Governor?s Recovery Alliance Session: Read-Ahead Document Purpose of Summit Thank you for agreeing to participate in the Governor?s Recovery Alliance Session. The purpose of the session is to develop an overarching, uni?ed strategy that multiple state and federal agencies will use to guide recovery funding decisions related to the June 2016 ?ood event. This uni?ed strategy should enable informed decision-making by senior leadership at all levels: local, state, and federal. As a ?rst step in creating this uni?ed strategy, this session will convene senior level state and federal of?cials to build consensus on strategic priorities, a framework for the strategy, and a path forward and timeframe for the strategy?s development. While the session will focus on how to maximize almost $700 million in funding available following ?ooding in June 2016, this approach can be applied to future resource allocation and funding decisions that will enhance West Virginia?s resilience while also spurring economic development and creating jobs. Preparation Each participant from the State Resiliency Board is encouraged to bring one individual to the session to serve as the action of?cer for their respective agency. This individual will stay for the entirety of the event and be available to represent their entity in subsequent meetings. The recovery session will set the priorities for the state, and the action of?cers will work to get the priorities and strategies implemented through collaborative efforts and the production of an action plan. This will require availability to work with other action of?cers until the project is complete. tit .lt'llmi ()fflc?t?t' The action o?icer will be the point of contact and participant for all subsequent meetings regarding the implementation of the priorities/strategies developed at the session. They should have a working knowledge of the agency '5 programs, resources and authorities and be available to meet and represent their respective agency through implementation. *Federal partners will serve in an advisory/consulting role to action officers during implementation process. 1 Read-Ahead lnvitees Agency WV Governor?s Office WV Department of Commerce Name Mike Hall Woody Thrasher* WV Department of Military Affairs Jeff Sandy? WVNG WV DHSEM WV Conservation Agency WV DEP WV DOT WV DHHR WV DNR WV Dept. of Agriculture VOAD US Senate US Senate US House of Representatives US House of Representatives US House of Representatives HUD FEMA EDA James Hoyer* Jimmy Gianato* Brian Farkas* Austin Caperton* Tom Smith* Bill Crouch* Stephen McDaniel* Kent Leonhardt* Jenny Gannaway Shelley Moore Capito Joe Manchin Alex Mooney Evan Jenkins David McKinley Joe DeFelice MaryAnn Tierney Linda Cruz-Carnall *Member of the State Resiliency Of?ce Board Position Chief of Staff Cabinet Secretary Cabinet Secretary Adjutant General Director Director Cabinet Secretary Cabinet Secretary Cabinet Secretary Director Commissioner Director Senator Senator Representative Representative Representative Region Administrator Region Administrator Regional Director 2 Read-Ahead Session Details and Agenda Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 Time Location Session 1: 9 11 a.m. (Senior Of?cials Action Of?cers) Governor's Cabinet and Conference Room Session 2: 1 1 a.m. 12: 1 5 pm (Action Of?cers Only) Building 3, 8th Floor Conference Room Agenda Item Presenter Duration Time Welcome Introductions Governor's Of?ce 10 minutes 9 - 9:10 a.m. Review Recovery Progress 8: Best Practices FEMA (TBD) 15 minutes 9:10 - 9:25 a.m. Overview of Meeting Purpose Objectives Facilitator 10 minutes 9:25 - 9:35 a.m. Session Identify and Agree to State Recovery Priorities Session Draft Action Plan for Achieving State Recovery Priorities Facilitator 85 minutes 9:35 11 a.m. OBJECTIVE Identify and Agree to State Recovery Priorities (Senior Officials) Identify Recovery Priority Areas Opportunities to Strategically Align Disaster Funds Validate Discussion 8: Confirm Commitments INTENDED OUTCOME: Agreed upon Priorities for 2016 Flood Funding and Framework for Next Steps to be executed by Action Officers Break Dismissal of Senior Officials 10 minutes . 