Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grant Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kendall County court agrees staff will draft written policy for grant applications after debate over exceptions
Summary
Commissioners discussed continuing the practice of requiring court approval before staff submit grant applications, raised concerns about missed time‑sensitive opportunities and budget impacts, and directed staff and the auditor to draft a written policy (including an exception process) to return at the next regular meeting.
At a special March 11 meeting, Kendall County commissioners debated whether county staff should continue to be required to obtain commissioners court approval before submitting grant applications or whether narrow exceptions should allow time‑sensitive submissions.
Grant coordinator Christina Pasey told the court that the county has historically required prior court approval and that a checklist and signature line have helped ensure transparency. "In my opinion, I think it is best to have commissioner's court approval prior to submitting a grant," Pasey said, citing transparency and oversight.
County Auditor Corinna Spear urged the court to retain a strong approval role, noting the growth in grant activity: "I believe the grant that you just approved makes 31 grants this fiscal year," she said, and warned that grants frequently carry strings — maintenance, insurance, or long‑term budget impacts — that the court should review before an application is submitted. Spear said she would feel comfortable with a narrow exception only when a special or regular meeting cannot be convened and the judge and auditor both signed off.
Commissioners and counsel discussed possible procedures for exceptions when deadlines are imminent, whether a monetary threshold should apply, and the risk of repeatedly withdrawing awarded grants if the county applied and later declined acceptance. Some suggested allowing the judge and the auditor to approve emergency submissions and then requiring immediate placement of the item on the next regular court agenda for ratification. Staff and counsel agreed to draft a written policy for the court to consider, possibly incorporating grant rules into the county purchasing policy and providing a quarterly grant status report.
The court directed staff to draft the grant‑application policy and return it for formal consideration at the next regular meeting. The judge said staff would make reasonable efforts to avoid missing deadlines in the meantime.
No formal vote was taken on a change of policy at the special meeting; the court indicated consensus on the direction to have staff prepare a written procedure and return it to the full court for adoption.
