-through entity is also responsible for financial management of the program and overseeing all approved projects.

Subapplicants play a crucial role in the grant process. In general, the “subapplicant” is a Statelevel agency, federally-recognized tribe, local government, or other eligible entity that submits a subapplication for FEMA assistance to the Applicant. If HMA funding is awarded, the Part I. Introduction 5
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *256
subapplicant becomes the subrecipient (formerly known as subgrantee) and is responsible for managing the subaward (formerly known as subgrant) and complying with program requirements and other applicable Federal, State, territorial, tribal, and local laws and regulations. A federally-recognized tribe may participate as either the Applicant/Recipient/passthrough entity or the subapplicant/subrecipient (see Part III, A and B and HMA Job Aid, Federally-Recognized Tribes and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program – Option to Submit as an Applicant or Subapplicant).

D. HMA Application Process
Applicants determine mitigation priorities. These priorities are broad strategies that mitigate natural threats in their respective jurisdictions. Contacting the State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO), or equivalent representative for a respective federally-recognized tribe 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, subapplicants weigh public interest while targeting specific mitigation projects beneficial to their communities.

The next step is assembling the subapplication. The principle components of a subapplication are the Scope of Work (SOW), budget, and schedule. These pieces are developed by the subapplicant through construction estimates, property appraisals, and other technical evaluations.

For additional assistance on the application and submission processes, see Part IV.

Once the subapplication is prepared, it is submitted to the Applicant. In many cases, the Applicant is the State government, federally-recognized tribe, or U.S. territory. Once the subapplications are collected, the Applicant reviews and prioritizes submissions based on specific criteria that align with its mitigation strategy with regards to available funding and project type. Finally, the application is submitted to FEMA for determination of eligibility based on cost-effectiveness, technical feasibility, mitigation planning, and environmental planning and historic preservation (EHP) considerations (see Figure 1). FEMA may send the Applicant a request for information (RFI). An RFI is often used to help clarify and strengthen the subapplication.

For additional eligibility information, see Part III.

Part I. Introduction 6
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *257
Figure 1: Application Process
E. Organization of this Document
This guidance consolidates the common requirements for all HMA programs and explains the unique elements of the programs in individual sections. Additionally, it provides information for Federal, State, territory, federally-recognized tribes, and local officials on how to apply for HMA funding for a proposed mitigation activity.

The organization of this HMA Guidance provides clarity and ease of use by presenting information common to all programs in general order of the grant life cycle. As a result, closely related topics may be presented in different sections of the guidance. This guidance is organized in the following manner:
i Part I, Introduction, describes the HMA programs, discusses FEMA’s commitment to resilience and climate change adaptation, identifies roles and responsibilities, explains the overall application process, and provides a summary of programmatic changes. i Part II, Frontloading HMA Program Eligibility Requirements, provides general information to facilitate project scoping and the overall decision-making process. i Part III, Eligibility Information, provides information about eligible Applicants and subapplicants, cost-sharing requirements, restrictions on the use of HMA funds, and other program requirements.

Part I. Introduction 7
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *258
i Part IV, Application and Submission Information, provides information regarding application development, including funding restrictions, cost-effectiveness analysis, feasibility and effectiveness, and environmental requirements.
i Part V, Application Review Information, summarizes the FEMA review and selection process.
i Part VI, Award Administration Information, highlights grants management requirements from the time an award is made through closeout.
i Part VII, FEMA Contacts, provides Regional and State contact information. i Part VIII, Additional Program Guidance, provides information that is unique to each program.
i Part IX, Appendices, includes acronyms, a glossary, additional resources, referenced regulations and statutes, and checklists.

Additional guidance for particular activity types is provided in an Addendum to this guidance.

This additional guidance provides information specific to property acquisition and structure demolition or relocation, wildfire mitigation, safe room construction, mitigation reconstruction, and structure elevation projects. The Addendum also includes supplemental guidance on the eligibility of flood risk reduction projects, Duplication of Programs (DOP) considerations, and the use of ASCE 24-14 as a minimum design requirement for certain flood risk reduction activities.

F. Programmatic Changes
With the release of this guidance, significant revisions to programmatic requirements have been made. However, many of the specific requirements of each program remain the same. The significant changes included in this HMA Guidance are as follows:
i On December 26, 2014, DHS adopted, in its entirety the “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR Part 200) at 2 CFR Part 3002, 79 Fed. Reg. 75871, No. 244 (Dec. 19, 2014), which supersedes and streamlines requirements from OMB Circulars A-21, A-87, A-110, and A-122 (which have been placed in OMB guidance, including 2 CFR Parts 215, 220, 225, and 230); OMB Circulars A-89, A-102 (codified at 44 CFR Part 13), and A-133; and the guidance in Circular A-50 on Single Audit Act follow-up. At the same time, FEMA removed 44 CFR Part 13 from the Code of Federal Regulations.
2 CFR Part 200 applies to all PDM and FMA awards made on or after December 26, 2014 and to all HMGP awards made under emergency or Presidential major disaster declarations declared on or after December 26, 2014.

Part I. Introduction 8
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *259
The superseded OMB Circulars and guidance, including 44 CFR Part 13, will continue to apply to all PDM and FMA awards made prior to December 26, 2014 or HMGP awards made under emergency or Presidential major disaster declarations declared before December 26, 2014. These HMA awards must comply with 44 CFR Part 13, per the terms of 2 CFR Part 200.
The Audit requirements found at 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart F will apply to all Single Audit Act audits performed for any recipient or subrecipient for fiscal years beginning on or after December 26, 2014. This includes audits performed under awards issued prior to December 26, 2014, such as existing awards issued under previous HMA guidance.
2 CFR Part 200 makes several changes to the previous OMB Circulars, many of which are reflected throughout this HMA guidance. Of particular note, are terminology changes and new definitions: conflict of interest policy, procurement changes, and additional authorities regarding specific conditions and termination. i The POP for the PDM and FMA programs now begins with the opening of the application period and ends no later than 36 months from the date of subapplication selection. (Part I, B.2 and B.3 and Part VI, D.4)
i FEMA encourages Applicants and subapplicants to expand their mitigation activities beyond the prescribed activities in Part III Section E of the HMA Guidance to reflect considerations stemming from climate change and resilience. (Part II, B and Part IV, I.8) i An explanation of critical actions, along with examples, has been provided. The description of critical action is consistent with the 44 CFR Section 9.4. (Part II, E and Part III, E.6.1) i EHP frontloading activities are further defined and an NEPA Flowchart for HMA Projects has been added as an HMA Job Aid. (Part II, F)
i FEMA’s usage of the terms “other Federal agencies” or “agencies with delegated Federal authority” in EHP compliance documentation is clarified, and the Unified Federal Review initiative is introduced. (Part II, F and Part IV, K)
i Strategic Funds Management (SFM) has been clarified (Part II, L and Part VIII, A.9), and an SFM Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) document has been added to the FEMA website. (HMA Job Aids)
i Changes to the HMGP Quarterly Progress Report (QPR) have been incorporated; hard copies are no longer accepted for HMGP. Recipients are responsible for updating reports in the National Emergency Management Information System (NEMIS) directly using the new QPR module or by importing a pre-approved excel spreadsheet. (Part II, M and Part VI, E) i FEMA clarified the requirements that need to be verified by the Recipient at closeout. (Part II, N and Part VI, F)
Part I. Introduction 9
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *260
i Eligibility of Flood Risk Reduction Measures under the Hazard Mitigation Assistance Programs, published June 27, 2014, which includes new language on DOP, has been incorporated into this guidance. (Part III, D.4 and E.1 and Addendum, Part F.1) Localized flood control projects are now eligible under all three HMA programs. Non-localized flood control projects are only eligible under HMGP and PDM. i Mitigation reconstruction is now an eligible activity under all HMA programs. (Part III, E.1 and Addendum D.2)
i A “Miscellaneous/Other” category has been incorporated under Eligible Activities to address considerations of unique activity types (e.g., drought mitigation projects). (Part III, E.1) i Per the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA), FEMA HMA programs may fund projects in Otherwise Protected Areas (OPAs) if they do not require flood insurance after project completion. (Part III, E.2DQG$GGHQGXP3DUW$)
i Eligible activities that can be funded under mitigation planning–related activities are clarified as specific to HMGP only; these activities are not eligible as stand-alone activities under PDM and FMA. (Part III, E.1)
i Accessibility considerations as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 have been incorporated. (Part III, E.8 and Addendum C.4.2)
i The Substantial Damage waiver has been amended to allow for the consideration of Substantial Damage from any origin. (Part IV, I.1)
i Cost Effectiveness Determinations for Acquisitions and Elevations in Special Flood Hazard Areas, published August 15, 2013, has been incorporated into this guidance. (Part IV, I.7) i An HMA memorandum on Sea Level Rise, published on December 23, 2013, has been incorporated into this guidance. (Part IV, I.8)
i A new, expedited methodology has been developed for residential hurricane wind retrofit projects. If a proposed wind retrofit project costs less than the pre-identified benefits, the project will be considered cost effective. (Part IV, I.10) i Examples of EHP-related costs that should be included in project cost estimates have been listed. (Part IV, H.4.3 and Part IV, K)
i Roles and responsibilities of FEMA and the Applicant have been further defined as they relate to the formal EHP review process. (Part IV, K)
i The RFI flow chart has been modified to better reflect the RFI process. (Part V, C) i Substantive changes have been made to the hazard mitigation plan requirements (Part III, E.5):
Plan requirements have been clarified for Applicants and subapplicants.

Part I. Introduction 10
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *261
Private Nonprofits (PNPs) are not required to have a FEMA-approved mitigation plan to receive HMGP funding.
Language has been clarified for extraordinary circumstances. Language to clarify conformance with hazard mitigation plans (statewide projects) has been added.
States are now required to update their mitigation plans every 5 years, not every 3 years. This change is explained in detail in the Federal Register at 79 FR 22873. i There are limited instances where contingency costs can be considered for eligibility under HMA. A contingency cost is an allowance in the total cost estimate to cover situations that cannot be fully defined at the time the cost estimate is prepared. The total project cost, including contingencies, is used to compute the BCA. (Part VI, D.3.4) i At the request of the Recipient, FEMA may now conduct a review of the HMGP lock-in ceiling as early as 12 months, rather than 18 months, after a disaster. (Part VIII, A.4 and A.5) i A flow chart has been added to the HMGP final lock-in section to clarify that process. (Figure 7, Part VIII, A.4)
i FEMA describes the importance of accurate budgeting and forecasting in the Spend Plan for HMGP disasters declared after October 30, 2013. (Part VIII, A.10) i The additional 5 percent set-aside for tornadoes and high winds has been modified to address all hazards and to promote resilience through the use of disaster-resistant building codes. (Part VIII, A.14.1)
i The HMGP Appeals process has been clarified. (Part VIII, A.15) i Definitions for repetitive loss and severe repetitive loss have been clarified. (Part VIII, C.1) i FEMA clarified that building and contents are eligible as part of the insurance claim payment coverage for determining whether a property is a severe repetitive loss property. (Part VIII, C.1)
i FEMA clarified the use of Greatest Savings to The Fund (GSTF), referring to the NFIF. (Part VIII, C.3)
i Critical facility is further defined under HMA and is included in the glossary. This definition is for HMA program use and clarification and is not meant to provide a definition for use under other programs or supersede any FEMA regulation. (Part IX, B) i The Eligibility and Completeness checklist has been modified and renamed as the Minimum Criteria Checklist for Project Subapplications (in Appendix F). It now focuses on the minimal eligibility factors needed to initiate FEMA review and determine eligibility.

Part I. Introduction 11
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *262
i Limits on Subsurface Uses of Hazard Mitigation Assistance Acquired Lands, published May 5, 2014, has been incorporated into this guidance. With the release of this guidance, the policy has been superseded. (Addendum, Part A.2, A.4.4, and A.6.2) Generally, FEMA will not approve property acquisition for open space projects involving properties with underground oil, gas, or other mineral encumbrances that may allow subsurface hydraulic fracturing and horizontal directional drilling to occur. i In accordance with Section 203(a)(1) of the Uniform Relocation Assistance (URA) and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, the replacement housing allowance for homeowners increased to $31,000 on October 1, 2014. (Addendum, Parts A.3.2, A.6.9.4, and A.6.10). i The URA amount for rental assistance has also increased from $5,250 to $7,200. (Addendum, Part A.6.10)
i Safe Room Guidance has been updated to align with changes to FEMA P-361, Safe Rooms for Tornadoes and Hurricanes: Guidance for Community and Residential Safe Rooms (3rd Edition, 2015). (Addendum, Part C)
i Minimum Design Standards for Hazard Mitigation Assistance Projects in Flood Hazard Areas, published April 21, 2014, which adopts ASCE 24-14 as the minimum design criteria for all HMA structure elevation, dry floodproofing, and mitigation reconstruction projects in flood hazard areas, has been incorporated into this guidance. With the release of this guidance, the policy has been superseded. (Addendum, Part F.3) Part I. Introduction 12
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *263
PART II. FRONTLOADING HMA PROGRAM

ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
FEMA encourages Applicants and subapplicants to evaluate risks that they mitigate in a comprehensive manner. They should identify hazards and assess risk to develop wide-ranging hazard mitigation measures. These measures should reflect the minimum program eligibility requirements but also should incorporate other key considerations, such as mitigation planning, universal design to address the needs of persons with disabilities, EHP, and resilience.

Considering a wide array of factors in project scoping and development at the earliest time in the HMA application cycle allows the Applicant and subapplicant the best possible opportunity to develop viable project and plan applications and will expedite FEMA review.

Part II provides general information on the importance of “frontloading” HMA program eligibility requirements in the project scoping and the overall decision-making process.

Frontloading or addressing requirements at the earliest point in the decision-making process will increase the efficacy of the overall HMA program. It also reduces the need for RFIs, which may result in quicker selections of projects for further review or approval. Additionally, early consideration of Advance Assistance, SFM, project monitoring, and project closeout in the decision-making process can facilitate the scoping and development of viable projects that meet the needs and fit the circumstances of a particular community. Project scoping and project development are two of the earliest steps in the overall project lifecycle (see Figure 2) and can have a significant impact on the course an application or subapplication takes through the HMA grant process.

Figure 2: Overall Project Lifecycle
Part II. Frontloading HMA Program Eligibility Requirements 13 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *264
Project scoping (as shown in Figure 3) is the process by which subapplicants develop effective mitigation alternatives based on a defined set of requirements that meet the stated purpose and need of the proposed project. Subapplicants should begin by identifying risks or problems and examining alternative solutions during the mitigation planning process. It is important to propose a project that will alleviate a problem. Additionally, the community may realize further benefits, such as enhanced efficiency and accessibility, if the proposed project incorporates resilience. Applicants are encouraged to include representatives of the whole community in planning and scoping the project to gain broad community participation and support. Building on existing community networks can be critical for generating broad support for mitigation projects.

Figure 3: General Steps in Project Scoping Process
The scoping process includes the identification and evaluation of technical feasibility, cost review, cost-effectiveness, as well as environmental and cultural resource considerations. Based on potential impacts to environmental and cultural resources, there may be a legal requirement to Part II. Frontloading HMA Program Eligibility Requirements 14 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *265
alter the project. The scoping process results in the development of a preferred project alternative that is then documented through the preparation of the application or subapplication.

Applicants and subapplicants should consider the whole range of program requirements at the beginning stages of project development. The incorporation of these considerations into the scoping process can increase the efficiency of program review and ensure that all HMA program requirements are met.

Addressing the following HMA program requirements at the earliest stage possible in the decision-making process is important because it can lead to enhanced project scoping as well as development and prevent delays later:
i Mitigation planning
i Technical feasibility and effectiveness
i Floodplain management and protection of wetlands
i EHP review and compliance
i Cost-effectiveness
i Cost review
A. Mitigation Planning
Reviewing and incorporating information from the State, tribal, or local mitigation plan can help an Applicant or subapplicant facilitate the development of mitigation project alternatives.

Linking the existing mitigation plan to project scoping can support the Applicant and subapplicant in selecting the most appropriate mitigation activity that best addresses the identified hazard(s), while taking into account community priorities, climate change, and resiliency. In particular, the mitigation strategy section of the plan identifies a range of specific mitigation activities that can reduce vulnerability and includes information on the process that was used to identify, prioritize, and implement the range of mitigation actions considered.

Another resource that may be useful in developing mitigation alternatives is the Mitigation Ideas: A Resource for Reducing Risk to Natural Hazards guide available from the FEMA Library (see http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=6938). It is important to reference the mitigation plan as potential project alternatives may have been considered during the planning process. If the project alternatives were not considered during the mitigation planning process, they should be considered in the next mitigation plan update. For more information on hazard mitigation planning, see eligible activities in Part III, E.5, cost estimate information in Part IV, H.4.3, and additional resources in Part IX, C.

Part II. Frontloading HMA Program Eligibility Requirements 15 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *266
B. Climate Change and Resiliency Considerations
FEMA is committed to promoting resilience as expressed in PPD-8: National Preparedness; the President’s State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience; the Administrator’s 2011 FEMA Climate Change Adaptation Policy Statement (Administrator Policy 2011-OPPA-01); and the 2014–2018 FEMA Strategic Plan. FEMA recognizes challenges posed by climate change, including more intense storms, frequent heavy precipitation, heat waves, drought, extreme flooding, and higher sea levels. These phenomena may have impacts on mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery operations as well as the resiliency of critical infrastructure and various emergency assets. FEMA encourages Recipients and subrecipients to consider climate change adaptation and resiliency in their planning and scoping efforts.

To aid in these efforts, FEMA incorporated sea level rise into the HMA BCA tool. Additionally, the EHP review process promotes informed decision-making and uses all practical means and measures to protect, restore, and enhance the quality of the environment, to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to the environment, and to attain the objectives of:
i Achieving mitigation goals without degradation or undesirable and unintended consequences i Preserving historic, cultural, and natural aspects of national heritage and maintaining, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and variety of individual choice i Achieving a balance between resource use and development within the sustained carrying capacity of the ecosystem involved
i Enhancing the quality of renewable resources and working toward the maximum attainable recycling of non-renewable resources
C. Universal Accessibility and Mitigation
FEMA is committed to achieving universally
accessible and fully inclusive emergency
management. Considerations for individuals with
disabilities and people with access and functional
needs should be contemplated as part of holistic
community-based mitigation. With respect to
HMA, this requires active engagement in meeting the access and functional needs of individuals as applications are scoped and developed. As appropriate, factors for universal design should be incorporated into HMA projects to serve the whole community to the greatest extent possible.

When communities integrate the access and functional needs of their entire populations in all phases of community-wide emergency management, they strengthen their ability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards.

Part II. Frontloading HMA Program Eligibility Requirements 16

UNIVERSAL DESIGN
Universal design is the design of products and
environments to be usable by all people, to
the greatest extent possible, without the need
for adaptation or specialized design.

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *267
D. Technical Feasibility and Effectiveness
Mitigation projects submitted for HMA grants must be both feasible and effective at mitigating the risks of the hazard for which the projects were designed. The feasibility of a project is demonstrated through conformance with accepted engineering practices, established codes, standards, modeling techniques, or best practices. Effective mitigation measures funded under HMA should provide a long-term or permanent solution. Consideration of technical feasibility and effectiveness during the project scoping process facilitates project development. For more information on technical feasibility and effectiveness, see Part III, E.4, documentation requirements in Part IV, J, and application review criteria in Part V, A.3.

E. Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands
HMA programs and grants must conform to
44 CFR Part 9, which incorporates the
requirements of Executive Order (EO) 11988
and EO 11990. All proposed actions should be
reviewed to determine whether they are in the
floodplain or a wetland. Any proposed actions
located in the 100-year floodplain (or 500-year
floodplain for critical actions as defined in
44 CFR Section 9.4) or that have the potential
to increase the base flood or to affect, or be
affected by, a floodplain or wetland trigger the
requirement to complete the 8-step decisionmaking process outlined in 44 CFR Section 9.6.

Note that 44 CFR Part 9 refers to the
consideration of critical actions, not critical
facilities.

As part of the 8-step decision-making process,
FEMA must consider alternative locations to
determine whether the floodplain or wetland is
the only practicable location for that action.

Applicants and subapplicants should document
alternatives considered as part of their scoping
process to assist FEMA in facilitating this
decision-making process. If the floodplain or wetland is the only practicable location, the Applicant/subapplicant must avoid or must minimize adverse impacts to the floodplain or wetland. For more information on floodplain management and the protection of wetlands, see Part III, E.6.1 and the HMA Job Aid (8-Step Decision Making Process for Floodplain Management Considerations and Protection of Wetlands).

Part II. Frontloading HMA Program Eligibility Requirements 17

CRITICAL ACTION DEFINITION
Critical actions are defined in 44 CFR Section

9.4, which includes examples of actions that
FEMA deems critical. If an action is not
specified in 44 CFR Part 9, FEMA utilizes the
U.S. Water Resource Council Floodplain
Management Guidelines for Implementing EO
11988 and the following series of questions
about the subject structure or facility to
determine whether a proposed action is
deemed a critical action:
x If flooded, would the proposed action
create an added dimension to the disaster,
such as for liquefied natural gas terminals
and facilities producing and storing highly
volatile, toxic, or water-reactive materials?
x Given the flood warning lead-time
available, would the occupants of buildings
such as hospitals, schools, and nursing
homes be insufficiently mobile to avoid loss
of life and injury?
x Would essential and irreplaceable records,
utilities, and/or emergency services be lost
or become inoperative if flooded?
If any of the answers are “yes,” then the
proposed action is a critical action.

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *268
F. Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation Review and Compliance
HMA programs and grants must comply with all EHP laws and with 44 CFR Part 10 (or FEMA Directive Number: FD 108-1, Environmental and Historic Preservation Planning, Responsibilities and Program Requirements). Compliance with these laws is a condition of the award. In addition to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the EHP Checklist in Part IX, Appendix E lists the most common laws for which a project must comply. EHP compliance requirements may:
i Have time and cost implications for a project
i Include additional award conditions (such as permits or timing restrictions) imposed by FEMA
i Require the Applicant or subapplicant to consider alternatives, identify alternate locations, and, as necessary, modify the project
For example, two key common EHP considerations are whether the proposed project is located in an area that has endangered or threatened species or critical habitat and whether the proposed project might impact historic or cultural resources (see HMA Job Aid, NEPA Flow Chart for HMA Projects). If the project could result in adverse impacts to those resources, changing the scope of the project to avoid or minimize those impacts or incorporating EHP mitigation measures into the project is necessary to compensate for the impacts to those resources.

Therefore, Applicants and subapplicants should complete the EHP Checklist when scoping a project and address EHP issues to ensure consideration of EHP requirements in the development of a complete project application. Advanced Assistance and Pre-Award costs are available mechanisms to frontload the EHP requirements.

The completion of the EHP Checklist (Part IX, Appendix E) does not substitute for EHP compliance. FEMA has the responsibility to ensure that a project is in compliance with laws related to the environment and historic preservation. However, Applicants and subapplicants are able to assist FEMA and frontload the process by identifying EHP reviews previously completed by other agencies, gathering data, and reaching out to stakeholders and regulatory agencies for pertinent information.

The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 (SRIA) added Section 429 to the Stafford Act, directing the development of an expedited and unified interagency EHP review process, also known as Unified Federal Review, to ensure that Federal agencies coordinate EHP compliance for projects. When two or more Federal agencies are involved with a project, or if any Applicant EHP coordination has occurred, relevant environmental and cultural resource considerations may have already been identified and addressed in previous EHP project planning activities. FEMA is able to utilize and/or adopt EHP documentation if that documentation addresses the scope of the FEMA-approved activity and FEMA verifies that it meets FEMA’s EHP compliance Part II. Frontloading HMA Program Eligibility Requirements 18 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *269
requirements. Applicants and subapplicants should identify for FEMA whether their project will involve another Federal agency or agency with delegated Federal authority and provide any relevant information to help streamline and inform the EHP review. In some cases, HMA may approve funding for a portion of a larger project that involves other FEMA programs (e.g., Public Assistance [PA] or Individual Assistance [IA]), other Federal agencies (e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) or agencies with delegated Federal authority (e.g., the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Responsible Entity).

The frontloading of EHP requirements into the decision-making process allows for the consideration of measures that reduce or eliminate the proposed project’s impact to the human environment; see Figure 4 for an overview of frontloading the EHP and NEPA process. To determine whether any EHP issues may be associated with the proposed project, Applicants and subapplicants should review FEMA’s HMA EHP Resources At-a-Glance Guide, located at https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/30805?id=6976, and FEMA’s HMA EHP at-a-glance Guide: Project Planning with Considerations for EHP Compliance, located at http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/26621. For more information on EHP, see the general program requirements in Part III, E.6, the documentation summary in Part IV, K, and application review LQIRUPDWLRQLQ3DUW9$.

Part II. Frontloading HMA Program Eligibility Requirements 19 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *270
Figure 4: Frontloading EHP and the Formal Review Process Part II. Frontloading HMA Program Eligibility Requirements 20 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *271
G. Cost-Effectiveness
Mitigation activities are required by statute and regulation to be cost effective or be in the interest of the NFIF. Consideration of the cost-effectiveness requirement at the earliest possible stage of the decision-making process can facilitate project scoping and improve project design.

For more information on cost-effectiveness, see Part III, E.3 and Part IV, I.

H. Cost Review
All costs included in the subapplication should be reviewed to ensure that they are necessary, reasonable, and allocable consistent with the provisions of 2 CFR Part 200. Conducting this cost review at the earliest possible stage allows for improved project scoping and facilitates project development, which facilitates FEMA project review.

I. Project Development
Project scoping is not a separate, stand-alone process from project development. It can be considered the initial stage of project development, during which the details of mitigation activities are evaluated and developed. State, territory, federally-recognized tribe, and local governments that actively participate in and document their project scoping process put themselves in a greater position for success during project development. The information gathered in the scoping process serves as the basis for the development of a more detailed and robust technical design, cost, and EHP compliance components of the mitigation activity.

