Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grant Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bozeman board finalizes grant process details: applications due May 30; applicants invited to present in June
Summary
City staff presented the Parkland Trust Community Grant Program rubric and timeline. The board discussed scoring, transparency, staff roles, applicant presentations and conflict‑of‑interest handling; deadlines and steps were clarified.
At the May 22 Urban Parks and Forestry Board meeting, Ross Snapper, park planner with the City of Bozeman Parks and Recreation Department, reviewed the Parkland Trust Community Grant Program, explained proposed review criteria and described an intake and scoring timeline.
Snapper said the rubric is organized around six review criteria — feasibility (10 points), appropriateness for park type, clarity and completeness of application materials (30 points), equity and access, community outreach and communications, and delivery methods — and that scoring is intended to reflect themes from the city’s PRAT (Parks, Recreation and Active Transportation) plan. He said staff expects a mix of applicants, from institutions with engineering support to grassroots groups, and proposed that staff score maintenance feasibility while the board scores the other criteria.
Board members discussed transparency, conflict‑of‑interest handling and scoring mechanics. Several members said the public should see total possible points but not necessarily the granular breakdown unless results are challenged; others asked that staff prepare brief executive summaries for each application highlighting maintenance impacts, recent investments in the project area and likely staff recommendations. The board agreed that applicants will be forwarded to the board (no pre‑screening) and that all applicants will be invited to make three‑minute presentations at a June meeting. Individual board members will score applications after reviewing materials; staff will tally results and bring award recommendations to a subsequent meeting slated for July.
Members discussed handling partial awards and funding shortfalls: staff said the board may choose to partially fund projects and that leftover funds could be used in a second application round; staff noted fiscal limits for the 2025–2026 fiscal year (July 1, 2025–June 30, 2026) and that future funding may be available in subsequent years. The deadline for applications was stated as May 30. The board also discussed statistical approaches to combining scores (simple average, discarding highest/lowest, percent‑of‑possible) and asked staff to recommend a method in advance of scoring. Board members said they will recuse themselves from scoring on any application that presents a conflict (for example, a member who is affiliated with a submitting organization).