11 - 11:10 a.m. Facilitator 50 minutes 11:10 a.m. noon OBJECTIVE Draft Action Plan for Achieving State Recovery Priorities (Action Officers) - Discuss Role of Action Officers Draft an Outline for an Action Plan Including Estimated Timelines and Next Meeting INTENDED OUTCOME: Draft Action Plan Outline Based on Outcomes from Senior O?icials Discussion Closing Remarks] Debrief Facilitator 15 minutes Noon 12:15 pm. 3 Read-Ahead Proposed Funding Allocations (HMGP CDBG-DR Only) Housing HMG Acquisition] Demolition $26,793,05138 HMGP Mitigation/Reconstruction $7,048,580.00 HMGP Elevation $1,095,215.00 CDBG-DR Reconstruction] Rehabilitation $71,899,250.00 Rental Assistance $16,000,000.00 CDBG-DR Bridge Program $2,080,000.00 CDBG-DR Multi-Family Rental Housing $5,875,000.00 CDBG-DR Match for HMGP $12,440,000.00 TOTAL I Infrastructure Funding Source Amount HMGP $19,224,202.00 CDBG-DR TOTAL $19,224,202.00 I Economic Development Funding Source Amount HMGP CDBG-DR Restore Riverview Project $5,712,000.00 CDBG-DR Economic Development Program $12,500,000.00 CDBG-DR Slum and Blight Removal $5,875,000.00 TOTAL $24,087,000.00 Disaster Planning/Preparedness Funding Source Amount HMGP $3,212,000.00 CDBG-DR $10,000,000.00 TOTAL $3,212,000.00 I 4 Read?Ahead Disaster Recovery Fund Sources FEMA: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) 1. Program Overview a. FEMA describes hazard mitigation as ?sustainable actions taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from future hazards?. b. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, authorized under Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Act, provides states, tribes and local governments funding to implement actions designed to reduce future damages after a presidentially declared disaster. c. States, tribes or communities interested in pursuing funding for projects under HMGP must participate in and adopt a State, Tribal or Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Mitigation Plans help communities identify risks and serves as a guide for decision-makers to develop potential mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate future damages. d. Applications for funding through the HMGP program are deve10ped by local communities then submitted to West Virginia Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management for their review and prioritization. The then submits project applications to FEMA for review and approval. e. Roles and Responsibilities: Authority Role and Responsibility Develops project applications on behalf of the community, individuals and Local Jurisdiction . busmesses Establishes the priorities for mitigation funding. Reviews and prioritizes applications submitted and selects those applications that will be submitted to FEMA for consideration. State or Tribal Governments Conducts a final eligibility review to ensure that all applications and proposed FEMA projects comply with federal regulations. Provides approval and funding to states for approved projects. Individuals and businesses cannot directly apply for funding through the HMGP program but can work with their designated community official to apply. f. Mitigation bene?ts include: i. Creating safer communities by reducing loss of life and property, ii. Enabling individuals and communities to recover more rapidly from disasters, and Lessening the ?nancial impact of disaster recovery. According to a study completed by the Multihazard Mitigation Council, for every $1 spent on mitigation projects, an average of $4 is saved in future recovery spending. 5 Read-Ahead 2. Current Status a. As a result ofthe June 2016 ?ooding, $69 million ($52 million federal share and an additional $17 million state share) has been made available for mitigation projects through the HMGP program. b. As of October 3, 2017, 86 projects have been submitted to estimating a total of $60.5 million to be spent. c. Sixty-four of the 86 projects submitted to are located within counties that have been designated as disaster areas under the June 2016 Presidential Disaster Declaration. 3. Current Project Breakdown Project Type of Applications of Overall Grant Cost Per Project Type Acquisitions $26,793,051.38 Reconstruction 12 12 $7,048,580.00 Elevations 3 2 $1,095,215.00 7 32 $19,224,202.00 Improvements Generators 17 5 $3,219,901.53 Studies/Planning Projects 3 5 $3,212,000.00 4. Upcoming Deadlines a. Applicant (local government) deadline for submission is November 3, 2017. b. State deadline to submit to EMA is December 22, 2017. c. An extension to the December 22, 2017 application deadline could be requested by to extend the period of availability to March 23, 2018. 