HomeMy WebLinkAboutAudit Reports - Public - Grant Management Process and Policy Assessment - 3/24/2025
City of Glendale -
Grant Management Process and Policy
Assessment
Version History:
Initial Final Draft - Report Document (2/21/25)
Audit Final Draft - With Management Response
(3/12/25)
Final Report Issued - (3/24/25)
BerryDunn
2211 Congress Street
Portland, ME 04102-1955
207.541.2200
William Brown - Principal
bbrown@berrydunn.com
Timothy Cutler – Project
Manager
Tim.cutler@berrydunn.com
Submitted on
March 24, 2025
berrydunn.com
Table of Contents | i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................
City of Glendale Grant Application and Administration Assessment – Executive Summary ................. 3
Overall Project Purpose ................................................................................................................... 3
Project Focus Overview ................................................................................................................... 3
Summary of Work Performed ........................................................................................................... 5
Study Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 6
Summary of Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................. 6
Recommendations Based on Finding .............................................................................................. 7
Peer Communities Observations (No Recommendations) ............................................................ 18
Full Assessment Introduction ............................................................................................................... 21
Project Background ........................................................................................................................ 21
Report Format ................................................................................................................................ 23
Methodology and Approach ................................................................................................................. 24
Stakeholder Engagement and Interviews ...................................................................................... 24
Background .................................................................................................................................... 24
Study Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 25
Assessment Section 1: Review of the City’s Existing Grant Management Support Documentation ... 27
Documentation Findings ................................................................................................................ 27
Key Documentation Recommendations ......................................................................................... 29
Assessment Section 2: Review of Current Grant Management Activities Across Departments .......... 43
Staff Questionnaire Findings .......................................................................................................... 44
Summarized Theme Findings Across All Departments ................................................................. 52
Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 53
Assessment Section 3: Comparative Peer Community Benchmarking ................................................ 58
The Survey of Peer Communities Focused on Several Key Grant Policy, Procedures, and
Activities, Including ......................................................................................................................... 58
Key Peer Benchmarking Themes Defined ..................................................................................... 58
Table of Contents | ii
Key Peer Benchmarking Observations .......................................................................................... 60
Appendices ........................................................................................................................................... 63
City of Glendale Grant Application and Administration Assessment – Executive
Summary | 3
Grant Application and Administration Assessment – Executive
Summary
Overall Project Purpose
In establishing the Independent Internal Audit Program (IIAP), the Council approved an arrangement
whereby internal audit services for the City of Glendale will be co-sourced under the overall direction
of the City’s Internal Audit Program Manager who reports functionally to the Audit Committee. The
goal of the IIAP is to improve the effectiveness of risk management, control, and governance
processes. To this end, IIAP aims to support the City Council and City Management by providing
value-added internal audit services.
The City’s Independent Internal Audit Program oversees financial, contract compliance, internal
control, and performance audits to aid the City in accomplishing its strategic objectives by employing
a systematic, disciplined approach to:
Improving organizational operations
Identifying opportunities to minimize operational and financial risk
Identifying opportunities to maximize efficiency and effectiveness
Strengthening public confidence and accountability
Project Focus Overview
Our review included all grant funding types, with a primary focus on competitive, discretionary
funding opportunities and the City’s experience with those funding types. While formula and
entitlement grants provide significant benefits to the City, we found no indication that the City is
missing available funding in these categories. Our focus on competitive, discretionary funding and
many of the resulting recommendations included in our report provide the greatest opportunity for
the City to increase its total grant funding awards. Increases in such funding, however, are greatly
impacted by the findings and recommendations found throughout this report.
The specific focus of the assessment the City contracted with BerryDunn to provide is for a review of
the City of Glendale’s existing grant application and administration policies and procedures. The City
previously developed a Grant Application and Administration Policy (“Policy”) to provide departments
with the operational and staff performance requirements for applying for and accepting competitive
federal, state, county, tribal, private foundation, and corporate grants. It also identifies the roles and
responsibilities of the Grants Office, Budget and Finance Department, and the applicable
Department Grants Project Manager. The City’s policy is not applicable to the categorical and
formula grants, Community Development Block Grants and Housing and Urban Development grants
it receives, nor does it apply to direct corporate gifts and/or donations made to the City or individual
departments.
The City’s Budget and Finance Department had previously developed a Finance Administrative
Policy, dated 5/1/2005 and last updated on 4/12/2022, which provided the following guidance for City
departments related to the pursuit and management of grant funding:
City of Glendale Grant Application and Administration Assessment – Executive
Summary | 4
Purpose in Applying for Grants
The City will only apply for grants that further City Council goals and objectives and support projects
and programs that are consistent with the mission and strategic plans and priorities of the City and
its departments.
1. Applications must be reviewed and approved in Simplicity Grant Master by the city Grants
Program Manager prior to submission to the funding agency.
2. Grant funding should be considered for one-time or time-limited projects such as capital
improvements, or program enhancements that do not have a long-term effect on the ongoing
operations budget. Grants may also be appropriate for start-up funding mechanisms for
priority projects already identified in a department’s business plan.
3. Grants will not be used as the primary financing mechanism to create new ongoing programs
or services or to add unbudgeted positions.
4. Any grant application that includes a grant-funded position or a graduated match resulting in
the City assuming full financial responsibility subsequent to termination of the grant, or
directly increases the City’s ongoing operating costs, must be reviewed by, and approved by
the Grants Program Manager, Budget and Finance Director, and City Manager or his/her
designee.
5. The City may co-sponsor, serve as fiscal agent, or join with multiple sponsored community-
based consortia or other jurisdictions when clear public benefit to Glendale residents can be
demonstrated.
Grant Policies and Procedures Manual
1. Guidelines intended to direct and provide consistent processes and procedures across
departments were previously developed and widely distributed to the departments.
Expectations are that all Departments seeking to pursue grant funding would ensure all staff
initiating a grant application request or initiating the administration of an awarded grant would
adhere to the Grant Policies and Procedures. A copy of the Grant Policies and Procedures
Manual is also available on the GRID or by request through the Grants Office residing in the
Budget and Finance Department.
Award Acceptance Policies and Procedures for Grant Funding Have Been Established and Include:
1. Grant awards that are less than $50,000 may be accepted administratively by the City
Manager or designee, unless otherwise required by the granting agency.
2. The Grants Office will provide City Council a monthly report of all grant awards.
3. Grants awards that are $50,000 or more will require a City Council resolution prior to
spending of funds.
4. Grantors may require a governing body resolution for funding; therefore, it is critical that this
requirement be identified prior to the grant application by the applicant Department.
City of Glendale Grant Application and Administration Assessment – Executive
Summary | 5
Summary of Work Performed
Initial planning activities were held with the City’s appointed Project Leadership team which
consisted of the following staff members:
Michael Kingery – Independent Internal Audit Program Manager
Levi Gibson, the Budget and Finance Department Director, and
Jose Echeverria Vega, the Budget and Finance Department’s Grant Program Manager
The Leadership Team selected six departments for review and interviews based on their history of
applying for and managing grant funding, as well as their likelihood of receiving future funding.
Representatives from the six departments were provided a questionnaire to review prior to their
participation in direct interviews with BerryDunn project personnel. The six departments interviewed
were:
Police
Fire
Transportation
Community Services
Water Services
Emergency Management
In addition to these six departments, the City’s Budget and Finance Department, which has primary
responsibility for monitoring and managing grant funding awards’ reporting and compliance, received
a similar questionnaire focused on that department’s specific grant support activities and interactions
with other departments.
In conjunction with the interviews performed, copies of City policy notices, process manuals, activity
tracking procedures and any available individual departmental policy or procedure documentation,
previous grant solicitations, and grant-related practices utilized were requested and reviewed.
Finally, BerryDunn solicited peer community feedback from eight communities in the region to
provide insight into comparable grant management practices to ascertain any possible areas for
modifications the City might wish to consider based upon their peer communities’ experiences.
Feedback was solicited from the following communities:
Peoria
Tempe
Chandler
Mesa
Goodyear
Scottsdale
Gilbert
Avondale
City of Glendale Grant Application and Administration Assessment – Executive
Summary | 6
Study Limitations
It is important to address the limitations of this study to help contextualize BerryDunn’s findings and
recommended considerations and identify areas where further exploration and analysis may be
needed. These are as follows:
BerryDunn was unable to conduct a time study to collect quantitative data on the average
time spent by departments on grant opportunity identification, applying for grants and
managing awarded grants. As such, when discussing the time spent on grant-related
activities throughout this report, BerryDunn is reporting on the anecdotal estimates within the
responses received from staff within the individual departments and interview/questionnaire
responses. It should be noted, however, that BerryDunn aggregated the themes of the
responses from multiple departments’ staff, to provide a reasonable estimate of the overall
time and effort currently expended on grant activities.
Specific grant activities at the departmental level were not consistently documented, nor
were they reported to the Budget and Finance Department, which results in an inability to
ascertain the true level of effort and focus individual departments have historically expended
on grant opportunity and application efforts. This lack of documentation can be mainly
attributed to the decentralized nature of grant activities within each department, and the lack
of staff within the Budget and Finance Department focused on centralized monitoring and
management of grant activities.
Documentation regarding staff skills and experience related to pre-award and post-award
grant management was extremely limited within the individual departments, which impacted
our ability to define specific grant training and support needs across all departments. This
results in our recommendations for any support and training activities to be broadly
recommended across all departments and staff to avoid inconsistent knowledge across the
City’s multiple departments.
Of the eight peer communities solicited for feedback on their grant management policies and
procedures, four responded. Though opportunities to share additional narratives and specific
details related to their community’s activities were afforded them, only one of the four
provided additional information beyond the automated survey questions. As a result, the
insights provided from peer benchmarking are primarily presented in an aggregated manner
based upon the overall responses received.
Summary of Findings and Recommendations
Our grant management assessment activities were focused on reviewing and documenting current
methods, practices and procedures that are used by the City’s departments to identify and secure
grant funding, with the primary focus on discretionary funding as opposed to formula and entitlement
funding.
Essentially, our evaluation is intended to serve as a road map to document both the City’s current
grant funding activities, these activities’ strengths, and areas for improvement. It is important to note
City of Glendale Grant Application and Administration Assessment – Executive
Summary | 7
that our findings and recommendations are not meant to be used to draw any conclusions related to
the skills and capability of any departmental staff members or their ability to be successful in regard
to any specific grant activities. Our findings and recommendations are instead intended to provide
the City with insights and areas where modifications to practices could lead to improvements that we
believe the City should review and incorporate into future grant management activities and goals in
the future.
We conducted our assessment of the City’s Grants Management processes and procedures through
the lens of the 5 E’s of performance auditing (Effective, Efficient, Economical, Ethical, Equitable) to
determine where streamlining could occur and risk of errors, fraud, waste, and abuse could be
reduced. We also performed an assessment of the current work processes being utilized to manage
grant activities across the City’s departments to assess whether paper/manual/ad hoc processes
could be better managed through possible automated solutions. Finally, we focused on identifying
opportunities for the City to improve grant identification and application submissions, grant funding
awarded vs. application effort expended, and overall grant-funded project activity tracking, along with
financial data outcome reporting.
Recommendations Based on Finding
Documentation Assessment
Strategic Grant Funding Management Planning
Glendale does not have a citywide strategic grants framework, which results in a decentralized,
reactive approach to grant funding. This lack of coordination leads to inefficiencies, redundant
efforts, and grants that may not align with City priorities. This results from historical decentralization
and a lack of dedicated grant coordination resources. The financial impact includes securing
unsustainable grants, missing funding opportunities, and inefficiencies in post-award management.
Politically, this could damage Glendale’s credibility with funders and create public perception issues
if grant-funded projects fail. Glendale should establish a Strategic Grant Funding Management Plan
with clear funding priorities, a centralized grants coordination committee, and a multiyear grant
forecasting plan. A formalized grant evaluation framework should ensure that funding pursuits align
with City goals, budget considerations, and capacity. By integrating grant planning with financial
strategy, Glendale can enhance funding success while reducing administrative burden.