During the project development process, the subapplicant may encounter project considerations such as technical feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and EHP requirements that necessitate the refinement or adjustment of the mitigation activity. When these situations are encountered, the reason for the refinement or re-scoping should be fully documented and included with the subapplication.

Part II. Frontloading HMA Program Eligibility Requirements 21 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *272
EXAMPLES OF 404 AND 406

MITIGATION
The following project examples
illustrates how an Applicant or
subapplicant can mitigate the
damaged elements of a facility or
infrastructure with Section 406 funds
(PA) and mitigate the undamaged
elements with Section 404 funds
(HMGP).
x A damaged school can be
repaired with PA funds and
enhanced with an HMGP-funded
Tornado Safe Room.
x A damaged culvert can be upsized
with PA funds and further
enhanced with the flood risk
reduction measures funded under
HMGP.
x A damaged building can be
repaired with PA funds and
enhanced with the addition of a
generator funded under HMGP.

J. Section 404 and Section 406
During the project development phase, two types of
FEMA hazard mitigation funding should be considered
for post-disaster implementation: Section 404, HMGP
funding and Section 406, PA funding. They are two
distinct funding programs but can sometimes be used
together to more completely fund a hazard mitigation
project and to promote resilience. Section 404 funding
can be used to fund structural and non-structural
projects, and a facility does not need to be damaged to use these funds. Section 406 funding is used to restore the parts of a facility that were damaged during a
disaster, and the restoration must provide protection
from subsequent events. For example, a combination of
Section 404 and 406 funding may be appropriate where
Section 406 hazard mitigation funding is used to
provide protection to the parts of a facility that were damaged and Section 404 hazard mitigation funding is
used to provide protection to the undamaged parts of the facility (see additional information in callout box to the right). In these instances, the application for Section 404 hazard mitigation funding must be submitted in a
timely manner, consistent with State and local, or tribal, hazard mitigation plans and approved by the SHMO. Evaluating opportunities to leverage Section 404 and 406 funds in projects can facilitate project scoping and development. Additionally, exploring these opportunities can extend the use of limited Section 404 funds.

K. Advance Assistance
Part II. Frontloading HMA Program Eligibility Requirements 22

ADVANCE ASSISTANCE
Advance Assistance can be used to
develop mitigation strategies and
obtain data to prioritize, select, and
develop complete HMGP applications.

Consideration of Advance Assistance
early in the decision-making process
can help facilitate the development of
a viable project, as well as project
administration.

Section 1104 of the SRIA authorizes the use of Advance
Assistance, which allows advancing up to 25 percent of
the HMGP ceiling or $10 million (whichever is less) to
Applicants/subapplicants, to accelerate the
implementation of the HMGP. Applicants and
subapplicants may use Advance Assistance to develop
mitigation strategies and obtain data, including for EHP compliance considerations, to prioritize, select, and
develop complete HMGP applications in a timely
manner. Using Advance Assistance can help Applicants
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *273
and subapplicants develop eligible and complete applications that include a feasible project budget and an appropriate project milestone. See Part VIII, A.12 for additional information on Advance Assistance.

L. Strategic Funds Management
In 2012, FEMA implemented a new initiative called SFM or incremental funding. SFM is designed to provide HMGP funding in increments, based on the subrecipient’s work schedule and ability to execute eligible activities.

All pending and future HMGP projects over $1 million
Federal share must be reviewed to determine whether
the project is a candidate for SFM. If an HMGP project
is appropriate for SFM, FEMA and the non-Federal
entities will review the budget and work schedule to
ensure that the project supports incremental obligation. Obligations are executed in increments, based on the project meeting an established project milestone schedule, until the project is completed.

Considering SFM early in the decision-making process can help facilitate the development of a feasible project budget and appropriate project milestones.

See Part VIII, A.9 for additional information on SFM.

Part II. Frontloading HMA Program Eligibility Requirements 23

STRATEGIC FUNDS MANAGEMENT
SFM does not change the project
eligibility process. It is a new method of
approving work and providing funds as
they are needed.

M. Project Monitoring
After a grant or subaward is awarded, both the pass-through entity and the subrecipient are required to monitor and evaluate the progress of the mitigation activity in accordance with the:
i Approved SOW and budget
i Administrative requirements of 2 CFR Part 200
i Applicable State requirements
Sound project monitoring improves the efficiency of the project implementation process and the obligation of funds process. The satisfactory use of quarterly reporting facilitates project management and allows the pass-through entity and FEMA to monitor obligations and any unliquidated funds. For additional information on project monitoring reporting requirements see Part VI, E.

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *274
N. Closeout
Upon project completion, the Recipient and subrecipient are required to close out the subaward or Federal award in accordance with 2 CFR Sections 200.343 and 200.344. The project file should document that:
i The approved SOW was fully implemented
i All obligated funds were liquidated and in a manner consistent with the approved SOW i All EHP compliance grant conditions were implemented and documented as required i The project was implemented in a manner consistent with the Federal award or subaward agreement
i The pass-through entity submitted the required quarterly financial and performance reports i The Federal award and subaward were closed out in accordance with the provisions outlined in Part VI, E and F (subaward and Federal award closeout) For more information on closeout, see Part VI, F.

Part II. Frontloading HMA Program Eligibility Requirements 24 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *275
PART III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION
Part III identifies common eligibility requirements for all HMA programs, such as eligible Applicants and subapplicants, cost-sharing requirements, restrictions on the use of HMA funds, activities that are eligible for HMA funding, and other program requirements. Additional program-specific requirements are found in Part VIII of this guidance. Additional projectspecific requirements can be found in the Addendum to this guidance. To be eligible for funding, Applicants and subapplicants must apply for funds as described in this guidance.

A. Eligible Applicants
Entities eligible to apply for HMA grants include the emergency management agency or a similar office of the 50 States (e.g., the office that has primary emergency management or floodplain management responsibility), the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, and federally-recognized tribes. Each State, territory, commonwealth, or federally-recognized tribe shall designate one agency to serve as the Applicant for each HMA program. For the definition of the term federally-recognized tribe (Indian Tribal government), refer to Appendix B, Glossary.

A federally-recognized tribe has the option to apply for HMA grants through the State as a subapplicant (when permitted) or directly to FEMA as an Applicant. This choice is independent of a designation under other FEMA grants and programs, but is not available on a project-byproject basis within a single grant program. If a federally-recognized tribe chooses to apply directly to FEMA and an award is made, it bears the full responsibility of a Recipient. For plan requirements relevant to the options to apply as a subapplicant or an Applicant, see Part III, E.5.4 and the HMA Job Aid (Federally-Recognized Tribes and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program – Option to Submit as an Applicant or Subapplicant).

B. Eligible Subapplicants
All interested subapplicants must apply to the
Applicant. Table 1 identifies, in general, eligible
subapplicants. For specific details regarding eligible
subapplicants, refer to 44 CFR Section 206.434(a)
for HMGP and 44 CFR Section 79.6(a) for FMA.

For HMGP and PDM, see 44 CFR Section
206.2(a)(16) or 2 CFR Section 200.64.

Individuals and businesses are not eligible to apply
for HMA funds; however, an eligible Applicant or
subapplicant may apply for funding on behalf of
individuals and businesses.

Part III. Eligibility Information 25

PRIVATE NONPROFIT DEFINITION
Private Nonprofit (PNP) is defined as
any private nonprofit educational,
utility, emergency, medical, or
custodial care facility, including a
facility for older adults and people
with disabilities, and other facility
providing essential governmental
services to the general public, and
such facilities on Indian reservations.

For further information see 44 CFR
Sections 206.221(e) and
206.434(a)(2).

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *276
For additional information about the eligibility of PNPs for HMGP, see Part VIII, A.6.

Table 1: Eligible Subapplicants
Entity HMGP PDM FMA
State agencies 9 99
Federally-recognized tribes 9 99
Local governments/communities(1) 9 99
Private nonprofit organizations (PNPs) 9
(1) Local governments/community may include non-federally recognized tribes, or consistent with definition of local government at 44 CFR 201.2, may include any Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or Alaska Native village or organization that is not federally recognized per 25 U.S.C. 479a et seq.

C. Cost Sharing
Under the HMA programs, the total cost to implement approved mitigation activities is generally funded by a combination of Federal and non-Federal sources. Both the Federal and the nonFederal cost shares must be for eligible costs used in direct support of the approved activities under this guidance and the award. Contributions of cash, third-party in-kind services, materials, or any combination thereof, may be accepted as part of the non-Federal cost share.

FEMA administers cost-sharing requirements consistent with 2 CFR Sections 200.29, 200.306, and 200.434. To meet cost-sharing requirements, the non-Federal contributions must be verifiable from the subrecipient’s records, reasonable, allowable, allocable, and necessary under the grant program and must comply with all Federal requirements and regulations.

In general, HMA funds may be used to pay up to 75 percent of the eligible activity costs. The remaining 25 percent of eligible activity costs are derived from non-Federal sources. Exceptions to the 75 percent Federal and 25 percent non-Federal share (see Table 2) are as follows:
i PDM – Small impoverished communities may be eligible for up to a 90 percent Federal cost share. For information about small impoverished communities, see Part VIII, B.2. i FMA
FEMA may contribute up to 100 percent Federal cost share for severe repetitive loss properties.
For acquisition or relocation activities for severe repetitive loss properties that are not determined to be cost effective using FEMA-approved cost-effectiveness options (e.g., BCA version 5.0 or higher, pre-calculated benefits), property owners may alternatively receive the calculated expected savings to the NFIF as provided by the GSTF value.

For more information on this provision, see Part VIII, C.3. FEMA may contribute up to 90 percent Federal cost share for repetitive loss properties.

Part III. Eligibility Information 26
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *277
FEMA may contribute up to 75 percent Federal cost share for properties that are NFIP-insured but do not meet the repetitive loss or severe repetitive loss definitions. i Insular areas, including American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands – FEMA automatically waives the non-Federal cost share when the non-Federal cost share for the entire grant is under $200,000 and not an individual subaward. If the non-Federal cost share for the entire grant is $200,000 or greater, FEMA may waive all or part of the cost share; such a waiver is usually consistent with that provided for PA under the Presidential major disaster declaration. If FEMA does not waive the cost share, the insular area must pay the entire cost-share amount, not only the amount over $200,000.

Cost-share requirements also extend to management costs with the following exceptions:
i For HMGP, available HMGP management costs are calculated as a percentage of the Federal funds provided. There is no additional cost-share requirement for management costs. i Under PDM, only tribal Recipients and subrecipients meeting the definition of small and impoverished are eligible for a non-Federal cost share of 10 percent for management costs.

See Part VIII, A.8 for further information about HMGP cost-share requirements and Part IV, E.4 for further information on funding restrictions for management costs.

Table 2: Cost-Share Requirements
Programs Mitigation Activity
(Percent of Federal/NonFederal Share)
Recipient
Management Costs
(Percent of Federal/NonFederal Share)
Subrecipient
Management Costs
(Percent of Federal/NonFederal Share)
HMGP 75/25 100/0 –/–(1)
PDM 75/25 75/25 75/25
PDM – subrecipient is small and
impoverished community
90/10 75/25 90/10
PDM – Tribal
Recipient/subrecipient is small
and impoverished
90/10 90/10 90/10
FMA – insured properties and
planning grants
75/25 75/25 75/25
FMA – repetitive loss property(2) 90/10 90/10 90/10
FMA – severe repetitive loss
property(2)
100/0 100/0 100/0
(1) Subapplicants should consult their State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO) for the amount or percentage of HMGP subrecipient management cost funding their State has determined to be passed through to subrecipients. (2) To be eligible for an increased Federal cost share, a FEMA-approved State or Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan that addresses repetitive loss properties must be in effect at the time of award, and the property that is being submitted for consideration must be a repetitive loss property.

Part III. Eligibility Information 27
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *278
C.1 Federal Funds Allowed to Be Used as Non-Federal Cost Share In general, the non-Federal cost-share requirement may not be met with funds from other Federal agencies; however, authorizing statutes explicitly allow some Federal funds to be used as a cost share for other Federal grants. Federal funds that are used to meet a non-Federal cost-share requirement must meet the purpose and eligibility requirements of both the Federal source program and the HMA grant program.

C.2 Increased Cost of Compliance as Non-Federal Cost Share Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC) coverage is one of several resources for flood insurance policyholders who need additional help rebuilding after a flood. It provides up to $30,000 to help cover the cost of mitigation measures that will reduce flood risk. ICC coverage is a part of most standard flood insurance policies available under the NFIP.

The NFIP ICC claim payment from a flood event may be used to contribute to the non-Federal cost-share requirements so long as the claim is made within the timelines allowed by the NFIP.

ICC payments can only be used for costs that are eligible for ICC benefits, which are elevation, floodproofing, relocation, or demolition (or any combination of these activities). For example, ICC cannot pay for property acquisition, but can pay for structure demolition or relocation. In addition, Federal funds cannot be provided where ICC funds are available; if the ICC payment exceeds the required non-Federal share, the Federal funding award will be reduced to the difference between the cost of the activity and the ICC payment.

If an ICC payment is being used as a subapplicant’s non-Federal cost share, the NFIP policyholder must assign the claim to the subapplicant. However, only that part of the ICC benefit that pertains to the property can be assigned to the subapplicant. The NFIP policyholder can only assign the ICC benefit to the subapplicant; in no case can the policyholder assign the ICC benefit to another individual. Steps for the assignment of ICC coverage are available at http://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program/steps-assignment-coverage-d-increasedcost-compliance-coverage. In some cases, individual policyholders can take advantage of Federal grant money to supplement the cost of mitigation activities. Policyholders can assign their ICC benefits to their community and enable the community to file a single claim on behalf of a community mitigation project. FEMA will count the ICC claim monies as non-Federal matching funds in mitigation grant applications, because ICC coverage is a direct contract between the policyholder and the insurer. The community can then use FEMA mitigation grant funds to help pay for any additional portion of the cost of elevation, floodproofing, relocation, or demolition that is more than the ICC claim payment. It is extremely important for policyholders and community officials to work closely together at every stage of this process. Individual participation in a FEMA-funded community mitigation project is voluntary and the community is required to provide mitigation funds to any property owner whose ICC payment was counted towards the matching funds.

Part III. Eligibility Information 28
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *279
C.2.1 Steps for the Assignment of Coverage D – Increased Cost of Compliance Coverage
Policyholders should follow the following steps for the assignment of Coverage D:

1. Policyholder consents to the assignment of the ICC claim payment.

2. The community official provides the policyholder with an Assignment of Coverage D Form.

3. The policyholder signs the form and provides the signed form to the community official.

4. The community official sends a copy of the completed form, along with the community’s signed declaration of Substantial Damage to the NFIP Bureau & Statistical Agent at the following address:

NFIP Bureau & Statistical Agent
8400 Corporate Drive, Suite 350
Landover, MD 20785

5. The NFIP Bureau & Statistical Agent maintains a database of the ICC information submitted by the community. The Bureau then sends the documents to the appropriate WYO (or Write Your Own) company with instructions. The company will then assign an adjuster.

6. The assigned adjuster contacts the policyholder to advise s/he has the claim and contacts the local community official to coordinate and help complete the claim.

7. The adjuster receives/reviews the contract for demolition, elevation, relocation, or floodproofing to determine the cost.

8. The adjuster has the community official sign the proof of loss once the claim value has been determined.

9. The adjuster sends the final report, along with the proof of loss, to the insurance company for payment.

10. The insurance company issues the check to the community and advises the NFIP Bureau & Statistical Agent of the amount of the claim payment.

For additional information on ICC, go to https://www.fema.gov/medialibrary/assets/documents/12170?id=3010.

Part III. Eligibility Information 29
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *280
D. Restrictions
This section presents information on Non-discrimination Compliance, Conflict of Interest, Procurements by States and other entities, DOP, and Duplication of Benefits (DOB).

D.1 Non-discrimination Compliance
In accordance with Section 308 of the Stafford Act; Sections 503, 504, and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; and Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, all HMA programs are administered in an equitable and impartial manner, without discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, nationality, sex, age, disability, English proficiency, or economic status. In addition, Federal assistance distributed by State and local governments is to be implemented in compliance with all applicable laws.

Applicants and subapplicants must ensure that no discrimination is practiced. Applicants and subapplicants must consider fairness, equity, and equal access when prioritizing and selecting project subapplications to submit with their grant application. Subapplicants also must ensure fairness and equal access to property owners and individuals that benefit from mitigation activities.

D.2 Conflict of Interest
Recipients and pass-through entities must follow their own policies and procedures regarding the elimination or reduction of conflicts of interest when making subawards. Recipients and passthrough entities are also required to follow any applicable State, local, or tribal statutes or regulations governing conflicts of interest in the making of subawards.

Conflicts of interest may arise during the process of FEMA making a Federal award—for instance, in situations where an employee, officer, or agent; any members of the individual’s immediate family; or his or her partner has a close personal relationship, a business relationship, or a professional relationship, with an Applicant, subapplicant, Recipient, subrecipient, or employee.

The Recipient or pass-through entity must disclose to FEMA in writing any real or potential conflict of interest, as defined by the Federal, State, local, or tribal statutes or regulations or their own existing policies, that arise during the administration of the Federal award. Recipients and pass-through entities must disclose any real or potential conflicts to the Federal Approving Official within 15 days of learning of the conflict of interest. Similarly, subrecipients must disclose any real or potential conflict of interest to the pass-through entity as required by the Recipient’s conflict of interest policies or any applicable State, local, or tribal statutes or regulations. This requirement starts when the application period opens, continues during the entire POP, and ends when the last audit is completed.

Part III. Eligibility Information 30
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *281
D.3 Procurement
For conflict of interest requirements for procurement under awards, all Applicants, subapplicants, and non-Federal entities must follow the requirements under the procurement regulations at 2 CFR Sections 200.317 through 200.326. When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State Recipient or subrecipient must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds and the requirements outlined in 2 CFR Section 200.317. All other Recipients and subrecipients (not a State) must follow 2 CFR Sections 200.318 through 200.326. For more information on the procurement process, see HMA Job Aid (HMA Procurement Standards).

D.4 Duplication of Programs
FEMA will not provide assistance for activities for which it determines the more specific authority lies with another Federal agency or program. Other programs and authorities should be examined before applying for HMA funding. HMA funds are not intended to be used as a substitute for other available program authorities. Available program authorities include other FEMA programs (e.g., IA, PA) and programs under other Federal agencies, such as the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. FEMA may disallow or recoup amounts that duplicate other authorities.

For additional information about DOP for wildfire mitigation projects, see Addendum, Part B.2.4. For additional information about DOP under flood risk reduction measures, see Addendum, Part F.2.

D.5 Duplication of Benefits
HMA funds cannot duplicate funds received by or
available to Applicants or subapplicants from
other sources for the same purpose. Examples of
other sources include insurance claims, other
assistance programs (including previous project
or planning grants and subawards from HMA
programs), legal awards, or other benefits
associated with properties or damage that are
subject of litigation.

Because the availability of other sources of
mitigation grant or loan assistance is subject to
available information and the means of each
individual Applicant, HMA does not require that
property owners seek assistance from other sources (with the exception of insurance). However, it is the responsibility of the property owner to report other benefits received, any applications Part III. Eligibility Information 31

DUPLICATION OF BENEFITS
DOB is used to describe assistance that is
from more than one source and that is used
for the same purpose or activity. The
purpose may apply to the entire project or
only part of it.

DOB may apply when assistance for the
same purpose:
x Has been received
x Will be received
x Is reasonably available from another
source, such as insurance or legal
settlements due to the property owners
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *282
for other assistance, the availability of insurance proceeds, or the potential for other compensation, such as from pending legal claims for damage relating to the property.

Where the property owner has an insurance policy covering any loss to the property that relates to the proposed HMA project, the means are available for receiving compensation for a loss or, in the case of ICC, assistance toward a mitigation project. FEMA will generally require that the property owner file a claim prior to the receipt of HMA funds.

Information regarding other assistance received by properties in HMA projects may be shared under 5 U.S.C. 552a (b) of the Privacy Act of 1974. Uses may include sharing with custodians of property records, such as other Federal or other governmental agencies, insurance companies, or any public or private entity, for the purposes of ensuring that the property has not received money that is duplicative of any possible HMA awards received. When obtaining information from property owners about other sources of assistance, a Privacy Act statement must be distributed to each owner. For more information about the process of verifying potential duplication, access the Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Tool for Identifying Duplication of Benefits at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=6815, and for a copy of the Privacy Act statement, see Appendix F of that document.

For additional information on DOB for property acquisition and structure demolition or relocation projects, see Addendum, Part A.6.9.3.

E. General Program Requirements
This section presents information on Eligible Activities, Ineligible Activities, Cost-Effectiveness, Feasibility and Effectiveness, Hazard Mitigation Plan Requirement, EHP Requirements, NFIP Eligibility Requirements, and Statutory, Regulatory, and Other Requirements.

E.1 Eligible Activities
To be eligible, activities must meet all requirements referenced in this guidance. Eligible activities for HMA fall into the following categories:
i Mitigation projects (all HMA programs)
i Hazard mitigation planning (all HMA programs)
i Technical assistance (FMA only)
i Management costs (all HMA programs)
Table 3 summarizes eligible activities that may be funded by the HMA programs. Detailed descriptions of these activities follow the table in Part III, E.1.1.

Part III. Eligibility Information 32
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *283
Table 3: Eligible Activities by Program
Eligible Activities HMGP PDM FMA

1. Mitigation Projects 9 99
Property Acquisition and Structure Demolition 9 99
Property Acquisition and Structure Relocation 9 99
Structure Elevation 9 99
Mitigation Reconstruction 9 99
Dry Floodproofing of Historic Residential Structures 9 99 Dry Floodproofing of Non-residential Structures 9 99
Generators 99
Localized Flood Risk Reduction Projects 9 99
Non-localized Flood Risk Reduction Projects 99
Structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings 9 99
Non-structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings and Facilities 99 9 Safe Room Construction 99
Wind Retrofit for One- and Two-Family Residences 99
Infrastructure Retrofit 99 9
Soil Stabilization 99 9
Wildfire Mitigation 99
Post-Disaster Code Enforcement 9
Advance Assistance 9
5 Percent Initiative Projects 9
Miscellaneous/Other(1) 9 99

2. Hazard Mitigation Planning 9 99
Planning Related Activities 9

3. Technical Assistance 9

4. Management Cost 9 99
(1) Miscellaneous/Other indicates that any proposed action will be evaluated on its own merit against program requirements. Eligible projects will be approved provided funding is available.

Additional information regarding eligible projects for HMGP is included in Part VIII, A.11 and A.12, and for FMA, in Part VIII, C.1.

Costs for eligible activities must be reasonable, allowable, allocable, and necessary as required by 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E, applicable program regulations, and this guidance.

Part III. Eligibility Information 33
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *284
E.1.1 Mitigation Projects
This section briefly describes the mitigation projects eligible under one or more of the three HMA programs. Table 3 summarizes the eligibility of the following project types for each program:
i Property Acquisition and Structure Demolition: The voluntary acquisition of an existing flood-prone structure and, typically, the underlying land, and conversion of the land to open space through the demolition of the structure. The property must be deed-restricted in perpetuity to open space uses to restore and/or conserve the natural floodplain functions. For property acquisition and structure demolition projects, see Addendum, Part A. i Property Acquisition and Structure Relocation: The voluntary physical relocation of an existing structure to an area outside of a hazard-prone area, such as the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) or a regulatory erosion zone and, typically, the acquisition of the underlying land. Relocation must conform to all applicable State and local regulations. The property must be deed-restricted in perpetuity to open space uses to restore and/or conserve the natural floodplain functions. For property acquisition and structure relocation projects, see Addendum, Part A.
i Structure Elevation: Physically raising and/or retrofitting an existing structure in accordance with ASCE 24-14 (Base Flood Elevation [BFE] plus freeboard) or higher when required by FEMA or local ordinance. Elevation may be achieved through a variety of methods, including elevating on continuous foundation walls; elevating on open foundations, such as piles, piers, posts, or columns; and elevating on fill. Foundations must be designed to properly address all loads and be appropriately connected to the floor structure above, and utilities must be properly elevated as well. FEMA requires Recipients and subrecipients to design all structure elevation projects in accordance with ASCE 24-14. For additional information about structure elevation projects, see Addendum, Part E. i Mitigation Reconstruction: The construction of an improved, elevated building on the same site where an existing building and/or foundation has been partially or completely demolished or destroyed. Mitigation reconstruction is only permitted for structures outside of the regulatory floodway or Coastal High Hazard Area (Zone V) as identified by the existing best available flood hazard data. Activities that result in the construction of new living space at or above the BFE will only be considered when consistent with mitigation reconstruction requirements. FEMA requires Recipients and subrecipients to design all mitigation reconstruction projects in accordance with ASCE 24-14. For additional information about structure elevation projects, see Addendum, Part D. i Dry Floodproofing: Techniques applied to keep structures dry by sealing the structure to keep floodwaters out. For all dry floodproofing activities, FEMA requires Recipients and subrecipients to design all dry floodproofing projects in accordance with ASCE 24-14. Dry floodproofing is not permitted in the Coastal V Zone.

Part III. Eligibility Information 34
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *285
Dry Floodproofing of Historic Residential Structures is permissible only when other techniques that would mitigate to the BFE would cause the structure to lose its status as a Historic Structure, as defined in 44 CFR Section 59.1. Dry Floodproofing of Non-residential Structures must be performed in accordance with NFIP Technical Bulletin (TB) 3-93, Non-Residential Floodproofing— Requirements and Certification, and the requirements pertaining to dry floodproofing of non-residential structures found in 44 CFR Sections 60.3(b)(5) and (c)(4). i Generators: Generators are emergency
equipment that provide a secondary source of
power. Generators and related equipment
(e.g., hook-ups) are eligible provided that
they are cost effective, contribute to a longterm solution to the problem they are intended to address, and meet other program
eligibility criteria.
Under PDM: A generator that is a
stand-alone project can be considered
for PDM funding if the generator
protects a critical facility. Generators
and/or related equipment purchases (e.g., generator hook-ups) are eligible when the generator directly relates to the hazards being mitigated and is part of a larger project. Under HMGP: A generator that is a stand-alone project can be considered under regular HMGP funding if the generator protects a critical facility. Critical facilities may include police and fire stations, hospitals, and water and sewer treatment facilities (for the definition of critical facilities, see Appendix B, Glossary). A generator that is a component of a larger project (e.g., elevation of a lift station) can also be funded under regular HMGP funding and the use of aggregation is permitted. Stand-alone generator projects that cannot be determined to be cost effective via standard HMA benefit-cost methodology may be eligible under the 5 Percent Initiative. See Part VIII, A.14 for additional information about the 5 Percent Initiative.