6 Read-Ahead Disaster Recovery Fund Sources HUD: Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery Program 1. Program Overview a. 12 counties eligible for assistance. b. 80% of the total grant amount must bene?t the Most Impacted and Distressed (MID) areas determined by HUD to be Kanawha, Greenbrier, Clay and Nicholas counties. c. 70% of the total funds must bene?t low to moderate income (LMI) persons. 2. Current Status a. Total of $149 million available for disaster recovery projects. b. The Grant Agreement was executed on September 18, 2017. c. Initial appropriation of $104 million has been approved by HUD. $45 million allocation is going through public review process and will be submitted to HUD. (1. Public outreach and applicant intake began on August 1, 2017. e. The program has 2 static service centers: Charleston and White Sulphur Springs. Mobile intakes are performed in affected cities multiple times per week. f. Approximately 1,100 applicants have been screened for the housing program, with over 700 conditionally approved. g. Construction contractors competitively procured in June 2017 and placed under contract in July 2017. h. The State is currently performing a Tier 1 review to evaluate and analyze environmental impacts related to the proposed activities. This review is expected to be complete and approved by HUD in late November 2017. 1. Construction activities are expected to begin in December 2017. 7 Read?Ahead 3. Current Project Breakdown Project Description Traunch 1 Traunch 2 Traunch 3 RISE WV Housing Restoration Program $64,378,950 $7,520,300 $71,899,250 RISE WV Rental Assistance Program $16,000,000 $16,000,000 HMGP Match $12,440,000 $12,440,000 Bridge Home Program $2,080,000 $2,080,000 Restore Riverview Project $2,500,000 $3,212,000 $5,712,000 RISE WV Slum and Blight Removal Program $5,875,000 $5,875,000 RISE WV Multifamily Rental Housing Program $5,875,000 $5,875,000 RISE WV Economic Development Program $12,500,000 $12,500,000 Planning $1,667,050 $8,332,950 $10,000,000 State Administration $5,214,000 $2,279,750 $7,493,750 TOTAL $104,280,000 $3,212,000 i42,383,000 $149,875,000 4. Upcoming Deadlines a. Applicant (individual homeowner) deadline for the ?Housing Restoration Program? and the ?Rental Assistance Program? is November 30, 2017. b. Substantial amendment to the action plan for $45 million is due November 12, 2017. 8 Read?Ahead Disaster Recovery Fund Sources FEMA Public Assistance 1. Program Overview PA Reimbursement Program for Infrastructure allows for the return of 75% federal share cost to eligible applicants impacted. 2. Current Status a. 18 counties declared for Public Assistance with 133 requests received. b. 982 projects estimated at $416 million. 0. $107 million obligated to date (federal share). 742 total properties to be demolished through Private Property Debris Removal (PPDR) program. e. 25 schools impacted with 5 considered substantially damaged. 3. Current Project Breakdown Cost Per Project Type Project of Projects (Federal Share) WV Division of Highways 583 33,138,585 I WVNG 10 5 2,474,757 SBA (Schools) 10 178,342,354 31 5 5,827,976 DEP 2 787,500 Municipalities 279 31,481,806 County School Boards 55 5 33,018,413 PPDR 742 5 4,902,085 Management Costs $10,000,000 TOTAL I $299,973,476 4. Upcoming Deadlines a. PPDR extension ending December 25, 2017. b. Contract demolition work extended until April 15, 2018. 9 Read-Ahead 10lRead?Ahead Funding Type Public Assistance (PA) HUD CDBG-DR Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Mission Assignment Small Business Administration (SBA) Loans (IA) Housing Assistance (IA) Other Needs Assistance Disaster Case Management Grant National Dislocated Workers Grant (IA) Regular Service Program MHU Mission 406 Mitigation Immediate Needs Assistance (IA) Immediate Service Program 106 Mitigation Disaster Unemployment Assistance Total (Non-Management) PA Section 324 Management Costs HMGP State Management Costs Total (State Management Only) Total Federal Allocation $305,500,000 $149,000,000 $52,000,000 $108,000,000 $53,000,000 $35,600,000 $5,100,000 $5,820,000 $3,500,000 $2,200,000 $5,580,000 $1,280,000 $810,000 $304,000 $250,000 $213,000 $728,157,000 $10,000,000 $2,500,000 $12,500,000 State Match $102,000,000 $17,400,000 $36,000,000 $1,680,000 $270,000 $157,350,000 Purpose of Funding Debris removal, emergency protective measures, and the repair, replacement, or restoration of disaster-damaged publicly?owned facilities Housing, economic development, infrastructure Housing and infrastructure Completion of specified tasks by other feds in response to a Stafford Act event. Home and business loan program Home repair and rental assistance Medical and dental expenses, funeral expenses, personal property, transportation Disaster case management services Employment for displaced workers Crisis counseling services Hauling, installation, maintenance and de-activation of all MHUS Mitigation measures in conjunction with the repair of disaster-damaged facilities Survivor supplies for victims Crisis counseling services Mitigation efforts that consider the effects of actions on historic properties Unemployment assistance Indirect costs and administrative expenses Indirect costs and administrative expenses Federal Assistance 0 VEWIEW Summary of Deadlines Nov.3: HMGP DeadHne (Appncant? Nov.12: CDBG-DR Substan?al Amendment Deadhne Nov.30: Dead?ne (App?cant? Dec.22: HMGP Deadhne (State) Dec.25: PPDR Progrann Exten?on expkes Mamhzz HMGP Extension (Pending approvan Aug.18: CDBG-DR Deadhne (State) 11lRead?Ahead 12 Read~Ahead FEMA 4273-DR, West Virginia Flooding Hazard Mitigation Grant Program: Applications and Project Costs ?Hum! Ku ndwl?m $19,320,]. 29 8:5 Nll: holy. 52,389.51 3 DO Grepnhrior $7,033,059.73 Mag-Ctedletil lni'lvdl Mum C'Hdlion October 201? H300 (.omdmate Syalem ??35 195.? Data Layer I Map Description: The amount of applications and the totar project casts by county fol DR-4273. Declared Counties PA 4? #12; MFA Non?Declared Ccumies of Applications 0 a of Applications Project Costs (v2) $67,950.00 - $132,313.00 $182,373.01 - $1,600,000.00 - $1,000,000.01 - $3,459,307 50 - $3,459.50? 51 - 57.033.059.73 - $7,033,059.74 - $19,320,12939 0 Miles Data Sources: FEMA. Author Gus Frederick Datum. WGS 1984 Projeuion: Mercatm Map 13lRead?Ahead FEMA 4273-DR. West Virginia Flooding Hazard Mitigation Grant Program: Acquisition Appiications and Project Costs FEMA Lmrall' $3 559.30? 50 - 5 . M?fsenaa. 80 liar aw .1 312.961 955 0.5. "Bic'hwqod 5i51?ii?o?3000 41 w: beam. as: [mm-ck himl ?Jlap C?hlbc? ~05 Crow 201?. Coy: rum Swen 196-?- Wor Merma- Data Layla: I Map Dmriplion: The amount 01 apol'cazions and the total project costs by county for DEE-4213 [lectured Counties 1/ 9/1. PA Non-Declared Counties It of Structures 0 if of Sfrudures Project Costs $96,678.00 - $343,845.00 $343,845.01 - $940,000. 00 $940,000.01 - $1,600,000.00 $1,600,000.01 - $3,459,807.50 $3,459,807.51 - 312.961.955.38 0 0 If) 70 30 Miles Data Somme: FEMA. E5R1 Ant-"tor: Gus Frederik Dalunl W05 1984 Pru?uio-u: Mercaiur 14lRead?Ahead FEMA West Virginia Flooding Hazard Mitigation Grant Program: l?.I @y FEMA City of Ciendenln Reconstruction Applications and Project Costs Clandgilin $1,243,000.00 Logar- 31,51? 000 OD rrerw 11 Cityolkidmood Richwood 5833.465 00 553.00 0' Data Lays! I Map Dmriplion: The amount of appl'cat'lms and the tota! project costs by county in: Declared Counties Non-Declared Counties of Structures 0 a o! SWUCIUIES Project Costs $1 74,865.00 $174,865.01 - $857,500.00 - $867,500.01 - $2,511,000.00 $1,511,000.01 - $2,222,450.00 0 Mil-:5 Data Sources. FEMA. ESRI Author: Gus. Frederik Datum' W05 1984 Prq'ectFu'I' MesL?alut WC'catcc fit-Mid GISP hmal Mu: ?rm-anon :05 Oczow 2027?. C-z-a-rr new System 1564 WV 0 Herons?- 15 Read-Ahead FEMA 4273-DR. West Virginia Flooding FEM A Hazard Mitigation Grant Program: Elevation Applications and Project Costs 1.. - City 0! Ridiwuod Data Layer I Map Description: The arnOunt 01 apol'carims and the total project costs by county Declared Counties PA Nothedared Counties I of Structures 0 3 or Project Costs $197.1 15.00 a $322,000.00 - 3576,} 00.00 Wk: Dara Sou-res: FEMA ESRI Aumm'. Gus Freda-rm Datum WGS 1984 Memento: Vlv: ?ve-am: a" Freon?. hm! Vim? (Jean-.0 I05 DOB vale Sane-w WGS lsa??ww Mex aw 16lRead-Ahead 2mm .2qu 530.2.) at. 0?50 14 C2. 4 >?v=nman Grainy?Ema: 3? 