Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State reviewers say Daniels County's CDBG CIP application was strong but needs clearer urgency, timeline and letters of support; county resubmitted for round 2
Summary
Montana Department of Commerce staff told Daniels County the CDBG capital‑improvements plan (CIP) application scored well but lost points for lacking urgency narrative, an explicit timeline for implementation/updates and formal letters of support; county staff resubmitted the application and will request late letters of support.
Representatives from the Montana Department of Commerce and the Community Technical Assistance Program (CATAP/CACP) joined Daniels County commissioners by phone on Jan. 20 to review a CDBG planning grant application for a Capital Improvements Plan (CIP).
State reviewers said the county’s application was strong overall and scored well on many criteria but fell short in three specific areas that could be improved for future rounds: a clearer statement of urgency tied to immediate public‑health or safety threats (which can bump an applicant’s priority), a more detailed timeline showing how the CIP will be maintained and used to pursue subsequent funding rounds, and one or more formal letters of support (the application included meeting minutes indicating a local match but lacked a signed commitment letter on official letterhead). Reviewers encouraged the county to provide at least one separate letter of support and a formal commitment‑of‑funds letter rather than relying solely on meeting minutes or petition‑style signatures.
State staff also described CATAP as an alternative technical‑assistance route should the county not receive CDBG funding; CATAP can provide scoped consultant assistance and on‑demand planning services but is state‑managed and may involve a state‑driven procurement process. County staff said they had already resubmitted the CIP application for the second CDBG cycle (deadline Jan. 16) and asked whether letters of support could be added; state staff agreed to inquire with managers about exceptions and offered to circulate reviewer notes and scoring comments to the county.
State reviewers offered concrete suggestions: add a succinct urgency statement where relevant, include a timeline showing how the CIP would be revisited and used to pursue grants, and attach one or more letters of support (from the commission, mayor, provider or other stakeholders) and an explicit commitment‑of‑funds letter on county letterhead.
Next steps: county staff will collect letters of support and a formal commitment letter and await the state’s response about whether late materials can be accepted for the recent submittal; if the county does not receive CDBG funding, staff may pursue CATAP assistance to prepare a revised CIP.