For additional information on generators, see HMA Job Aid (Eligibility of Generators as a Fundable Project by the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program).

HMA funds are not available as a substitute for emergency, temporary, or partial solutions under the Stafford Act Section 403, Essential Assistance (42 U.S.C. 5170b) and/or the Stafford Act, Title VI Emergency Preparedness (42 U.S.C. 5195).

Part III. Eligibility Information 35

GENERATORS
x Stand-alone generators and related
equipment (e.g., generator hook-ups) are
eligible under the 5 Percent Initiative.
x Stand-alone generators (including related
equipment) are eligible for regular HMGP
and PDM funding if the generator protects
a critical facility and meets all other
program eligibility criteria.
x Generators (including related equipment)
that constitute a functional portion of an
otherwise eligible mitigation measure are
eligible for HMGP and PDM funding.

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *286
i Localized Flood Risk Reduction Projects: Projects to lessen the frequency or severity of flooding, and decrease predicted flood damage, within an isolated and confined drainage or catchment area that is not hydraulically linked or connected to a larger basin. These projects include but are not limited to installation or modification of culverts and other stormwater management facilities; construction or modification of retention and detention basins; and construction or modification of floodwalls, dams, and weirs. Modifications must be for the purpose of increasing risk reduction capabilities of the existing structures and cannot constitute only repairs. Localized flood risk reduction projects must not duplicate the flood prevention activities of other Federal agencies and may not constitute a section of a larger flood control system.
Under FMA, localized flood reduction projects should benefit NFIP-insured properties. Projects will be prioritized based on the number of NFIP-insured properties included in the project. Projects that do not include NFIP-insured properties will not be considered for funding. Documentation must be provided in the subapplication to verify the NFIP insurance coverage, including the flood insurance policy and property locator numbers as appropriate.
i Non-localized Flood Risk Reduction Projects: Projects that lessen the frequency or severity of flooding, and decrease predicted flood damage, within an area that is hydraulically linked or connected to a drainage basin that is regional in scale. These projects reduce flood hazards in areas larger than that of localized flood reduction projects and may include the construction, demolition, or rehabilitation of dams; construction or modification of dikes, levees, floodwalls, seawalls, groins, jetties, breakwaters, and stabilized sand dunes; and large-scale channelization of a waterway. Modifications must be for the purpose of increasing risk reduction capabilities of the existing structures and cannot constitute only repairs. These projects cannot constitute a section of a larger flood control system or duplicate the flood prevention activities of other Federal agencies on the same site. These projects types are only eligible under HMGP and PDM.
i Structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings: Modifications to the structural elements of a building to reduce or eliminate the risk of future damage and to protect inhabitants. The structural elements of a building that are essential to prevent damage include foundations, load-bearing walls, beams, columns, building envelope, structural floors and roofs, and the connections between these elements.
i Non-structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings and Facilities: Modifications to the non-structural elements of a building or facility to reduce or eliminate the risk of future damage and to protect inhabitants. Non-structural retrofits may include bracing of building contents to prevent earthquake damage or the elevation of utilities. i Safe Room Construction: Safe room construction projects are designed to provide immediate life-safety protection for people in public and private structures from tornado and severe wind events, including hurricanes. For HMA, the term “safe room” only applies to Part III. Eligibility Information 36
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *287
extreme wind (combined tornado and hurricane) residential, non-residential, and community safe rooms; tornado community safe rooms; and hurricane community safe rooms. This type of project includes retrofits of existing facilities or new safe room construction projects and applies to both single and dual-use facilities. For additional information, see Addendum, Part C.
i Wind Retrofit Projects: Wind retrofit projects of one- and two-family residential buildings must be designed in conformance with the design criteria found in FEMA P-804, Wind Retrofit Guide for Residential Buildings (2010). This document is available in the FEMA Library at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=4569. i Infrastructure Retrofit: Measures to reduce risk to existing utility systems, roads, and bridges.
i Soil Stabilization: Projects to reduce risk to structures or infrastructure from erosion and landslides, including installing geotextiles, stabilizing sod, installing vegetative buffer strips, preserving mature vegetation, decreasing slope angles, and stabilizing with rip rap and other means of slope anchoring. These projects must not duplicate the activities of other Federal agencies.
i Wildfire Mitigation: Projects to mitigate at-risk structures and associated loss of life from the threat of future wildfire through:
Creation of Defensible Space: Projects creating perimeters around homes, structures, and critical facilities through the removal or reduction of flammable vegetation. For additional information, see Addendum, Part B.4.1.
Application of Ignition-resistant Construction: Projects that apply ignitionresistant techniques and/or non-combustible materials on new and existing homes, structures, and critical facilities. For additional information, see Addendum, Part B.4.2.
Hazardous Fuels Reduction: Projects that remove vegetative fuels proximate to atrisk structures that, if ignited, pose a significant threat to human life and property, especially critical facilities. For additional information, see Addendum, Part B.4.3. i Post-Disaster Code Enforcement: Projects designed to support the post-disaster rebuilding effort by ensuring that sufficient expertise is on hand to ensure appropriate codes and standards, including NFIP local ordinance requirements, are used and enforced. For additional information, see Part VIII, A.11.
i Advance Assistance: Section 1104 of the SRIA authorizes the use of Advance Assistance to accelerate the implementation of HMGP. Applicants and subapplicants may use Advance Assistance to develop mitigation strategies and obtain data to prioritize, select, and develop complete HMGP applications in a timely manner. See Part VIII, A.12 for additional information on Advance Assistance.

Part III. Eligibility Information 37
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *288
i 5 Percent Initiative Projects: These projects, which are only available pursuant to an HMGP disaster, provide an opportunity to fund mitigation actions that are consistent with the goals and objectives of the State or Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) and local mitigation plans and meet all HMGP requirements, but for which it may be difficult to conduct a standard BCA to prove cost-effectiveness. For additional information, see Part VIII, A.14. i Miscellaneous/Other: FEMA encourages Applicants and subapplicants to pursue activities that best address mitigation planning and priorities in their community; however, these eligible activities are not limited to those that are described under Part III, E of the HMA Guidance. Miscellaneous/Other project activities will be reviewed according to Part V of the HMA Guidance for application eligibility, cost-effectiveness, feasibility and effectiveness, and EHP compliance.

FEMA encourages mitigation projects that fall into the Miscellaneous/Other category to address climate change adaptation and resiliency. Mitigation projects must adapt to new challenges posed by more powerful storms, frequent heavy precipitation, heat waves, prolonged droughts, extreme flooding, higher sea levels, and other weather events.

Miscellaneous/Other projects can also address projects that could benefit from sustainable development practices focusing on ecosystem-based and hybrid approaches to disaster risk reduction.

Any mitigation activities prohibited in Part III, E.2 of the HMA Guidance will remain ineligible. It is important for Applicants and subapplicants to provide thorough descriptions of project activities because of the unique nature of this eligibility category. i Technical Assistance (FMA): For information on Technical Assistance, see Part III, E.1.4. i Management Costs: For information on Management Costs, see Part III, E.1.5, and Part IV, E.4.

E.1.2 Ineligible Stand-Alone Activities
The following activities are not eligible as stand-alone activities but are eligible when included as a functional component of eligible mitigation activities:
i For PDM, eligible information dissemination activities in project or planning subapplications. The information dissemination activities are limited to a maximum of 10 percent of the total cost of a subapplication.
i For PDM, generator-related equipment purchases (e.g., generator hook-ups), unless the generator-related equipment directly relates to the hazards being mitigated and is part of a larger project
i Real property or easement purchases required for the completion of an eligible mitigation project
Part III. Eligibility Information 38
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *289
i Studies that are integral to the development and implementation of a mitigation project, including hydrologic and hydraulic, engineering, or drainage studies E.1.3 Hazard Mitigation Planning
Mitigation plans are the foundation for effective hazard mitigation. A mitigation plan is a demonstration of the commitment to reduce risks from natural hazards and
serves as a strategic guide for decision-makers as they commit resources.

The mitigation planning process includes hazard identification and risk assessment leading to the development of a comprehensive mitigation strategy for reducing risks to life and property. The mitigation strategy section of the plan identifies a range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce risks to new and existing buildings and infrastructure. This section includes an action plan describing how identified mitigation activities will be prioritized, implemented, and administered.

Planning activities funded under HMA are designed to develop State, tribal, and local mitigation plans that meet the planning requirements outlined in 44 CFR Part 201. A mitigation planning subaward must result in a mitigation plan adopted by the jurisdiction(s) and approved by FEMA or it must result in a planning-related activity (eligible under HMGP only) approved by FEMA (e.g., incorporating new data into the risk assessment or updating the mitigation strategy to reflect current disaster recovery goals) consistent with the requirements in 44 CFR Parts 201 and 206.

For FMA, funds shall only be used to support the flood hazard portion of State, tribal, or local mitigation plans to meet the criteria specified in 44 CFR Part 201. Funds are only available to support these activities in communities participating in the NFIP.

For links to mitigation planning and risk assessment resources, see Part IX, C.2.

Part III. Eligibility Information 39

MITIGATION PLANNING-RELATED

ACTIVITIES
Planning activities can include assessing
risk, updating the mitigation strategy, and
promoting resilience to reflect current
disaster recovery goals (HMGP only).

E.1.3.1 Eligible Hazard Mitigation Planning–Related Activities Eligible activities that can be funded as mitigation planning–related activities under HMGP (these activities are not eligible under PDM and FMA) include but are not limited to:
i Updating or enhancing sections of the current FEMA-approved mitigation plan, such as:
The risk and vulnerability assessment based on new information, including supporting studies, such as economic analyses
The mitigation strategy, specifically strengthening the linkage to mitigation action implementation, with emphasis on available HMA project grant funding Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *290
The risk assessment and/or mitigation strategy, incorporating climate adaptation, green building, smart growth principles, or historic properties and cultural resources information
i Integrating information from mitigation plans, specifically risk assessment or mitigation strategies, with other planning efforts, such as:
Disaster recovery strategy (pre- or post-), preparedness, or response plans Comprehensive (e.g., land use, master) plans
Capital improvement or economic development plans
Resource management/conservation plans (e.g., stormwater, open space) Other long-term community planning initiatives (e.g., transportation or housing) i Building capability through delivery of technical assistance and training i Evaluating adoption and/or implementation of ordinances that reduce risk and/or increase resilience
E.1.3.2 Ineligible Hazard Mitigation Planning–Related Activities The following activities cannot be funded as mitigation planning–related activities:
i Hazard identification or mapping and related equipment for the implementation of mitigation activities (eligible under 5 Percent Initiative)
i Geographic Information System (GIS) software, hardware, and data acquisition whose primary aim is mitigation activity (eligible under 5 Percent Initiative) i Public awareness or education campaigns about mitigation (eligible under 5 Percent Initiative)
i Project scoping or development (also referred to as “project planning”), such as BCA, engineering feasibility studies, application development, construction design, or EHP data collection
i Activities not resulting in a clearly defined product or products E.1.4 Technical Assistance
The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 allows FEMA to provide a technical assistance grant to any Applicant that was awarded at least $1,000,000 (Federal share) in FMA grants in the prior fiscal year. A technical assistance award cannot exceed $50,000 (Federal share) to any single Applicant in any fiscal year.

Part III. Eligibility Information 40
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *291
Eligible technical assistance activities may include:
i Promoting FMA to communities
i Visiting sites with communities/Applicants
i Developing and reviewing project applications and mitigation plans i Participating in planning meetings
i Providing planning workshops/materials
i Performing BCAs and providing grants management workshops/materials i Funding, in part, salaries and expenses of staff working to develop, review, monitor, and close FMA grants
Essentially, a technical assistance award and a management costs award can achieve many of the same objectives. A technical assistance award is meant to allow Recipients to maintain a viable FMA program over time. Applicants must ensure that activities are not duplicated between the two awards. For instance, duplication would exist if a technical assistance award provides funding for project development that the Applicant seeks reimbursement for under management costs. Proper record-keeping is important to ensure activities are not duplicated.

E.1.5 Management Costs
Management costs are any indirect costs and
administrative expenses that are reasonably
incurred by a Recipient or subrecipient in
administering an award or subaward.

Eligible Applicant or subapplicant management
cost activities may include:
i Solicitation, review, and processing of
subapplications and subawards
i Subapplication development and technical assistance to subapplicants regarding feasibility and effectiveness and BCA
i Geocoding mitigation projects identified for further review by FEMA i Delivery of technical assistance (e.g., plan reviews, planning workshops, training) to support the implementation of mitigation activities
i Managing awards (e.g., quarterly reporting, closeout) i Technical monitoring (e.g., site visits, technical meetings) Part III. Eligibility Information 41

EXAMPLES OF INDIRECT COSTS

CATEGORIES
x Depreciation or use allowances on buildings
and equipment
x Costs of operating and maintaining facilities
x General administration and general expenses
x Personnel and accounting administration
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *292
i Purchase of equipment, per diem and travel expenses, and professional development that is directly related to the implementation of HMA programs
i Staff salary costs directly related to performing the activities listed above Management costs are only awarded in conjunction with project or planning grants and subawards. For more information regarding management costs for HMGP, see Part VIII, A.5.

For PDM and FMA, FEMA may provide up to 25 percent of the Applicant’s anticipated management costs upon the award and final approval of the first subaward. The remaining management costs will be obligated as additional subawards are awarded.

E.2 Ineligible Activities
The following list provides examples of activities that are not eligible for HMA funding:
i Projects that do not reduce the risk to people, structures, or infrastructure i Projects that are dependent on a contingent action to be effective and/or feasible (i.e., not a stand-alone mitigation project that solves a problem independently or constitutes a functional portion of a solution)
i Projects with the sole purpose of open space acquisition of unimproved land i Property acquisition projects that are not compatible with open space and do not maintain open space for the conservation of natural floodplain functions or properties that include encumbrances that may allow for horizontal drilling or fracking i Non-localized flood risk reduction projects specific to FMA i Flood control projects related to the repair or replacement of dams and other flood control structures and repair of dams for the purpose of regular pre-scheduled or damage-induced maintenance
i Projects for which actual physical work, such as groundbreaking, demolition, or construction of a raised foundation, has occurred prior to award or final approval. Projects for which demolition and debris removal related to structures proposed for acquisition or mitigation reconstruction has already occurred may be eligible when such activities were initiated or completed under the FEMA PA program to alleviate a health or safety hazard as a result of a disaster.
i Projects for preparedness activities or temporary measures (e.g., sandbags, bladders, geotubes)
i Projects that create revolving loan funds
i Activities required as a result of negligence or intentional actions that contributed to the conditions to be mitigated; activities intended to remedy a code violation; or the Part III. Eligibility Information 42
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *293
reimbursement of legal obligations, such as those imposed by a legal settlement, court order, or State law
i All projects located in Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) Units, other than property acquisition and structure demolition or relocation projects for open space under HMA. For details on CBRS Units see Addendum, Part A.6.
i Projects located in an OPA that require flood insurance after project completion i Activities on Federal lands or associated with facilities owned by another Federal entity i Projects related to beach nourishment or re-nourishment i Projects for hazardous fuels reduction in excess of 2 miles from at-risk buildings and structures
i Projects that address unmet needs from a disaster that are not related to mitigation i Retrofitting facilities primarily used for religious purposes, such as places of worship (or other projects that solely benefit religious organizations). However, a place of worship may be included in a property acquisition and structure demolition or relocation project provided that the project benefits the entire community, such as when a significant part of the community is being removed from the hazard area.
i Activities that only address manmade hazards
i Projects that address, without an increase in the level of protection, the operation, deferred or future maintenance, rehabilitation, restoration, or replacement of existing structures, facilities, or infrastructure (e.g., dredging, debris removal, replacement of obsolete utility systems or bridges, maintenance/rehabilitation of facilities, including dams and other flood control structures)
i Projects for the purpose of:
Landscaping for ornamentation (e.g., trees, shrubs)
Site remediation of hazardous materials (with the exception eligible activities, such as the abatement of asbestos and/or lead-based paint and the removal of household hazardous wastes for disposal at an approved landfill)
Water quality infrastructure
Projects that primarily address ecological or agricultural issues Forest management
Prescribed burning or clear-cutting
Creation and maintenance of fire breaks, access roads, or staging areas Irrigation systems
Part III. Eligibility Information 43
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *294
i Studies not directly related to the design and implementation of a proposed mitigation project i Preparedness measures and response equipment (e.g., response training, electronic evacuation road signs, interoperable communications equipment) FEMA may, at its discretion, choose not to fund projects subject to ongoing litigation if such litigation may affect eligibility of the project or may substantially delay implementation of the project. All projects must also comply with any additional project-specific guidance provided in the Addendum.

E.3 Cost-Effectiveness
Mitigation program authorizing statutes (Flood Mitigation Assistance at 42 U.S.C. 4104c, PreDisaster Hazard Mitigation at 42 U.S.C. 5133, and Hazard Mitigation at 42 U.S.C. 5170c) require that FEMA provide funding for mitigation measures that are cost effective or are in the interest of the NFIF. FEMA has specified minimum project criteria via regulation (44 CFR Part 79 and 44 CFR Section 206.434), including that Applicants must demonstrate mitigation projects are cost effective. The determination of cost-effectiveness is performed in a variety of ways. It is typically demonstrated by the calculation of a benefit-cost ratio (BCR), dividing total annualized project benefits by total annualized project cost. Projects where benefits exceed costs are generally considered cost effective (see Part III, E.3 and Part V, A.3 for additional information).

E.4 Feasibility and Effectiveness
Mitigation projects funded by HMA must be both feasible and effective at mitigating the risks of the hazard(s) for which the project was designed. A project’s feasibility is demonstrated through conformance with accepted engineering practices, established codes, standards, modeling techniques, or best practices. Effective mitigation measures funded under HMA provide a longterm or permanent solution to a risk from a natural hazard.

For additional information about the feasibility and effectiveness requirement for mitigation reconstruction projects, see the Addendum, Part D.2.1; for additional feasibility and effectiveness resources, see Part IX, C.4.

E.5 Hazard Mitigation Plan Requirement
This section presents information on plan requirements for Recipient mitigation plans, subrecipient mitigation plans, and Tribal Mitigation Plans. It also presents information on extraordinary circumstances and conformance with hazard mitigation plans.

Part III. Eligibility Information 44
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *295
E.5.1 Applicant Mitigation Plan Requirement
In accordance with 44 CFR Part 201, all Applicants for PDM and FMA must have a FEMAapproved State or Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan by the application deadline and at the time of obligation of the award. State agencies and federally-recognized tribes applying for HMGP funding must have a FEMA-approved State or Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan at the time of the Presidential major disaster declaration and at the time HMGP funding is obligated to the Recipient or subrecipient.

E.5.2 Subapplicant Mitigation Plan Requirement
There is no mitigation plan requirement for development of a new mitigation plan.

All subapplicants for PDM and FMA must have a FEMA-approved local or Tribal Mitigation Plan by the application deadline and at the time of obligation of grant funds for mitigation projects. All subapplicants for HMGP must have a FEMA-approved local or Tribal Mitigation Plan at the time of obligation of grant funds for mitigation projects.

State agencies are eligible subapplicants under HMGP, PDM, or FMA, and a State Mitigation Plan under 44 CFR Part 201 is required as a condition of the State agencies receiving assistance as defined in 44 CFR Section 201.4. State agencies with assets identified in the State Mitigation Plan meet the mitigation planning requirement. PNP subapplicants are eligible for HMGP but do not have mitigation plan requirements as a condition of subapplicant eligibility.

E.5.3 Extraordinary Circumstances
For HMGP project subawards, the Regional Administrator may grant an exception to the local or Tribal Mitigation Plan requirement in extraordinary circumstances when justification is provided. If this exception is granted, a local or Tribal Mitigation Plan must be approved by FEMA within 12 months of the award of the project subaward to that community.

For PDM and FMA project subawards, the Region may grant an exception to the local or Tribal Mitigation Plan requirement in extraordinary circumstances. For PDM and FMA project subawards, the Region may apply extraordinary circumstances when justification is provided and with concurrence from FEMA Headquarters (Risk Reduction and Risk Analysis Divisions) prior to granting an exception. If this exception is granted, a local or Tribal Mitigation Plan must be approved by FEMA within 12 months of the award of the project subaward to that community.

For HMGP, PDM, and FMA, extraordinary circumstances exist when a determination is made by the Applicant and FEMA that the proposed project is consistent with the priorities and strategies identified in the State or Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan and that the jurisdiction meets at least one of the criteria below. If the jurisdiction does not meet at least one of the following criteria, the Region must coordinate with FEMA Headquarters (Risk Reduction Part III. Eligibility Information 45
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *296
and Risk Analysis Divisions) for HMGP; however, for PDM and FMA the Region must coordinate and seek concurrence prior to granting an exception:
i The jurisdiction meets the small impoverished community criteria (see Part VIII, B.2). i The jurisdiction has been determined to have had insufficient capacity due to lack of available funding, staffing, or other necessary expertise to satisfy the mitigation planning requirement prior to the current disaster or application deadline. i The jurisdiction has been determined to have been at low risk from hazards because of low frequency of occurrence or minimal damage from previous occurrences as a result of sparse development.
i The jurisdiction experienced significant disruption from a declared disaster or another event that impacts its ability to complete the mitigation planning process prior to award or final approval of a project award.
i The jurisdiction does not have a mitigation plan for reasons beyond the control of the State, federally-recognized tribe, or local community, such as Disaster Relief Fund restrictions that delay FEMA from granting a subaward prior to the expiration of the local or Tribal Mitigation Plan.

For HMGP, PDM, and FMA, the Applicant must provide written justification that identifies the specific criteria from above or circumstance, explains why there is no longer an impediment to satisfying the mitigation planning requirement, and identifies the specific actions or circumstances that eliminated the deficiency.

When an HMGP project funding is awarded under extraordinary circumstances, the Recipient shall acknowledge in writing to the Regional Administrator that a plan will be completed within 12 months of the subaward. The Recipient must provide a work plan for completing the local or Tribal Mitigation Plan, including milestones and a timetable, to ensure that the jurisdiction will complete the plan in the required time. This requirement shall be incorporated into the award (both the planning and project subaward agreements, if a planning subaward is also awarded).

E.5.4 Tribal Hazard Mitigation Plan Requirement
Federally-recognized tribes with an approved Tribal Mitigation Plan in accordance with 44 CFR Section 201.7 may apply to FEMA for assistance as an Applicant. Non-federally recognized tribes with an approved Tribal Mitigation Plan in accordance with 44 CFR Section 201.7 also may apply to FEMA for assistance as a subapplicant. If a federally-recognized tribe with an approved Tribal Mitigation Plan in accordance with 44 CFR Section 201.7 coordinates the review of its Tribal Mitigation Plan with the State, it has the option to apply as a subapplicant through that State or another federally-recognized tribe.

Part III. Eligibility Information 46
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *297
E.5.5 Conformance with Hazard Mitigation Plans
Projects submitted for consideration for HMA funding must be consistent with the goals and objectives identified in the current, FEMA-approved State or Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan as well as the local or Tribal Mitigation Plan for the jurisdiction in which the activity is located.

Often, States as subrecipients administer awards for State assets. In these instances, the State is required to have a FEMA-approved State Mitigation Plan, and there is no local or Tribal Mitigation Plan requirement. A local or Tribal Mitigation Plan is not required where the State or PNP is a subapplicant and the State or PNP provides justification demonstrating the following conformance criteria with the State Mitigation Plan:
i The statewide initiative or program is consistent with the goals and objectives identified in the current, FEMA-approved State or Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan. i The project(s) will be administered by the State or PNP as a statewide initiative or program. i The State or PNP is not applying on behalf of a local government or federally-recognized tribe that is eligible for extraordinary circumstances or otherwise circumventing the local or Tribal Mitigation Plan requirement.
i The communities in which the projects are located do not have any financial interest in the subaward (e.g., property ownership, long-term maintenance) or significant authority over the projects (with the exception of permits under current building codes).

For example, the State may be the subrecipient for statewide initiatives such as statewide safe room or generator programs on behalf of individuals, businesses, and/or PNPs, not on behalf of jurisdictions. Where there is a local or tribal planning requirement (as subrecipient), statewide plans will not be accepted as multi-jurisdictional plans per 44 CFR Section 201.6(a)(4).

E.6 Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation Requirements HMA programs, and grants awarded pursuant to
these programs, must conform to 44 CFR Parts 9
and 10 (or FD 108-1) and with all applicable EHP
laws, implementing regulations, and EOs, including
but not limited to NEPA, the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA), the Endangered Species
Act (ESA), EO 11988 (Floodplain Management),
EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), and EO 12898
(Environmental Justice). EHP requirements ensure
and document appropriate consideration of reasonable alternatives by taking the project’s impacts to the human environment into account in the decision-making process. The project, when completed, must comply with all applicable EHP laws and regulations as a condition of Part III. Eligibility Information 47

PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVES

DEFINITION
Practicable means capable of being done
within existing constraints. The test of
what is practicable depends on the
situation and includes consideration of all
relevant factors, such as environment,
cost, and technology.

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *298
award eligibility, in addition to any conditions that may be imposed on the award during the EHP review compliance process.