Documentation Assessment Area:
Strategic Grant Funding Management Planning
Recommendation: Establish a Strategic Grant Funding Management Plan with clear funding
priorities, a centralized grants coordination committee, and a multiyear grant forecasting plan.
Management Response
Management Agreement Concur
Target Completion Date October 31, 2025
Action Plan Under the City of Glendale’s current forecast model, the Budget &
Finance Department forecasts grants based on historic grant data.
By October 31, 2025, Management will establish:
1) A strategic grant funding management plan outlining funding
priorities in alignment with its financial plans, infrastructure
City of Glendale Grant Application and Administration Assessment – Executive
Summary | 8
goals, and operational needs using a structured approach that
assesses the organization’s grant management readiness
based upon six fundamental organizational subject areas:
Capacity, Capability, Credibility, Communication,
Compliance, and Consistency.
2) A centralized cross-departmental grants coordination
committee that will review grant opportunities, align funding
strategies, across departments, and ensure accountability in
funding pursuits. The committee will meet regularly to review
progress, discuss funding trends, and track upcoming
opportunities and will be comprised of key grant SMEs and city
leadership. New funding opportunities over $50,000 will be
vetted utilizing a risk assessment checklist to ensure the grant
is in alignment with the City’s funding priorities, is fiscally
viable, and is in the interest of Glendale residents.
Training and Capacity Building
Glendale does not have a structured training program for grant management and development,
leading to inconsistent practices and knowledge gaps. Staff primarily learn on-the-job, increasing
compliance risks and inefficiencies across departments. This issue arises from limited investment in
professional development and a lack of institutionalized training programs. Financially, poor training
increases the risk of noncompliance penalties, funding claw backs, and grant mismanagement.
Politically, grant failures could reduce trust in Glendale’s ability to manage external funds. Glendale
should establish a Grant Training and Capacity Development Program, incorporating competency-
based training, mentorship, and certification pathways. A centralized digital resource hub should
house training materials, compliance guides, and grant templates. Expanding external partnerships
with professional grant organizations will provide ongoing learning opportunities. By institutionalizing
structured training, Glendale can improve grant efficiency, compliance, and long-term sustainability.
Documentation Assessment Area:
Training and Capacity Building
Recommendation: Establish a Grant Training and Capacity Development Program, incorporating
competency-based training, mentorship, and certification pathways. A centralized digital resource
hub should house training materials, compliance guides, and grant templates.
Management Response
Management Agreement Concur
Target Completion Date December 31, 2025
City of Glendale Grant Application and Administration Assessment – Executive
Summary | 9
Action Plan By December 31, 2025, Management will establish:
1) A Grant Training and Capacity Development Program that
incorporates competency-based training, mentorship, and
certification pathways through Neoga to create a tiered
competency framework that identifies essential, intermediate,
and advanced grant-related skills for different staff levels. The
framework will institutionalize the required knowledge and
provide a clear learning path for staff development to include
mandatory onboarding training for all staff who work with
grants, annual compliance training on federal, state, and
private grant resolutions, technical writing workshops to
strengthen proposal development, and cross-departmental
workshops; and
2) The grant management toolkit will be available on an internal
City of Glendale website housing training materials,
compliance guides, and grant templates. Management will
work with the IT Department to implement an appropriate
solution and accessible location on a City of Glendale
webpage.
Tools and Templates
Glendale lacks standardized grant tools, leading to inefficiencies and inconsistencies in compliance
tracking, reporting, and financial oversight. Departments primarily rely on manual processes,
increasing the risk of errors and missed deadlines. This issue is due to the absence of a dedicated
grant management system and standardized policies, procedures, and other key documentation.
The financial impact includes increased administrative costs, delayed reimbursements, and potential
audit findings. Politically, mismanagement could damage Glendale’s reputation with funders and
hinder future grant awards. Glendale should implement a comprehensive grant management toolkit
with standardized templates for work spanning the entire grant life cycle, including financial
reconciliations, monitoring, and compliance. A Centralized Grant Compliance Dashboard/Hub should
be developed to track deadlines and financial obligations in real-time. If grant management software
is adopted, the City should integrate workflows to improve efficiency. Strengthening documentation
and automation will enhance compliance, reduce risks, and increase grant management efficiency.
Documentation Assessment Area:
Tools and Templates
Recommendation: Implement a comprehensive grant management toolkit with standardized
templates for work spanning the entire grant life cycle, including financial reconciliations,
monitoring, and compliance. A Centralized Grant Compliance Dashboard/Hub should be
developed to track deadlines and financial obligations in real-time. If grant management software
is adopted, the City should integrate workflows to improve efficiency.
Management Response
Management Agreement Concur
Target Completion Date October 31, 2025, for grant management toolkit
December 31, 2025, for Centralized Grant Compliance
Dashboard/Hub
City of Glendale Grant Application and Administration Assessment – Executive
Summary | 10
Action Plan o Management will use existing resources to create a grant
management toolkit until a grant management software can be
evaluated in subsequent Fiscal Years (FY 2027 or later) to ensure
budget feasibility.
By October 31, 2025, Management will develop and
implement a comprehensive grant management toolkit
available on a designated City of Glendale webpage to include
standardized templates for work spanning the entire grant life
cycle, including financial reconciliations, monitoring, and
compliance.
By December 31, 2025, Management will work with the IT
Department to create a Centralized Grant Compliance
Dashboard/Hub to track deadlines and financial obligations in
real-time through a readily available system such as Power BI,
SharePoint, Smartsheet, or similar software.
o
Compliance Monitoring and Management
Glendale’s compliance framework is decentralized and inconsistent, with financial oversight largely
occurring after expenditures, increasing the risk of noncompliance. Departments lack standardized
monitoring processes, increasing audit risks and financial penalties. This stems from the absence of
centralized compliance policies, automated tracking, and designated oversight roles. The financial
impact includes potential grant claw backs, funding disallowances, and increased administrative
costs to correct compliance issues. Politically, repeated compliance failures could harm Glendale’s
reputation and reduce future funding opportunities. Glendale should implement a centralized
compliance monitoring framework, integrating structured risk assessments, automated tracking, and
standardized reporting. A Grant Compliance Dashboard should be established to monitor deadlines,
reconcile finances, and flag high-risk grants. If Glendale invests in grant management software,
compliance workflows should be embedded into the system. Strengthening compliance monitoring
will reduce financial risks, improve funder confidence, and ensure long-term grant sustainability.
Documentation Assessment Area:
Compliance Monitoring and Management
Recommendation: Implement a centralized compliance monitoring framework, integrating
structured risk assessments, automated tracking, and standardized reporting. A Grant Compliance
Dashboard should be established to monitor deadlines, reconcile finances, and flag high-risk
grants. If Glendale invests in grant management software, compliance workflows should be
embedded into the system.
Management Response
Management Agreement Concur
Target Completion Date December 31, 2025
Action Plan o Management will use existing resources to create a grant
management system until grant management software can be
evaluated in subsequent Fiscal Years (FY 2027 or later) to ensure
budget feasibility.
City of Glendale Grant Application and Administration Assessment – Executive
Summary | 11
o Management will develop and implement a unified grant
management system, including:
Centralized compliance monitoring framework to ensure real-
time compliance tracking, financial oversight, and risk
mitigation.
A risk assessment template to assess the level of risk
associated with each grant program, identifying high-risk
grants that require enhanced oversight, additional monitoring,
or corrective action plans.
Automated tracking to track all reporting deadlines, financial
reconciliation requirements, and grant closeout activities
across departments.
Management will work with the IT Department to create a Centralized
Grant Compliance Dashboard/Hub to track deadlines and financial
obligations in real-time through a readily available system such as
Power BI, SharePoint, Smartsheet, or similar software.
Pre-Award Grant Project Activities and Planning
Glendale’s approach to grant pursuit is reactive, with departments independently applying for
funding without a structured vetting process. The City lacks standardized pre-award planning,
leading to inefficiencies, misaligned funding pursuits, and administrative burdens. This issue results
from limited interdepartmental coordination, inadequate documentation, and the absence of a
structured grant opportunity review system. The financial impact includes wasted resources on
unsuccessful applications and potential long-term funding obligations Glendale cannot sustain.
Politically, misaligned or failed grant projects could damage the City’s credibility with funders and the
public. Glendale should implement a structured pre-award grant planning framework, ensuring that
all funding opportunities are vetted for feasibility, sustainability, and compliance readiness. A
Centralized Grant Opportunity Review Committee should evaluate potential applications for
alignment with City priorities and capacity. A Grant Application Toolkit should be developed to
standardize grant proposals, budget development, and compliance planning. Strengthening pre-
award documentation will improve funding success and reduce administrative inefficiencies.
Documentation Assessment Area:
Pre-Award Grant Project Activities and Planning
Recommendation: Implement a structured pre-award grant planning framework, ensuring that all
funding opportunities are vetted for feasibility, sustainability, and compliance readiness. A
Centralized Grant Opportunity Review Committee should evaluate potential applications for
alignment with City priorities and capacity. A Grant Application Toolkit should be developed to
standardize grant proposals, budget development, and compliance planning
Management Response
Management Agreement Concur
Owner José Echeverría Vega, Grants Program Manager
City of Glendale Grant Application and Administration Assessment – Executive
Summary | 12
Target Completion Date October 31, 2025, for a structured pre-award grant planning
framework to be rolled into the grant management toolkit.
October 31, 2025, for the Centralized Grant Opportunity
Review Committee (see Documentation Assessment Area:
Strategic Grant Funding Management Planning, Action Plan
Item #2)
October 31, 2025, for the Grant Application toolkit that will be
a component of the Grant Management Toolkit.
Action Plan Management will develop and implement a pre-award
planning framework (i.e., checklist) based on alignment with
City priorities, financial viability, staffing capacity, and long-
term sustainability.
A centralized cross-departmental grants coordination
committee that will review grant opportunities, align funding
strategies across departments, and ensure accountability in
funding pursuits. The committee will meet regularly to review
progress, discuss funding trends, and track upcoming
opportunities and will be comprised of key grant SMEs and city
leadership. New funding opportunities over $50,000 will be
vetted utilizing a risk assessment checklist to ensure the grant
is in alignment with the City’s funding priorities and is fiscally
viable and in the interest of Glendale residents; and,
Management will develop and implement a Grant
Management Toolkit that incorporates a pre-award section for
the development of grant proposals, budgets, and compliance
planning. This includes developing a Grant Project Planning
Template that helps departments clearly define project goals,
key deliverables, budget needs, and sustainability strategies
before seeking funding; a Standard Grant Application Template
covering project narratives, performance measures,
sustainability plans, and budget justifications to streamline
and improve consistency; a Grant Budget Development Guide
with standardized cost categories, indirect cost calculations,
and financial reporting expectations to align and standardize
grant applications with best practices and compliance
requirements; and a Grant Compliance Planning Template
requiring departments to outline compliance obligations
before applying, ensuring they are aware of and incentivized to
understand federal, state, and local regulations.
Staff Feedback Assessment
Strategic Grant Funding Management Planning
Based upon the comments received, departments note that they do not feel that they have received
sufficient guidance to understand their roles and responsibilities related to grant funding activities. It
City of Glendale Grant Application and Administration Assessment – Executive
Summary | 13
is likely that this is as a result of the City not having a clearly articulated or developed, proactive,
strategic approach to grant funding upon which the individual departments could prioritize their grant
efforts. Without a citywide strategic grant funding management plan, opportunities for the City as a
whole to successfully develop strong and successful grant funding results is limited. A strong
strategic grant funding framework provides a clear road map for how the City’s individual
departments should identify, assess, and manage funding opportunities in alignment with their
financial plans, infrastructure goals, and operational needs, which in turn support the City’s overall
priorities and community needs. Without guidance and support at the citywide level, which is a
recommended best practice, departments typically have only limited success winning competitive,
discretionary awards of amounts over $100,000. The City should explore performing a strategic
grant funding management review to establish its citywide grant strategy.
