grant-opportunity-screen

Purpose

Make a fast go/no-go call on whether the city should invest staff time in an application. The cost of a grant is rarely the match alone: it includes grant-writing hours, compliance burden, the operating tail after the grant ends, and the opportunity cost of staff.

Required inputs

• Notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) or program guidelines, with deadline, eligible applicants, eligible activities, and scoring criteria.
• Funder type (federal, state pass-through, foundation) and award size range and expected number of awards.
• Candidate project, its cost, readiness (design, environmental, site control), and sponsor department.
• Adopted plans, CIP, and council priorities the project would serve.
• Available local match and its source.

Workflow

1. Eligibility gate: applicant type, population or income thresholds, geography, eligible costs, prior-award restrictions, SAM.gov/UEI registration, and required audits. Any hard failure ends the screen.
2. Fit: map the project to the scoring criteria with a rough point estimate per criterion. Note criteria the city cannot meet (e.g., partnership letters, benefit-cost analysis).
3. Readiness: construction-ready vs. planning-only. Many programs reward readiness; unfunded environmental review or right-of-way can disqualify.
4. Match and cash flow: required percentage, cash vs. in-kind, source and approval needed. Determine whether the grant is reimbursement-based (the city fronts cash) and whether the general fund can carry that float.
5. Operating tail: staffing, maintenance, insurance, and reporting after the grant ends. Compare the tail to the benefit. State whether the project is in the CIP; grants should accelerate priorities, not create new ones the city cannot sustain.
6. Compliance burden: Uniform Guidance procurement, Davis-Bacon, Buy America preferences, environmental review, reporting, and records (see grant-compliance-check).
7. Probability and effort: estimate competitiveness (applications vs. awards if known), staff hours to apply, whether a consultant is needed, and cost of a consultant (check fee structure: contingency fees may be prohibited as a cost under federal awards).
8. Decision: Pursue, Pursue with partner, Defer to next cycle, or Pass, with the reason.

Output structure

| Criterion | Finding | Pass/Concern/Fail | Rows: eligibility, fit, readiness, match, cash flow, operating tail, compliance burden, competitiveness, staff effort.

Add: scoring-self-assessment table, timeline back from deadline, council actions needed (authorization to apply, match commitment), and recommendation.

Red flags / escalate

• Match source not identified or requiring a vote before the deadline.
• Project not in any adopted plan or CIP.
• Recurring cost obligations created without a funding source.
• Prohibited consultant fee arrangements or conflicts of interest in grant-writing contracts.
• Deadline too close to complete required letters, resolutions, or environmental documents.

Common mistakes

• Chasing available money rather than an adopted priority.
• Counting the grant amount without the tail.
• Ignoring reimbursement float.
• Underestimating application hours.
• Treating a competitive program as likely without award history.

State-law variance

Council authorization rules for applying, accepting, and matching funds vary by charter and state law.