00:33. Summit Decision Points Session Identify and Agree to State Recovery Priorities 1. Are there speci?c focus areas for disaster recovery funds or will ?mds be spread across entire state? Does the current model of distribution work best? 2. Is there a need for one department to take the lead in a speci?c priority area or should each department address the need where possible? Can existing initiatives or emerging industries be leveraged in affected communities? How can non-disaster funds support the priorities and strategy from 4273 and beyond? 5. Is there consensus among stakeholders on the identi?ed priorities during the summit? .455? Session Draft Action Plan for Achieving State Recovery Priorities 1. Should an action of?cer be identi?ed and empowered to lead the process to create a framework? 2. What does a completed framework look like and how can it applied statewide? 3. Is there long-term applicability for the framework? If so, how long will the current priorities and strategies be relevant? 4. Will this framework be updated over time? If so, who will take the lead to regularly review the framework and convene meetings? 5. How does the WV State Resiliency Of?ce tie into the process? 17lRead-Ahead FLOOD RECOVERY ALLIANCE SESSION ET I :9 Meeting Summary Outline of Unified Strategy On November 7, 2017, GovernorJim Justice convened senior?level state and federal officials to create a unified strategy regarding disaster recovery funds from the floods of 2016. The discussion was the first in a series of senior level meetings to look at strategically aligning those funds. The meeting was an important step in the creation of the strategy and empowered appointed action officers to create a strategy to align and leverage the disaster funding. The action officers were tasked to further explore options and bring recommendations to the senior officials for approval. They will meet on a more regular basis to draft a unified strategy for 2016 funds and delve into the roles and responsibilities of state departments and divisions. This role will also support the establishment of the West Virginia State Resiliency Office (SRO). All efforts combined will ensure that West Virginia becomes more resilient and continues to take a unified and strategic approach to disaster recovery. The facilitated discussion addressed five major topics: Ranked Priorities Guiding Principles Reprioritization of Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Applications Reallocation of Community Development Block Grant -Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) Funds 5. Role of Action Officers Sections II through VI ofthis document provide more detail on each major topic and what was agreed to during the Session. These sections can serve as the basis for a unified strategy regarding 2016 flood funding. The final section (VII) proposes next steps for the senior leadership group and the action officers. Also included are two appendices: a list of Session attendees and detailed notes from the proceedings. ll. Ranked Priorities Much of the morning session focused on the need to identify priorities for the State?s disaster recovery funds from the June 2016 floods. The disaster marked the first time that West Virginia received a allocation and it was the largest amount of HMGP funds ever received. Due to the complexity of the situation, the meeting was convened to ensure that there was a holistic strategy for the use of these recovery funds. The facilitator proposed overarching priority areas based upon the functional areas where funds were already earmarked. This led to a and detailed discussion regarding priorities. The resulting ranked priority areas were identified, ranked and confirmed: 1. Infrastructure 2. Economic Development 3. Housing ill. Guiding Principles While determining priorities, participants discussed overarching ideas or principles that should influence all decision making in the state. The prevalent theme in the discussion was ensuring that funding decisions and recovery efforts should decrease risk over time and make communities more resilient. It was decided that the group would use guiding principles to serve as ?decision points? when looking at the merit of state funded projects, with three guiding principles identified: 1. Resiliency 2. Mitigation 3. Job Creation IV. Reprioritization of HMGP Applications With the influx of disaster recovery funds, recovery programs have the potential to duplicate efforts and even convolute the recovery