Documentation Assessment Area:
Strategic Grant Funding Management Planning
Recommendation: Perform a strategic grant funding management review to establish its citywide
grant strategy.
Management Response
Management Agreement Concur
Target Completion Date October 31, 2025
Owner José Echeverría Vega, Grants Program Manager
Action Plan Management will perform a strategic grant funding management
review providing a clear road map for how the City will identify, assess,
and manage funding opportunities in alignment with its financial
plans, infrastructure goals, and operational needs. Findings will be
used to inform the plan and will be developed in accordance with the
City’s CIP, balanced scorecard, and in collaboration with City
leadership, and will utilize the Schedule of Federal Expenditures and
available financial data to establish a citywide grant strategy.
Training and Capacity Building
The City of Glendale’s ability to secure and manage grant funding effectively is heavily dependent on
the expertise of its workforce. However, the results of our interviews with City staff indicate that
Glendale lacks a systematic, structured approach to training and capacity building in grant
development, management, and compliance. While some individuals have developed some
expertise through their work experience, the vast majority of the departmental employees tasked
with grant management responsibilities have very limited, if any, knowledge related to grant
management activities. This leaves departments dependent upon employees charged with a vital
task feeling overwhelmed and unprepared to successfully meet the requirements of the role. This
leaves departments vulnerable to limited effort being made to pursue grants, limited success in
securing grant funding that is applied for, and potential turnover in staff who feel overwhelmed by the
responsibilities assigned to them. Without a structured training and capacity-building framework that
departments can have their staff participate in and develop skills through, the department’s grant
activities operate inefficiently and ineffectively.
To transform individual department’s staff into successful and high-performing grant management
personnel, access to grant management training and capacity building resources must be provided.
City of Glendale Grant Application and Administration Assessment – Executive
Summary | 14
Documentation Assessment Area:
Training and Capacity Building
Recommendation: Seek and provide access to grant management training and capacity
building resources to department staff.
Management Response
Management Agreement Concur
Target Completion Date December 31, 2025, and ongoing
Owner José Echeverría Vega, Grants Program Manager
Action Plan Grants Administration has provided individual training to
departments/divisions on topics like MUNIS (inputting grants into
Grant Master/Grant Manager), and federal regulations (2 CFR 200,
Davis Bacon, etc.).
Additionally, the City of Glendale will be co-hosting a grant
seeking/writing training on April 10 in collaboration with the Cities of
Flagstaff and Gilbert, which will be made available for any staff in
Glendale wishing to hone their grant skills.
Tools and Templates
BerryDunn recommends that the City initiate a review and development of the organizational tools
and templates its departments currently have access to and explore opportunities for improvements.
Such items help streamline the complex process of applying for, managing, and reporting on grants,
ensuring accuracy, efficiency, compliance with funder requirements, and ultimately maximizing the
chances of securing funding. This helps achieve project goals by providing a structured framework
to track key details, deadlines, budgets, and progress across all stages of the grant life cycle.
In line with the development and distribution of improved tools and templates, we advise that the City
abandon its current passive and reactive approach to identifying and applying for grant funding. We
recommend that the City explore one of two potential options regarding the search, identification and
qualification of grant funding opportunities, and the subsequent application for funding.
Option 1 - The City should explore creating and hiring a grant coordinator position,
responsible for all search, identification, and in line with City and department’s strategic
funding plans, the qualification of opportunities that the City may wish to apply for. We further
recommend that the City review subscription options for search optimization services that
can provide focused grant funding opportunities based upon criteria the City has established.
We strongly advise that the City not attempt to utilize existing staff resources to perform this
function. Industry data shows only limited successful outcomes when individuals responsible
for this critical task are assigned other day-to-day work. The City may wish to fill this position
with a staff member who has documented success in planning and applying for grant funding
from a variety of funders. This would provide departments with experienced support that
could mentor and guide individual departments’ staff on the application process to expand
experienced grant application capacity across the City.
Option 2 – Alternatively, the City may wish to explore, at least initially, the contracting out to
a consulting firm the functions listed above for the proposed Grant Coordinator position. It is
City of Glendale Grant Application and Administration Assessment – Executive
Summary | 15
quite common for local governments to take this approach to limit overhead costs and to
provide an opportunity to assess the cost vs. benefit of having a focused resource that is
responsible for managing the critical initial phases of the grant management process.
Utilizing outside contractors further benefits the City by having the ability to modify service as
grant funding cycles occur and eliminates the need for the City to enter into any subscription
search services until it has had time to fully vet the full costs and benefits of this option.
Documentation Assessment Area:
Tools and Templates
Recommendation: Initiate a review and development of the organizational tools and templates its
departments currently have access to and explore opportunities for improvements.
Management Response
Management Agreement Concur
Target Completion Date June 30, 2025
Owner José Echeverría Vega, Grants Program Manager
Action Plan Management will initiate a review and development of organizational
tools and templates for departments to use with the recommendations
outlined in the Grant Management Process and Policy Assessment that
will become part of the grant management toolkit.
Documentation Assessment Area:
Tools and Templates
Recommendation: Explore one of two potential options fully explained above regarding the search,
identification, and qualification of grant funding opportunities, and the subsequent application for
funding:
Option 1: Create internal Grant Coordinator position
Option 2: Contract with a qualified consulting firm to provide Grant Coordinator functionality
Management Response
Management Agreement Concur
Target Completion Date October 31, 2025
Owner José Echeverría Vega, Grants Program Manager
Action Plan Management will evaluate budget feasibility for either option noted in
the recommendation and implement the recommendation in a future
fiscal year dependent upon available funding.
Compliance Monitoring and Management
Organizational grant management success across multiple departments requires a strong
compliance monitoring framework. Under the City’s current system, the Grant Program Manager
appears to have insufficient time to monitor and successfully engage with all departments to
maximize the City’s ability to secure grant funding. Compliance responsibilities related to grants
expand far beyond the requirements of just funders. To cover such areas as both funder-mandated
financial and outcome reporting, as well as the management of State and City requirements placed
on each award, the City must have a staff member who is focused on the management of funding
vs. its assigned activities. Compliance with performance objectives and deliverables is a significant
responsibility that is not easily performed without having the opportunity to dedicate sufficient effort.
Finally, organizational compliance with policies and procedures related to grant program staffing,
procurement, and reporting, coupled with program outcomes and cost vs. benefits assessments,
City of Glendale Grant Application and Administration Assessment – Executive
Summary | 16
should be constantly monitored by recipients of grant funding. Based upon the data we collected as
well as the assigned work responsibilities noted, it is our recommendation that the City consider
better defining the Grant Program Manager’s responsibilities to be more focused on the City’s overall
grant management compliance and conformance needs. This would include overseeing previously
noted tasks related to improvements and additions previously recommended for the City’s grant
documentation, development, and implementation of formal training for impacted departmental staff,
and the planning and procurement of possible tools and templates to facilitate grant management
activities.
We would advise that at the start of any recommended project activities, the Grant Program
Manager lead the creation of a comprehensive compliance monitoring and management plan that
will help the City’s departments be better supported and able to proactively identify and address any
potential compliance issues. Such a plan would likely minimize the risk of legal and financial
penalties, reputational damage, and financial losses by ensuring adherence to relevant laws,
regulations, and internal policies, ultimately safeguarding the City’s integrity and operational stability.
Documentation Assessment Area:
Compliance Monitoring and Management
Recommendation: Better define the Grant Program Manager’s responsibilities to be more focused
on the City’s overall grant management compliance and conformance needs.
Management Response
Management Agreement Concur
Target Completion Date June 30, 2025
Owner José Echeverría Vega, Grants Program Manager
Action Plan Management will review and revise the Grant Program Manager’s
responsibilities to be more focused on the City’s overall grant
management compliance conformance needs. Management will work
with Human Resources and Risk Management to ensure this is
accomplished by June 30.
Pre-award Grant Project Activities and Planning
A key weakness in Glendale’s current approach to grant funding initiatives is the absence of a
centralized framework guiding pre-award processes and decisions. Without standardized and
consistent criteria for evaluating whether an opportunity is a good fit for the City, significant efforts
and inefficiencies in the process exist. The utilization of varied staff to identify grant opportunities
without a formal strategy and regular communication, is ineffective and inefficient. Best practices
indicate that local governments are typically most successful in consistently securing grant funding
when dedicated personnel are assigned responsibility for planning, identifying, and applying for grant
funding. BerryDunn recommends that the City explore one of two options, either hiring staff or
ongoing contracting with outside consultant services for grant opportunity identification and
application support services; or the use of experienced consultants to develop training and
mentoring opportunities for assigned staff within each department to build internal capacity. The
success of this recommendation is deeply dependent upon the City implementing the
recommendations noted prior to this recommendation or at least working to address some
alternative solutions that may yield comparable benefits and results.
City of Glendale Grant Application and Administration Assessment – Executive
Summary | 17
Documentation Assessment Area:
Pre-award Grant Project Activities and Planning
Recommendation: Explore one of two options, either hiring staff or ongoing contracting with
outside consultant services for grant opportunity identification and application support services; or
the use of experienced consultants to develop training and mentoring opportunities for assigned
staff within each department to build internal capacity.
Management Response
Management Agreement Concur
Target Completion Date October 31, 2025
Owner José Echeverría Vega, Grants Program Manager
Action Plan Management will evaluate budget feasibility in FY 2027 or later for
either option noted in the recommendation and implement the
recommendation in a future fiscal year.
See Strategic Grant Funding Management Planning action plan. As
part of ongoing training opportunities, the City of Glendale is co-
hosting a grant seeking/writing training in collaboration with the City of
Flagstaff and City of Gilbert that will be made available citywide for
staff who want to hone their grant skills.
City of Glendale Grant Application and Administration Assessment – Executive
Summary | 18
Peer Communities Observations
1) Grant Management Structure and Staffing
Peer cities typically maintain dedicated grant staff, with staffing levels ranging from one to three
personnel in smaller municipalities to more than 10 in larger ones. While most operate under a
decentralized model, some cities provide centralized oversight of a decentralized system to enhance
coordination and compliance. One peer city follows a hybrid approach, where a central grants
coordinator supports pre- and post-award activities, manages online grant systems and portals,
facilitates staff training, and oversees Tribal Gaming funding processes. Additionally, Peoria
integrates grants into its strategic planning, ensuring that funding pursuits align with the Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) and Council priorities.
Glendale lacks a structured citywide grant strategy, operates a highly decentralized system, and
does not have dedicated grant writing personnel. This limits the City’s ability to competitively pursue
funding, coordinate interdepartmental grant efforts, and proactively manage the grant life cycle.
2) Grant Identification and Application Processes
Most peer cities submitted between 21 and 50 grant applications in 2024, with success rates ranging
from 26% to over 75%. These cities take a proactive approach to grant identification by strategically
tracking opportunities, prioritizing applications based on alignment with city goals, and providing
centralized oversight to support departments through the application process.
In contrast, Glendale’s approach remains reactive, with departments independently identifying and
applying for grants without a coordinated citywide strategy. This decentralized method results in
missed opportunities, inconsistent application quality, and limited alignment with broader funding
priorities.
3) Policies and Procedures
Four out of five peer cities have formal, regularly updated grant policies that provide clear guidance
on application processes, compliance, and cost recovery. These policies ensure consistency and
accountability across departments. Peoria, for example, has a structured post-award process that
integrates financial oversight early in the grant life cycle, involving the finance department at the
grant setup stage to prevent mismanagement and compliance risks.