FEMA reviews the completeness of the responses to the questions in the EHP review section of the project subapplication and any supporting documentation. HMA project subapplications must include the required information for each property identified in the subapplication. For example, information needs may include detailed scopes of work, clearly labeled maps, photos of buildings, ages of all buildings and structures, and copies of any coordination letters with other agencies. FEMA utilizes this information to complete and document the EHP compliance review process. A lack of information may delay the identification of outstanding EHP compliance requirements and project implementation. Also, failing to provide the required information by the application deadline may prohibit FEMA from making an award or subaward.

FEMA has developed guidance to assist in completing the EHP information section of a project subapplication, including an eLearning Tool, online training, and information about historic preservation. For links to these EHP resources, see Part IX, C.5. Technical assistance is also available via the toll-free Project Technical Assistance for Environmental & Historic Preservation Helpline (866) 222-3580 or via e-mail at [email protected].

E.6.1 Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands
As noted in Part III, E.6, all activities funded by
HMA programs must conform to 44 CFR Part 9.

Proposed actions triggering the 8-Step Decision
Making Process for Floodplain Management and
Wetlands Considerations (see HMA Job Aid, 8-
Step Decision Making Process for Floodplain
Management and Wetlands Considerations) will
only be eligible for a grant if the Applicant or
subapplicant demonstrates that there is no
practicable alternative in accordance with 44
CFR Sections 9.9 through 9.11. HMA funds
cannot be used to fund new construction or
Substantial Improvements in a floodway or new
construction in a Coastal High Hazard Area
unless it constitutes a functionally dependent use
or facilitates an open space use. However, the
costs to elevate or floodproof a damaged
structure or facility are not included in
determining whether the Substantial
Improvement threshold is triggered.

For additional information see 44 CFR Section 9.11(d).

Part III. Eligibility Information 48

DECISION-MAKING FOR CRITICAL
ACTION VS. CRITICAL FACILITY
Critical action is an action for which even a
slight chance of flooding poses too great of a
risk. It may or may not be associated with a
critical facility. FEMA is responsible for
determining if an action is a critical action. If
a critical action is identified, FEMA must
evaluate potential harm to the action from
the 500-year flood.

Critical facilities are structures and
institutions that are deemed by the local
community and other jurisdictions as critical
to the continuity of the community before,
during, and after an event. Although the
affected jurisdiction has the primary
responsibility for determining what structures
and institutions are critical facilities, FEMA
reserves the right to make a final
determination as needed to support the
review and approval of an HMA project
application.

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *299
E.7 National Flood Insurance Program Eligibility Requirements HMA eligibility is related to the NFIP as follows:
i Subapplicant Eligibility: All subapplicants for FMA must be participating in the NFIP, and not be withdrawn or suspended, to be eligible to apply for grant funds. Certain political subdivisions (i.e., regional flood control districts or county governments) may apply and act as subrecipients if they are part of a community that is participating in the NFIP where the political subdivision provides zoning and building code enforcement or planning and community development professional services for that community. i Project Eligibility: HMGP and PDM mitigation project subapplications for projects sited within an SFHA are eligible only if the jurisdiction in which the project is located is participating in the NFIP. There is no NFIP participation requirement for HMGP and PDM project subapplications for projects located outside of the SFHA. i Mitigation Planning Eligibility: There are no NFIP participation requirements for HMGP and PDM hazard mitigation planning subapplications. However, under FMA, the subapplicant must be participating in the NFIP to be eligible for planning funding. i Property Eligibility: Properties included in a project subapplication for FMA funding must be NFIP insured at the time of the application submittal. Flood insurance must be maintained for the life of the structure.

E.7.1 Special Flood Hazard Area Requirements
For structures that remain in the SFHA after the implementation of the mitigation project, flood insurance must be maintained for the life of the structure to an amount at least equal to the project cost or to the maximum limit of coverage made available with respect to the particular property, whichever is less. The maximum limit of coverage made available is defined as the replacement cost value of the structure up to $250,000 for residential and $500,000 for nonresidential. Insurance coverage on the property must be maintained during the life of the property regardless of transfer of ownership of such property.

The subrecipient (or property owner) must legally record, with the county or appropriate jurisdiction’s land records, a notice that includes the name of the current property owner (including book/page reference to record of current title, if readily available), a legal description of the property, and the following notice of flood insurance requirements:

This property has received Federal hazard mitigation assistance. Federal law requires that flood insurance coverage on this property must be maintained during the life of the property regardless of transfer of ownership of such property.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5154a, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal disaster relief assistance made available in a flood disaster area may be used to make a payment (including any loan assistance payment) to a person for Part III. Eligibility Information 49
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *300
repair, replacement, or restoration for damage to any personal, residential, or commercial property if that person at any time has received flood disaster assistance that was conditional on the person first having obtained flood insurance under applicable Federal law and subsequently having failed to obtain and maintain flood insurance as required under applicable Federal law on such property. The property owner is also required to maintain this property in accordance with the floodplain management criteria of 44 CFR Section 60.3 and any city/county ordinance.

Applicants/subapplicants receiving assistance for projects sited in an SFHA must ensure that these requirements are met by requesting that the participating property owner(s) sign an Acknowledgement of Conditions for Mitigation of Property in an SFHA with FEMA Grant Funds form and providing the form to FEMA prior to award or final approval. This form is available on the FEMA website at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=3592 or can be provided by the appropriate FEMA Regional Office (for Regional Office information, see Part VII). Properties that do not meet these requirements will not be eligible to receive assistance under the HMA programs.

If an approved HMA project affects the accuracy of an applicable Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) or requires a map amendment to meet a locally adopted floodplain management ordinance, the subrecipient is responsible for ensuring that the appropriate map amendments or revisions are made. Costs associated with these map amendments are to be identified in the cost estimate section of a subaward application and may be eligible costs under the HMA programs.

E.8 Statutory, Regulatory, and Other Requirements
Mitigation activities must adhere to all
relevant statutes, regulations, and
requirements, including (this list is not all
inclusive, See Part IX, Appendix D for full
citations):
i Sections 203 (PDM) and 404 (HMGP)
of the Stafford Act
i Section 1366 (FMA) of the NFIA
i Section 322 of the Stafford Act
(Mitigation Planning)
i Section 324 of the Stafford Act
(Management Costs)
i NHPA (36 CFR Part 800)
Part III. Eligibility Information 50

FEDERAL LAWS PROHIBITING

DISCRIMINATION IN EMERGENCY PROGRAMS

ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY
x Rehabilitation Act of 1973
x Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
x Stafford Act of 1988
x Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform
Act of 2006
x Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988
x Architectural Barriers Act of 1968
x Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
of 1975
x Telecommunications Act of 1996
x Twenty-First Century Communications and
Video Accessibility Act of 2010
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *301
i NEPA (44 CFR Part 10 or FD 108-1)
i URA and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 i Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands (EO 11988, EO 11990, 44 CFR Part 9) i Other EHP Considerations (including ESA)
i CBRA (44 CFR Part 206, Subpart J)
i Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR Part 200)
i Floodplain Management (44 CFR Part 60)
i Flood Mitigation Grants (44 CFR Part 79)
i Property Acquisition and Relocation for Open Space (44 CFR Part 80) i Hazard Mitigation Planning (44 CFR Part 201)
i HMGP (44 CFR Part 206, Subpart N)
i Management Costs (44 CFR Part 207)
i OMB Circular A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs
i Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Subpart 31.2, Contracts with Commercial Organizations
i Other applicable Federal, State, territory, Tribal, and local laws, implementing regulations, and EOs
Part III. Eligibility Information 51
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *302
PART IV. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION

INFORMATION
Part IV provides guidance on developing HMA applications or subapplications and on related funding restrictions.

A. Address to Request Application Package
Applications for HMGP are processed through NEMIS. Applicants must use the Application Development Module of NEMIS to create project applications and submit them to the appropriate FEMA Region in digital format for the relevant disaster. For NEMIS Helpdesk resources, see Part IX, C.6.

Applications for PDM and FMA are processed through the eGrants system. The eGrants system encompasses the entire grant application process and provides the means to electronically create, review, and submit a grant application to FEMA via the Internet. Applicants and subapplicants can access eGrants at https://portal.fema.gov/famsVuWeb/home.

The FEMA Enterprise Service desk (for eGrants issues) phone number is 1 (877) 611-4700. For eGrants Helpdesk resources, see Part IX, C.6.

For more information about using NEMIS or eGrants, contact the appropriate FEMA Regional Office (see Part VII).

B. Content and Form of Application
For HMGP, subapplication packages are available from eligible Applicants following Presidential major disaster declarations. The Applicant selects and prioritizes subapplications and submits them to FEMA. Applicants must submit the information required in FEMA Form (FF) 009-0-111A, Grantees and Sub-Grantees Quarterly Progress Reports HMGP, before HMGP funding can be obligated. The Applicant submits the subapplications in digital format via NEMIS and in hard copy format.

Applications and subapplications for PDM and FMA are submitted via the eGrants system. If a subapplicant does not use the eGrants system, the Applicant must enter the paper subapplication(s) into the eGrants system on the subapplicant’s behalf. Blank applications that conform to the eGrants format are available for printing from the eGrants system and the FEMA website. Supporting documentation that cannot be electronically attached to the eGrants application (e.g., engineering drawings, photographs, maps) must be submitted to the appropriate FEMA Regional Office. The entire application, including FF 009-0-111A, and all paper documentation must be received by the appropriate FEMA Regional Office no later than the application deadline.

Part IV. Application and Submission Information 52
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *303
C. Submission Dates and Times
HMGP submittal deadlines for applications are established based on the Presidential major disaster declaration date. For submission of an application for HMGP, see Part VIII, A.1 and A.7.

Completed applications for PDM and FMA must be submitted to FEMA through eGrants.

Application submission due dates and times are posted to the HMA website at https://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-assistance. Subapplicants should consult the official designated point of contact (POC) for their Applicant for more information regarding the application process. For more information on FEMA and Applicant contacts, see Part VII. For additional information on HMA application cycles, contact FEMA or go to http://www.grants.gov/.

D. Intergovernmental Review
Allowing sufficient time for an intergovernmental review of an application may be necessary as established by EOs 12372 and 12416 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs). If an Applicant has chosen not to participate in the intergovernmental review process, the application may be sent directly to FEMA. Guidance on the intergovernmental review process, including the names and addresses of the single POCs as listed by OMB, is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants_spoc.

E. Funding Restrictions
HMA programs allow the funding of eligible costs for mitigation activities as outlined in Part III, E.1. Subapplications that propose a Federal expenditure in excess of the Federal funding limit will not be considered for an award. For each program, additional funding restrictions apply as described below.

E.1 HMGP Funding Restrictions
For HMGP, the following funding restrictions apply:
i Up to 7 percent of the Recipient’s HMGP ceiling may be used for mitigation planning activities in compliance with 44 CFR Section 201.3(c)(4). i Up to 5 percent of the Recipient’s HMGP ceiling may be used for mitigation measures that are difficult to evaluate against traditional program cost-effectiveness criteria (i.e., the 5 Percent Initiative).
i For Presidential major disaster declarations for all hazards, an additional 5 percent of the Recipient’s HMGP ceiling may be used to fund hazard mitigation measures. Recipients and subrecipients must adopt disaster-resistant building codes or an improved Building Code Part IV. Application and Submission Information 53
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *304
Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS) score as a condition of the award (prior to closeout).

For more information on the 5 Percent Initiative and the additional 5 percent for all hazards, see Part VIII, A.14.

E.2 PDM Funding Restrictions
For PDM, the following funding restrictions apply:
i Up to $3 million Federal share may be requested in a subapplication to implement a mitigation project.
i The cumulative Federal award for subapplications awarded during a single application cycle to any one Applicant shall not exceed 15 percent of the total appropriated PDM funds for that application cycle.

E.3 FMA Funding Restrictions
For FMA, the following funding restrictions apply:
i Individual planning grants using FMA funds
shall not exceed $50,000 to any Applicant or
$25,000 to any subapplicant.
i FMA funds can only be used for the flood
hazard component of a hazard mitigation plan
that meets the planning criteria outlined in 44 CFR Part 201.

Part IV. Application and Submission Information 54

MAXIMUM AMOUNTS OF

FMA MITIGATION PLANNING GRANT
Under FMA, the maximum individual planning
grant is $50,000 for any Applicant and
$25,000 for any subapplicant.

E.4 Management Costs Funding Restrictions
For all HMA programs, indirect costs may be included as a part of the management cost estimate shown in the application or subapplication.

For HMGP only: The Recipient may request a flat percentage rate (4.89 percent) of the projected eligible program costs for management costs. The Recipient is responsible for determining the amount, if any, of funds that will be passed through to the subrecipient(s) for their management costs. For further information on HMGP management costs, see Part VIII, A.2.5 and A.5.

Applicants for PDM and FMA may apply for a maximum of 10 percent of the total funds requested in their grant application budget (Federal and non-Federal shares) for management costs to support the project and planning subapplications included as part of their grant application. Applicants requesting Applicant management costs must submit a separate Management Costs subapplication in eGrants. This subapplication must be included in the overall grant application or the request will not be considered. Applicants who are not awarded Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *305
grants funds for project or planning activities will not receive reimbursement for the corresponding costs incurred in developing and submitting applications.

Subapplicants for PDM and FMA may apply for a maximum of 5 percent of the total funds requested in a subapplication for management costs. Subapplicants requesting management costs must include them in the project or planning subapplication for consideration as separate activities in the Mitigation Activity section of eGrants. Subapplicants who are not awarded subawards for project or planning activities will not receive reimbursement for the corresponding costs incurred in developing and submitting subapplications.

F. Other Submission Requirements
This section discusses the consideration of applications under multiple HMA programs and preaward costs.

F.1 Application Consideration under Multiple HMA Programs FEMA will only consider applications and subapplications submitted to a specific HMA program. If an Applicant would like to have a subapplication considered under multiple HMA programs, the Applicant must submit that subapplication to each HMA program separately.

F.2 Pre-award Costs
Costs incurred after the HMA application period has opened, but prior to the date of the Federal award or final approval, are identified as pre-award costs. For HMGP, the opening of the application period is the date when HMGP is authorized, which is generally the date of the Presidential major disaster declaration. The opening of the application period for PDM and FMA is established annually by FEMA via the Notice of Funding Opportunity announcement.

Pre-award costs directly related to developing the application or subapplication may be funded through HMA as funds are available. Such costs may have been incurred, for example, to develop a BCA, to gather EHP data, for preparing design specifications, or for workshops or meetings related to development and submission of HMA applications and subapplications.

Costs associated with implementation of the activity but incurred prior to Federal award or final approval are not eligible (projects initiated or completed prior to Federal award or full approval of the project are not eligible). Pre-award management costs count towards the 5 percent limit for subrecipient management costs. To be eligible for HMA funding, pre-award costs must be identified as separate line items in the cost estimate of the subapplication. Applicants and subapplicants may identify such pre-award costs as their non-Federal cost share. Applicants and subapplicants who are not awarded grants or subawards will not receive reimbursement for the corresponding pre-award costs.

Part IV. Application and Submission Information 55
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *306
G. Applicant Guidance
This section discusses general Applicant guidance and minimum eligibility criteria.

G.1 General Applicant Guidance
FEMA will not direct the Applicant on how to submit its applications. The Applicant may submit a single application representing all subapplications or they may submit multiple applications. When multiple subapplications are submitted, they should be ranked in priority order. Before forwarding subapplications to FEMA, Applicants also should review subapplications to document that:
i The subapplicant has documented its capacity to manage the subaward funds. i The subapplicant has documented its capacity to complete the mitigation activity in the time specified.
i Non-Federal cost-share funds are or will be available for the project. i The maintenance requirements have been sufficiently identified, and the subapplicant or another authorized entity has accepted the maintenance responsibility. i The underlying cost-effectiveness data are accurate and complete. i All program- and project-specific requirements have been met and are documented as appropriate.

If the subapplication is considered to be deficient, the Applicant may revise or augment the subapplication in consultation with the subapplicant. Applicants must certify that they have evaluated the activities included in each subapplication and that activities will be implemented in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200 and other applicable program or activity type requirements.

G.2 Minimum Eligibility Criteria
FEMA does not accept incomplete and placeholder
project applications. Incomplete applications or
subapplications delay project approval because they
do not contain sufficient information for FEMA to
make program eligibility determinations.

Applications and subapplications submitted to
FEMA must meet the minimum eligibility criteria for all submittals as eligibility cannot be determined without these data. Additional information may be requested during FEMA review.

The following list of eligibility criteria is not all inclusive. For more detailed minimum eligibility criteria, see Part IX, Appendix F for projects and Part IX, Appendix G for plans.

Part IV. Application and Submission Information 56

MINIMUM ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
Applications and subapplications submitted
to FEMA must meet the minimum eligibility
criteria. See updated Minimum Eligibility
Checklists in Part IX, Appendices F and G.

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *307
Unless otherwise noted, the following criteria apply to applications and subapplications:
i Eligible Applicant and Subapplicant
i FEMA-Approved Mitigation Plan
Meets all plan requirements per 44 CFR Parts 201 and 206 i SOW
Provides a detailed SOW as described in Part IV, H
i Work Schedule
Provides a work schedule of 3 years or less
i Cost Estimate
Provides a detailed cost estimate/budget that supports the SOW and documents required non-Federal cost share
i Cost Share
Provides non-Federal cost share that meets program eligibility requirements (see Part

III, C)
i Cost-Effectiveness and Feasibility (projects)
Includes a FEMA-approved BCA or FEMA-approved alternate cost-effectiveness documentation (see Part IV, I)
Is feasible and effective as demonstrated through conformance with accepted engineering practices, established codes, standards, modeling techniques, or best practices (see Part IV, J)
i EHP Compliance (projects)
Includes information and documentation for each property identified in the subapplication to demonstrate conformance with all applicable laws and regulations (e.g., NEPA and NHPA)
Demonstrates that project avoids or minimizes harm to the environment and is the best alternative from a range of options considered (see Part IV, K) i Assurance Forms
FF-112-0-2, Budget Information Construction Programs
FF-112-0-3, Summary Sheet for Assurances and Certifications FF-112-0-3A, Assurances – Non-construction Programs
FF-112-0-3B, Assurances – Construction Program
FF-112-0-3C, Certifications Regarding Lobbying, Debarment, Suspension and Other Part IV. Application and Submission Information 57
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *308
H. Scoping Narrative: Scope of Work, Schedule, and Cost Estimate
This section discusses information on the required components of the scoping narrative, consideration for management costs, planning applications for new or updated plans, scheduleand planning-related activities, and project applications.

H.1 Required Components
The application must include a description of the activities and anticipated outcomes as a means for FEMA to determine whether the activities are eligible, whether the Applicant can complete the activities within the POP, and whether the proposed costs are reasonable.

A scoping narrative describes the proposed activity and includes three elements:
i SOW
i Schedule
i Cost estimate
The scoping narrative stipulates the deliverables, identifies the tasks required to complete the proposed activity, and defines the tasks to be accomplished in clear, concise, and meaningful terms. All cost elements must match tasks and provide sufficient detail for FEMA to determine whether the subapplication is eligible. The scoping narrative will become part of the conditions of the award.

All activities must be identified in the scoping narrative prior to the close of the application period.

The following are required elements of a scoping narrative for a planning or project subapplication:
i Introductory Statement: The SOW starts with a short statement that describes the proposed activity and what will be accomplished by the end of the POP. i Activities Description: The SOW describes the proposed approach, outcomes, and level of effort, including key milestones and schedule, and the relationship of each activity to the cost estimate. The description explains how the outcomes will be reached. The responsible party for each task is identified.
i Deliverables, Key Milestones, and Schedule: The schedule includes all tasks identified in the SOW and the relationship of each activity to the cost estimate. The schedule identifies major milestones with targets dates for meeting each milestone, including anticipated quarterly usage of Federal funds. Proposed schedules must not exceed the POP for the grant.

Sufficient detail is provided so FEMA can determine whether the proposed activities can be accomplished within the POP. See Part VI, D.4.

Part IV. Application and Submission Information 58
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *309
i Personnel: The SOW narrative identifies proposed staff and describes relevant experience in managing proposed activities, contractors, and Federal awards. i Task Management: The SOW narrative describes the methods the subapplicant will use to manage the tasks and contractors, and monitor and report on progress, including proposed accountability measures.
i Cost Estimate: The cost estimate matches the proposed level of effort from the SOW and work schedule. Cost estimates include various cost item categories, such as labor, materials, equipment, and subcontractor costs. Source materials used to support the cost estimate are referenced and include sufficient detail so FEMA can determine whether costs are reasonable based on proposed activities and level of effort.
Cost Share: The cost estimate identifies the cost categories and value for anticipated cash and third-party in-kind contributions for meeting the non-Federal cost share. Pre-award Costs: To be eligible for HMA funding and/or as a cost-share, pre-award costs must be included as separate line items in the cost estimate. Closeout: The subapplicant must document actual costs for eligible activities at closeout.
Ineligible Format: Lump-sum cost estimates are not eligible and will be NOT be accepted.
Contingency Cost: An allowance in the total cost estimate to cover situations that cannot be fully defined at the time the cost estimate is prepared, but that will likely result in additional eligible costs. See Part VI, D.3.4. A contingency cost should be included as a line item in the budget section of a project application. As with other line items in the budget, the subapplicant should justify the contingency estimate based on the nature of the proposed project.
i Considerations for Management Cost, Project, or Planning Applications: The SOW addresses unique considerations for the type of activities proposed. See Part IV, H.+ DQG+
i Ranking Factors: The SOW explains how the activities will address the goals and objectives or ranking factors of the relevant HMA program. For PDM and FMA, FEMA will identify funding priorities in the Notice of Funding Opportunity announcement. For HMGP, the pass-through entity may identify funding priorities.

Part IV. Application and Submission Information 59
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *310
H.2 Considerations for Management Costs
Applicants will submit a separate management cost application if requesting managing costs.

Subapplicants who are requesting management costs include management costs in their project or planning subapplication cost estimate. To determine whether management costs are available, see Part IV, E.4. For more information on HMGP management costs, see Part VIII, A.5.

H.2.1 Activities Description
For the Applicant management cost subapplication, the SOW narrative describes the activities and specific tasks related to the entire grant cycle, from soliciting and developing subapplications to closing out Federal awards and audits.

H.2.2 Personnel
The narrative describes personnel requirements for the proposed activities and indicates whether contract support or consultants will be used.

H.2.3 Cost Estimate
The cost estimate describes costs for which the Recipient and/or subrecipient will use management cost funding. The estimate provides information on how the funds will be expended and monitored and shows that sufficient funds will be available for closeout.

H.3 Considerations for Planning Subapplications
Applicants and subapplicants must use applicable State, tribal, or local mitigation planning guidance to determine the specific requirements for new plans and plan updates regarding the planning process; hazard identification and risk assessment; mitigation strategy; plan review, evaluation, and implementation; and plan adoption. For State, tribal, or local mitigation planning guidance, see the FEMA Mitigation Planning webpage for current guidance:
http://www.fema.gov/mitigation-planning-laws-regulations-guidance. The information below supplements Part IV, H.1 and provides specific requirements for planning subapplications.

H.3.1 Activities Description
The following elements must be included in the Activities Description:
i Planning Area: The narrative describes the planning area, including any non-contiguous land holdings or assets, and demographics. The description includes the proposed number and names of participating governments, PNPs, or other partners. i Planning Process: The narrative includes a description of the proposed planning process to engage stakeholders and the public. The description explains the proposed role of the Part IV. Application and Submission Information 60
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *311
planning team (steering committee). The description provides the anticipated number of meetings for the planning team, identifies stakeholders, and explains public outreach. i Previous Mitigation Planning: The narrative includes a description of previous mitigation planning efforts, including an evaluation of the past plan as a basis to identify priorities for plan updates.
i Available Data and Risk Assessment Process: The narrative identifies the process the planning team will use to research, collect, analyze, and summarize hazard and risk data. If a specific risk assessment methodology or software (e.g., Hazus) will be used in the risk assessment process, the narrative describes how this will influence the level of effort, timeframe, and planning costs. Subapplicants are advised to make use of existing data and risk assessments when developing a new mitigation plan or updating a mitigation plan; the narrative describes any known data sources to be used in the risk assessment. Similarly, if the subapplicant intends to develop new risk data, the proposed process and sources must be described as well.
i Development of Mitigation Strategy: The narrative describes the proposed process to develop a mitigation strategy for each participating jurisdiction based on the risk assessment completed for the plan. For State Mitigation Plans, this narrative can include Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning, Severe Repetitive Loss Strategy, and Comprehensive State Hazard Mitigation Planning Program.
i Plan Adoption: The narrative describes the plan drafting process, including State and FEMA reviews (i.e., approval pending adoption), adoption by participating jurisdictions, and final approval by FEMA.

H.3.2 Deliverables, Tasks, and Schedule
The following task-related elements must be included in the narrative:
i Deliverables: The narrative describes the deliverables for the proposed activity:
A new or updated FEMA-approved mitigation plan consistent with mitigation planning regulations for State (44 CFR Sections 201.4 or 201.5), tribal (44 CFR Sections 201.7 or 201.5), or local governments (44 CFR Section 201.6), as well as the applicable mitigation planning guidance. See the FEMA Mitigation Planning webpage for current State, tribal, or local mitigation planning guidance:
http://www.fema.gov/mitigation-planning-laws-regulations-guidance. Any mitigation planning–related activities eligible under HMGP only that enhance an existing mitigation plan consistent with mitigation planning regulations for State (44 CFR Sections 201.4 or 201.5), tribal (44 CFR Sections 201.7 or 201.5), or local governments (44 CFR Section 201.6), as well as the applicable mitigation planning guidance. See the FEMA Mitigation Planning webpage for current State, tribal, or Part IV. Application and Submission Information 61
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *312
local mitigation planning guidance: http://www.fema.gov/mitigation-planning-lawsregulations-guidance. i Tasks: The tasks narrative describes the tasks, including the proposed planning process, as well as any procurement.
i Schedule: The timeframe matches all tasks noted in the SOW. If the proposed activity is a new or updated mitigation plan, the schedule includes tasks for draft review and allows sufficient time for State and FEMA reviews; preparation of required revisions, if needed; formal adoption by the jurisdiction(s); and FEMA approval within the POP.