process. Concerns were raised that both and HMGP were allocating more funding towards housing recovery than the existing unmet need. There was also discussion about needs in the other function areas. The West Virginia Department of Homeland Security 8: Emergency Management (WV DHSEM) and the West Virginia Department of Commerce (WV DOC) began meetings to discuss in part how to best coordinate the two programs. As a result of these meetings and the Session, the WV DHSEM is now looking at the reprioritization of grant applications and ways to streamline the funding match, with agreement on the following: WV DHSEM will review their submitted applications and prioritize infrastructure projects before housing. Housing will still be addressed through HMGP, but all applicants will be given the opportunity to apply for housing assistance through the CDBG-DR program. WV DHSEM and WV DOC will coordinate to ensure that all applicants are served by the program that best fits their situation and needs. WV DHSEM and WV DOC will continue to meet and discuss coordination ofthe two programs and the CDBG-DR match for the HMGP program. V. Reallocation of CDBG-DR Funds A large portion of the meeting revolved around the HUD program and how it can strategically support recovery. Currently, over $100 million is allocated to address the unmet housing need in the impacted areas. Through efforts by VOAD and other volunteer groups, it is estimated that over 1,000 homes have been rebuilt or rehabbed since June 2016. Participants of the session questioned whether there was $100 million left in unmet housing needs, or if some of the funding should be reallocated to support infrastructure and economic development. WV DOC agreed to work with HUD to determine the steps and requirements to ultimately reallocate funds once the housing need has been fully met. HUD has outlined the necessary steps to reallocate the funds so that the state can address other unmet needs: 1. If the State wishes to revise their action plan amendment to eliminate or reduce housing activity, they will need to provide revised unmet need data and strong evidence that unmet disaster related Low/Moderate income (LMI) housing needs have been met. The State will also need to provide data to support unmet needs for proposed replacement activities infrastructure or economic development projects). The 11/21/16 Federal Register notice says that given the large damage to housing from the disaster, the State should focus on unmet housing need, but it does allow for States to allocate funds to infrastructure or economic development. If the state wishes to undertake infrastructure or economic development activities, they must do the following: a. Amend their action plan b. Provide data for unmet infrastructure or economic development needs c. Provide information about how unmet housing needs have been met, or how infrastructure or economic development activities will contribute to the restoration of housing and long-term recovery in the most impacted and distressed communities. VI. Proposed Role of Action Officers The senior officials agreed that the action officers will be the point of contact and participate in subsequent meetings regarding the development and implementation of the priorities/strategies developed at the session. The officers have a working knowledge of the agency?s programs, resources and authorities and will be available to meet and represent their respective agency through implementation. Federal partners will serve in an advisory/consulting role as needed during the implementation process. During the first session, there was consensus that the action officers should address the following specific tasks: 1. Identify agency programs, resources and authorities to support disaster recovery. 2. Address priority areas where consensus was not gained and provide recommendations to senior officials. 3. Identify additional resources and technical assistance that can be offered to disaster impacted communities. 4. Identify additional coordination opportunities within their respective departments and network. 