Glendale has a grant management manual, but it is outdated, inconsistently used, and lacks
comprehensive guidance on key areas such as compliance requirements, financial oversight, and
pre-award activities. Without clear, standardized policies and procedures, departments approach
grant management inconsistently, increasing the risk of compliance failures, missed opportunities,
and inefficiencies.
4) Technology, Tools, and Systems
Several peer cities have begun implementing grant management software such as Workday and
AmpliFund to automate and enhance tracking, reporting, and compliance. However, most peer cities
City of Glendale Grant Application and Administration Assessment – Executive
Summary | 19
still rely on their financial systems, like MUNIS, supplemented by spreadsheets for manual tracking.
Notably, no peer city has indicated that they have fully automated processes or systems to capture
and integrate programmatic reporting with financial tracking.
Glendale primarily uses MUNIS for financial oversight but does not have a dedicated grants
management system to centralize application tracking, compliance monitoring, and reporting.
Departments manually track and report programmatic data, leading to fragmented, inconsistent, and
inefficient grant data management. Without a centralized, enterprise-wide grants management
solution, Glendale faces ongoing challenges with visibility, coordination, and compliance monitoring,
making it difficult to ensure consistent tracking and oversight across departments.
5) Collaboration and Interdepartmental Coordination
Three out of five peer cities surveyed indicated that they submitted joint applications with external
entities in 2024, demonstrating a more coordinated approach to securing funding. While
interdepartmental coordination varied, some peer cities hold regular grant coordination meetings to
align funding strategies, share opportunities, and streamline applications for multi-departmental
projects.
Glendale did not submit any joint grant applications in 2024 and lacks a structured mechanism for
interdepartmental collaboration on grant pursuits. Departments largely operate in silos, leading to
missed opportunities for competitive funding that could benefit multiple programs. Establishing a
citywide grants working group, requiring pre-application coordination meetings, and enhancing
communication between Finance, Budget, and program staff would strengthen Glendale’s ability to
pursue large-scale, multi-departmental grants and increase its overall competitiveness for funding
opportunities.
6) Compliance, Risk Management and Reporting
Most peer cities rely on financial systems like MUNIS for tracking grant expenditures, supplemented
by spreadsheets for manual tracking of compliance and programmatic reporting. However, no peer
city reported having fully automated systems for tracking programmatic grant compliance, meaning
most municipalities still rely on department-led manual reporting. Cities with stronger compliance
oversight have implemented structured compliance policies, centralized reporting tools, and defined
risk management procedures, though challenges remain in ensuring compliance monitoring is
proactive rather than reactive.
Peer cities also report challenges in tracking allowable costs, indirect costs, and reporting
requirements, with few fully leveraging indirect cost recovery mechanisms to offset administrative
burdens. While financial oversight is often centralized, programmatic grant performance tracking
remains fragmented across departments, leading to inconsistencies in reporting and compliance
monitoring. Cities that have improved compliance outcomes have focused on developing internal
policies, enhancing interdepartmental coordination, and utilizing data-driven compliance tracking
tools.
| 20
7) Training and Capacity Building
Among peer cities, only two out of five provide structured, formal grants training, while others utilize
on-the-job learning and informal training methods. Cities that invest in training typically offer regular
workshops, compliance briefings, and grant writing courses, ensuring that staff across departments
have the necessary knowledge to pursue and manage grants effectively.
Glendale does not currently have a formalized grant training program, and staff across departments
lack standardized guidance on grant applications, compliance, financial management, and reporting.
Without structured training, grant administration knowledge remains inconsistent, and departments
face challenges in understanding evolving compliance requirements, improving application success
rates, and ensuring proper post-award management. Cities with stronger training programs have
implemented tiered learning frameworks, cross-departmental workshops, and grant certification
opportunities to improve staff expertise and build institutional grant capacity.
8) Challenges and Barriers to Success
All peer cities identified staffing capacity as a primary challenge, with many struggling to balance
grant responsibilities alongside other duties. Additionally, internal organizational challenges, limited
grant compliance expertise, and difficulties in building relationships with funders were commonly
cited as barriers to success. Cities that have successfully overcome these challenges have done so
by implementing centralized grant coordination, dedicated grant staff, and structured compliance
frameworks.
Glendale faces similar barriers but also contends with additional challenges due to a lack of
dedicated grant writing personnel, limited citywide coordination, and an absence of structured grant
policies and procedures. Without centralized oversight or formalized strategic planning, Glendale
risks missing funding opportunities, encountering compliance issues, and inefficiently allocating staff
resources. Strengthening interdepartmental collaboration, increasing staff capacity, and formalizing
policies and procedures will be essential to improving Glendale’s grant success.
Full Assessment Introduction | 21
Full Assessment Introduction
Project Background
BerryDunn was contracted by the City of Glendale to fulfill the scope of work assigned by the City to
Project #2 – Grants Management contained within the fully executed service agreement number
C24-0977. The specific planned tasks to address the scope of work agreed upon by the City and
BerryDunn are as follows
Tasks and activities performed as of the date of this draft report include:
Task 1.1: Conduct initial project planning meeting and develop engagement scope of work
Task 1.2: Entrance conference and communication plan
Task 1.3: Request and review initial documents to understand departmental staff roles and
responsibilities, and current processes, procedures, and resources available
Task 1.4: Develop Work Plan and procedures
Task 2.1: Conduct interviews with departmental staff identified in Phase 1 to understand
departmental roles, duties, overall workflows and procedures, and interactions
Task 2.2: Review initial information assessment results and request additional input and
insights from staff on our perceptions and understanding
Task 2.3: Conduct follow-up interviews as needed, and perform benchmark assessments, as
possible, of comparable cities’ staffing, practices and procedures, and overall outcomes
Task 2.4: Document key areas for potential changes and any best practices
Task 3.1: Prepare Pre-Draft Audit Report for Project Team Leadership
Task 3.2: Audit Committee Review
Task 3.3: Update report based upon Audit Committee’s input and submit final version
Task 3.4: Conduct Exit conference
As a point of clarification related to our project work, while our work has involved an audit of the
City’s practices and procedures related to grant management, no financial or compliance audit
activities of the City’s grant management practices to determine compliance with federal, state, or
other applicable laws and regulations has been performed. Agreed upon work activities to date
would best be described as an assessment of the City’s practices, policies, and procedures with the
goal of determining and documenting relevant findings, conclusions, and recommendations for
improvement, including the incorporation of best practices.
While all grant funding types were included in our review, we had a specific focus on competitive,
discretionary funding opportunities and the City’s experience with those funding types. While
formulaic and entitlement grant funding provides significant benefit to the City, we found no
indication that the City was not receiving all available funding available to it. Our focus on
competitive, discretionary funding and many of the resulting recommendations included in our report
provide the greatest opportunity for the City to increase its total grant funding awards. Increases in
Full Assessment Introduction | 22
such funding, however, are greatly impacted by the findings and recommendations found throughout
this report.
To provide consistency throughout this report, the use of the phrase “grant management” should be
thought of any individual activities that may be the subject of the activity being addressed in a
specific sentence, as well as an all-inclusive, overarching activity which encompasses all grant
activities that typically occur during the standard grant activity life cycle, (i.e. identifying funding
needs, exploring grant funding opportunities, developing a grant application and applying for funding,
receiving and accepting awarded funding, and the successful management of all grant activities
across both individual and the City’s portfolio of grant awards’ periods of performance).
Full Assessment Introduction | 23
Report Format
This report is structured as follows.
Executive Summary: Provides an overview of the report findings addressed within this report.
Introduction: Summarizes project background, phases, and report format.
Methodology and Approach: Describes the process that BerryDunn used to review and analyze
provided data and documentation, surveying internal and external stakeholders, and interviewing a
subset of internal and external stakeholders.
Assessment Section 1: Review of the City’s Existing Grant Management Support
Documentation – A review, assessment, general observations, findings, and recommendations
related to the current grant documentation and procedures available and utilized.
Assessment Section 2: Review of Current Grant Management Activities Across Departments -
Review, assessment and observations of the current grant management activities, processes, and
procedures of the six identified departments that were identified via interviews and questionnaires for
review.
Assessment Section 3: Comparative Peer Community Benchmarking - Review and
observations of the grant management activities, processes, and procedures of the respondents to
our peer review questionnaire and interview.
Assessment Section 4: Documented best practices related to grant management activities,
policies, and procedures for local governments.
Findings and Recommendations Section 5: Proposed modifications to the City’s grant
management documentation, and its grant management policies and procedures at the individual
department and overall administrative level.
Appendix A: Glendale Staff Surveys
Appendix B: Glendale Non-Budget and Finance Department Survey Responses
Appendix C: Glendale Budget and Finance Department Survey Responses
Appendix D: Peer Benchmarking Survey Questions and Responses
Appendix E: Key City of Glendale Current Grant Documentation
Methodology and Approach | 24
Methodology and Approach
Stakeholder Engagement and Interviews
Our grant management assessment of the City’s current practices and procedures is a critical
activity for any entity seeking to develop and maintain a strong grant management system that can
aid the City in successfully developing a grant management program that incorporates the City’s
desired goals related to the five Es of performance auditing (Effective, Efficient, Economical, Ethical,
Equitable).
Our grant management assessment activities were focused on assessing and documenting current
documentation, and practices and procedures that are used across the City’s departments, and an
assessment of peer communities’ grant activities and best practices. The intended results from this
evaluation were to provide the City with an assessment of what is working well, what needs
improvement, and how the City could potentially optimize future grant-funded opportunities.
Essentially our assessment is intended to serve as a road map to systematically document both the
City’s current strengths and areas for improvement related to its grant management efforts and to
serve as a starting point for future strategic planning regarding grant funding activities undertaken by
the City’s departments.
Our evaluation results are not meant to be used to draw any conclusions related to the capability of
any department or staff members to be successful regarding grant activities. The results and
recommendations are instead intended to call attention to areas for improvement that we believe the
City should review and develop a plan to remediate, both in the short-term and long-term. Our
assessment is focused on helping the City refine program strategies and make informed decisions
about the need for such things as focused grant trainings, implementation of support tools, and the
need for any improved documentation and implementation of policies and procedures related to
grants. In short, our evaluation provides recommendations that will help the City to develop a
strategic approach to grant funding.
Background
Upon project initiation, planning meetings related to the activities to be performed were held with the
City’s appointed Project Leadership team which consisted of the following staff members:
• Michael Kingery – Independent Internal Audit Program Manager
• Levi Gibson, the Budget and Finance Department Director, and
• Jose Echeverria Vega, the Budget and Finance Department’s Grant Program Manager
A total of six departments were identified by the Leadership Team to be reviewed and interviewed
based upon their history of applying for and managing grant funding awards, and the department’s
services being most likely to have grant funding available to them. Representatives from the six
departments were provided with a questionnaire to review prior to their participation in direct
interviews with BerryDunn project personnel. The six departments interviewed were:
• Police
• Fire
Methodology and Approach | 25
• Transportation
• Community Services
• Water Services
• Emergency Management
In addition to these six departments, the City’s Budget and Finance Department, which has primary
responsibility for monitoring and managing grant funding award’s reporting and compliance, received
a similar questionnaire focused on that department’s specific grant support activities and interactions
with other departments.
In conjunction with the interviews performed, copies of City policy notices, process manuals,
activity tracking procedures, individual departmental policy or procedure documentation,
previous grant solicitations, and other documentation provided were reviewed.
Finally, BerryDunn solicited peer community feedback from eight communities in the region to
provide insight into these comparable community’s grant management practices to ascertain
any possible areas for modifications the City might wish to consider based upon their peer
communities’ experiences. Feedback was solicited from the following communities:
• Peoria
• Tempe
• Chandler
• Mesa
• Goodyear
• Scottsdale
• Gilbert
• Avondale
Study Limitations
It is important to address the limitations of this study to help contextualize BerryDunn’s findings and
recommended considerations and identify areas where further exploration and analysis may be
needed. These are as follows:
• BerryDunn was unable to conduct a time study to collect quantitative data on the average
time spent by departments on grant opportunity identification, applying for grants and managing
awarded grants. As such, when discussing the time spent on grant-related activities throughout this
report, BerryDunn is reporting on the anecdotal estimates within the responses received from staff
within the individual departments and interview/questionnaire responses. It should be noted,
however, that BerryDunn aggregated the themes of the responses from multiple department’s staff,
to provide a reasonable estimate of the overall time and effort currently expended on grant activities.
