Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the CDBG topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State says Daniels County CIP application was strong but lacked support letters; county resubmits and explores CATAP help
Summary
State Department of Commerce reviewers told commissioners the county's $40,000 CDBG capital improvements plan application scored well but lost points on urgency, community support (no letters attached) and capacity details. Daniels County resubmitted for round two and discussed using CATAP technical assistance if not funded.
State Department of Commerce staff joined Daniels County commissioners on Jan. 20 to explain why the county’s CDBG application for a capital improvements plan (CIP) did not receive funding in the first competitive round.
A Commerce reviewer told the board the application was “very strong” and received a high score overall but lost differentiating points because it did not demonstrate urgency, did not include letters of support, and lacked a detailed description of how the county would administer and follow up on the CIP. Reviewers recommended including at least one formal commitment-of‑funds letter, stronger documentation of community support and a timeline showing how the CIP would be updated and used to pursue future grants.
County staff said they resubmitted the application for the second CDBG cycle (deadline Jan. 16) and asked whether letters of support could be submitted retroactively; the reviewer said she would check with her manager to see if an exception could be made in this instance. The state also described CATAP (Community Technical Assistance Program) as an alternative: CATAP offers one‑off technical assistance — sometimes including consultant work under a state master‑services agreement — that can help small communities draft CIPs, update plans and pursue funding when CDBG awards are not available.
State guidance to strengthen a future or revised application included: a clearer urgency statement tied to public health or safety where appropriate; a short timeline that shows how the CIP would become a living document with annual reviews; letters of support (ideally several from distinct organizations or officials rather than a petition-style page of signatures counted as a single letter); and explicit capacity information (who would administer the grant, what accounting system is used, and whether a contracted consultant such as Interstate would be engaged).
Commissioners asked staff to collect letters of support rapidly; Commerce staff said they would aim to accept any late materials if their manager approved, and to email the review notes and scoring criteria to county staff.
What comes next: county staff will gather formal letters of support and documentation of match commitment, coordinate with Interstate and the state if CATAP help is needed, and await the round‑two decision.
