Montana interim committee hears how state, universities and tribes manage federal and state grants

State agencies, university research offices, tribal governments and local officials told the Montana Local Government Interim Committee on Feb. 14 that while federal and state grants deliver essential dollars, administrative burdens and timing mismatches raise costs and limit access for small and rural communities.

"As a state administering agency, we provide financial assistance through these grant opportunities, whether it's federal or state, and we provide training and technical assistance," Kayla Bragg, executive director of the Montana Board of Crime Control, told the committee. Bragg said the board currently manages 14 federal and three state grant programs and conducts monitoring and training for subgrantees.

Criselda Delacruz, the board’s grant program supervisor, described the federal application workflow: notices are posted, applicants draft responses in grants.gov and apply in JustGrants during windows that typically run about 45 days; agencies then wait roughly 60 to 90 days to learn whether awards will be made. She stressed that the board mirrors federal notice language in its state NOFOs and scores applications before the board makes final awards.

University officials described similarly heavy lift on compliance and administration. "In fiscal year 2025, MSU spent nearly $289,000,000 on research," Dr. Nicole Motzer, founding director of Montana State University’s Office of Research Development, told the committee, adding that MSU invests in staff, software and indirect‑cost infrastructure to manage hundreds of awards and subawards. Scott Wittenberg, vice president for research at the University of Montana, described his campus’s growth in awards and the continuing need for pre‑ and post‑award staffing.

Tribal representatives said different federal mechanisms—638 contracting, self‑governance compacts and state pass‑through funds—bring federal money to tribes but also create special administrative demands. "Tribal governments sit in a really unique position within the federal funding system," Mitzi Racine of the Blackfeet Nation said, adding that tribes frequently lack dedicated grant staff and face layered reporting and audit burdens when state systems treat tribes as municipalities or nonprofits.

Local officials and clerks gave practical examples of how those burdens play out. Drummond Clerk‑Treasurer Robin Wight walked the committee through a wastewater project whose estimated cost rose from about $3.55 million in mid‑2023 to $9.5 million by mid‑2025 amid design delays, permit reviews, sludge‑placement testing and inflation. The town's final funding package combined ARPA, state programs, SRF loans and USDA awards; Wight said the community received roughly 82% of the package in grants and forgiveness but still faced an outsized local loan and rate increases.

Panelists repeatedly identified three recurring obstacles: (1) limited staff capacity at both state agencies and local governments, (2) duplicative or inconsistent application and reporting requirements across programs, and (3) reimbursement‑style funding that forces small governments to float large project costs.

Maxwell Parson, committee staff, presented a multi‑state comparison and noted models other states use to reduce friction: Utah hosts an online funding portal and third‑party resources; Wyoming recently established a centralized grants office under its budget department; other states offer match funds or grant‑writing support targeted at smaller jurisdictions. Parson proposed follow‑up panels with Utah/Wyoming staff and private‑sector grant partners.

Committee members asked staff to return with comparative examples and cost data so lawmakers can assess whether a centralized hub, expanded match programs or targeted capacity investments would be cost‑effective. The committee set follow‑up panels and left open the possibility of drafting legislation based on findings.