• Specific grant activities at the departmental level were not consistently documented, nor
were they reported to the Budget and Finance Department, which results in an inability to ascertain
the true level of effort and focus individual departments have historically expended on grant
Methodology and Approach | 26
opportunity and application efforts. This lack of documentation can be mainly attributed to the
decentralized nature of grant activities within each department, and the lack of staff within the
Budget and Finance Department focused on centralized monitoring and management of grant
activities.
• Documentation regarding staff skills and experience related to pre-award and post-award
grant management was extremely limited within the individual departments, which impacted our
ability to define specific grant training and support needs across all departments. This results in our
recommendations for any support and training activities to be broadly recommended across all
departments and staff to avoid inconsistent knowledge across the City’s multiple departments.
• Of the eight peer communities solicited for feedback on their grant management policies and
procedures, four responded. Though opportunities for additional narratives and specific details
related to their community’s activities had been afforded all peer communities, only one of the four
provided additional information beyond the survey questions. As a result, the insights provided from
the peer benchmarking are primarily presented in an aggregated manner based upon the overall
responses received.
Assessment Section 1: Review of the City’s Existing Grant Management Support
Documentation | 27
Assessment Section 1: Review of the City’s Existing Grant
Management Support Documentation
Documentation reviewed included the following:
Single Audit Findings for the City for years 2021-2023
Grant Activity Tracking Sheets – (COG Dept Grant Application Tracking 2024.xls, COG
JEV Grants Tracking 2024.xls, MUNIS Grant Manager 11.4.24.xls)
City of Glendale Job Descriptions: Accountant Senior, Grants Program Manager
City of Glendale (COG) Grant Resource document
COG Grants Manual 2022
COG Prop 202 Procedures for Non-Municipal Organizations
FAP6 Grants Application and Administration 4.12.22
SimpliCity Grants Management - Document
SimpliCity Project Grant Accounting – Document
Our review of the City’s existing grant management support documentation focused on five key
subject matter themes, which high-performing grant management organizations have been shown to
typically provide and maintain strong guidance through documentation on:
1. Strategic Grant Funding Management Planning
2. Training and Capacity Building
3. Tools and Templates
4. Compliance Monitoring and Management
5. Pre-award Grant Project Activities and Planning
Documentation Findings
While the documentation provided by the Budget and Finance Department does have some
foundational guidance for departments to refer to, we found that many of the key themes we
reviewed are either not sufficiently addressed or not currently addressed at all, which limits
department’s ability to consistently perform and manage grant activities:
Training and Capacity Building - The City’s Grant Policy and Procedures Manual has limited
instructions related to the overall management of grant. The other provided documentation is
both limited in training value and where instructions are provided, the documentation
appears to assume baseline knowledge of grant management services without addressing or
providing adequate resources for training. Insufficient guidance and information is provided
to staff based upon their actual skills and experience.
Assessment Section 1: Review of the City’s Existing Grant Management Support
Documentation | 28
Tools and Templates - The primary source of documentation available to departments is the
City’s current grant management manual. This manual is lacking in practical resources such
as templates, checklists, and visual workflows that would help departments standardize and
streamline vital grant management tasks such as grant application planning and
development., and award management activity procedures such as budget tracking,
compliance monitoring, and performance reporting.
Subrecipient Funding and Monitoring Activities - Although Glendale currently has limited
federal subrecipient relationships, policies and supporting guidance on how subrecipient
awards should be planned and managed is not sufficiently provided in the current manual.
Closeout Guidance - The manual does not provide sufficient guidance and detailed closeout
practices and procedures to ensure compliance.
Compliance with Federal Standards - The City's current grant management manual lacks
explicit alignment with key federal regulations, including 2 CFR 200, particularly in areas
such as allowable costs, procurement standards, risk management protocols, and financial
reporting requirements.
Development and Incorporation of Strong Performance Metrics into programs -
guidance on tracking grant outcomes and using performance metrics to evaluate
success is minimal. It appears that the City has either not developed or has not
published guidelines to assist grant writers and departments with developing
performance metrics and goals that are aligned with funder’s goals and desired
outcomes. This significantly impacts the ability of grant applications submitted to be
funded.
Documentation and Guidance Related to Internal and External Financial Management -
While some financial processes are mentioned, the manual does not provide detailed
guidance on such key activities and tasks as budgeting, indirect cost recovery, required
reporting and document retention, tracking and verification of expenditures, nor overall
financial reporting.
Pre-award Project Activities and Planning – While the City’s administrative policy touches
upon the requirements for pursuing potential grant funding opportunities, there is a lack of
guidance and support provided to promote consistent practices across departments and
successful outcomes.
Guidance on the Development of a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Review and
Planning – It is not apparent that documentation to support individual department’s staff in
developing strong and competitive responses to NOFOs is available. Guidance related to
determining whether to pursue a grant opportunity is limited and not consistently applied
across all departments. Departments appear to have developed their own policies and
procedures regarding the identification of valid opportunities.
Document Retention Policies and Maintenance – Policies and guidance related to the
development and maintenance of centralized digital repositories of grant funding efforts does
Assessment Section 1: Review of the City’s Existing Grant Management Support
Documentation | 29
not appear to be provided nor successfully managed within most departments. Decentralized
responsibilities for grant opportunity identification, supporting documentation regarding
determinations of which opportunities to pursue and documentation developed during
application development is not centrally retained by departments, resulting in repetitive
efforts to identify and gather standard documents that are repeatedly needed.
Roles and Responsibilities – The policies and procedures manual provides guidance
regarding the responsibilities of the individual departments and the Budget and Finance
Department, but the guidance is limited and primarily determined by the individual
departments. Some departments have documented established roles and responsibilities
and attempted to assign accountability to key positions; however, this is not monitored nor
reviewed regularly to assess the effectiveness or efficiency of their grant focused initiatives.
Planning, Review and Submission of Grant Applications – Individual departments have
developed practices related to the planning, review and submission of grant applications
based upon their staff’s availability. Clear expectations, performance measures, and
outcomes vs. effort, are not consistently reviewed nor documented across departments.
Support from the Budget and Finance Departments Grant Program Manager is ad hoc,
based upon each individual department’s expectations and requests for support.
Grant Award Acceptance and Ongoing Management – From a high-level organizational
requirements viewpoint, expectations related to the acceptance of any grant funding
awarded to City departments appears to be clear and departments typically comply with the
policies and procedures. Opportunities for increased efficiency and procedural consistency
across departments does not appear to be presently monitored or addressed due to limited
resources across departments as well as capacity limitations of the Budget and Finance
Department’s Grant Program Manager, resulting in inconsistencies across the City’s
departments regarding procedures.
Strategic Organizational Planning and Coordination of Grant Activities - Our research
and experience indicates that the practice of developing and utilizing a formal grant
management strategy within an organization is a central component of strong grant
funding outcomes. A key component to success is documentation that provides staff with
consistent organizational practices from initial planning through the application, award,
and post-award phases of the grant life cycle. We were unable to find evidence of any
documentation that established citywide guidance or expectations that departments
could use to assess their overall grant management readiness and develop strategic
grant funding plans, which resulted in missed opportunities for increased grant awards.
Key Documentation Recommendations:
1. Strategic Grant Funding Management Planning –
A proactive, strategic approach to grant funding is essential for Glendale to maximize its external
funding potential, improve coordination across departments, and ensure that grant opportunities
align with long-term City objectives. Currently, Glendale does not have a documented, citywide
strategic grant funding management plan, which results in a disjointed, reactive approach to funding
Assessment Section 1: Review of the City’s Existing Grant Management Support
Documentation | 30
opportunities rather than a well-coordinated, intentional pursuit of grants that serve Glendale’s long-
term priorities.
A strong strategic grant funding framework provides a clear road map for how the City will identify,
assess, and manage funding opportunities in alignment with its financial plans, infrastructure goals,
and operational needs. Without such a framework, Glendale risks applying for grants that do not fully
support its mission, missing critical funding opportunities, and struggling with post-award
implementation and compliance.
To address these gaps, Glendale should establish a formalized Strategic Grant Funding
Management Plan, rooted in a disciplined, structured approach that assesses an organization’s
grant management readiness based upon six fundamental organizational subject areas, Capacity,
Capability, Credibility, Communication, Compliance and Consistency.
1) Establishing a Citywide Strategic Grants Framework
The lack of a unified grants strategy across City departments leads to fragmented funding pursuits,
inefficiencies, and misalignment between funding opportunities and City priorities. Glendale should
develop a comprehensive, multiyear strategic grants framework that serves as a guiding document
for all grant activities. This framework should:
Define Clear Grant Priorities
o Rather than pursuing grants on an opportunistic, ad hoc basis, Glendale should develop
an annual grant funding strategy that prioritizes opportunities aligned with the City's long-
term goals (e.g., public safety, infrastructure, sustainability, economic development).
These priorities should be documented in a formalized grant strategy report that is
reviewed and updated annually.
Implement a Centralized Grant Strategy Committee
o A cross-departmental grant coordination team should be created to review grant
opportunities, align funding strategies across departments, and ensure accountability in
funding pursuits. This team should meet regularly to review progress, discuss funding
trends, and track upcoming opportunities.
Develop a Multiyear Grant Forecasting Plan
o Glendale should implement a multiyear grant forecasting plan, identifying anticipated
funding needs, and targeting specific federal, state, and foundation opportunities that
align with these needs. This will ensure that the City proactively positions itself for
funding cycles well in advance, increasing its chances of success.
2) Strengthening the City's Grant Decision-Making Process
Glendale should institutionalize a structured process for evaluating grant opportunities, ensuring that
funding pursuits are strategic and sustainable rather than reactive. This process should include:
Assessment Section 1: Review of the City’s Existing Grant Management Support
Documentation | 31
A Formalized Grant Evaluation Framework where every funding opportunity should be
assessed using standardized criteria, including:
o Alignment with City priorities and strategic plans
o Long-term sustainability (does the grant create unfunded obligations?)
o Staff capacity to manage the grant successfully
o Feasibility of meeting compliance requirements
o Return on investment (ROI) and community impact
o Risk assessment of funder restrictions and conditions
This evaluation should be documented and reviewed by the strategic grant coordination
team before pursuing any major competitive funding opportunity.
Cross-Departmental Grant Vetting System.
o Departments should not operate in silos when pursuing funding. A formal pre-
application review process should be required for all major grant applications,
ensuring that key departments (Finance, Compliance, Procurement) have evaluated
the feasibility and sustainability of the grant before submission.
Enhanced Coordination Between Budgeting and Grant Planning.
o Grants should not be viewed as standalone financial solutions and instead should be
integrated into Glendale’s broader budget planning processes. A formal grants
integration policy should be established to ensure that all grant funding aligns with
the City's annual and long-term capital improvement plans (CIP), operating budgets,
and financial sustainability goals.
3) Creating a Sustainable Funding Pipeline
Rather than viewing grants as one-off financial boosts, Glendale should work to develop a
sustainable grant pipeline that ensures consistent funding diversification and resilience.
Develop a Funders Relationship-Management Strategy
o Many competitive grant programs require strong relationships with funders before a
grant is awarded. Glendale should implement a formal funder engagement strategy,
tracking key contacts, funding trends, and relationship-building opportunities with
federal and state agencies, philanthropic foundations, and public-private partnership
programs.
