Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission moves to tighten grant requirements after mixed grantee feedback
Summary
Surveyed grantees praised some aspects of the OHV grant program but criticized unclear 'incomplete' definitions and a difficult presentation process; commissioners demanded clearer checklists, landowner‑letter templates, and form redesigns.
The commission reviewed results of an anonymous grantee‑feedback survey and debated how to reduce incomplete or noncompliant grant applications before they reach the commission.
Program manager Peyton Varmore summarized survey responses from awarded grantees (responses concentrated from 2023–2025 cycles): applicants generally praised application clarity and post‑award reminders, but many flagged the presentation/interview process as intimidating and said the definition of an “incomplete” application is unclear. Grantees also asked for more post‑award training on reimbursements (RFRs) and simpler RFR forms; staff acknowledged slow reimbursement timelines and said the addition of a second program position should speed processing.
Commissioners, led by Commissioner White and Commissioner Boyer, pushed for firmer completeness checks. The commission discussed existing NAC/NRS rules requiring completeness (citing NAC 4 90.14 and NRS 490.068/490.069), the role of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) in screening applications, and repeated examples where staff or TAC forwarded applications that commissioners later judged incomplete or outside statutory scope. Technical Advisory Committee members and staff recommended adding explicit 'NA' checkboxes, a project-specific landowner-letter template, and a line-by-line checklist in the grant manual. Several federal land-agency representatives said landowner letters and NEPA/cultural review needs vary by project and offered to provide model language to speed review.
On procurement vs. grants, TAC members cautioned that funding for promotional videos via grants can leave ownership of produced materials with for‑profit grantees; the TAC suggested using procurement/contracts for assets the commission wants to own. Deputy Attorney General Nicole Ting advised that safety-and-training videos can qualify as grant-funded while pure promotional products may not align with statutory grant purposes.
Next steps: staff will update the grant checklist, create NA checkboxes and a sample landowner letter template, pilot improved RFR forms, and return revised materials for commission review before the next grant cycle.
