Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Committee holds Senate Bill 24-26 after public comment and questions for Office of Grants Management
Loading...
Summary
Senate Bill 24-26, which would require mayors to concur on certain OGM grant applications and address indirect cost distribution, drew public comment and a lengthy committee exchange; the bill was left in committee for further drafting and a follow-up Q&A with OGM.
Senate Fiscal Affairs members spent substantial time on April 9 discussing Senate Bill 24-26, which would amend 1 CMC 2-893(d) to give mayors of the First and Second Senatorial Districts authority to concur on Office of Grants Management and State Clearinghouse (OGM/SC) applications and to address allocation of indirect costs. The chair told members the bill will remain in committee while OGM and mayors refine language.
Public comment: Bruce Camacho, introduced as a private citizen, told the committee he supported the bill’s intent but urged caution about the limits of the grants office’s authority on indirect costs: “I don’t think they can make such decisions,” he said, referring to the Office of Grants Management’s ability to concur on indirect-cost treatment.
Tomasa Palasius Mendiola, grants manager at the Office of Grants Management, testified in support of SB24-26 and said the grants office helps municipalities and provides training. “The Office of Grants Management is always open to all municipalities,” she said, and described recent grant-writing certification training the office ran for municipal staff. Mendiola described the existing indirect-cost split she understands as about 65% to the general fund and 35% to subgrants and operations; she described operational limits when grants arrive at the “eleventh hour.”
Committee discussion: Senators pressed OGM officials and each other on three linked issues: (1) whether municipal mayors should have a formal concurrence role for OGM applications and indirect-cost allocations; (2) how indirect cost (IDC) reimbursements are split and whether portions should be reserved for municipal grant-writing capacity; and (3) how to ensure grant awards intended for multiple islands actually deliver equipment and services equitably.
Senators and staff acknowledged OGM’s limited capacity; OGM staff described recent training cohorts for government grant writers and said the office is undersized relative to demand. Senator Manglona and other members suggested creating explicit pass-through percentages or a cost-allocation study so the 65/35 split and the distribution of administrative burdens are transparent. “If the municipality really wishes for their project to be rated high, you need to communicate that to the governor,” an OGM official said, describing the governor’s role in priorities for some federal grant programs.
The committee scheduled a follow-up, member-led Q&A with OGM administrator Cabrera for 2 p.m. the same day to refine statutory language and discuss staff levels, indirect-cost allocation and whether the legislation should explicitly authorize municipalities to retain a portion of IDC. Members directed OGM to provide proposed drafting language and staffing recommendations; the bill will stay in committee while staff and the agency continue drafting.
Ending: The committee paused action on SB24-26 and asked OGM and municipal leaders to work with senators on concrete amendment language to clarify concurrence, IDC breakdowns and expenditure authority before the bill returns to committee.