5. Create the framework and strategies for an action plan related to recovery efforts. Proposed Next Steps Since the session, there have been multiple meetings of the Action Officers and discussions regarding implementation of the established priorities and principles. These discussions have evolved to include roles and responsibilities of the SRO and future meetings will work to simultaneously address both initiatives. The key focus will be to ensure that the disaster funds from 2016 are strategically expended, while also establishing the SRO and championing resiliency across all sectors of the state. To do so, stakeholders will need to continue to meet on a regular basis and ensure that a strong focus and commitment is made to resiliency. Additionally: 1. Reconvene a follow?up ?session? to the 11/7/2017 Session 2. Merge the roles and responsibilities of action officers with committee assignments for SRO board. 3. Continue to meet at the action officer level to implement decisions made by senior officials. 4. Assist with the creation of the SRO charter, framework and work plan. Bring recommendations to the senior officials and SRO board for review and approval. 6. Continue to meet until all funds from 2016 are allocated and the SRO is fully established. Governor?s Flood Recovery and Alliance Session Meeting Notes 1St Session Date: November 7, 2017 Time: 9:00 am. 11:12 am. Attendees: See Sign-in Sheet 9:17 a.m. - The meeting kicked off with Governor Jim Justice addressing the audience. The Governor discussed the promising future of West Virginia with new development and job opportunities. 9:38 a.m. - Mr. Kevin Snyder, Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinator and Director of the West Virginia Recovery Of?ce, provided background on the various funding sources are available to the State of West Virginia through Individual Assistance, Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation Grant programs and Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery allocations. Also spoke of the establishment and stand-up of the West Virginia State Resiliency Of?ce (SRO) and the role the SRO could play in coordinating disaster recovery and enhancing community resiliency. Spoke of this time being an opportunity to move forward with a uni?ed vision and strategy. 9:54 am. - Ms. Inga Watkins was introduced as the meeting facilitator. - Ms. Watkins asked the group to ?rst discuss the priorities for the current and future federal funding provided to the State as a result of the 2016 floods. The initial list of priority areas includes (these areas were inferred based on currently planned funding allocations): 1. Housing 2. Infrastructure 3. Economic Development 4. Disaster Planning/Preparedness - Ms. Watkins opened the conversation by asking the group if they could come to a consensus on what the State?s priorities should be. - General Hoyer proposed adding mitigation/resilience to the Disaster Planning/Preparedness priority item. He commented that ?if we don?t include mitigation in what we do, we are just going to keep having the same issues we are already facing.? After additional af?rmation from others, Mitigation was then added to the Planning/Preparedness priority item. - Jimmy Gianato mentioned that the planning and preparedness priority may not necessarily be a priority but program requirements for HMGP for State and Local Hazard Mitigation Plans. - The group agreed that planning and preparedness should not need be a separate priority. MaryAnn Tierney suggested that Mitigation/Resiliency not be an individual priority but a guiding principle that would in?uence all of the priorities the group set for not only the current funding but for future disasters. Page 1 of 3 Several participants indicated that you can rebuild houses and you can rebuild/mitigate infrastructure but something would have to be done about jobs and the economy to keep people in West Virginia. The group agreed that the mitigation/resiliency and job creation would be guiding principles. These two principles should be included as ?decision points" in determining whether the state will fund a project or not. Ms. Watkins asked the group to identify any other potential priorities but none were added to the list. The group came to a consensus on tlte?tllowing three priority areas (in no particular order): Housing Infrastructure 0 Economic Development Ms. Watkins then asked the group if there could be a consensus on ranking the three priorities. Conversation was started by General Hoyer who indicated that he did not feel that