Expand Funding Diversity to Reduce Reliance on a Single Source
o Glendale currently relies heavily on federal grants passed through the State of
Arizona but should explore partnerships to diversify its funding streams. A dedicated
Assessment Section 1: Review of the City’s Existing Grant Management Support
Documentation | 32
strategy for securing non-traditional funding sources (e.g., federal discretionary
grants) should be incorporated into the City's grant strategy.
Proactively Monitor Federal and State Policy Changes Impacting Grants
o Changes in federal or state funding priorities can impact Glendale’s grant portfolio.
The City should establish a monitoring and response strategy to track key policy
updates and ensure the City is prepared to adjust its funding strategy accordingly.
4) Building Internal Grant Management Capacity
Strategic grant funding planning requires strong internal grant management structures to support
both pre-award and post-award functions. Glendale should enhance its internal grant management
infrastructure by:
Investing in Grant Management Software
o A centralized grants management system should be implemented to streamline grant
tracking, reporting, and compliance monitoring. If Glendale purchases grant
management software, it should be used to enhance coordination, integrate financial
systems, and improve reporting accuracy. If the City does not invest in software, it
should develop standardized grants tracking and compliance framework using
existing tools such as SharePoint, Smartsheet, or Microsoft Teams/Planner.
Documenting and Standardizing Grant Processes
o The City’s grant management manual should be updated, outlining standard
operating procedures for pre-award planning, application submission, financial
management, and compliance monitoring. This will reduce inconsistencies across
departments and ensure all grant staff follow the same best practices.
Creating a Centralized Grants Hub
o Glendale should develop a digital resource library for grants, housing funding
databases, templates, training materials, grant policies, and past successful
applications. This will allow staff across departments to access standardized
resources, improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the grant pursuit process.
How This Meets the 5 E’s:
Effective – Establishing a citywide strategic grants framework ensures that Glendale is proactive
rather than reactive in identifying, applying for, and managing grants. A structured planning
approach will improve funding success rates and alignment with city priorities.
Efficient – A multiyear grant forecasting plan allows Glendale to streamline efforts and target funding
strategically, reducing wasted resources on non-priority or unfeasible grants.
Economical – Prioritizing high-impact, sustainable grants ensures the City maximizes external
funding without taking on projects that create long-term financial burdens.
Assessment Section 1: Review of the City’s Existing Grant Management Support
Documentation | 33
Ethical – A transparent, standardized grant decision-making framework reduces favoritism and
ensures fair access to funding opportunities across departments.
Equitable – A structured grant planning process ensures that funding decisions are aligned with
community needs rather than departmental silos, improving opportunities for underserved
populations.
2. Training and Capacity Building –
The City of Glendale’s ability to secure and manage grant funding effectively is heavily dependent on
the expertise of its workforce. However, our review indicates that Glendale lacks a systematic,
structured approach to training and capacity building in grant development, management, and
compliance. While some individuals have developed expertise through experience, knowledge is not
institutionalized, leaving the City vulnerable to turnover risks, knowledge gaps, and inefficiencies in
grant pursuit and management. Without a structured training framework, Glendale operates
reactively, learning from compliance issues and mistakes rather than proactively equipping staff to
prevent them.
To transform Glendale’s grant function into a high-performing, self-sustaining system, the City should
establish a Grant Training and Capacity Development Program, integrating targeted learning
pathways based on staff roles, experience levels, and grant responsibilities. Training should not be
ad hoc or generalized; it should be tiered, competency-based, and tailored to key functional areas,
such as pre-award grant identification, proposal writing, budgeting, compliance, financial reporting,
monitoring, and closeout procedures.
Develop a Formal Grant Competency Framework
Glendale should create a tiered competency framework that identifies essential, intermediate, and
advanced grant-related skills for different staff levels—ranging from grant specialists and finance
personnel to program managers and executive leadership. This framework will institutionalize the
required knowledge and provide a clear learning path for staff development.
Establish a Grant Training Academy
The City should develop an internal Grant Training Academy, a structured learning program with a
curriculum-based approach that covers the entire grant life cycle. This academy should include:
Mandatory onboarding training for all staff who work with grants.
Annual compliance training on federal, state, and private grant regulations.
Technical writing workshops to strengthen proposal development.
Mock grant exercises where teams respond to actual RFPs, refining skills in budgeting,
performance measurement, and risk assessment.
Cross-departmental knowledge sharing through workshops and interdepartmental peer
reviews of grants.
Implement a Grant Mentorship and Certification Program
Create a mentorship model where senior grant professionals provide hands-on guidance to
new or less experienced staff.
Develop a grant certification program for city employees, recognizing proficiency in areas
such as proposal writing, federal compliance, performance metrics, and subrecipient
monitoring.
Assessment Section 1: Review of the City’s Existing Grant Management Support
Documentation | 34
Require grant-related staff to complete certification milestones before assuming
responsibility for high-value or complex grants.
Centralize Knowledge with a Digital Grant Resource Hub
Glendale should develop digital repository housing training materials, compliance guides, FAQs,
grant templates, video tutorials, and past successful grant applications.
If possible, the hub should integrate with the City’s grant management system(s) for on-demand
access to standardized guidance and resources.
Require Cross-Departmental Training for a Unified Grants Culture
Currently, grant expertise is fragmented, with some departments excelling in grant work while others
struggle. Glendale should implement cross-training to build a unified grants culture where financial,
compliance, and programmatic staff collaborate effectively.
Department leaders should participate in annual grant strategy sessions to align funding priorities
with the City’s strategic goals.
Engage External Organizations for Continuous Learning
The City should actively utilize external grant management organizations such as the National
Grants Management Association (NGMA) and the Grant Professionals Association (GPA) as key
resources for ongoing training, regulatory updates, and peer collaboration. These organizations
provide a continuous stream of training opportunities, including webinars, certification programs, and
annual conferences that keep staff informed on the latest federal regulations, compliance updates,
and best practices in grant management. Additionally, their community forums and knowledge
sharing platforms allow Glendale’s grant professionals to seek guidance, exchange insights, and
troubleshoot complex grant issues with experienced practitioners nationwide. By incorporating these
external resources into its professional development strategy, Glendale can ensure that its grant staff
remains well-equipped, adaptable, and aligned with national best practices.
A portion of grant administrative funds should be allocated annually to staff development, ensuring
that employees stay updated on regulatory changes and evolving best practices.
How This Meets the 5 E’s:
Effective – A structured Grant Training and Capacity Development Program ensures that all grant-
related staff possess the necessary skills to apply for, manage, and oversee grants successfully.
Efficient – Centralizing training resources and creating a formalized training academy eliminates
redundant efforts and ensures consistent grant knowledge across departments.
Economical – Investing in preventative training reduces costly mistakes, audit findings, and grant
disallowances, avoiding financial penalties and lost reimbursements.
Ethical – Training ensures staff are aware of compliance risks, conflicts of interest, and federal
regulations, strengthening financial and ethical accountability.
Equitable – Providing equal access to grant training across all City departments ensures no team is
left at a disadvantage, supporting a citywide culture of grant excellence.
Assessment Section 1: Review of the City’s Existing Grant Management Support
Documentation | 35
3. Tools and Templates -
A strong compliance monitoring framework is essential for ensuring that Glendale’s grant-funded
activities remain audit-ready, risk-averse, and fully aligned with federal, state, and programmatic
requirements. The current documentation does not provide a comprehensive compliance framework,
leaving departments to interpret compliance requirements independently. This fragmented approach
creates inconsistencies, increases risk exposure, and limits Glendale’s ability to proactively identify
and mitigate compliance issues before they escalate into audit findings or financial penalties.
To fortify Glendale’s compliance infrastructure, the City should establish centralized compliance
documentation, standardized processes, and automated monitoring tools that allow for real-time
tracking of compliance obligations. This requires investment in specialized tools, templates, and
workflows to facilitate uniform oversight, tracking, and enforcement across all departments handling
grant funds.
One of the most effective ways to enhance compliance monitoring is the creation of a Grant
Compliance Dashboard, a centralized tracking system that provides real-time visibility into grant
requirements, reporting deadlines, financial reconciliations, and subrecipient monitoring activities. A
tool like this, built into an interactive digital platform such as Power BI, Smartsheet, or a SharePoint-
based dashboard, would allow Glendale’s leadership to access a high-level overview of compliance
status across all departments while also ensuring that individual grant managers remain accountable
for key compliance deadlines. This would eliminate reliance on manual tracking methods, which are
prone to errors and inconsistencies, and would create a more transparent, standardized compliance
oversight process.
In addition to a centralized compliance dashboard, Glendale should develop a Uniform Grant
Compliance Checklist that clearly defines all required compliance activities for every grant managed
by the City. This checklist should align with 2 CFR 200 and cover critical areas such as allowable
costs, reporting deadlines, procurement rules, and document retention requirements. By integrating
this checklist into Glendale’s standard operating procedures (SOPs), the City can ensure that
compliance expectations are consistently applied across departments, reducing the risk of audit
findings, financial disallowances, or delays in grant reimbursements.
Proactive risk management is another area where Glendale must improve. The development of an
Internal Audit and Risk Assessment Template would allow the City to regularly assess the risk level
associated with each grant program, identifying high-risk grants that require enhanced oversight,
additional monitoring, or corrective action plans. Best practices indicate that quarterly or semi-annual
risk assessments should be conducted to evaluate grant compliance performance and determine
where additional support is needed to prevent compliance failures.
Another critical tool that should be implemented is a Grant Compliance Calendar that tracks all
reporting deadlines, financial reconciliation requirements, and grant closeout activities across
departments. A digital calendar, especially if it is integrated into already used tools such as Microsoft
Teams or SharePoint, would create automated reminders and alerts to ensure that no deadlines are
missed, improving overall coordination and compliance accountability. The absence of such a
calendar increases the risk of missed reporting deadlines, which can lead to funding delays,
noncompliance penalties, and grantor scrutiny.
Glendale should also develop a Subrecipient Monitoring Toolkit, a framework that establishes
protocols for pre-award risk assessment, subrecipient agreement development, ongoing compliance
monitoring, and corrective action procedures. While Glendale’s current grant activities involve limited
Assessment Section 1: Review of the City’s Existing Grant Management Support
Documentation | 36
subrecipient relationships, the City must be prepared for potential subawarding obligations as it
seeks new funding opportunities. This toolkit should include a standardized pre-award risk
assessment that aligns with 2 CFR 200.332, a subrecipient agreement template that outlines clear
performance expectations and compliance obligations, a protocol for tracking and monitoring various
risk levels of subrecipients, and a corrective action plan template that standardizes the process for
addressing noncompliance issues among subrecipients. By beginning to address these issues now,
and implementing resources citywide, Glendale can preemptively strengthen its compliance
oversight, ensuring that any future subawarding activities meet federal grant standards.
A Grant Financial Reconciliation Workbook should also be incorporated into Glendale’s financial
oversight framework. This structured tool would enable all grant-funded departments to track
expenditures against the approved budget, ensuring that funds are spent within the designated
performance period and that no unallowable costs are incurred. This workbook should be integrated
with Glendale’s financial systems, such as MUNIS, allowing for seamless reconciliation processes
and reducing the risk of discrepancies in grant financial reporting.
Finally, one of the most frequently overlooked areas of compliance management is grant closeout.
Glendale’s documentation does not provide clear, detailed closeout procedures, leading to
inconsistencies in how grants are finalized. A Grant Closeout Guide and Final Report Template
should be developed to provide grant managers with a step-by-step process for ensuring that all
required financial and programmatic reporting, property disposition, and budget reconciliation
activities are completed. Federal regulations under 2 CFR 200.344 require that grant closeout
activities be initiated at least 90 days before the end of the grant period and completed within 120
days post-award. By formally incorporating these timelines and expectations into Glendale’s
documentation, the City can avoid unnecessary delays, minimize the risk of grantor-imposed
penalties, and streamline the transition of closed grants into the City’s financial reporting framework.
