Clean Water Conversation: Design and Implementation Block Grant Q&A Panel

This conversation features a panel of Design and Implementation Block Grant holders from Vermont Association of Conservation Districts, and Watersheds United Vermont, and Mount Ascutney Regional Commission, as well as project highlights from the subgrantees Connecticut River Conservancy, Friends of the Winooski River, and Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District.

Chris Yurek from Mount Ascutney Regional Commission was unable to make it to the panel, but kindly provided his comments in writing:

Question 1: Do you have any recommendations to future Funding Program Administrators on best practices?

Response 1: The COVID pandemic turned the world on its head, and things may not “return to normal” any time soon. Factors like wild fluctuations in fuel prices, labor and materials shortages, fluctuating costs of materials, etc. require that we abandon the long-standing rigid approach to grant administration. Construction cost projections prepared just 6 months prior can become markedly inaccurate because of the volatility of the market over the last few years. Timelines can be blown simply because of a lack of responsive bidders due of the labor shortage. In the current climate, sub-grantees often require as much funding and timeframe flexibility as we can reasonably allow in order to successfully complete projects. Try to be understanding and accommodating when subgrantees request additional funds or time.

Question 2: What are some challenges/lessons learned from the DIBG experience?

Response 2: Developing processes, and holding subgrantees to those processes, is crucial. Deliverables submission processes are a good example. When compounded across 50-60+ projects, it is amazing how much it can complicate things when subgrantees are all submitting deliverables in a slightly different manner. For example, many subgrantees will (with the best intentions) combine numerous deliverables into a single PDF document. If you let that slide, you can find yourself investing unprecedented amounts of time simply teasing apart PDFs and filing them as stand-alone deliverables to provide DEC. Holistically, we did a good job developing the processes, but a bad job requiring that they be followed. The resulting administrative burden was substantial, and we learned from that.

Question 3: Were there any parts of the entire process that went particularly well?

Response 3: Between Natural Resource Conservation Districts, Regional Planning Commissions, NGO Watershed Groups, and municipalities, Vermont possesses a strong and collaborative network of clean water partners. The success of our DIBG Program is dependent upon the successes of our subgrantees. We are thankful to our partners at VACD, WUV and VAPDA for helping to make our DIBG Program successful. Sub-granting to our knowledgeable and experienced partners has helped the block grant administration process to go smooth.

[cleanwaterinitiativevt]

Chris Yurek from Mount Ascutney Regional Commission was unable to attend the panel, but kindly provided his comments in writing:

Question 1: Do you have any recommendations to future Funding Program Administrators on best practices?

Response 1: The COVID pandemic turned the world on its head, and things may not “return to normal” any time soon. Factors like wild fluctuations in fuel prices, labor and materials shortages, fluctuating costs of materials, etc. require that we abandon the long-standing rigid approach to grant administration. Construction cost projections prepared just 6 months prior can become markedly inaccurate because of the volatility of the market over the last few years. Timelines can be blown simply because of a lack of responsive bidders due of the labor shortage. In the current climate, sub-grantees often require as much funding and timeframe flexibility as we can reasonably allow in order to successfully complete projects. Try to be understanding and accommodating when subgrantees request additional funds or time.


Question 2: What are some challenges/lessons learned from the DIBG experience?

Response 2: Developing processes, and holding subgrantees to those processes, is crucial. Deliverables submission processes are a good example. When compounded across 50-60+ projects, it is amazing how much it can complicate things when subgrantees are all submitting deliverables in a slightly different manner. For example, many subgrantees will (with the best intentions) combine numerous deliverables into a single PDF document. If you let that slide, you can find yourself investing unprecedented amounts of time simply teasing apart PDFs and filing them as stand-alone deliverables to provide DEC. Holistically, we did a good job developing the processes, but a bad job requiring that they be followed. The resulting administrative burden was substantial, and we learned from that.


Question 3: Were there any parts of the entire process that went particularly well?

Response 3: Between Natural Resource Conservation Districts, Regional Planning Commissions, NGO Watershed Groups, and municipalities, Vermont possesses a strong and collaborative network of clean water partners. The success of our DIBG Program is dependent upon the successes of our subgrantees. We are thankful to our partners at VACD, WUV and VAPDA for helping to make our DIBG Program successful. Sub-granting to our knowledgeable and experienced partners has helped the block grant administration process to go smooth.