Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grants And Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board directs tighter grant-application review, asks CAO to return revised purchasing policy
Summary
Supervisors requested a clearer countywide process for grant applications and directed staff to return with a revised purchasing/grant-application policy placing an initial review under the CAO to vet long‑term fiscal commitments; staff said a draft will be returned for board review.
San Benito County supervisors on Tuesday directed county staff to draft a revised purchasing and grant-application policy that routes grant applications through the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) for review before submission, with the CAO empowered to request further analysis of long‑term staffing or maintenance obligations.
The board’s discussion followed concerns from department heads and public commenters that current timeframes and review processes sometimes leave departments unable to prepare complete grant applications within short notice and that applications submitted without full analysis can expose the county to unbudgeted long‑term commitments. Several department heads said they have missed opportunities because of shortened application windows and urged the board to streamline the review process while preserving safeguards against accepting grants that carry unfunded obligations.
County staff told the board the proposed approach would require departments to submit grant applications to the CAO for an initial review; the CAO would then determine whether an application needs further board review because it includes staffing or other long‑term commitments. Staff said they will prepare a written policy and return it to the board for formal adoption; at one point staff mentioned a planned return date in late December for a revised purchasing policy and resolution to replace a 2023 resolution referenced during the discussion.
Supervisors and department speakers emphasized balancing speed and due diligence: they asked staff to build a predictable, transparent checklist so departments know when CAO review is required, what documentation will be requested (budget estimates, staffing plans, maintenance-of-effort requirements) and what circumstances would trigger mandatory board review. Staff suggested the revised policy could include a streamlined CAO sign‑off path for low‑risk grants and a separate path for larger programs or grants that contain long‑term commitments or regulatory assurances beyond the grant term.
Public commenters and department staff asked that the policy not unduly delay legitimate grant submissions while giving the county the ability to flag grants that could require future general‑fund support. No budget appropriation for additional staffing was made; staff said they would propose process language intended to minimize added review burden on departments.
The board’s direction was procedural: staff were asked to return a written purchasing/grant‑application policy that centralizes initial review in the CAO’s office and clarifies thresholds and documentation, and to present the policy and associated resolution on a future agenda for possible adoption.