H.3.2.1 Cost Estimate
The cost estimate includes a line-item breakdown of costs associated with all elements described in the SOW, such as:
i Meetings and public outreach, including the costs associated with what is necessary and reasonable
i Data research and collection, including eligible mapping activities or risk assessment; if using Hazus for flood, earthquake, or hurricane risk assessments, include costs for user defined/provided hazard and inventory data
i Mitigation strategy development and prioritization
i Plan drafting, State and FEMA review, revisions, and final production i Information dissemination activities (PDM only), including printing and advertising i Professional development training, tuition, and travel for the purpose of carrying out the planning tasks
i Administrative costs for the subapplicant to manage the planning process and contractor i Management costs and pre-award costs, if applicable
H.3.2.2 Flood Mitigation Assistance
FMA requires the completion of a FEMA-approved mitigation plan for mitigation projects.

FMA funds can only support activities related to the flood portion of the plan. The narrative provided in the planning subapplication SOW must differentiate between activities that will be supported by FMA from other non-flood related tasks.

Part IV. Application and Submission Information 62
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *313
H.4 Considerations for Project Subapplications
Applicants and subapplicants must use applicable project guidance to determine the specific requirements for the project type proposed and incorporate these requirements into the SOW narrative, schedule, and cost estimate documentation. See the Addendum for property acquisition or relocation for open space, wildfire mitigation, safe rooms, mitigation reconstruction, structural elevation, and flood risk reduction projects. The information below supplements Part IV, H.1 and provides specific requirements for project subapplications.

H.4.1 Property Location
All properties to be mitigated must be identified, including alternate properties that may be substituted should a property be withdrawn. All properties, including alternate properties, must have all the required information to be considered complete. i Latitude/Longitude: Coordinates for proposed properties must be provided. This is an eligibility requirement.
i Site Photographs: Pictures of the sides of buildings, foundation, roof, both sides of infrastructure projects, and the surrounding project areas are required. i Site Maps and Project Plans and Specifications: Refer to project-specific guidance in the Addendum to determine the level of documentation needed for eligibility. Supporting documentation must be from qualified, credible sources, such as design professionals or government records.

H.4.2 Activities Description
The following elements must be included in the Activities Description:
i Methodology: Proposed conceptual designs must be provided either through an identified industry standard or project plans and specifications.
Deviations from Standard Procedures: Deviations from standard procedures, methods, techniques, and technical provisions of the applicable codes or best practices must be thoroughly explained and documented to determine eligibility and feasibility. Project Components: Project-specific guidance is provided in the Addendum for a number of mitigation activities. Applicants should review the guidance to determine what elements should be addressed in the SOW narrative.

Part IV. Application and Submission Information 63
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *314
H.4.3 Cost Estimate
The project cost estimate includes a line-item breakdown of all anticipated costs, including, as applicable:
i Costs for anticipated environmental
resource impact treatment or historic
property treatment measures
i Costs for engineering designs/specifications,
including hydrologic and hydraulic
studies/analyses required as an integral part of designing the project i Construction/demolition/relocation costs, such as survey, permitting, site preparation, and material/debris disposal costs
i All other costs required to implement the mitigation project, including any applicable project-type specific costs identified in the Addendum of this guidance Part IV. Application and Submission Information 64

EXAMPLES OF DIRECT COST CATEGORIES
x Compensation of employees for work
performed under the award
x Costs of materials acquired, consumed, or
expended specifically for award purposes
For additional information about cost estimates for property acquisition and structure demolition or relocation projects, see Addendum, Part A; for safe room construction projects, see Addendum, Part C.3.2; for mitigation reconstruction, see projects Addendum, Part D.3.5; and for structure elevation projects, see Addendum, Part E.4.2.

I. Cost-Effectiveness
FEMA will only consider applications that use a FEMA-approved methodology to demonstrate cost-effectiveness. This is typically demonstrated by the calculation of a BCR. Projects for which benefits exceed costs are generally considered cost effective. Benefits may include avoided damage, loss of function, and displacement.

FEMA provides BCA software that allows Applicants to calculate a project BCR. Written materials and training are also available. The FEMA BCA software utilizes the OMB Circular A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs. FEMA requires the use of approved BCA software (Version 5.0 or greater) to help ensure that calculations are consistent with OMB Circular A-94. The current software is available at the FEMA Regional Office or from the BCA Technical Assistance Helpline (see Part IV, I.1).

If FEMA standard values are used, then no additional documentation is required. If non-standard values are used, then documentation is required. Documentation must be accurate and sufficiently detailed for the analysis to be validated. FEMA recommends that supporting documentation be obtained from credible sources, such as a Flood Insurance Study.

FEMA requires the submission of the BCA export file (.zip file format) for mitigation projects submitted to HMA programs. For HMGP, the BCA export file (.zip file format) is required prior to FEMA approval. For the PDM and FMA programs, the BCA export file (.zip file format) is Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *315
required at the time of project submission. Applicants and subapplicants that do not have the ability to submit a BCA export file in a .zip file format can submit a .pdf of the BCA file and submit a Data Documentation Template.

Data associated with the various methodologies for analyzing cost-effectiveness are available from the appropriate FEMA Regional Office (see Part VII) or the BCA Technical Assistance Helpline (see Part IX, C.3).

I.1 Substantial Damage Waiver
An expedited cost-effectiveness methodology is available for property acquisition projects when certain conditions are met. The acquisition of structures that are declared Substantially Damaged (from any origin) and located in a riverine SFHA on a preliminary or effective FIRM is considered cost effective. If this methodology is used, the project application should include a certification that the structures meet these conditions.

I.2 Aggregation
An evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of a project should include all activities included in the SOW. This may include activities in multiple jurisdictions. It may also include combining benefits from multiple activities and multiple hazards, such as wind and flood, if part of the same project.

I.3 5 Percent Initiative
For 5 Percent Initiative subapplications for HMGP funding, a narrative description of the project’s cost-effectiveness must be provided. For more information on the 5 Percent Initiative, see Part VIII, A.14.

I.4 Pre-calculated Benefits (Safe Rooms)
For safe room construction projects, an expedited cost-effectiveness methodology is available that identifies the benefits associated with certain types of safe rooms (see HMA Job Aid, Safe Room Project Application Using Pre-Calculated Benefits). If this methodology is used, the submitted project application should include a copy of the data relevant to the project location.

I.5 Greatest Savings to the Fund
FEMA also allows for the use of the GSTF data and methodology to demonstrate costeffectiveness for properties included in mitigation projects under HMA.

The GSTF calculation measures the expected savings of a mitigation project over a specific time period, usually 30 years or 100 years, depending on the mitigation project. For instance, an elevation project would use the 30-year GSTF value, and an acquisition project would use the Part IV. Application and Submission Information 65
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *316
100-year GSTF value. Using past NFIP claims, the total expected future insurance claims can be projected. GSTF is calculated by subtracting total expected future insurance premiums from expected future claim payments.

I.6 Environmental Benefits
FEMA has identified and quantified environmental
benefits for mitigation activities. Incorporating
environmental benefits into the overall quantification
of benefits for acquisition-related activities supports the Flood Insurance and Mitigation Administration’s
(FIMA’s) mission of risk reduction, environmental
compliance, and preservation of the natural and
beneficial functions of the floodplain.

Specifically, FEMA developed economic values for green open space and riparian areas. FEMA incorporated the environmental benefits for green open space and riparian areas into the BCA toolkit for acquisition projects.

The economic value for green open space is $7,853 per acre per year. For riparian areas, the economic value is $37,493 per acre per year. When incorporating these values into FEMA’s BCA, the yearly benefits accrue over the 100-year project useful life and are discounted at 7 percent per year to meet OMB requirements. Table 4 provides the green open space and riparian benefits per acre per year and per square foot.

Table 4: Green Open Space and Riparian Benefits
Part IV. Application and Submission Information 66

INCLUSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL

BENEFITS INTO THE BCA TOOLKIT
Green open space and riparian benefits
have been identified and quantified for
acquisition projects. The BCR for an
acquisition project must be at least 0.75
before the environmental benefit can be
incorporated.

Land Use Total Estimated Benefits
(per acre per year)
Total Estimated Benefits(1)
(per square foot)
Green Open Space $7,853 $2.57
Riparian $37,493 $12.29
(1) Projected for 100 years with 7 percent discount rate For an acquisition project, the BCR for a project must be at least 0.75 before incorporating the environmental benefit. This ensures projects funded by HMA are primarily associated with risk reduction activities. Once a project’s BCR reaches at least 0.75, the appropriate environmental benefit can be included for the individual properties.

I.7 Pre-calculated Benefits for Acquisitions and Elevations in Special Flood Hazard Areas
Based on extensive analysis, pre-calculated benefits have been determined for acquisition and elevation projects located in SFHAs. This analysis demonstrates a national average for benefits of $276,000 for acquisition projects and of $175,000 for elevation projects. Therefore, FEMA Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *317
has determined that the acquisition or elevation of a structure located in the 100-year floodplain for which costs are equal to or less than the amount of benefits noted above is cost effective. For projects that contain multiple structures, the average cost of all structures in the project must meet the stated criterion. There is no need for Recipients to conduct a separate BCA for a structure that meets this criterion.

Additionally, the specific geographic location of structures can greatly increase acquisition and elevation costs. The benefits identified above may be adjusted by the Recipient and subrecipient using locality multipliers that are included in industry-accepted cost and pricing guides for construction. If a multiplier is used, a copy of the source document must be included as part of the grant application for review and the methodology demonstrated for the increase of benefits.

Also, the Recipient or subrecipient should use the most up-to-date locality multiplier at the time of application.

To qualify for these pre-calculated benefits, Recipients must include maps with each structure’s footprint clearly identified and the SFHA delineated as part of the grant application. If the structure or any part of the structure lies in the 100-year SFHA, the structure can utilize the precalculated benefits.

If the Applicant cannot clearly demonstrate the structure is located in the SFHA, then the finished floor elevation (FFE) and BFE should be included in the BCA for each structure. If the FFE is less than BFE, structures can use the pre-calculated benefits. No other detailed analysis will be required. These pre-calculated benefits can be used for both riverine and coastal areas.

I.8 Integrating Sea Level Rise in Mitigation
Pursuant to 2011-OPPA-01, FEMA Climate Change
Adaptation Policy Statement, the FEMA
Administrator requires that considerations for climate
change be incorporated into programs, policies, and
operations. FEMA will now fund hazard mitigation
projects that include sea level rise (SLR) estimates.

To incorporate considerations for SLR in the development of a BCA, Recipients and subrecipients should add the estimated SLR to the current 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year flood elevations for their area. Generally, SLR can be included in flood elevations when conducting BCAs in coastal areas using the full data flood module. SLR can be applied to projects in any U.S. coastal area where relative SLR data are available. This includes areas subject to coastal flooding as identified in the current NFIP flood study or coastal rivers and streams located as far inland as the extent of estimated tidal influence or storm surge.

When performing structure elevation projects or projects that have freeboard requirements, SLR estimates should be added to the freeboard requirements that may have been adopted in local or State building codes. Refer to Incorporating Sea Level Rise (SLR) into Hazard Mitigation Part IV. Application and Submission Information 67

INTEGRATING SEA LEVEL

RISE IN MITIGATION
FEMA will now fund hazard mitigation
projects that include SLR estimates.

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *318
Assistance (HMA) Benefit Cost-Analysis FAQs for additional information on the SLR (http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/89659).

I.9 Landslide Property Acquisition
HMA has developed a new methodology for
calculating the BCR for the acquisition of
properties in landslide hazard areas where there is
an immediate threat of catastrophic slope failure
(within 5 years of application development). This
methodology is not included in Version 5.0 of the
FEMA BCA Tool. Applicants are required to
complete the BCA based on the building
replacement value, number of occupants, and the project costs; the BCA tool will calculate all other values automatically using standard FEMA values and methodologies. The BCR calculation is demonstrated in a spreadsheet (see Landslide Acquisition Benefit Cost, Version 2 at www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/97249), and is based on having no recurrence interval, because once the landslide occurs, a catastrophic failure would occur, and the structure would not be subject to any further landslides.

Benefits are based on the replacement value of the house, contents value, displacement costs, and 5 percent of the economic value of fatalities. Costs are based on expenses required to purchase the house at the pre-event market value (similar to routine flood-hazard acquisitions). Applicants are required to attest that the structure is within 5 years of imminent collapse because of landslide hazards. They may obtain this determination from a State or local professional geologist or engineer. If they hire a professional geologist or engineer to make the determination, the cost for those services is an eligible project activity.

Part IV. Application and Submission Information 68

IMMEDIATE THREAT
An immediate threat is defined in 44 CFR
Section 206.221(c) as “the threat of
additional damage or destruction from an
event which can reasonably be expected
to occur within five years” (e.g., a 20
percent chance of occurrence per year.)
I.10 Pre-calculated Benefits for Residential Hurricane Wind Retrofit Measures
Hurricane wind retrofit projects are eligible for funding under the HMGP and PDM grant programs. The HMA Job Aid, Cost Effectiveness Determination for Residential Hurricane Wind Retrofit Measures Funded by FEMA, establishes the use of pre-calculated benefits, in lieu of conducting a complete BCA, for certain residential wind retrofit projects submitted to HMA for funding. A wind retrofit project is considered cost effective as long as the total project costs are less than the costs listed in Table 5. Applicants are not required to use the pre-determined benefit amounts to show cost-effectiveness, but using them will streamline the grant application process as an individual BCA will not need to be completed for every structure.

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *319
Table 5: Pre-determined Benefit Amounts for Wind Retrofit Projects Mitigation Package
Type
Roof Replacement
Project Maximum Costs
Intermediate Protection No $13,153
Intermediate Protection Yes $24,920
Advanced Protection No $40,252
Advanced Protection Yes $52,018
To use these benefit amounts, the Applicant must meet the following requirements:
i Wind retrofit projects must be for residential
buildings, excluding manufactured homes, and
must comply with FEMA P-804.
i Residential structures must be located within the
120-mile-per-hour wind speed zone (per ASCE 7-
10), and Applicants must submit a map showing
the location of the project within the 120-mileper-hour wind speed zone. Areas that are eligible to use the pre-determined benefits are identified on the list of States and territories, and their associated counties, parishes, and boroughs, which is included in the HMA Job Aid, Cost Effectiveness Determination for Residential Hurricane Wind Retrofit Measures Funded by FEMA.

The pre-determined benefits for wind retrofit projects cannot be combined with other benefits, such as those from the cost-effectiveness determination for acquisition and elevations or from the BCA toolkit.

Eligible costs include inspection of the structure, determination of the appropriate mitigation package type, design of the retrofits and the associated labor and materials, and construction/post-construction inspections and certifications.

I.11 Alternative BCA Methodologies
Other methods to demonstrate cost-effectiveness may be used when they address a noncorrectable flaw in the FEMA-approved methodologies or propose a new approach that is unavailable using current tools. New methodologies may be used only if FEMA approves the methodology before application submission. For more information on resources, see Part IX, C.3.

For BCA policies, overview, and software, see http://www.fema.gov/benefit-cost-analysis.

Part IV. Application and Submission Information 69

PRE-DETERMINED BENEFITS FOR

WIND RETROFITS
Pre-calculated benefits can be used for
hurricane wind retrofit projects under the
HMGP and PDM grant programs. These
pre-determined benefits will streamline the
cost-effectiveness determination for
residential wind retrofit projects.

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *320
J. Feasibility and Effectiveness Documentation
FEMA will use the information provided in the subapplication, including the SOW, the cost estimate, and supporting documentation to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed mitigation activity. FEMA accepts the engineering design for a project if a registered Professional Engineer (or other registered design professional) certifies that the design meets the appropriate code or industry design and construction standards. FEMA will accept the certified engineering design in lieu of a comprehensive technical feasibility review (see Part V, A.3). If accepted codes/standards are used, no additional documentation is required. See Part IX, Appendix D for examples of codes and standards used for various projects types.

If an alternative design is proposed, the application/subapplication should contain:
i Applicable building code/edition or engineering standard used i Level of protection provided by the proposed project and description of how the proposed activity will mitigate future losses
i For the retrofit of existing buildings or infrastructure protection projects, an assessment of the vulnerabilities of the existing building
i Any remaining risk to the structure after project implementation i Proposed schematic drawings or designs (as applicable) Project subapplications that do not include appropriate documentation to support the determination of feasibility and effectiveness may be removed from consideration. Upon request, FEMA will provide technical assistance regarding engineering documentation.

For structure elevation and dry floodproofing activities, a statement must be included certifying that the project will be designed in conformance with ASCE 24-14 and will meet the feasibility and effectiveness requirement.

K. Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation
Documentation
Below is a general summary of the EHP compliance review process, including the requirements the Applicant/subapplicant must be complete before a Federal award may be made:
i Evaluate any potential effects to EHP resources and provide the required information and documentation to identify the impact on these resources. i Complete any required consultation and/or coordination with the appropriate agencies (e.g., the State Historic Preservation Officer, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service) to evaluate potential effects of the proposed project and to identify any measures necessary to avoid or minimize these effects.

Part IV. Application and Submission Information 70
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *321
i Complete an evaluation of and document alternatives to the proposed action that will avoid or minimize these impacts, including consideration of the environmental impact of taking no action.
i Demonstrate that the project will incorporate any mitigation measures required to mitigate the adverse effects on EHP resources.
i Ensure the costs of known measures to treat adverse effects are reflected in the project budget estimate.

EHP compliance considers and documents the following resource types or actions: biological, water, coastal, pollution control, debris management, socioeconomic, historic, and cultural.

The Applicant and subapplicant should ensure that the project SOW takes into account all potential EHP compliance issues and costs. To assist in the preparation of the subapplication, the Applicant/subapplicant must complete the EHP Checklist and provide information and documentation about potential impacts on the pertinent environmental and cultural resources in the project area. Any relevant information or studies related to EHP considerations identified and addressed in previous project planning activities by FEMA, another Federal agency, or an agency with designated Federal authority should also be provided and may be used to satisfy the EHP compliance requirements at FEMA’s discretion. For additional information, see Figure 4:

Frontloading EHP the Formal Review Process in Part ,,, the EHP Checklist in Part IX, Appendix E, and HMA Job Aids: (1) 8-Step Decision Making Process for Floodplain Management Considerations and Protection of Wetlands, (2) Section 106 Process under the National Historic Preservation Act, and (3) NEPA Flow Chart for HMA Projects.

By utilizing the EHP Checklist, the Applicant/subapplicant will identify applicable information that must be provided to FEMA, such as a complete SOW narrative, documentation, maps, studies, or correspondence related to:
i Biological resources: Any identified federally listed threatened or endangered species and/or designated critical habitat potentially affected by the proposed project i Water and biological resources: Vegetation, including amount (area), type, and extent to be removed or affected
i Water resources: Identification of all surface waters in the project area regardless of drainage area, size, or perceived hazard level. Information about surface waters should include dimensions, proximity of the project activity to the water, and the expected and possible impacts of the project on surface waters, if any. i Coastal resources: Indication of whether the proposed project is located in a State’s designated coastal zone or within a CBRS Unit or OPA
i Pollution control and debris management: Identification of any hazardous or toxic materials that will affect the project, including studies, investigations, or enforcement actions related to the project’s location
Part IV. Application and Submission Information 71
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *322
i Socioeconomic resources: A description of any adverse effects on low-income or minority populations in the project area
i Historic or cultural resources: The property address, original date of construction, and two color photographs for any buildings, structures, objects, or manmade sites/landscapes features that are 50 years or more in age. At least one of the two photographs of a building should be the front or primary façade showing the elevation.

Should technical assistance be required to determine whether there are any EHP resources associated with the proposed project, consult the following:
i HMA EHP Resources At-a-Glance Guide: A Practical Guide to Environmental & Historic Preservation Laws, Rules, and Tools: http://www.fema.gov/medialibrary/assets/documents/30805 i HMA EHP at-a-Glance Guide Project Planning with Considerations for EHP Compliance:
http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/26621 i NFIP Floodplain Management Bulletin: Historic Structures, FEMA P-467-2, May 2008 i Integrating Historic Property and Cultural Resource Considerations into Hazard Mitigation Planning: State and Local Mitigation Planning How-To Guide, FEMA 386-6, May 2005 i eLearning Tool for FEMA Grant Applicants: http://www.fema.gov/environmental-planningand-historic-preservation-program/elearning-tool-fema-grant-applicants-45 i IS-253.A: Overview of FEMA’s Environmental and Historic Preservation Review:
http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/courseOverview.aspx?code=is-253.a i Unified Federal EHP Review Process: http://www.fema.gov/medialibrary/assets/documents/98911 i FEMA EHP 2-page fact sheets: http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/93034 i EHP Helplines: (866) 222-3580 or [email protected] Although FEMA ultimately has the responsibility to ensure that a project is in compliance with Federal laws related to the environment and historic preservation, Applicants/subapplicants should assist FEMA by identifying EHP reviews previously completed by other agencies, gathering data, and reaching out to stakeholders and regulatory agencies for pertinent information. If EHP issues are identified, the Applicant/subapplicant should initiate coordination with the relevant State and Federal agencies as early in the project planning stages as possible to address any potential EHP issues associated with proposed projects. This coordination does not substitute, and shall not be interpreted to mean, that formal consultation has occurred between FEMA and the applicable resource agency.

FEMA may identify additional EHP compliance review activities necessary to facilitate project approval, such as the completion of environmental impact statements, environmental Part IV. Application and Submission Information 72
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *323
assessments, Phase I environmental site assessments, biological assessments, archeological or standing structures surveys and documentation, wetlands delineations, and air quality conformity analyses or determinations. Unanticipated costs and delays may occur if, during the formal EHP compliance review, FEMA identifies an award condition (e.g., acquiring permits, timing restrictions) or scope change necessary for the project to remain in compliance with EHP laws or determines that a project will adversely impact an environmental or cultural resource. The resolution of adverse impacts will be resolved through a consultation process potentially involving Federal, State, federally-recognized tribe, and external stakeholders. The exact outcome of consultation, and, therefore, the costs and time to resolve the impacts, will not be known until after project selection and consultation has concluded. The HMA program has the discretion to determine, on a project-by-project basis, whether FEMA or the Applicant/subapplicant will fund EHP mitigation measures to resolve adverse impacts.

Applicants/subapplicants may incur costs for significant EHP compliance review activities and/or EHP mitigation measures. FEMA will consider the following factors to determine whether to reimburse costs:
i Nature of the analysis or study required (e.g., environmental impact statement) and the degree to which the activity is related to accomplishing the mitigation goals i Costs of EHP activities compared to project costs
i Complexity of the proposed project
i Nature and extent of potential adverse impacts to environmental and/or historic resources Applicants should consider potential EHP costs during application development and submission and should seek to avoid activities that may negatively impact EHP resources.

FEMA may remove projects from consideration for full approval and/or funding when EHP compliance review activities are not progressing and the Applicant/subapplicant has not dedicated resources and/or provided required and requested documentation in a timely manner.

For additional information on required EHP documentation, see Part IX, Appendix E.

Part IV. Application and Submission Information 73
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *324
PART V. APPLICATION REVIEW

INFORMATION
Part V provides information about the review process so that Applicants and subapplicants can prepare applications that meet FEMA review criteria. During an application review, FEMA may request additional information or documentation from Applicants.

A. Review Criteria
While review processes vary somewhat among HMA programs, FEMA reviews all applications for:
i Application eligibility review
i Technical review
Cost-effectiveness
Feasibility and effectiveness
EHP compliance
A.1 Application Eligibility Review
FEMA will review all applications and subapplications for eligibility and completeness.

Applications and subapplications that do not satisfy the eligibility and completeness requirements will not be funded. The eligibility and completeness requirements are outlined in Parts III, IV, and IX, Appendices F and G.

A.2 Technical Review
FEMA will conduct a technical review for the following for all project subapplications that are forwarded from the initial FEMA review: cost-effectiveness, feasibility and effectiveness, and EHP compliance.

A.2.1 Cost-Effectiveness Review
FEMA will review the documentation provided in support of the subapplication costeffectiveness to validate the accuracy and credibility of data and ensure the appropriate use of the cost-effectiveness methodologies. Only subapplications meeting HMA cost-effectiveness requirements will be considered eligible.

Part V. Application Review Information 74
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *325
A.2.2 Feasibility and Effectiveness Review
FEMA will use the information provided in the subapplication, including the SOW and project cost estimate sections, as well as any supporting documentation to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of the mitigation activity.

For project subapplications, FEMA will consider the following criteria in reviewing feasibility and effectiveness:
i Conformance to accepted engineering practices, established codes, standards, modeling techniques, or best practices, as well as work schedule i Effectiveness in mitigating the risks of the hazard(s) i Reasonableness of the cost estimate
A.2.3 Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation Review Applicants and subapplicants are required to provide information to support the FEMA EHP compliance review. FEMA, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State resource agencies, will use the information provided in the application/subapplication, including the SOW, project cost estimate, as well as any supporting documentation, to ensure compliance with EHP requirements.

As part of the EHP review process, FEMA will assess compliance with applicable laws, including NEPA, NHPA, ESA, CBRA, EO 11988 (Floodplain Management), EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), and EO 12898
(Environmental Justice). Funds will not be awarded,
and the Applicant/subapplicant may not initiate the
project, other than planning or preparatory work not
involving construction or alteration of the land, until FEMA has completed this review and determines that
the project, when completed, will comply with all
EHP laws and regulations.

FEMA accepts the engineering design for a project if
a registered Professional Engineer (or other design
professional) certifies that the design meets the
appropriate code or industry design and construction
standards. FEMA will accept the certified
engineering design in lieu of the FEMA
comprehensive technical feasibility review. For example, if a registered Professional Engineer certifies that design of a community safe room project meets or exceeds FEMA P-361 standards Part V. Application Review Information 75

HMA EFFICIENCIES
FEMA provides opportunities to
streamline application requirements by
allowing Applicants/subapplicants to
use:
x FEMA technical publications
x National standards and codes
x ASCE 24-14 criteria
x Inclusion of environmental benefits in
BCA calculations
x Acquisition of properties in landslide
hazard areas
x Acquisition–Elevation pre-calculated
benefits
x Safe Room pre-calculated benefits
x Wind Retrofit pre-calculated benefits
A.3 HMA Efficiencies
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *326
for design and construction, FEMA will not perform a detailed design review to ensure compliance with the standard.