housing was any longer the top priority. He indicated that through the State VOAD and other faith?based groups, at least half of the 2,000 homes damaged in June 2016 had been repaired/rebuilt. Therefore housing was no longer the top priority. There was agreement with this from Mr. Farkas, Mr. Rogers, and others who voiced concern that if infrastructure was not the ?rst priority the main issues facing West Virginia would not be addressed. - Mr. Farkas mentioned that if there was a way to focus on larger, more ?cross-border? type projects, the state would really start to address ?ooding issues. - It was also mentioned that the state ?gets in its own way with laws that are passed?. An example was put forward of an unnamed community that has the resources to maintain a nearby waterway that causes flooding due to debris build-up but they would not do the maintenance work on the waterway because they were afraid of violating a state law. The representative from the Department of Highways indicated they have funding for highways but there was not really a mechanism for ?looking forwar for their projects at this time indicating that they worked project by project. After further discussion continuing that infrastructure would be the top priority, Mr. Rogers indicated that he understood that each program had certain requirements but he asked if there was a way to redistribute the $106 million in CDBG-DR to reallocate some of those funds to other priority areas. Julie Alston indicated that it is possible but that it would not be an easy move due to programmatic requirements set by HUD and the Federal Register Notice, which dictates that a certain percentage of that funding be allocated directly to housing and that funding that does not go directly to housing still has to tie back into housing. Julie Alston also indicated that the state would have to demonstrate that the unmet housing needs in the state, which was the basis for the CDBG-DR request, had been met. Something not easily done as the state just submitted a substantial amendment to their Administrative Plan that was still based on a significant unmet housing need. Ms. Alston was asked what documentation at what level of granularity would be needed to satisfy HUD to reallocate some of the funding. She indicated that she would have to research that with the HUD Regional Of?ce to confirm. There was a consensus from the group that the Department of Commerce should work with HUD to determine what would be required e. what documentation and what level of granularity) would be required to redistribute the current DBG-DR funds to other priority areas. Page 2 of 3 Based on this conversation, General Hoyer suggested that Infrastructure should be the top priority. The group agreed. Mr. Rogers suggested thatjob creation be the second priority to which the group agreed. Housing, based on early conversation was discussed as the third priority. The group came to the consensus that thefollowtng are the priorities runkedfrom?rst to third: 1. Infrastructure 2. EconomicDevelopment 3. Housing Ms. Watkins then indicated that time had run out for this meeting. MaryAnn Tierney suggested that a second meeting be held around mid-December. The focus would be to determine the status of the amendment to the CDBG-DR Action Plan. Ms. Watkins then provided information on the role of the Action Of?cers and asked the group to consider these roles and identify any additions or edits needed. These roles could be the ?rst agenda item for the next meeting. The roles that were listed included: 1. Identify agency programs, resources and authorities to support disaster recovery. 2. Address priority areas where consensus was not gained and provide recommendations to senior of?cials. 3. Identify additional resources and technical assistance that can be offered to disaster impacted communities. 4. Identify additional coordination opportunities within department and network. 5. Create the framework and strategies for an action plan related to recovery efforts. 11:12 a.m. Meeting adjourned Page 3 of 3 FLOOD RECOVERY 8: ALLIANCE SESSION 5R0 Workgroup Meeting December 14, 2017 AGENDA 10:00 AM Welcome 8: Introductions Draft SRO Charter and Framework Discussion/Review from Governor?s Flood Recovery 8: Alliance Session Update on SRO Legislative Report Next Steps Noon Adjournment