Fort Smith staff presents draft grants policy; board directs further drafting and asks for public-facing transparency tools

Chris Hoover, the city—s grants and government relations coordinator, presented a draft grants policy intended to give city departments procedures and board oversight for pursuing and managing federal and private grants.

Hoover told the board the draft is meant to be a foundation for a grants-management framework, noting the city previously lacked a comprehensive policy. He said the draft draws on the OMB Uniform Guidance and practices he observed as a congressional staffer and that it should cover most funding opportunities while acknowledging some grants require case-by-case handling because of federal program rules.

Key elements in the presentation included a proposed threshold that would require explicit board approval for grants that exceed $75,000, grants that require a local match, grants that call for policy changes, or grants that require subaward agreements or MOUs. Hoover said the policy would also formalize who signs and what approvals are required and urged a centralized grants-management approach rather than informal file systems.

Board questions and staff clarifications: board members asked how congressional direct spending and community project funding requests (earmarks) work; Hoover described the process as submitting requests to members of Congress and noted the city had received congressional-directed awards in FY 2024, including a listed $2,500,000 award and a separate $12,000,000 EPA-related award for a water transmission project (items Hoover identified from the administration—s grants history). Hoover also described the variability in earmark cycles and caps.

Board members urged better public transparency. Several directors suggested a public-facing dashboard or a page on the city—s website listing active NOFOs and grant applications after the board has approved submission. Hoover said he would post NOFOs only after the board authorized an application to avoid publishing irrelevant federal notices and offered to provide the board the full survey/presentation materials used for other agenda items.

Foundations and private funding: directors asked how the city could pursue private philanthropic and family-foundation funding. Hoover recommended staffing or contracting for foundation-research and cultivating relationships with major regional funders, noting that foundation award processes are relationship-driven and require staff capacity.

Board direction: directors asked administration to continue drafting the policy, develop a grants-management system recommendation, and bring a resolution or final draft for board consideration at a future meeting in July. No formal vote to adopt the policy occurred at this meeting; staff was asked to return with a board-ready draft, a recommended grants-management tool and recommendations for public-facing transparency mechanisms.

Ending: Hoover said the draft policy is a starting point and that administration and departments would refine it based on the board—s direction and upcoming needs (for example, management for a noise-mitigation application and anticipated PSAP/consolidated 911 requests).