Additionally, in the development of applications and subapplications, the following resources and approaches should be considered as they will promote efficiencies in FEMA review and approval.

A.3.1 Safe Room Projects
Applicants must document that the proposed safe room project is consistent with the requirements of FEMA P-320, Taking Shelter from the Storm: Building a Safe Room for Your Home or Small Business (2014), or FEMA P-361. Applicants must use the expedited HMGP application for Residential Safe Rooms to apply pre-calculated benefits under HMGP (see HMA Job Aid, Safe Room Project Application Using Pre-Calculated Benefits). This pre-calculated benefit provides standardized benefits associated with residential safe rooms so that individual BCAs are not required, as long as the project costs do not exceed the benefits. If a subapplication complies with FEMA P-320 or FEMA P-361, no additional technical information is required in the subapplication.

A.3.2 Wind Retrofit Projects
FEMA P-804 provides design guidance for wind-retrofit projects on existing one- and twofamily dwellings in coastal areas. Mitigation projects funded under HMGP and PDM are required to be implemented in conformance with FEMA P-804. If a subapplication complies with FEMA P-804, no additional technical information is required in the subapplication.

A.3.3 Certain Flood Mitigation Projects
FEMA requires that certain HMA flood mitigation projects be designed and constructed in conformance with the design criteria of ASCE 24-14 as a minimum standard. FEMA will consider a project application that utilizes ASCE 24-14 as consistent with HMA engineering feasibility and effectiveness requirements. Project applications that do not use ASCE 24-14 must submit documentation to demonstrate the project meets the engineering feasibility and effectiveness requirement (see Addendum, Part F).

B. Selection and Notification Process
This section presents information on the technical review, requests for information, selection, notification, and the reconsideration process.

Part V. Application Review Information 76
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *327
B.1 Selection
FEMA selects eligible subapplications based on priorities set by the Applicant or program priorities, if applicable. For more information for HMGP, see Part VIII, A.4; for more information for PDM, see Part VIII, B.5; and for more information for FMA, see Part VIII, C.5.

PDM and FMA have specific ranking criteria in addition to those described in this part. For information about ranking criteria and the review and selection process for PDM, see Part VIII, B.4, and for FMA, see Part VIII, C.4.

B.2 Notification
For PDM and FMA, during the review and selection process, FEMA will notify Applicants as to whether subapplications have been identified for further review, determined eligible but will not be funded, or determined ineligible for funding. A determination of “identified for further review” is not notification or guarantee of an award.

FEMA will work with Applicants on subapplications identified for further review. Applicants will be notified of activities required, such as an EHP review; verification of subapplicant commitments; verification of hazard mitigation plan status; and of the date by which all required activities must be completed.

Comments may be provided by FEMA on subapplications determined ineligible so that subapplicants can modify their subapplications for resubmission in future grant cycles.

B.3 Reconsideration Process
For PDM and FMA, FEMA will reconsider its determination of a subapplication evaluated on a competitive basis only when there is an indication of a substantive technical or procedural error by FEMA. Only information provided in the submitted subapplication is considered supporting documentation for the request for reconsideration. The amount of funding available for Applicant management costs will not be reconsidered.

FEMA may evaluate subapplications on a competitive basis when:
i Submitted subapplications exceed available funds
i Laws or regulations require the administration of a competitive program i Circumstances merit the administration of funds in a competitive manner Applicants must send requests for reconsideration based on technical or procedural error to FEMA within the time specified in the notification letter to the Applicant. A FEMA decision to uphold or overturn a decision regarding a subapplication evaluated on a competitive basis is final.

Part V. Application Review Information 77
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *328
B.3.1 Consideration of Additional Information
FEMA may, at its discretion, notify Applicants that it will consider additional information in support of a subapplication.

FEMA will accept supplemental or corrected data in support of a subapplication when:
i Submitted subapplications do not exhaust available program funds i Laws or regulations do not require the administration of a competitive program i Determined appropriate by the program office
Instructions for submitting supplemental data will be provided within the FEMA notification letter, if applicable.

For information on appeal and administration of HMGP subapplications, see Part VIII, A.15.

C. Requests for Information
Part V. Application Review Information 78

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
If a subapplication does not meet the
administrative or procedural information
requirements, FEMA may request
additional information in the form of an RFI.

If the Regional Administrator does not
receive the requested information by the
final deadline, the project will be denied.

FEMA may request additional information or documentation from Applicants to resolve outstanding administrative, procedural, or EHP requirements. For PDM and FMA, an RFI will not occur until after selection because of the competitive nature of the programs. RFIs can take various forms, including email requests, documented telephone calls, or formal letters. Failure to provide requested information by the final deadline identified in the request will result in denial, because eligibility cannot be determined. Technical assistance is available, if requested.

FEMA may ask for additional information or
documentation from the Applicant/subapplicant,
potentially through the RFI process, if information is
lacking. FEMA may remove projects from
consideration for full approval and/or funding when
EHP compliance review activities are not
progressing and the Applicant/subapplicant has not
dedicated resources and/or provided required
documentation in a timely manner.

Comments may be provided by FEMA on subapplications determined ineligible so that subapplicants can modify their subapplication for resubmission in future grant cycles.

C.1 Request for Information Timelines
Table 6 provides timelines for stepwise information requests and assistance offers. Figure 5 outlines the RFI process and assigned responsible party. The RFI process involves an eligibility review to determine whether the subapplication and subapplicant are eligible. Then a completeness review is conducted to determine whether a complete subapplication was Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *329
submitted. If the subapplication is determined to be incomplete, FEMA will request further information from the subapplicant. At each step of the RFI process, FEMA will work with the Applicant and subapplicant to determine available options to develop a viable project. Some options include technical assistance from FEMA or implementing a phased project. If the requested information is not received by the Regional Administrator before the deadline, the project will be denied as FEMA will have no basis to make an eligibility determination. Upon receipt of the requested information and confirmation it adequately addresses the RFI, FEMA will proceed with making a determination of project eligibility.

Table 6: RFI Timelines
Request
Format Timeline
Informal –
First Request
The Project Officer requests additional information from the Applicant. If the requested information is not received within 30 calendar days from the date of the request, FEMA will consider the application to be incomplete and not approvable. Unless the HMA program is competitive, FEMA may provide technical assistance if requested to help the Applicant respond to the RFI and set a new timeframe for the Applicant response. The Applicant may consider phasing the project if it is feasible to do so.

Informal –
Second
Request
The Hazard Mitigation Branch Chief requests additional information. If the requested information is not received within 14 calendar days from the date of the request, FEMA will consider the application to be incomplete and not approvable. FEMA may provide technical assistance if requested, unless the HMA program is competitive. FEMA, Recipient, and Applicant staff should meet to resolve any open items within the allotted timeframe, if necessary.

Formal In a formal letter to the Applicant, the Regional Administrator requests additional information and documents previous requests. If the requested information is not received within 30 calendar days from the date of the request, FEMA will consider the application to be incomplete and not approvable.

Formal If the Regional Administrator does not receive the requested information within 30 calendar days, he or she will determine the requested project application to be ineligible for funding. The second formal letter is a denial.

The Regional Administrator may choose to allow more time, with justification. FEMA encourages subapplicants to coordinate early with the Applicant to identify potential technical assistance needs. If technical data is not readily available, the subapplicant should coordinate with the Applicant to determine whether the project should be phased to develop required data.

Applicants may contact the FEMA Regional Office to request technical assistance, relevant training, or other needed support.

Part V. Application Review Information 79
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *330
Figure 5: RFI Flowchart
Part V. Application Review Information 80
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *331
PART VI. AWARD ADMINISTRATION

INFORMATION
Part VI describes how successful Applicants will receive award information (see Figure 6).

Additionally, this part describes administrative requirements from the time an award is made through closeout and the maintenance actions that must occur after an activity is complete.

A. Notice of Award
FEMA will provide an award package to the Recipient for successful subapplications.

Subrecipients will receive notice of award from the Recipient.

Figure 6: Award Process
Part VI. Award Administration Information 81
Award packages for PDM and FMA include an award letter, FF 112-0-7, Obligating Document for Awards/Amendments, Articles of Agreement, EHP award conditions, and/or other conditions that must be signed by the Applicant in eGrants and returned to FEMA for approval before funds can be obligated.

For HMGP, award packages for subawards include an approval letter, an obligation document, and EHP award conditions and/or other conditions.

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *332
When the Applicant or subapplicant accepts an award, they are denoted as the Recipient and subrecipient, respectively. The Recipient and subrecipient agree to abide by the Federal award terms and conditions as set forth in the Articles of Agreement or the FEMA-State Agreement.

B. Risk Assessment Prior to PDM and FMA Award
Prior to making an award, FEMA will evaluate a pass-through entity to determine the level of risk when there is a history of failure to comply with general or specific terms and conditions of a Federal award or failure to meet the expected performance goals. If FEMA determines that a Federal award will be made, special conditions that correspond to the degree of risk assessed may be applied to the award. Pass-through entities must also conduct risk assessments of their subrecipients.

Additional conditions or requirements may include:
i Requiring payments as reimbursement rather than advance payments i Withholding authority to proceed to the next phase until receipt of evidence of acceptable progress is provided
i Requiring additional, more detailed financial reports i Requiring additional project monitoring
i Requiring the pass-through entity to obtain technical or management assistance i Establishing additional prior approvals, such as requiring the preparation of a management plan
For PDM and FMA, pass-through entities can appeal using the reconsideration process, see Part V, B.3. FEMA will remove special conditions if the circumstances that prompted them have been corrected.

C. Requirements for Pass-Through Entities
All pass-through entities must:
i Collect and review financial and programmatic reports i Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes information required in 2 CFR Section 200.331
i 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 described 2 CFR Section 200.331 i Consider imposing additional specific subaward conditions on a subrecipient, if appropriate, and notify subrecipient, as described in 2 CFR Section 200.207 Part VI. Award Administration Information 82
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *333
i Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes; that the activities are in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include the requirement found in 2 CFR Section 200.331. Monitoring must include:
Reviewing financial and programmatic reports
Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes prompt and appropriate action for any deficiencies discovered through audits, on-site reviews, and other monitoring activity
Issuing a management decision for audit findings as required by 2 CFR Section 200.521
i Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by 2 CFR Subpart F when it is expected that the subrecipient’s Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR Section 200.501 i Consider whether the results of the subrecipient’s audits, on-site reviews, or other monitoring indicate conditions that necessitate adjustments to the pass-through entity’s own records i Consider taking enforcement action against noncompliant subrecipients as described in 2 CFR Section 200.338
C.1 Termination
The Federal Award may be terminated in whole or in part by FEMA or the pass-through entity if the non-Federal entity fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the award, for cause, with consent of the non-Federal entity when all parties agree with the termination conditions, or by the non-Federal entity upon sending to FEMA or the pass-through entity written notification of the termination including the reason for the termination.

C.1.1 Additional Specific Award Conditions or Terminations in the PDM and FMA Programs
FEMA will reconsider determinations of noncompliance, additional award conditions, or its decision to terminate a Federal award. The pass-through entity must send information for reconsideration to FEMA Headquarters within the time specified in the notification from FEMA.

A FEMA decision will uphold or overturn a decision regarding an award based on information provided by the pass-through entity and subrecipient, and application, award, and subaward management records collected by FEMA.

Part VI. Award Administration Information 83
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *334
D. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
This section discusses cost-share documentation, SOW changes, budget changes, program POP, requests for advances and reimbursements, program income, Federal tax income on mitigation project funds, noncompliance, and the Davis-Bacon Act.

D.1 Cost-Share Documentation
Requirements for cash and third-party in-kind contributions can be found in 2 CFR Section 200.306. Cash and third-party in-kind contributions are only allowable for eligible program costs. The following documentation is required for cash and third-party in-kind contributions:
i Identification of contributions in the cost estimate
i Record of donor
i Dates of donation
i Rates for staffing, equipment usage, supplies, etc.
i Amounts of donation or value of donation (also see 2 CFR Section 200.434) i Deposit slips for cash contributions
Such documentation must be kept on file by the non-Federal entity.

D.2 Scope of Work Changes
Failure on the part of the pass-through entity to obtain prior written approval when required may result in the
disallowance of costs. Even in cases where the passthrough entity has authority for rebudgeting (less than 10 percent of non-construction activities), if a program audit determines that the costs do not meet the required
allowable and reasonable determination, the costs may be disallowed.

In accordance with 2 CFR Section 200.308, pass-through entities must obtain FEMA’s prior approval whenever there is a proposed SOW change. Requests for changes to the SOW after award are permissible as long as they are consistent with the intent of the program. Requests must be made in writing and demonstrate the need for the scope change. The request also should include a revised scope, schedule, and budget. Any SOW changes are subject to all programmatic requirements, including EHP review requirements. All approvals will be at FEMA’s discretion.

Part VI. Award Administration Information 84

SCOPE CHANGE
Recipients and subrecipients must
request FEMA’s approval for a
change in scope after the award has
been made. The change must be
consistent with the intent of the
program. Requests must be made in
writing and demonstrate the need for
a change.

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *335
D.3 Budget Changes
Pass-through entities are permitted to rebudget within the approved direct cost budget to meet unanticipated
requirements and may make limited program changes to the approved budget. For more information on direct cost
categories, see 2 CFR Section 200.308 and 2 CFR Subpart E. The following types of post-award changes to budgets will require the prior written approval of FEMA. When
budget changes are made, all programmatic requirements continue to apply. Additional information regarding budget adjustments and revisions can be found in 2 CFR Section 200.308.

D.3.1 Non-construction Projects
i Non-construction subaward adjustments of more than 10 percent in any direct cost categories where the awarding Agency’s share exceeds $100,000
i Any changes that would result in additional funding to the grant D.3.2 Construction Projects
i All construction cost adjustments that lead to the need for additional funds i Any changes to access contingency funds and rebudget to another direct cost category D.3.3 Cost Overruns and Underruns
A cost overrun or underrun to a subaward can result from a scope, schedule, or budget change.

The pass-through entity must notify FEMA as soon as an underrun or overrun is identified. Prior to re-directing underrun funds to overrun requests within the same award, the pass-through entity must request approval from FEMA for PDM and FMA. The pass-through entity may request additional Federal funds for identified overruns, which FEMA may approve if program funds are available. The subaward must continue to meet cost share and eligibility requirements. For projects, a new BCA may be required.

D.3.4 Contingencies
A contingency cost is an allowance in the total cost estimate to cover situations that cannot be fully defined at the time the cost estimate is prepared but that will likely result in additional eligible costs. Allowances for major project scope changes, unforeseen risks, or extraordinary events may not be included as contingency costs.

Part VI. Award Administration Information 85

BUDGET CHANGE
In limited cases, for non-construction
projects, Recipients and subrecipients
are permitted to make adjustments
within the approved direct cost
category to meet unanticipated
requirements.

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *336
For project applications, cost estimates may include contingencies; however, the recommended total contingency range is 1 to 5 percent. Contingency costs may be raised to 7 percent for historic properties as defined under the NHPA. A Contingency cost should be included as a line item in the budget section of a project application. As with other line items in the budget, the subapplicant should justify the contingency estimate based on the nature of the proposed project.

The total project cost, which may include contingencies, will be the one used to compute the BCA.

Contingency funds are not automatically available for use. Prior to their release, contingency funds must be rebudgeted to another direct cost category. Post-award changes to the budget require prior written approval from FEMA (see Part VI, D.3). The written request should demonstrate what unforeseen condition related to the project arose that required the use of contingency funds.

D.4 Program Period of Performance
The POP is the period of time during which the non-Federal entity may incur new obligations to carry out all administrative actions and award activities, and incur costs. The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity must include start and end dates of the POP in the Federal award.

The Recipient is expected to complete the Federal award activities and to incur and expend approved funds within the POP. The POP for HMGP begins with the opening of the application period and ends no later than 36 months from the close of the application period. The POP for the PDM and FMA programs begins with the opening of the application period and ends no later than 36 months from the date of subapplication selection.

FEMA will not establish activity completion timelines for individual subawards. Pass-through entities are responsible for ensuring that all approved activities are completed by the end of the POP award.

The POP does not include the 90-day report submission period and costs incurred during that period are not chargeable to the FEMA award. HMA Recipients and subrecipients must complete all administrative actions within the POP if they seek Federal funds to cover the costs.

D.4.1 Extensions
Requests for extensions to an award POP will be evaluated by FEMA but will not be automatically approved. The Regional Administrator can extend the POP for up to 12 months with justification. All requests to extend the award POP beyond 12 months from the original grant POP end date must be approved by FEMA Headquarters.

All extension requests must be submitted to FEMA at least 60 days prior to the expiration of the award POP and justifications must be submitted in writing. The justification must include:
i Verification that progress has been made as described in quarterly reports Part VI. Award Administration Information 86
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *337
i Reason(s) for delay
i Current status of the activity/activities
i Current POP termination date and new projected completion date i Remaining available funds, both Federal and non-Federal i Budget outlining how remaining Federal and non-Federal funds will be expended i Plan for completion, including updated schedule
D.5 Requests for Advances and Reimbursements
The Recipient’s responsibility for an HMA grant is to process requests for advances and reimbursements of funds. The pass-through entity should establish accounting procedures to disburse money to subrecipients in a timely manner and should provide to subrecipients a POC for information on requesting and receiving the funds, records that must be maintained, forms to be used, and timelines for requesting the funds.

For PDM and FMA, the Payment and Reporting System (PARS) is used to transfer funds between FEMA and Recipients. Recipients shall submit a copy of Standard Form (SF) 425, Federal Financial Report (FFR), to FEMA via the eGrants system.

For HMGP, the Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Payment Management, Payment Management System, SMARTLINK, is used to transfer funds between FEMA and Recipients. Recipients shall submit a copy of the SF-425 to FEMA.

D.6 Program Income
FEMA encourages non-Federal entities to generate program income to help defray program costs. Program income is gross income received by the non-Federal entity directly generated by an award-supported activity or earned only as a result of the award during the award POP.

Program income may be derived from use or rental of real or personal property acquired with award funds, and sale of commodities or items fabricated under the award. Subrecipients must deduct this income from total project costs as specified in 2 CFR Sections 200.80 and 200.307.

D.7 Federal Income Tax on Mitigation Project Funds
FEMA mitigation payments that benefit property owners through the mitigation of their structures are not subject to Federal income taxation. FEMA mitigation payments to acquire a property will be treated as an involuntary conversion for tax purposes. These tax relief measures are effective for such payments made in all prior years. For more information, property owners should consult the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) office or a tax advisor.

Part VI. Award Administration Information 87
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *338
D.8 Remedies for Noncompliance
If a pass-through entity fails to comply with Federal statutes, regulations, or terms or conditions of a Federal award, whether stated in an assurance, a State Administrative Plan or application, a notice of award, this guidance, or elsewhere, FEMA may take one or more of the following actions, as appropriate:
i Temporarily withhold cash payments pending correction of the deficiency i Disallow (that is, deny both use of funds and matching credit for) all or part of the cost of the activity or action not in compliance
i Wholly or partly suspend or terminate the Federal award i Initiate suspension or debarment proceedings
i Withhold further awards for HMA grant program(s)
i Take other remedies that may be legally available
Additional details can be found in 2 CFR Section 200.338.

D.9 Davis-Bacon Act
The Davis-Bacon and Related Acts apply to contractors and subcontractors performing on federally funded or assisted, or District of Columbia, contracts in excess of $2,000 for the construction, alteration, or repair (including painting and decorating) of public buildings or public works. Contractors and subcontractors must pay their laborers and mechanics employed under the contract no less than the locally prevailing wages and fringe benefits for corresponding work on similar projects in the area. The Act directs the U.S. Department of Labor to determine such locally prevailing wage rates. The prevailing wage provisions apply to the “Related Acts,” under which Federal agencies assist construction projects through grants, loans, loan guarantees, and insurance.

The Davis-Bacon Act applies only to work for which FEMA contracts directly with a contractor and does not apply to Recipient/pass-through entity–contracted work.

E. Reporting Requirements
Recipients and subrecipients must maintain records of work and expenditures. Recipients submit quarterly financial and performance reports to FEMA on January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30. The first quarterly reports are due within 30 days of the end of the first Federal quarter following the initial award. FEMA may waive the initial reports. The Recipient shall submit quarterly financial status and performance reports thereafter until the grant ends. Failure to submit financial and performance reports to FEMA in a timely manner may result in an Part VI. Award Administration Information 88
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *339
inability to access grant funds until proper reports are received by FEMA. Recipients are encouraged to contact FEMA should this occur.

Recipients must use the FFR (SF-425) and the Standard Form Performance Progress Report (SFPPR). PDM and FMA quarterly financial reports must be submitted via PARS. The SF-PPR must be submitted for PDM and FMA grants via the eGrants system. The SF-PPR must be submitted for HMGP via NEMIS by directly entering data into the Quarterly Report module or by sending a pre-approved Excel spreadsheet. Recipients without access to NEMIS should coordinate with their Region for further guidance. Hard copies are no longer accepted.

E.1 Federal Financial Reports
Recipients shall submit a quarterly FFR. Obligations and expenditures must be reported on a quarterly basis using the FFR (SF-425), which is due to FEMA within 30 days of the end of each calendar quarter (e.g., for the quarter ending March 31, the FFR is due no later than April 30). A report must be submitted for every quarter of the POP, including partial calendar quarters, as well as for periods where no activity occurs. Future awards and fund drawdowns may be withheld if these reports are delinquent. The final FFR is due 90 days after the end date of the POP.

OMB has directed that the FFR (SF-425) replace the SF-269, SF-269A, SF-272, and SF-272A.

The SF-425 consolidates the Federal Status Report and the Federal Cash Transaction Report into a single report. The SF-425 is intended to provide Federal agencies and Recipients with a standard format and consistent reporting requirements.

Reporting periods and due dates:
i October 1 – December 31; Due January 30
i January 1 – March 31; Due April 30
i April 1 – June 30; Due July 30
i July 1 – September 30; Due October 30
For the HMGP program, quarterly financial reports must be submitted via SMARTLINK. For the PDM and FMA program, quarterly financial reports must be submitted via PARS.

E.2 Performance Reports
The Recipient shall submit a quarterly performance report for each award.

Performance reports should include:
i Reporting period, date of report, and Recipient POC name and contact information i SF-PPR must be used for PDM and FMA and must be submitted via eGrants Part VI. Award Administration Information 89
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *340
i Project identification information, including FEMA project number (including disaster number and declaration date for HMGP), subrecipient, and project type using standard eGrants/NEMIS project type codes
i Significant activities and developments that have occurred or have shown progress during the quarter, including a comparison of actual accomplishments to the work schedule objectives established in the subaward
i Percent completion and whether completion of work is on schedule; a discussion of any problems, delays, or adverse conditions that will impair the ability to meet the timelines stated in the subaward; and anticipated completion date i Status of costs, including whether the costs are (1) unchanged, (2) overrun, or (3) underrun.

If there is a change in cost status, the report should include a narrative describing the change.

Also, include amount dispersed to subrecipient by activity. i A statement of whether a request to extend the award POP is anticipated i Incremental funding amounts (SFM) and progress completed i For acquisition projects, the current status of each property for which settlement was completed in that quarter
i Additional information as required by FEMA to assess the progress of an award FEMA may suspend drawdowns from SMARTLINK or PARS if quarterly performance reports are not submitted on time.

E.3 Final Reports
The pass-through entity must submit final reports when it determines that all administrative actions and required work have been completed. This final report may be submitted prior to the end of the POP. The pass-through entity must submit a final SF-425 and Performance Report no later than 90 days after the end date of the POP, per 2 CFR Section 200.343.

F. Closeout
This section discusses subaward and award closeout.

F.1 Subaward Closeout
As required by 44 CFR 206.438(d), the Recipient will submit a letter signed by the Governor’s Representative or equivalent certifying that:
i The reported costs were incurred in the performance of eligible work i The approved work was completed and the mitigation measure is in compliance with the provisions of the FEMA-State Agreement
Part VI. Award Administration Information 90
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *341
Additionally, the subaward closeout request must include the following:
i Verification that any program income has been deducted from total project costs as specified in 2 CFR Section 200.307
i Final site inspection report that includes photographs of the completed project i Final project costs, including Federal share, non-Federal share, administrative allowance (if applicable), and cost underrun and overruns
i Geospatial coordinates, in the form of latitude and longitude with an accuracy of +/- 20 meters (64 feet), have been provided for the project. For flood reduction, hazardous fuels reduction, and soil stabilization projects, an accurate recording of the official acreage, using open file formats geospatial files (i.e., shapefiles), must be submitted. i Certification and documentation to support that the project was completed in compliance with environmental conditions, required permits, and applicable building codes i Certification that the project meets NFIP insurance requirements (if applicable) i For new or updated hazard mitigation plans, a final copy of the FEMA-approved and community-adopted plan has been submitted
i For planning-related activities, the activity is consistent with 44 CFR Part 201 or 206 (HMGP)
i Other supporting documents required by FEMA to close mitigation project types as outlined in the HMA Job Aids: (1) Closeout Toolkit: Checklist for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and (2) Closeout Toolkit: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Subaward Closeout FAQs FEMA will review all closeout documentation for compliance and may send the Recipient a request for additional supporting documentation, if needed.

For project-specific requirements, see the Appendices and the Addendum to this HMA Guidance.

Recipients should closeout subawards as activities are completed. In addition, as cost underruns are identified, the Recipient should submit de-obligation requests to FEMA.

F.1.1 Subrecipient Records Retention
Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other subrecipient records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of 3 years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report in accordance with 2 CFR Sections 200.333 through 200.337.