How This Meets the 5 E’s:
Effective – A uniform compliance framework ensures that grant staff follow standardized best
practices, preventing errors and improving audit readiness.
Efficient – Implementing a Grant Compliance Hub/Dashboard, automated tracking tools, and uniform
templates reduces the time staff spend manually tracking compliance and improves real-time
oversight.
Economical – Proactively identifying compliance risks through monitoring tools minimizes financial
disallowances and ensures maximum reimbursement for eligible expenses.
Ethical – Standardized compliance protocols reduce subjectivity and favoritism, ensuring funding is
used as intended and monitored consistently.
Equitable – Providing standardized compliance resources and templates ensures that all
departments, regardless of expertise, have access to best practices and tools to manage grants
effectively.
4. Compliance Monitoring and Management -
A well-structured compliance monitoring framework is critical to ensuring that grant-funded activities
in the City of Glendale are audit-ready, risk-averse, and fully aligned with federal, state, and
programmatic requirements. Currently, Glendale’s approach to compliance is decentralized and
inconsistent, largely due to the absence of comprehensive compliance policies, standardized
Assessment Section 1: Review of the City’s Existing Grant Management Support
Documentation | 37
procedures, and dedicated monitoring tools. The City’s Grants Manual, last updated in 2022,
provides a high-level overview of grant administration, but it lacks detailed compliance protocols, risk
management strategies, and standardized monitoring mechanisms. This creates vulnerabilities in
oversight, financial accountability, and reporting accuracy, increasing the risk of audit findings,
funding claw backs, and inefficiencies in grant execution.
To strengthen Glendale’s compliance infrastructure, the City should implement a centralized
compliance framework that integrates real-time monitoring, risk assessments, automated tracking,
and standardized reporting processes across all departments. Establishing stronger compliance
mechanisms will not only prevent compliance failures but will also position Glendale for more
competitive funding opportunities by demonstrating accountability and strong financial stewardship
to grantors.
Implement a Centralized Grant Compliance Dashboard: With or Without Grant Management
Software
A Centralized Grant Compliance Dashboard is an effective tool for ensuring real-time compliance
tracking, financial oversight, and risk mitigation. Currently, Glendale does not have a citywide system
for monitoring compliance obligations in a standardized manner, leading to fragmented oversight,
inconsistent enforcement, and increased risk of noncompliance.
While grant management software can serve as a comprehensive compliance tracking system,
many cities without such systems use custom-built solutions leveraging existing platforms such as
Power BI, Smartsheet, or SharePoint. Glendale should develop its compliance dashboard based on
whether it invests in dedicated grant management software or not.
Option 1: If Glendale Purchases and Implements Grant Management Software
If Glendale procures a citywide grant management system, the City should ensure that the software
has robust compliance tracking features, including:
Automated compliance tracking for all grants across departments.
Real-time financial tracking and reconciliation to monitor allowable and unallowable costs.
Configurable alerts and notifications for upcoming reporting deadlines, financial
reconciliations, and risk assessments.
Grant-specific risk scoring to categorize high-risk grants requiring enhanced oversight.
Subrecipient monitoring modules to track compliance obligations and performance metrics.
Audit readiness tools that centralize all compliance documentation, financial reconciliations,
and grant records in one location.
Many grant management platforms offer built-in compliance dashboards that provide these features.
If Glendale moves forward with a software investment, it should ensure that all departments using
Assessment Section 1: Review of the City’s Existing Grant Management Support
Documentation | 38
grants are trained on the system’s compliance tools, and that compliance tracking is integrated into
daily grant management activities.
Additionally, if Glendale adopts new grant management software, it should:
Develop Standardized Compliance Workflows
o Establish consistent procedures within the system for tracking compliance
obligations, approvals, and reporting.
Assign Compliance Accountability Roles
o Ensure key Finance, Legal, and Grants staff are responsible for monitoring
compliance performance within the software.
Require Recurring Compliance Reviews (e.g., monthly, quarterly)
o Use the system’s reporting and analytics tools to assess grant compliance and
identify risks before audits occur.
Option 2: If Glendale Does Not Implement Grant Management Software
If Glendale does not invest in grant management software, the City should develop a custom-built
compliance dashboard using its existing technology infrastructure. Several cities have successfully
implemented grant tracking dashboards without expensive software investments by using tools such
as:
Power BI (for real-time compliance analytics and financial tracking).
Smartsheet (for compliance task tracking and workflow automation).
SharePoint (for centralized document storage and compliance reporting).
Microsoft Teams Planner (for compliance deadline tracking and notifications).
A compliance dashboard, along with the various tools, should include:
Tracking of all compliance deadlines (financial reporting, audits, closeouts).
Automated alerts for upcoming compliance deadlines to prevent missed reporting.
A central compliance document repository for easy access to templates, grant agreements,
audits, financial reports, risk assessments, etc.
Grant financial reconciliation tracking to compare expenditures against award budgets.
A risk monitoring system/function that flags high-risk grants requiring additional oversight.
Assessment Section 1: Review of the City’s Existing Grant Management Support
Documentation | 39
If Glendale does not have the IT resources to build this internally, it should consider hiring a
consultant or technology vendor to develop solutions that integrate with MUNIS and other financial
systems.
Regardless of which approach Glendale takes, the City must prioritize standardization and
accountability in compliance tracking. A Centralized Compliance Dashboard with the accompanying
tools will reduce the risk of compliance failures, audit findings, and funding claw backs, while also
ensuring that Glendale remains competitive for future federal and state grant opportunities.
How This Meets the 5 E’s
Effective – Implementing enterprise-wide grant management software, or compliance dashboard (if
not purchasing grant management software) ensures Glendale has a structured, audit-ready
compliance framework that proactively addresses risks and reporting requirements.
Efficient – Automated compliance tracking and programmatic reporting capabilities, deadline alerts,
and financial reconciliations reduce manual administrative work, minimizing the risk of missed
deadlines or errors.
Economical – Investing in preventative compliance infrastructure is more cost-effective than
addressing audit penalties, grant claw backs, and funding rejections due to mismanagement.
Ethical – A standardized, transparent compliance framework fosters stronger financial stewardship
and reduces the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse.
Equitable – A centralized system ensures that all departments—regardless of grant expertise—have
access to uniform compliance tools, preventing disparities in oversight and ensuring consistent grant
management across the City.
5. Pre-award Grant Project Activities and Planning –
Glendale’s current approach to grant pursuit is largely reactive, with departments identifying funding
opportunities individually rather than through a coordinated, strategic effort. Without comprehensive
pre-award planning and documentation, the City is at a competitive disadvantage when applying for
highly sought-after funding opportunities. To maximize success, Glendale must establish a
structured framework for pre-award grant planning, ensuring that funding pursuits align with its long-
term goals, strategic priorities, and capacity to effectively implement grant-funded projects.
A well-documented pre-award process provides a clear road map for departments to follow, reducing
inefficiencies and increasing the likelihood of securing funding. This requires a shift from an ad hoc,
department-driven approach to a coordinated, strategic funding management model that considers
project feasibility, financial sustainability, and compliance readiness before an application is even
initiated.
1) Implement a Structured Grant Opportunity Vetting and Approval Process
A key weakness in Glendale’s current approach is the absence of a centralized framework guiding
pre-award decisions. Departments largely are independently pursuing grants without standardized
Assessment Section 1: Review of the City’s Existing Grant Management Support
Documentation | 40
criteria for evaluating whether an opportunity is a good fit for the City. This lack of coordination leads
to wasted effort on applications that may not align with citywide priorities or that require resources
the City cannot sustain post-award.
Currently, Glendale’s approach to identifying and pursuing grant funding is largely decentralized,
with departments independently seeking funding opportunities through Google searches, listservs,
and grant newsletters. There is no standardized process for evaluating whether an opportunity is
worth pursuing, leading to inconsistent decision-making across departments.
To improve this, Glendale should implement a structured vetting and approval process that includes:
Centralized Grant Opportunity Review Meetings
o Establish a formal process for departments to present potential grant opportunities to
Finance, Budget, and relevant stakeholders for evaluation before pursuing an
application.
Grant Feasibility Scorecard
o Develop a standardized grant evaluation framework that scores opportunities based
on alignment with City priorities, financial viability, staffing capacity, and long-term
sustainability.
Pre-Application Approval Workflow
o Require that all grant applications go through a pre-approval process, where
leadership, Finance, and other impacted departments review the opportunity before
staff begin drafting an application.
This process ensures that Glendale only applies for grants it is well-positioned to manage and
avoids wasting resources on unaligned, unsustainable, or low-priority opportunities.
2) Develop a Comprehensive Grant Application Toolkit
One of the biggest challenges Glendale faces is the lack of standardized documentation to support
grant applications. Departments develop applications on their own without formal templates,
guidance, or a structured review process. As a result, Glendale is not maximizing the quality of its
submissions.
To address this, Glendale should develop a citywide grant application toolkit. By providing structured
tools and templates, Glendale can ensure consistency and quality across all grant applications,
increasing the City’s competitiveness.
Example documentation includes:
A Grant Project Planning Template – A structured project planning tool that helps
departments clearly define project goals, key deliverables, budget needs, and sustainability
strategies before seeking funding. This template would ensure that departments are not
Assessment Section 1: Review of the City’s Existing Grant Management Support
Documentation | 41
tailoring projects to fit grant opportunities but rather seeking grants that align with pre-defined
priorities.
A Standard Grant Application Template – A pre-built template covering project narratives,
performance measures, sustainability plans, and budget justifications to streamline
applications and improve consistency.
A Grant Budget Development Guide – Standardized cost categories, indirect cost
calculations, and financial reporting expectations to align and standardize grant applications
with best practices and compliance requirements.
A Grant Compliance Planning Template – A tool requiring departments to outline compliance
obligations before applying, ensuring they are aware of and incentivized to understand
federal, state, and local regulations.
A Letter of Support and Stakeholder Engagement Guide – Guidance on securing
endorsements from elected officials, community partners, and funding agencies, increasing
the competitiveness of applications.
3) Strengthen Grant Narrative Development and Data Collection
One of the biggest differentiators between successful and unsuccessful grant applications is the
quality of the project narrative and supporting data. Funders expect applications to clearly define the
problem, articulate the project’s impact, and provide quantifiable evidence that the proposed solution
is necessary and achievable.
Currently, Glendale does not have a formalized approach to data-driven grant writing. Many
departments lack access to relevant statistics, performance metrics, and comparative analyses to
support their applications.
To improve this, Glendale should:
Develop a Centralized Grant Data Repository
o This is a curated list of key City statistics, demographic data, economic indicators,
and program performance metrics that departments can use to strengthen grant
narratives.
Establish a Pre-Application Performance Plan
o Require that all grant applications define how project success will be measured,
including clear performance benchmarks and data collection strategies.
Offer Grant Narrative Training – Provide workshops for staff on best practices in persuasive
grant writing, storytelling techniques, and how to align proposals with funder priorities.
Assessment Section 1: Review of the City’s Existing Grant Management Support
Documentation | 42
How This Meets the 5 E’s:
Effective – A structured grant vetting and pre-award approval process ensures Glendale pursues
grants that align with city goals and priorities, are financially sustainable, and can be successfully
managed.
Efficient – Standardizing grant evaluation, application toolkits, and pre-award workflows reduces
administrative inefficiencies and ensures a consistent, high-quality application process.
Economical – Investing time upfront in structured pre-award planning reduces the risk of pursuing
unsustainable grants that result in unanticipated financial burdens.
Ethical – A formalized pre-award decision-making process increases transparency, ensuring grant
pursuit is driven by community impact and feasibility rather than individual department priorities.
Equitable – Creating a standardized grant application process and toolkit ensures that all
departments—regardless of resources—have access to the tools needed to apply for and manage
grants effectively.
