Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grants Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ocean Shores parks board presses administration to clarify RCO grant match after mapping-tool confusion
Summary
Board members said a state RCO youth facilities grant could fund much of a park revitalization but disagreed with city staff about the required local match; the board wants the administration to get a definitive answer before the grant deadline (early April).
Ocean Shores — The Parks Board spent the bulk of its Sept. 10 meeting urging city administration to resolve an apparent discrepancy over the required local match for a state RCO youth facilities grant that could finance a major park revitalization.
At issue is whether Ocean Shores qualifies for a 30% match reduction using the state’s mapping tool or whether the city’s grant manager and a state grant manager are correct that the match is 50%. The board’s speaker said the mapping tool shows a 30% reduction, which would make the local share roughly $450,000 on a project the board described as costing about $2,000,000 and covered in part — the speaker said — by roughly $1.5 million in state funds.
“The mapping tool is telling me 30%. Why the grant manager is saying 50%? Tell me why,” the board member said during the meeting, saying they were “pushing back” to get a clear answer from the state and the city’s grant manager, Tim Hiles.
Why it matters: A 30% match would be far easier for the city and council to consider than a 50% match. Board members warned that if the required local share is $750,000 rather than about $450,000, the city is less likely to support moving the application forward. The board said the grant application deadline is early April, leaving administrative work and coordination with the mayor, city administration and council to be completed well before then.
What the board asked for: Board members asked the city’s administration and the grant manager to obtain a definitive written explanation from the state grant manager about how the match was calculated and to report back to the Parks Board. Members also discussed pursuing council support for funding only if the match were confirmed at the lower rate.
Who was named: The board named Tim Hiles as the city’s grant manager (referenced during discussion) and said council-level approval would be required to commit local funds. The board said the issue is with administration action (grant preparation and clarification) rather than a council policy decision.
Next steps: Board members agreed to stay engaged and to encourage administration to “get this grant going” if the match is clarified at 30%. The board did not take a formal vote on the grant application at this meeting.
Reporting note: Statements about the mapping tool and the dollar figures come from the board discussion; the transcript records the mapping-tool/manager discrepancy but does not include a definitive resolution.