There are some exceptions where the retention period may be longer than 3 years as noted in 2 CFR Sections 200.333 through 200.337 and as required by the Recipient. The following examples are the most common instances:
i When the non-Federal entity is notified in writing by FEMA, the cognizant agency for audit, oversight agency for audit, cognizant agency for indirect costs, or pass-through entity to Part VI. Award Administration Information 91
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *342
extend the retention period, non-Federal entities must keep records for as long as indicated in the notification, which may be longer than 3 years.
i Records for real property and equipment acquired with Federal funds must generally be retained for 3 years after disposition. Records for project types where property may be acquired include safe rooms, flood risk reduction measures, and property acquisition and structural demolition/structure relocation.

For additional information about closeout for property acquisition and structure demolition or relocation projects, see Addendum, Part A.5. For additional information about closeout for mitigation reconstruction projects, see Addendum, Part D.5.

F.2 Award Closeout
The Recipient has up to 90 days following the expiration of the award POP to submit all financial, performance, and other reports required by FEMA. All administrative actions must also be completed during the award POP, except the actual submission of the required reports.

The Recipient must liquidate all obligations incurred under the award no later than 90 days after the POP expiration. The closeout process for the Recipient involves the following steps:
i The Recipient ensures all subawards have been closed out as identified in Part VI, F.1. i The Recipient reconciles/adjusts subaward costs, ensures that non-Federal share costs are documented, and ensures that all costs submitted are eligible according to the FEMAapproved SOW. i The Recipient receives and processes cost adjustments or returns unobligated funds to FEMA via SMARTLINK or PARS. Final payment is made to the Recipient. i The Recipient notifies FEMA that the award is ready for final closeout. i The Recipient submits a closeout letter, signed by the GAR, to FEMA with supporting documentation, including:
Statement that the SOW(s) has been completed as approved SF-425 (for PARS, the final SF-425 is also submitted via PARS) SF-270, Request for Advance or Reimbursement, if applicable, or request for deobligation of unused funds, if applicable SF-428, Report on Government Property, if applicable
Statement that no inventions were made or patents applied for in the implementation of the award
Part VI. Award Administration Information 92
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *343
F.2.1 Recipient Records Retention
The Recipient must maintain the complete Federal award closeout records file for at least 3 years from the submission date of its final expenditure report in accordance with 2 CFR Sections 200.333 through 200.337. FEMA recommends that Recipients remind subrecipients of the 3- year records retention requirement and communicate the submission date of the final expenditure reports to FEMA.

FEMA retains the right to disallow costs and recover funds on the basis of a later audit or other review after closeout. FEMA must make any cost disallowance determination and notify the pass-through entity within the record retention period.

F.2.2 Update of Repetitive Loss Database
Recipients with projects that mitigate a repetitive loss property, as identified by the NFIP, must update the NFIP Repetitive Loss Database as project activities are completed:
i For acquisition and demolition or relocation projects, Recipients must provide this update when there is no longer an insurable structure on the property. i For elevation, reconstruction, floodproofing, and localized flood control projects, Recipients must provide this update when the approved activity is complete or otherwise effective.

The NFIP defines a repetitive loss property as any insurable building for which two or more claims of more than $1,000 were paid by the NFIP within any rolling 10-year period since 1978.

At least two of the claims must be more than 10 days apart but within 10 years of each other. A repetitive loss property may or may not be currently insured by the NFIP.

Note the NFIP definition of repetitive loss property described in this section is different from the FMA definition after the passage of Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, Section 1370. Biggert-Waters created a new definition for a repetitive loss property for FMA.

For further information on repetitive loss property, see Part VIII, C.1.

To gain access to sensitive NFIP data, government officials are required to obtain a User Name and Password for access to Data Exchange, the Repetitive Loss Database that is managed by the NFIP Legacy Systems Contractor. Currently, only two access accounts are permitted per State and are reserved for the SHMO and the State NFIP Coordinator or their designee. To obtain a User Name and Password for access to Data Exchange, send an email with your name, title, contact information, and the reason that access to Data Exchange is needed to FEMA. Once FEMA authorizes you for NFIP Legacy Systems access to Data Exchange, you will be notified via email.

To maintain accurate, up-to-date records for all repetitive loss properties mitigated as a result of HMA grant funds, FEMA requires that the Recipient submit FEMA Form AW-501, NFIP Repetitive Loss Update Worksheet (OMB 1660-0022). Form AW-501 must be submitted along with documentation supporting the change in the mitigated status of a structure (e.g., Elevation Part VI. Award Administration Information 93
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *344
Certificate). This form must be submitted for each property mitigated with HMA award funds prior to closeout. The AW-501 form and instructions for completing and submitting it can be found on the FEMA website: http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=3244. Detailed AW-501 forms for individual repetitive loss properties can be obtained by accessing Data Exchange and selecting the link to AW-501 data after selecting to look up property by property locator or repetitive loss number.

States accessing NFIP data via the electronic systems (Data Exchange) are advised of, and must acknowledge, the sensitive nature of the information and the need to prevent the release of the data to unauthorized users. When the data are released to a local government by either the State or the appropriate FEMA Regional Office, the local government must be notified in writing that the records relating to individuals and properties are being made available through the FEMA routine use policy for the specific purposes of mitigation planning, research, analysis, and feasibility studies consistent with the NFIP and for uses that further the floodplain management and hazard mitigation goals of the State and FEMA.

Part VI. Award Administration Information 94
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *345
PART VII. FEMA CONTACTS
Part VII identifies resources that may help Applicants and subapplicants request HMA funds.

If requested, FEMA will provide technical assistance to both Applicants and subapplicants regarding:
i General questions about the HMA programs
i Specific questions about subapplications after the application period opens i Feasibility and effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and EHP compliance during the application period
i The eGrants application processes
For additional technical assistance resources, including HMA application and award resources, see Part IX.C.7.

FEMA encourages Applicants and subapplicants to seek technical assistance early in the application period by contacting their appropriate FEMA Regional Office. Table 7 shows which States are served by each FEMA Region.

Contact information for FEMA Regional Offices is provided at http://www.fema.gov/regionaloperations.

Contact information for each SHMO is provided at http://www.fema.gov/state-hazardmitigation-officers.

Table 7: FEMA Regions
FEMA
Region Serving
I Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont II New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands III Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia IV Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee V Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin VI Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas
VII Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
VIII Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming IX Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands X Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
Part VII. FEMA Contacts 95
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *346
PART VIII.ADDITIONAL PROGRAM

GUIDANCE
Part VIII provides additional information applicable to assistance available under each particular HMA grant program. This section supplements the information provided in Parts I through VII, and the unique project type guidance included in the Addendum. Part VIII does not provide all of the information necessary to apply for funding through an HMA program and must be read in conjunction with other relevant sections of this guidance.

A. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
Most of the information that an Applicant or subapplicant needs to apply for an HMGP award or that a Recipient or subrecipient needs to manage an HMGP award is provided in Parts I through VII. This section contains supplemental guidance specific to HMGP.

A.1 Recipient Request for HMGP
Funds
HMGP is authorized through a Presidential major
disaster declaration for activities that provide a
beneficial impact to the disaster area. A Governor, or
equivalent may request that HMGP funding be
available throughout the State, territory, or tribal area or only in specific jurisdictions. For information
regarding the declaration process and authorization of
HMGP, see 44 CFR Part 206 Subpart B and seek
assistance from the appropriate FEMA Regional
Office.

The GAR or equivalent serves as the grant administrator for all funds provided under HMGP (44 CFR Section 206.438(d)). The GAR responsibilities include providing technical advice and assistance to eligible subapplicants and/or subrecipients and ensuring that all potential subapplicants are aware of available assistance for the submission of all documents necessary for award.

A.2 State Administrative Plan
The State Administrative Plan is a procedural guide that details how the Recipient will administer HMGP. Recipients must have a current Administrative Plan approved by FEMA before receiving HMGP funds. The State Administrative Plan may become an annex or chapter of the State’s overall emergency response and operations plan or comprehensive mitigation program strategy.

Part VIII. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 96

TRIBAL HMGP PRESIDENTIAL

MAJOR DISASTER DECLARATION

REQUEST
Per the SRIA, federally-recognized tribes
can submit their own request for a
Presidential major disaster declaration
within their impacted areas. Because
federally-recognized tribes do not follow
designated State or regional boundaries,
all geographic areas covered by a tribal
plan will still be eligible for HMGP
funding after a disaster, even if the area
crosses State lines.

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *347
At a minimum, the State Administrative Plan must:
i Designate the State agency that will act as Recipient i Identify the SHMO, or equivalent
i Identify staffing requirements and resources, including a procedure for expanding staff temporarily following a disaster, if necessary
i Establish procedures to guide implementation activities, including Recipient management costs and distribution of subrecipient management costs i Comply with 44 CFR Section 206.437
A.2.1 Designation of Recipient and State Hazard Mitigation Officer Typically, the agency designated to act as Recipient manages the State responsibilities for Federal and State disaster assistance and is responsible for meeting the mitigation planning requirement. Although a single agency may administer the funding, the Governor may establish an interagency mitigation team to manage the State mitigation program.

The SHMO is typically responsible for managing the State’s mitigation program, coordinating the mitigation team, and developing as well as implementing the hazard mitigation plan. States often rely on staff from the emergency management agency or other State agencies to augment the staff of the SHMO following a disaster.

A.2.2 Staffing Requirements and the Mitigation Team
The State Administrative Plan should identify the positions and minimum number of personnel needed to implement HMGP. Key positions may include clerical, administrative, and financial management staff; program specialists to support mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation activities and to conduct BCAs; and environmental planners. However, the organizational structure of the staff should remain flexible as it may be augmented as needed with emergency management agency staff, staff from other State agencies, or temporary staff or contractors hired to administer HMGP effectively. The State Administrative Plan should include a procedure for expanding staff resources and using HMGP management costs.

The mitigation team may include representatives of agencies involved with emergency management, natural resources, floodplain management, environmental issues, historic preservation and archeology, soil conservation, transportation, planning and zoning, housing and economic development, building regulations, infrastructure regulations or construction, public information, insurance, regional and local government, academia, business, and nonprofit organizations. With the varied backgrounds and specialized expertise of members, the team creates interagency, interdisciplinary insight regarding risks and potential solutions. The Part VIII. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 97 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *348
interagency aspect of the team can diffuse political pressure on the Recipient agency and increase the availability of resources. The mitigation team may support the Recipient agency by:
i Developing a comprehensive mitigation strategy
i Supporting development and implementation of the State Mitigation Plan i Communicating with local governments regarding State mitigation priorities i Building public and business/industry support for mitigation initiatives i Reviewing, assigning priority, and recommending mitigation actions for implementation i Seeking funding for implementation of mitigation measures A.2.3 Procedures to Guide Implementation Activities
The State Administrative Plan must establish procedures to:
i Identify and notify potential subapplicants of the availability of HMGP funding i Provide potential subapplicants with information on the application process, program eligibility, and deadlines
i Determine subapplicant eligibility
i Provide information for EHP and floodplain management reviews in conformance with 44 CFR Parts 9 and 10 (or FD 108-1)
i Process requests for advances of funds and reimbursements i Monitor and evaluate the progress and completion of funded mitigation activities i Review and approve cost overruns
i Process appeals
i Provide technical assistance as required to subrecipients i Comply with the administrative requirements of 44 CFR Part 206 and 2 CFR Part 200 i Comply with audit requirements of 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart F i Provide quarterly progress reports to FEMA on funded mitigation activities A.2.4 Sliding Scale
The maximum amount of HMGP funding available is calculated using a “sliding scale” formula based on a percentage of the estimated total Federal assistance under the Stafford Act, excluding administrative costs for each Presidential major disaster declaration.

Part VIII. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 98 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *349
Applicants with a FEMA-approved State or Tribal Standard Mitigation Plan may receive:
i Up to 15 percent of the first $2 billion of the estimated aggregate amount of disaster assistance
i Up to 10 percent for the next portion of the estimated aggregate amount more than $2 billion and up to $10 billion
i Up to 7.5 percent for the next portion of the estimated aggregate amount more than $10 billion and up to $35.333 billion
Applicants with a FEMA-approved State or Tribal Enhanced Mitigation Plan are eligible for HMGP funding not to exceed 20 percent of the estimated total Federal assistance under the Stafford Act, up to $35.333 billion of such assistance, excluding administrative costs authorized for the disaster.

A.2.5 Management Costs
The Recipient must amend its State Administrative Plan to include procedures for determining the reasonable amount or percentage of management costs that it will pass through to the subrecipient, as well as closeout and audit procedures before FEMA will obligate any management costs (see 44 CFR Sections 207.4(c) and 207.7(b)). The Recipient will determine the amount, if any, of management costs it will pass through to the subrecipient. FEMA has not established any minimum for what constitutes a reasonable amount.

A.2.6 Submission and Approval Deadlines
A State may forward a new or updated State Administrative Plan to FEMA for approval at any time. A State should review and update its plan annually and must review and update the plan following a Presidential major disaster declaration if required to meet current policy guidance or changes to the administration of the program. If a review indicates that there will be no changes to the current State Administrative Plan, the Recipient should notify FEMA of this within 90 days of the Presidential major disaster declaration.

A.3 Program Administration by States
The SRIA amends the Stafford Act, which authorizes HMGP, and provides FEMA with the authority to implement the provisions of Program Administration by States (PAS) as a pilot program. It can also apply to a Presidential major disaster declaration before that date if the HMGP application period is still open. States or federally-recognized tribes wishing to participate in the PAS pilot may be delegated certain, traditional FEMA responsibilities.

Recipients that wish to participate in the PAS pilot may be delegated additional defined responsibilities by FEMA based on an analysis of their staffing plan, grants management and hazard mitigation experience, and demonstrated past performance. In return for assuming Part VIII. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 99 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *350
additional responsibilities, Recipients will have increased control and oversight to implement their HMGP.

Many of the potential tasks that could be delegated to a State under PAS are already being completed by the Recipients. For example, the Recipient is responsible for preparing a BCA for project subapplications. Under the pilot program, FEMA’s role would change. The current practice is that FEMA reviews and approves all applications. Under the pilot, the Recipient may opt to conduct the agreed upon reviews without seeking approval from FEMA. Additionally, under this pilot program, Recipients will have increased control of approval of SOW changes, cost overruns and underruns, reimbursement claims to subrecipient communities, and local mitigation plans. FEMA will have a reduced role but will maintain oversight responsibilities.

The PAS pilot is intended to facilitate and accelerate the review and approval process.

For the PAS pilot, EHP review of HMGP applications and amendments, including amendments made post-award will not be delegated to the Recipients. FEMA is authorized to delegate EHP reviews to States for compliance with HMGP eligibility and EHP requirements. FEMA retains the final review and approval authority on the environmental impact of any proposed Federal action or undertaking. However, Recipients may assist FEMA with preparation of the EHP review. For additional information, see the Addendum to the Hazard Mitigation Assistance Unified Guidance: Program Administration by States Pilot, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program at http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/32765. Additionally, an FAQs document on PAS is available on the HMA website.

A.4 HMGP Funding
FEMA will determine the funding it will make
available for HMGP by a lock-in, which will
act as a ceiling for funds available to a
Recipient, including its subrecipients. The
level of HMGP funding available for a given
disaster is based on a percentage of the
estimated total Federal assistance under the
Stafford Act, excluding administrative costs
for each Presidential major disaster
declaration, as described in 44 CFR Section
206.432(b).

An initial estimate will be provided within 35
days of the Presidential major disaster
declaration or soon thereafter, in conjunction
with calculation of the preliminary lock-in
amount(s) for management costs.

THE HMGP FINAL LOCK-IN
Total State Management Cost
(4.89% of Total Available HMGP):

Prior to 12 Months:

FEMA obligates up to 75 percent of total HMGP
funding separate from State Management Cost
At 12 Months:

FEMA establishes the full HMGP ceiling
amount
After 12 Months:

For a catastrophic disaster, the final
lock-in amount is adjusted upon
request of a Recipient
Part VIII. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 100 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *351
The 6-month estimate is no longer the floor or a guaranteed minimum funding for HMGP. The 12-month lock-in is the maximum amount available. Prior to 12 months, total obligations are limited to not more than 75 percent of any current estimate, without the concurrence of the Regional Administrator or Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) with Disaster Recovery Manager authority and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO).

FEMA will establish the HMGP funding ceiling for each disaster at 12 months after the Presidential major disaster declaration. This amount, also known as the “lock-in” value for HMGP, is the maximum that FEMA can obligate for eligible HMGP activities. The OCFO will continue to provide HMGP estimates prior to 12 months; however, these estimates will not represent a minimum or floor amount.

In rare circumstances, when a catastrophic disaster has resulted in major fluctuations of projected disaster costs, FEMA, at the request of the Recipient, may conduct an additional review after the 12 month lock-in. If the resulting review shows that the amount of funds available for HMGP is different than previously calculated, the final lock-in amount will be adjusted accordingly.

The Recipient must justify in writing to the Regional Administrator any requests to change the amount of the lock-in or perform subsequent reviews. The Regional Administrator will recommend to the Chief Financial Officer whether to approve the change. Changes to the lockin will not be made without the approval of the Chief Financial Officer. The Chief Financial Officer may change the amount of the lock-in if it is determined that the projections used to determine the lock-in were inaccurate to such a degree that the change to the lock-in would be material, or for other reasons in his or her discretion that may reasonably warrant such changes.

The Chief Financial Officer will not make such changes without consultation with the Recipient and the Regional Administrator. The HMGP ceiling review process is summarized below (see Figure 7).

Part VIII. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 101 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *352
Figure 7: HMGP Ceiling Review Process
A.5 HMGP Management Costs
The amounts, allowable uses, and procedures for HMGP management costs are established in 44 CFR Part 207. Examples of allowable management costs are listed in Part III, E.1.5. HMGP management costs will be provided at a rate of 4.89 percent of the HMGP ceiling. The Recipient, in its State Administrative Plan, will determine the amount, if any, of management costs it will pass through to the subrecipient (see Part VIII, A.2.5). Management costs are provided outside of and separate from the HMGP ceiling amount. There is no additional costshare requirement for HMGP management costs.

FEMA will establish the amount of funds that it will make available for management costs by calculating a lock-in, which will act as a ceiling for management cost funds available to a Recipient, including its subrecipients. FEMA will determine, and provide to the Recipient, a preliminary management cost lock-in estimate at 30 days after the date of declaration (or soon thereafter). For planning purposes, FEMA will revise the lock-in amount at 6 months. FEMA will determine the final lock-in amount 12 months after the declaration, or after determination of the final lock-in ceiling, whichever is later.

Upon receipt of the initial 30-day lock-in, Recipients may request that FEMA obligate 25 percent of the estimated lock-in amount(s) to the Recipient. No later than 120 days after the date of declaration, the Recipient must submit documentation to support costs and activities for which Part VIII. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 102 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *353
the projected lock-in for management cost funding will be used. In extraordinary circumstances, FEMA may approve a request by a Recipient to submit supporting documentation after 120 days.

FEMA will work with the Recipient to approve or reject the documentation submitted within 30 days of receipt. If the documentation is rejected, the Recipient will have 30 days to resubmit it for reconsideration and approval. FEMA will not obligate any additional management costs unless the Recipient’s documentation is approved.

The documentation for management costs must include:
i A description of activities, personnel requirements, and other costs for which the Recipient will use the management cost funding provided under this part i The Recipient’s plan for expending and monitoring the funds provided under this part and ensuring sufficient funds are budgeted for award closeout i An estimate of the percentage or amount of pass-through funds for management costs provided under this part that the Recipient will make available to subrecipients, and the basis, criteria, or formula for determining the subrecipient percentage or amount (e.g., number of projects, complexity of projects)
Upon receipt of the 6-month management costs lock-in, and if the Recipient can justify a bona fide need for additional management costs, the Recipient may submit a request to the Regional Administrator for an interim obligation. Any interim obligation must be approved by the Chief Financial Officer and will not exceed an amount equal to 10 percent of the 6-month lock-in amount, except in extraordinary circumstances.

The Recipient must justify in writing to the Regional Administrator any requests to change the amount of the lock-in or the cap, extend the time period before lock-in, or request an interim obligation of funding at the time of the 6-month lock-in adjustment. The Regional Administrator will recommend to the Chief Financial Officer whether to change the amount of the lock-in or the cap, approve the extension, or approve an interim obligation. Changes to the lock-in, extensions, or interim obligations will not be made without the approval of the Chief Financial Officer.

The available period to expend management costs is 8 years from the declaration date. The Recipient may expend management cost funds for allowable costs for a maximum of 8 years from the date of a Presidential major disaster declaration or 180 days after the latest performance period of a non-management cost HMGP project expires, whichever is sooner. The period of availability may be extended only at the written justified request of the Recipient, with the recommendation of the Regional Administrator and with the approval of the Chief Financial Officer.

For additional information on HMGP management costs, see 44 CFR Part 207.

Part VIII. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 103 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *354
A.6 Eligible Subapplicants
In addition to the eligible subapplicants described in Part III, A, PNP organizations may act as the subapplicant for HMGP. PNP organizations or institutions that provide an essential government service are defined in 44 CFR Section 206.221(e). Each subapplication from a PNP must include either:
i An effective ruling letter from the IRS granting tax exemption under Section 501(c), (d), or (e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended
i State certification, under State law, of nonprofit status A qualified conservation organization, as defined at 44 CFR Section 80.3(h), is the only PNP organization eligible to apply for property acquisition and demolition or relocation projects.

A.7 Submission of HMGP Subapplications
The Recipient must submit all HMGP subapplications to FEMA within 12 months of the date of the Presidential major disaster declaration. Upon written request and justification from the Recipient, FEMA may extend the application submission timeline in 30- to 90-day increments not to exceed a total extension of 180 days, in the event of extraordinary conditions. For additional information, see 44 CFR Section 206.436. Additional time may be available based on meeting the criteria of the Stafford Act, Section 301. To qualify, the requestor must justify how the event for which the additional time is needed created the situation in which the Recipient cannot meet the regulatory administrative deadline.

Extensions beyond regulatory time limits will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Stafford Act Section 301 (Waiver of Administrative Conditions) provides relief for the rare circumstance when the magnitude of the event for which the extension is requested prevents the Recipient from meeting program administrative requirements. The Recipient must submit the request to the FIMA Associate Administrator through the Regional Administrator or, if there is a Joint Field Office, through the FCO. The Regional Administrator or FCO will provide his or her comments or concurrence and forward the request. The maximum time available is 90 days. The request must describe the conditions that preclude the Recipient from meeting the administrative requirements and must include a summary of current status, planned actions to meet the extension, and any resources that may be required. FEMA will consider the request and will provide a decision within 30 days.

A.8 Award Cost-Share Requirements
HMGP awards are required to have at least a 25 percent non-Federal cost share.

The Recipient may choose to meet the cost-share requirement by ensuring a minimum 25 percent non-Federal share for the overall HMGP award, rather than on an individual activity basis.

Part VIII. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 104 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *355
Recipients choosing this option should develop a cost-share strategy as part of their Administrative Plan for review and approval by FEMA.

If an Applicant chooses to fund individual projects
with non-Federal cost shares below 25 percent,
the Applicant must notify FEMA. If an Applicant
intends to implement this approach, the State
Administrative Plan must explain how the
Applicant will:
i Apply this approach in a fair and impartial
manner to all subapplications
i Monitor the cost share for the overall award
throughout the POP
i Address any cost-share shortfalls that may
occur during the POP and at closeout
If, at closeout, the non-Federal cost share of the
award is less than 25 percent of the total amount,
FEMA will recoup the amount of Federal funds
needed to bring the cost share into compliance.

Part VIII. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 105

STRATEGIC FUNDS MANAGEMENT,

PHASED PROJECTS, PRE-AWARD COSTS,

AND ADVANCE ASSISTANCE
SFM is designed to provide incremental
funding for eligible activities when the funds
are required.

Phased projects are those that receive
funding for only certain complex activities that
are approved to allow the Applicant to develop
a full work scope/data package to support the
full project description.

Pre-award costs are eligible costs incurred by
the Applicant in advance of receiving funds.

These activities are reimbursed when the
project is approved and funded.

Advance Assistance provides
Applicants/subapplicants with resources to
develop mitigation strategies and obtain data
to prioritize, select, and develop complete
HMGP applications in a timely manner.

A.9 Strategic Funds Management
SFM is a tool that FEMA uses to manage the Disaster Relief Fund more efficiently. SFM promotes fiscal responsibility and better project management by incrementally funding activities as each project milestone is reached. SFM allows FEMA to reduce the amount of unexpended obligations over time by obligating project funds when subrecipients will use them. This business practice supports FEMA’s goal of maintaining Disaster Relief Fund solvency.

All pending and future HMGP projects over $1 million Federal share must be reviewed to determine whether the project is a candidate for SFM. If an HMGP project is appropriate for SFM, FEMA and the non-Federal entities will review the budget and work schedule to ensure that the project supports incremental obligation. Obligations are executed in increments, based on the project meeting an established project milestone schedule, until the project is completed.

FEMA recognizes that certain projects may not be suitable for incremental funding.

The following projects are not required to use SFM:
i Projects with a Federal share of less than $1 million i Projects that require an approved source of funding (full obligation) by the State procurement process in order for the Applicant to enter procurement and contracting Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *356
i Projects for which most of the funds will be disbursed within 6 months Although those projects are not required for SFM, they should be evaluated because there may be some value in incremental funding. If SFM is not used on a large project, the Recipient must provide proper justification to FEMA.

For additional information, refer to the SFM toolkit at http://www.fema.gov/medialibrary/assets/documents/98885.

A.10 HMGP Disaster Spend Plan
The HMGP Disaster Spend Plan is a forecasting tool
that FEMA uses to evaluate the funding needs of
HMGP during a disaster. FEMA is able to manage
the timing of HMGP project awards and ensure that
funding is available for obligation of approved
projects.

