The MS4 grant for coalition projects is intentionally structured for partnerships and smaller-scale projects, and award size depends on each project’s scope, a grant administrator said during an Oct. 5 applicant Q&A. “Is there any benefit to widening the group beyond 2 members?” asked Andrew Levine, town administrator for Hatfield, during the session. Courtney Sterling, a grant administrator, replied that award size is driven by project scale and purpose and that "the overall grant is generally $250,000" so partnerships are intended to stretch dollars across participating communities.

Why it matters: Applicants weighing whether to add partners should base that decision on project scope rather than an expectation of more points or automatic larger awards for more partners. Sterling said some projects that produce statewide resources have broad coalitions while other physical projects that occur in multiple communities can be larger and thus more costly.

Sterling said the program’s design is coalition-focused because the funding pool is not large. “It’s not a huge amount of money and so in order to kind of stretch the dollars as far as we can, that’s what is the intent behind the partnerships,” she said.

Speakers and examples in the session illustrated the range of applicants. Regional planning commissions and watershed associations frequently apply; Sterling noted a recent partnership involving Brookline and Waltham that produced a phosphorus-attenuation study at catch basins. Lisonbee Dixon, a senior planner with the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission, described re-submitting a previously awarded project that was delayed by a late award the prior round and said the goal is to design BMPs municipalities can implement without expensive engineering so towns can move toward implementation more easily.

Discussion vs. decision: This session was informational; no formal decisions or changes to program rules were made. Sterling and other staff answered strategy and eligibility questions but did not announce policy changes or new award amounts beyond the description of typical past awards.

Ending: Applicants should assess whether additional partners add meaningful participation or needed capacity for a project rather than expecting more funding. Program materials and examples of past projects are posted with the RFR for applicants to review.