It is critical that the Recipient is an active participant in the Spend Plan. The Recipient identifies funding
priorities for projects, forecasts funding needs for
future months, and revises projections each month in
coordination with FEMA. This process induces a
more collaborative working relationship between
FEMA and the Recipient.

Part VIII. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 106

HMGP FISCAL PROCESSES
Lock-In is the amount of funding
eligible to be used for HMGP on a given
disaster and determined at 12 months
after the declaration date.

Management Costs are eligible funds
to be used by the Recipient to manage
the disaster Awards and are finalized at
the same time as the lock-in.

Disaster Spend Plan is modified
monthly and reports funding needed
throughout the life cycle of the disaster.

QPRs are filed quarterly and track the
progress of projects programmatically
as well as financially.

EXTRAORDINARY

POST-DISASTER CODE

ENFORCEMENT COSTS
Under certain conditions, HMGP will
fund extraordinary post-disaster code
enforcement costs. It is most
advantageous for a local community to
use post-disaster code enforcement
during the response and recovery
phase.

Extraordinary post-disaster code
enforcement costs are the costs to
ensure disaster-resistant codes are
implemented during disaster
reconstruction after the normal costs of
the building department are deducted.

A.11 Post-Disaster Code Enforcement
Projects
Extraordinary post-disaster code enforcement costs
may be eligible under HMGP. Extraordinary needs
associated with enforcing local building codes during
post-disaster reconstruction may include the
performance of building department functions, such as
building inspections, and the performance of
Substantial Damage determinations under the NFIP.

Usually, it is most advantageous for a local community
to use post-disaster code enforcement during the
response and recovery phase.

A post-disaster code enforcement project may be
funded through HMGP if:

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *357
i The Recipient assesses existing building code and/or zoning and land use management regulations and determines that they adequately address the identified natural hazard risks.

The Recipient determines that the local community has adopted a building code consistent with a recent edition of the International Code Series, conforms to State-model or Statemandated building codes, and, if the local community participates in the NFIP, has local floodplain management measures in place that meet the minimum requirements for participation in the NFIP.
i The Recipient evaluates the building department and determines that its organization, funding, and enforcement and inspection processes are sufficient to ensure proper enforcement of all applicable laws and ordinances during normal operations. i The Recipient evaluates the building department and identifies deficiencies, and the local community agrees to address any deficiencies identified in this evaluation as a condition of receiving the subaward. This agreement can be a simple statement attached to the evaluation and should include an implementation schedule that is mutually satisfactory to the Recipient, the subrecipient, and FEMA. The agreement should include an acknowledgment by the subrecipient that failure to meet the agreed upon implementation schedule can result in the loss of all current and/or future building department assistance used to support post-disaster operations.

The State’s assessment can be accomplished through various mechanisms. Any assessment should include a discussion of the community’s compliance with the NFIP. Suggested assessment approaches include (but are not limited to):
i Employing a mutual-aid agreement among communities to use other local building officials i Entering into a contractual agreement with a State or regional government entity that is well versed in building codes and proper administration of a building department i Entering into a contractual agreement with one of the model building code organizations i Employing building code experts temporarily
i Requesting FEMA technical assistance regarding building codes and proper building department administration (former local building officials can often provide the requisite knowledge)
i Requesting the Hazard Mitigation Technical Assistance Program HMGP funds only extraordinary post-disaster code enforcement costs. Extraordinary postdisaster code enforcement costs are the costs to ensure disaster-resistant codes are implemented during disaster reconstruction after normal costs of the building department are deducted. Costs might include staffing, equipment purchases, office rental, transportation, supplies, and similar expenses. Extraordinary costs equal disaster costs minus normal costs and cost of fees or fee waivers.

Part VIII. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 107 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *358
Disaster costs can be determined by the payroll and office expenses during the period of assistance. If the subapplicant must purchase new equipment, only the equivalent rental cost of this equipment for the period of assistance is considered a disaster cost. The revenues generated by fees for inspections or permits, whether collected or not, must be deducted. Normal costs can be determined from a monthly average of payroll and office expenses during the most recent 12- month period that does not included Federal, State, or local disaster declarations. If a community has already received Federal assistance for meeting emergency building inspection needs (such as determining habitability), these costs must be deducted in determining extraordinary costs.

A.12 Advance Assistance
Part VIII. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 108

ADVANCE ASSISTANCE
FEMA may provide up to 25 percent
(with a limit of $10 million) of the amount
of estimated HMGP costs to Applicants
and subapplicants in advance of
incurring eligible costs.

FEMA expects States that receive
Advance Assistance to submit complete
project applications up to or over the
available HMGP ceiling by the final
HMGP project application deadline.

Advance Assistance is authorized by the SRIA, which
allows advancing up to 25 percent of the HMGP
ceiling or $10 million to Applicants and subapplicants, whichever is less. The purpose of Advance Assistance
is to provide States and federally-recognized tribes
with resources to develop mitigation strategies and
obtain data to prioritize, select, and develop complete HMGP applications in a timely manner. FEMA
expects Applicants and subapplicants that receive
Advance Assistance to submit complete project
applications up to or over the HMGP ceiling by the
application deadline.

FEMA will continue to implement Advance Assistance on a pilot basis for any State or federallyrecognized tribe having a declaration with an open application period. Advance Assistance is not automatic. States and federally-recognized tribes may request Advance Assistance by submitting an HMGP application form to the Regional Mitigation Division Director. The application must identify the proposed use of the funds, including costs in sufficient detail for each proposed activity and milestones for submitting completed HMGP applications to FEMA. Advance Assistance is subject to the HMGP cost-share requirements and SFM (i.e., FEMA will not obligate funds until the Recipient has an immediate need for the funds). Advance Assistance is part of the HMGP ceiling amount.

Applicants and subapplicants may use Advance Assistance for the following activities:
i Obtain staff or resources to develop a cost-share strategy and identify potential match funding
i Evaluate facilities or areas to determine appropriate mitigation actions i Incorporate EHP considerations early into program decisions i Collect data for BCAs, EHP compliance, and other program requirements Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *359
i Scope and prioritize hazard mitigation projects (including State coordination of local projects) to incorporate sustainability, resilience, and renewable building concepts i Develop hazard mitigation projects, including engineering design and feasibility actions i Incorporate SFM principles into mitigation project work schedules and budgets that will facilitate compliance with the legislative requirement to expend obligated funds within 24 months
i Conduct meetings, outreach, and coordination with potential subapplicants and community residents to identify potential participants for property acquisition and demolition or relocation projects
i Conduct engineering design and feasibility studies for larger or complex community drainage projects or critical facility retrofits (such as for phased projects) i Conduct hydrologic and hydraulic studies for unmapped flood zones or Approximate Zone A areas where communities propose to submit hazard mitigation projects i Perform professional cost estimation services to aid consistency in project budgeting across subapplications
i Rectify data consistency needs for other project application categories, such as EHP compliance, cost-sharing mechanisms, and work schedules i Complete necessary documents for deed restricting properties such as acknowledgement of voluntary participation or Model Acknowledgement of Conditions for Mitigation of Property in a Special Flood Hazard Area with FEMA Grant Funds for property acquisition projects Requirements and deliverables associated with Advance Assistance and resulting HMGP applications may include:
i Documentation of Advance Assistance Accomplishments: Applicants and subapplicants must submit documentation to FEMA to support that they accomplished all activities listed in their Advance Assistance application.
i Submission of Projects up to the HMGP Ceiling: FEMA expects States that receive Advance Assistance to submit complete project applications up to or over the available HMGP ceiling by the final HMGP project application deadline. i Accounting for Use of Advance Assistance Funds: For accounting and audit purposes, the State must submit sufficient financial detail to demonstrate that no costs claimed under Advance Assistance are duplicated in subsequent HMGP project applications or in State Management Cost budgets.
i Documentation of EHP Considerations: The Applicant and subapplicant must document that effects to environmental and historic resources were considered early in the planning and project scoping processes. This requirement is in addition to ensuring EHP compliance.

Part VIII. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 109 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *360
For additional information on Advance Assistance, see HMA Job Aid (Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Advance Assistance Pilot - Optional Application).

A.13 Phased Projects
In general, sufficient technical information is provided by the Applicant or subapplicant to allow FEMA to make an eligibility determination on a subapplication. The costs to obtain this information are generally eligible as pre-award costs (see Part IV, F.2 for more information).

However, in rare circumstances it is beyond the subapplicant’s technical and financial resources to provide the complete technical information required for a full eligibility or EHP review of a complex project. The Applicant and FEMA may provide technical assistance to the subapplicant to develop this complete body of technical data by approving a subapplication to complete a Phase I design, engineering, EHP, or feasibility study. The Phase I study provides FEMA with a technical body of information mutually concurred on by the subapplicant, the Applicant, and FEMA to determine project eligibility. If the results of the Phase I review indicate that the project meets HMGP requirements, the project would then be eligible for funding for construction under a Phase II approval. Phase I study funding is part of the project’s total estimated cost and is subject to HMGP cost-share requirements.

The use of a Phase I study should be limited to complex projects that require technical or EHP data beyond the scope of that generally required for a typical HMGP project. The following provides guidelines and outlines the process for selecting projects for Phase I/Phase II project approval.

A.13.1 Pre-screening Process
The project must meet the following pre-screening criteria for a conditional Phase I approval in the following sequence:
i State or Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan: The proposed project must be in conformance with the State or Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan. i Justification for Selection of the Proposed Project: Justification must be provided for the selection of the proposed solution after consideration of a range of options. i Potential Cost-Effectiveness: The project demonstrates potential cost-effectiveness based on a preliminary assessment of anticipated project benefits and cost. The subapplicant must be aware that this preliminary assessment is solely for the purpose of the Phase I prescreening process and is not the final cost-effectiveness determination. i EHP Review: An initial review to identify major EHP compliance issues and information needs is required to complete the formal review process. The Phase I study is categorically excluded from NEPA review.

Part VIII. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 110 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *361
i Hydrologic and Hydraulic or Other Relevant Technical Data: The subapplicant provides available hydrologic and hydraulic data based on existing models and other relevant technical data, as appropriate.

A.13.2 Phase I Conditional Approval
The Applicant and FEMA may approve projects meeting the above pre-screening requirements for technical assistance under a Phase I conditional approval. FEMA and the Applicant will coordinate closely to ensure mutual concurrence on all data and technical information as the Phase I technical review process proceeds. The sequence for the process is as follows:
i Hydrologic and Hydraulic or Other Relevant Technical Data: If appropriate, the Applicant and FEMA will review the hydrologic and hydraulic or other technical data provided by the subapplicant.
i Preliminary Engineering Design: Based on the technical data, the subapplicant develops a preliminary engineering design and layout and cost estimates with ad hoc technical assistance from the Applicant and FEMA.
i EO 11988: If applicable, based on the technical data and revised engineering design, the project must demonstrate compliance with floodplain management requirements under this EO. If a FIRM amendment or revision will be necessary, the Applicant and FEMA will provide the subapplicant with technical assistance to meet this requirement. i Refinement of the Cost-Effectiveness Assessment: Based on the revised design and cost estimates, the Applicant and FEMA will refine the preliminary assessment of costeffectiveness conducted in the Phase I pre-screening process. This will result in a final BCR to evaluate the project’s cost-effectiveness, which will include all the project costs, including Phase I.
i EHP Review: The Applicant and FEMA will conduct a review of the revised project design to ensure EHP compliance. The project will meet EHP requirements before Phase II approval.

A.13.3 Phase II Approval – Construction Process
If the project is determined to be eligible, technically feasible, cost effective, and compliant with EHP requirements under the Phase I technical review, the project may then be approved for construction under Phase II.

A.14 The 5 Percent Initiative
Some mitigation activities are difficult to evaluate using FEMA-approved cost-effectiveness methodologies. Up to 5 percent of the total HMGP funds may be set aside by the Recipient to pay for such activities. These funds are not eligible to be used in situations where the mitigation Part VIII. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 111 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *362
activities can be evaluated under FEMA-approved cost-effectiveness methodologies but do not meet the required BCA threshold.

To be eligible for the 5 Percent Initiative, activities must:
i Be difficult to evaluate against traditional program cost-effectiveness criteria i Comply with all applicable HMGP eligibility criteria as well as with Federal, State, and local laws and ordinances
i Be consistent with the goals and objectives of the State or Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plans and local mitigation plans
i Be submitted for review with a narrative that indicates that there is a reasonable expectation that future damage or loss of life or injury will be reduced or prevented by the activity Activities that might be funded under the 5 Percent Initiative include:
i The use, evaluation, and application of new, unproven mitigation techniques, technologies, methods, procedures, or products
i Equipment and systems for the purpose of warning citizens of impending hazards i Purchase of generators or related equipment, such as generator hook-ups i Hazard identification or mapping and related equipment for the implementation of mitigation activities
i Acquisition of GIS software, hardware, and data whose primary aim is mitigation i Public awareness or education campaigns about mitigation i Evaluation of model building codes in support of future adoption and/or implementation A.14.1 Availability of Additional Funds for Mitigation Activities FEMA allows increasing the 5 Percent Initiative amount
up to 10 percent for a Presidential major disaster
declaration at the discretion of the Recipient. The
increased initiative funding can be used for activities that address promoting disaster-resistant codes for all hazards. To qualify for this funding, the Recipient or
subrecipient must agree to adopt and promote disasterresistant codes or improve their BCEGS rating during the POP. The Recipient must document the increase in BCEGS prior to the closeout of the project award.

The additional funds can be used for following activities:

Part VIII. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 112 ADDITIONAL 5 PERCENT

INTIATIVE FUNDING
The additional 5 percent set-aside for
tornadoes and high winds has been
modified to address all hazards and to
promote resilience through the use of
disaster-resistant building codes.

Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *363
i Adopting and enforcing the latest International Building Code/International Residential Code
i Improving a BCEGS score
i Upgrading existing code to incorporate disaster-resistant code provisions i Integrating flood-resistant elements of the building code into local floodplain management ordinances
A.15 Appeal Process
An eligible subapplicant, subrecipient, or Recipient may appeal any FEMA determination regarding subapplications or applications submitted for funding under HMGP. FEMA will only consider written appeals that justify the request for reconsideration. The appeal should specify the monetary figure in dispute and the provisions in Federal law, regulation, or policy with which the appellant believes the initial action was inconsistent.

Whether the appeal originated with the Recipient or with a subapplicant/subrecipient, the appeal must be submitted in writing to the Regional Administrator by the Recipient. The Regional Administrator is the decision-maker on first appeals. An appeal of the Regional Administrator’s decision on any first appeal (the second appeal) is decided by the Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation. In some cases, the appeal may involve highly technical issues. In these cases, FEMA may consult independent scientific or technical experts on the subject under appeal.

To begin the appeal process (including second appeals), appellants must submit documentation within 60 days after receiving the initial notice of the action on the first appeal. The Recipient must forward all appeals from a subapplicant/subrecipient with a written recommendation to the Regional Administrator within 60 days of receipt. The Region will forward second appeals with recommendation and associated documentation to FEMA Headquarters. Within 90 days following the receipt of an appeal, FEMA will notify the Recipient in writing of the disposition of the appeal or of the need for additional information.

If additional information is needed, FEMA will determine a date by which the information must be provided. Within 90 days following the receipt of the requested additional information (or 90 days after the information was due), FEMA will notify the Recipient in writing of the disposition of the appeal.

FEMA will provide its decision to the Recipient in writing. If the decision is to grant the appeal, the Regional Administrator will take the appropriate action.

Additional information regarding appeals can be found at 44 CFR Section 206.440 and in the HMA Job Aid (Second Appeal Job Aid for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program).

Part VIII. Additional Program Guidance: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 113 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *364
B. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program
Most of the information that an Applicant or subapplicant needs to apply for a PDM award or that a Recipient or subrecipient needs to manage a PDM award is provided in Parts I through VII. This section contains supplemental guidance specific to PDM.

B.1 Allocation
FEMA will allocate funds for eligible activities consistent with applicable, statutory base and/or maximum allocations in the authorizing and appropriation laws. FEMA will administer the program as directed by Congress.

B.2 Small Impoverished Communities
Small and impoverished communities may receive a Federal cost share of up to 90 percent of the total amount approved under the Federal award to implement eligible approved activities in accordance with the Stafford Act. A small impoverished community must:
i Be a community of 3,000 or fewer individuals identified by the Applicant as a rural community that is not a remote area within the corporate boundaries of a larger city or jurisdictional area or boundary
i Be economically disadvantaged, with residents having an average per capita annual income not exceeding 80 percent of the national per capita income, based on best available data. For the most current information on the national income, see http://www.bea.gov. i Have a local unemployment rate that exceeds by 1 percentage point or more the most recently reported, average yearly national unemployment rate. For the most current unemployment information, see http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm. i Meet other criteria required by the Applicant
Applicants must certify and provide documentation of the community or jurisdictional status with the appropriate subapplication to justify the 90 percent cost share. If documentation is not submitted with the subapplication, FEMA will provide no more than the standard 75 percent of the total eligible costs.

B.3 Information Dissemination
Under PDM, subapplicants may include eligible information dissemination activities in their project or planning subapplication. Eligible information dissemination activities include public awareness and education (brochures, workshops, videos, etc.) that directly relate to the eligible mitigation activity proposed in the subapplication. Information dissemination activities are limited to a maximum of 10 percent of the total cost of a subapplication and must be identified separately in the cost estimate.

Part VIII. Additional Program Guidance: Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program 114 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *365
B.4 Applicant Ranking of Subapplications
Applicants must rank each subapplication included in their grant application in order of their priority for funding. Each subapplication must be assigned a unique rank in eGrants. Applicants must provide an explanation for the rank given to each subapplication and demonstrate how it is consistent with their State or Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan.

B.5 Selection
FEMA will consider subapplications for further review based on Applicant rank. FEMA may identify a subapplication for further review out of rank order based on considerations such as program priorities, available funds, and policy factors.

FEMA will notify Applicants whose subapplications are identified for further review. However, this notification and the Applicant’s compliance with FEMA-requested pre-award activities is not considered notification or guarantee of an award.

Part VIII. Additional Program Guidance: Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program 115 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *366
C. Flood Mitigation Assistance Program
Most of the information that an Applicant or subapplicant needs to apply for an FMA award or that a Recipient or subrecipient needs to manage an FMA award is provided in Parts I through VII. This section contains supplemental guidance specific to FMA.

C.1 Eligible Properties
Properties included in a project subapplication for FMA funding must be NFIP-insured at the time of the application submittal and prior to the period of availability or application start date.

Flood insurance must be maintained through completion of the mitigation activity and for the life of the structure.

To receive an increased Federal cost share, properties must meet one of the definitions below (consistent with the legislative changes made in the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012):
i A severe repetitive loss property is a structure that:
(a) Is covered under a contract for flood insurance made available under the NFIP (b) Has incurred flood related damage –
(i) For which 4 or more separate claims payments (includes building and contents) have been made under flood insurance coverage with the amount of each such claim exceeding $5,000, and with the cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeding $20,000
or
(ii) For which at least 2 separate claims payments (includes only building) have been made under such coverage, with the cumulative amount of such claims exceeding the market value of the insured structure
i A repetitive loss property is a structure covered by a contract for flood insurance made available under the NFIP that:
(a) Has incurred flood-related damage on 2 occasions, in which the cost of the repair, on the average, equaled or exceeded 25 percent of the market value of the structure at the time of each such flood event
and
(b) At the time of the second incidence of flood-related damage, the contract for flood insurance contains increased cost of compliance coverage The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 cites the repetitive loss structure definition located in Section 1370 of the Flood Insurance Act. This is the definition that communities typically reference when trying to determine eligibility for ICC when a property has sustained multiple losses that cumulatively equal or exceed 50 percent of the structure’s Part VIII. Additional Program Guidance: Flood Mitigation Assistance Program 116 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *367
value. For a structure to be eligible for the increased Federal cost share of 90 percent, a property must meet the FMA repetitive loss definition in the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012.

C.2 Repetitive Loss Strategy
To be eligible for an increased Federal cost share, a FEMA-approved State or Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan that addresses repetitive loss properties must be in effect at the time of Federal award and the property that is being submitted for consideration must be a repetitive loss property. Guidance on addressing repetitive loss properties can be found in the State MultiHazard Mitigation Planning Guidance and in 44 CFR Section 201.4(c)(3)(v). The Repetitive Loss Strategy must identify the specific actions the State has taken to reduce the number of repetitive loss properties, which must include severe repetitive loss properties, and specify how the State intends to reduce the number of such repetitive loss properties. In addition, the hazard mitigation plan must describe the State’s strategy to ensure that local jurisdictions with severe repetitive loss properties take actions to reduce the number of these properties, including the development of local or Tribal Mitigation Plans. For information about the Repetitive Loss Database, see Part VI, F.2.2.

C.3 Cost Sharing
Consistent with the legislative changes made in the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, cost-share availability under FMA depends on the type of properties included in the subapplication. For example, severe repetitive loss properties may receive up to 100 percent Federal funding and repetitive loss properties may receive up to 90 percent Federal funding.

FEMA contributions to the Federal share are as follows:
i In the case of mitigation activities to severe repetitive loss structures:
FEMA may contribute up to 100 percent Federal funding of all eligible costs, if the activities are technically feasible and cost effective. The expected savings to the NFIF from expected avoided damage through acquisition or relocation activities, if the activities will eliminate future payments from the NFIF for severe repetitive loss structures through an acquisition or relocation activity. Under FMA, acquisition or relocation projects may utilize the GSTF as an alternative when projects are not cost effective using other techniques (i.e., BCA, pre-calculated benefits). This means property owners may voluntarily elect to accept the GSTF calculation in lieu of the market value of the structure, not to exceed the GSTF value, as the Federal cost share contribution. For example, if a severe repetitive loss property has a GSTF of $75,000 and a BCR of 0.52 using the FEMA BCA Toolkit ($100,000 in future losses avoided and $189,000 in project costs), they may choose to accept the GSTF value of $75,000 even though the project is not cost effective.

Part VIII. Additional Program Guidance: Flood Mitigation Assistance Program 117 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *368
Additional information on GSTF is available in Part IV, I.5. i In the case of mitigation activities to repetitive loss structures, FEMA may contribute up to 90 percent Federal funding of all eligible costs.
i In the case of all other mitigation activities, FEMA may contribute up to 75 percent Federal funding of all eligible costs.

Structures with varying cost-share requirements can be submitted in one application. Applicants must provide documentation in the project application showing how the final cost share was derived. The final cost share will be entered into the eGrants system and documentation showing how the final cost share was derived must be attached to the application.

C.4 Applicant Ranking of Subapplications
Applicants must rank each subapplication included in their grant application in order of priority for funding. Each subapplication must be assigned a unique rank in eGrants. Applicants must provide an explanation for the rank given to each subapplication and demonstrate how it is consistent with their State or Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan.

C.5 Selection
FEMA will identify subapplications for further review based on a number of criteria, including but not limited to savings to the NFIF, Applicant rank, and property status (e.g., repetitive loss property, severe repetitive loss property). FEMA also may identify a subapplication for further review out of rank order based on considerations such as program priorities, available funds, and other factors.

C.6 Failure to Make Federal Award within 5 Years
Any subapplication not awarded within 5 years of the date of the application is considered to be denied. Any funding amounts allocated for such applications will remain in the NFIF and will be made available for future awards.

Part VIII. Additional Program Guidance: Flood Mitigation Assistance Program 118 Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *369
PART IX. APPENDICES
A. Acronyms
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
BCA
BCEGS
BCR
BFE
CBRA
CBRS
CFDA
CFR
CRS
CWA
DHS
DOB
DOP
EHP
EO
EOC
ESA
FAR
FCO
FEMA
FF
FFE
FFR
FIMA
FIRM
FMA
GAR
Benefit-Cost Analysis
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule
Benefit-Cost Ratio
Base Flood Elevation
Coastal Barrier Resources Act
Coastal Barrier Resources System
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Code of Federal Regulations
Community Rating System
Clean Water Act
Department of Homeland Security
Duplication of Benefits
Duplication of Programs
Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation
Executive Order
Emergency Operation Center
Endangered Species Act
Federal Acquisition Regulations
Federal Coordinating Officer
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA Form
Finished Floor Elevation
Federal Financial Report
FHGHUDO Insurance and Mitigation Administration
Flood Insurance Rate Map
Flood Mitigation Assistance
Governor’s Authorized Representative
Part IX. Appendix A: Acronyms 119
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *370
GIS Geographic Information System
GSTF Greatest Savings to the Fund
HMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance
HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
IA Individual Assistance
ICC Increased Cost of Compliance
IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
IRS Internal Revenue Service
NEMIS National Emergency Management Information System
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NFIA National Flood Insurance Act
NFIF National Flood Insurance Fund
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
OCFO Office of the Chief Financial Officer
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPA Otherwise Protected Area
PA Public Assistance
PAS Program Administration by States
PARS Payment and Reporting System
PDM Pre-Disaster Mitigation
PNP Private Nonprofit
PPD-8 Presidential Policy Directive 8
POC Point of Contact
POP Period of Performance
QPR Quarterly Progress Reporting
RFI Request for Information
Risk MAP Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning
SEI Structural Engineering Institute
SF Standard Form
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area
Part IX. Appendix A: Acronyms 120
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *371
SFM Strategic Funds Management
SF-PPR Standard Form Performance Progress Report
SHMO State Hazard Mitigation Officer
SLR Sea Level Rise
SOW Scope of Work
SRIA Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013
Stafford Act Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act TB Technical Bulletin
URA Uniform Relocation Assistance
U.S.C. United States Code
Part IX. Appendix A: Acronyms 121
Tuesday, November 05, 2024 Reg CC MTG, Page *372
B. Glossary
Access and Functional Needs: Circumstances that are met for providing physical, programmatic, and effective communication access to the whole community by accommodating individual requirements through universal accessibility and/or specific modifications. Access and functional needs include assistance, accommodation, or modification for mobility, communication, transportation, safety, health maintenance, etc.; and assistance, accommodation, or modification due to any situation (temporary or permanent) that limits an individual’s ability to take action in an emergency.

Lomita City CouncilNovember 5, 2024

Lomita City Council
November 5, 2024