Assessment Section 2: Review of Current Grant Management Activities Across
Departments - | 43
Assessment Section 2: Review of Current Grant Management
Activities Across Departments -
In advance of our meeting with the six departments, the City Project Leadership Team requested we
interview, the representatives from those departments were provided with the questions that we
would be seeking responses to during our live interviews. The six departments interviewed were:
• Police
• Fire
• Transportation
• Community Services
• Water Services
• Emergency Management
In addition to these six departments, the City’s Budget and Finance Department, which has primary
responsibility for monitoring and managing grant funding award’s reporting and compliance, received
a similar questionnaire that focused on that department’s specific grant support and management
activities and interactions with other departments.
For consistency, our interviews with the representatives from all the various departments were
designed to provide information and insights on the same five key subject matter themes focused on
during our documentation review assessment efforts.
1. Strategic Grant Funding Management Planning
2. Training and Capacity Building
3. Tools and Templates
4. Compliance Monitoring and Management
5. Pre-award Grant Project Activities and Planning
Throughout our interviews with the City’s various departments, consistent feedback and themes
emerged regarding the challenges the City’s departments face in their pursuit and management of
grant funding. We found no indication that the City departments are performing required tasks to
request and manage all available formulaic and entitlement funding. Many of the proposed findings
and recommendations we have developed as a result of the department interviews may improve the
City’s compliance, efficiency, and effectiveness of the grant activities in regard to the formulaic and
entitlement funding. Our findings and recommendations throughout the report, however, show a
direct correlation to the City’s ability to significantly increase competitive, discretionary grant funding.
This is directly tied to the City’s organizational practices and historical processes and procedures
which decentralize most grant funding opportunity identification and application efforts. Such an
approach is typical in local governments and can be a successful strategy if appropriate support is
implemented. While our findings and recommendations from our existing documentation review and
peer benchmarking have tremendous value, we recommend that the findings below be recognized
as the most likely to bring about the positive results the City may seek to achieve.
Assessment Section 2: Review of Current Grant Management Activities Across
Departments - | 44
Staff Questionnaire Findings
The interview process for each of the six departments and the Budget and Finance Department
yielded significant information. We have provided a very high-level summary for each theme;
however, we have opted to also include many of the direct comments that were shared in their
original state. While this does create a significant volume of information with similar overtones, it has
been our experience that providing the information in this format allows the audiences reading this
report to fully understand the concerns, desires, and needs of the staff and project leaders that are
directly impacted by the subject area being assessed. This in turn leads to more responsive planning
for and implementation of potential modifications that are more inclusive of the impacted staff’s
needs than modifications planned based purely on summary data. Within each theme’s narrative,
bulleted items are direct comments or observations that were provided during the interviews that
were conducted.
Our interviews led to a significant number of commonalities related to grant planning, opportunity
identification, and grant application development. The responses received seem to indicate that
most of the commonalities came about organically out of common situational needs, practices, and
staffing limitations. As with our review of the documentation available to departments, we found that
direct guidance and support to facilitate the departments’ grant management activities were limited
and inconsistently utilized across departments.
Strategic Grant Funding Management Planning –
Under the current approach to grant activity management, respondents from all departments
consistently indicated that they do not perceive any formal or organized planning or guidance related
to the City’s overarching pursuit and management of grants. Respondents expressed a lack of
overall strategic vision and expectations. Respondents expressed a need for the City to provide
documented goals and expectations for the City as a whole so that they can coordinate their grant
efforts and tie them to specific priorities or initiatives that the City is focused on. This could include
tie-ins to the City’s overall strategic planning, or specific goals of the current administration. With the
lack of this type of information, departments are left to identify their own goals which are often
focused on very specific needs and often involve smaller funding amounts, though the level of effort
required to pursue that funding is significant. Most departments see their grant activities as reactive
and scattered, which can be difficult to prioritize and justify when measured against the day-to-day
responsibilities departmental staff must focus on. Without a clear strategy vision, staff feel they are
unable to develop comprehensive, responsive, and organized plans for their grant activities.
At the very least, we need greater support to be successful. Hiring Jose is not sufficient
to address the need for support they have.
There are not sufficient staff resources available to make application development to be
strategic, it is often reactive with substantial pressure and stress.
Primarily dependent upon opportunities being generated by someone else, but they have
not received any guidance on how to document priorities.
Grant planning and development is conducted by whatever unit within a department
would receive the funding with limited guidance and application review occurring no
training provided.
Assessment Section 2: Review of Current Grant Management Activities Across
Departments - | 45
Delays that are encountered during the application phase typically are related to data
gathering and information development for the application. Sometimes it is a matter of
not staff not knowing where to find the information, and other times it’s the result of
having a project idea but not having the idea fully vetted and then not having access to
the required information and/or documentation readily available.
Grant opportunity deadlines have been missed. Most often, the contributing factor was
that there was not enough time to develop a strong application in the application period.
Sometimes this was further aggravated by late awareness of the funding opportunity.
Training and Capacity Building -
Across all departments interviewed, training and ongoing support was repeatedly noted as one of
two major factors in the departments not being more proactive in their grant efforts. Departments
noted a lack of training makes the pursuit of grant opportunities and the implementation of grants
awarded a very daunting expectation on the part of the City. Staff noted that in most cases, the
expectation that individuals within a department that either identify a need or happen to manage a
subject area where potential funding has been identified should have responsibility for managing
grant application and any subsequent awards received is not realistic nor practical. A lack of overall
departmental knowledge regarding grant management presents great trepidation or a lack of
motivation in most cases for staff to want to pursue grants. Though the City has recently created a
Grant Program Manager position, departments have immense needs for training and capacity
building that that individual can’t realistically provide. Departments are seeking greater access to
support and guidance and formal training opportunities that their staff can attend before they
become proactive and successful in pursuing any significant grant funding opportunities that might
be available.
Staff have a strong knowledge of technical aspects related to project needs but lack
formal training in grant application development and compliance.
Lack of experience and understanding with planning and preparing grant applications
beyond regional formula funding opportunities.
There is hesitancy to pursue grants knowing the amount of effort required given
competing demands and expectations that can’t simply be put on hold.
Typically, apply for small grant opportunities and regional grant opportunities due to a
lack of experience and knowledge and the time it takes to pull everything together.
Training is needed if departments are going to be responsible for developing grants and
would likely need additional training on managing grants if awards were received to
ensure compliance with award requirements.
Staff pursuing grants have some experience applying but no formal training or supporting
documentation regarding processes is available to help with the planning and
management of the grant application process.
A wish list item would be for the City to develop a grant user group that receives
consistent training and also provides an opportunity for meetings on a regular basis to
share ideas.
Significant Gaps in training related to grant identification, management, compliance, and
grant reporting systems. Training would be needed if departments were responsible for
Assessment Section 2: Review of Current Grant Management Activities Across
Departments - | 46
developing grants and they would need additional training on managing grants if awards
were received to ensure compliance with award requirements.
Inconsistent communication with the central Grants Office, but it works both ways no
assignment of blame is warranted.
Specific resources lacking when preparing applications include a formal and easy to
follow document that outlines who the appropriate departments/department contacts are
or resources to lean into for background information (i.e., planning area; number of street
miles; demographics; industry composition; etc.).
When a grant is awarded, the set-up process is not clearly documented and a plan for
communicating with the necessary entities/departments is not defined. This creates a
situation where things get missed and then there is a need to “fix problems” that likely
could have been avoided at the start. This is time consuming and competes with other
projects for attention.
Tools and Templates -
In line with the immense need for training and capacity building that all departments consistently
noted throughout their interviews, is the desire for and need for tools and templates that
departmental staff can utilize to standardize their grant management activities. As was noted in the
review of existing documentation, available written and supportive guidance and support aids are not
presently available to departments. Documentation that is available is seldom referenced as those
documents are incomplete, less than substantive in nature and are not responsive to the specific
needs departments find they have, especially from an initial planning and grant application and
submission perspective. Subsequently, the documentation currently available provides minimal
supportive value to departmental staff on practices and policies related to funding that is awarded
and the tasks that departments are accountable for. The departments also note that the lack of any
grant management software or any useful templates makes the ongoing management of grants that
are awarded both daunting and frustrating. As a result, while departments understand the immense
value that grant funding could provide, the lack of supportive tools and templates further reduces
their staff’s pursuit of grant opportunities.
Department attempts to be proactive in identifying state and federal funding
opportunities, but most opportunities available come from listservs, agency emails
announcing programs, and some direct research. Having access to applications that
could identify and sort opportunities based on specific needs would help greatly.
The application process is not simple and no support documentation is available.
Work leans heavily on MUNIS Grants Master module for this for financial management of
grants, however, it is does not have any automated features, so things such as reporting
requirements and deadlines are manually entered into Outlook as a task with a reminder
set to ensure the reporting requirement is met timely.
Aware that the City has a grant manual but does not utilize it because it is not useful.
Prioritizing application development process for standard information does not occur.
Appreciate the work of Jose to try and assist them, but his support is limited due to
competing demands and significant need for support across the City’s departments.
Assessment Section 2: Review of Current Grant Management Activities Across
Departments - | 47
MUNIS can sometimes be cumbersome to navigate and use. There also is no
automation available in Grants Master that can be leveraged to assist with reporting or
monitoring grants, such as setting deadline reminders.
There can often be significant manual processes that have to be taken to process
personnel-related expenses charged to grant awards, which has created delays in up-to-
date financial information being available.
Aware that the City has a grant manual but does not utilize it since it is incomplete and
does not provide useful guidance related to matters that staff need help with.
The consistent challenge to grant applications is data collection for background
information; timelines; collaboration with stakeholders involved in the grant management
process; understanding whether formal approval is needed to submit the application.
Manual processes for project monitoring, updates and compliance tracking create
inefficiencies in the time it takes to keep things up to date, the quality of the information,
and the ability to manage grant-funded projects easily.
In previous years they had a grant writer who could help them identify opportunities but
without that, their lack of experience hinders them pursuing them due to multiple
responsibilities.
They truly believe that having a focused SME for grant applications and identifying
opportunities would yield significant benefits as they get very limited funding now, but
that individual would have to be focused on grants and not simply have those duties
assigned as part of a long list of job responsibilities.
Compliance Monitoring and Management – (To facilitate the review of the significant number of
observations included within this theme, we have attempted to segregate the comments by commonalities.)
As we have noted within the other four themes, departmental staff at all levels find limited guidance
and support available to them for the resulting compliance monitoring and management activities
they are subject to through grant funding awards they receive. Staff repeatedly commented on the
strong support they receive from the Budget and Finance Department’s Senior Grant Accountant
related to financial reporting, and that they do receive some assistance from the City’s Grant
Program Manager but access to his support is limited by the many demands on his time. Staff report
that they have limited to no experience performing required program performance assessment and
developing consistent outcome reports beyond data such as the number of people who were served
or items provided. This results in some hesitancy to pursue larger grants. They note that the lack of
internal controls at the departmental level as well as across units within the departments could lead
to costly mistakes and errors. They state that they are unaware of any formal tracking processes as
well as any support or guidance related to potential audits that might occur if large grant awards
were received. The lack of uniform documentation and support across departments results in
inconsistent efforts and success with regard to compliance monitoring and management efforts.
Limited or no established processes for tracking grant outcomes.
Limited understanding of newer compliance standards.
Understanding the allowability of expenses is time-consuming and difficult as is
procurement guidelines, etc. Opens departments up to needing to fund some
expenditures with their general fund and results in budget discrepancies/unused funds
within grants or the need to try and revise the budget but that process is not defined or
easily pursued.
Assessment Section 2: Review of Current Grant Management Activities Across
Departments - | 48
Across units there is no consistent understanding of what compliance standards are and
no idea how to track and monitor them.
Compliance with grant terms and conditions upon award is primarily the responsibility of
the program manager. Compliance with grant terms and conditions is inconsistent and
often delayed due to a lack of guidance and experience.
(The comments and observations noted below specifically address the individual department’s
perception of the existing procedures that are in place)
Going after funding requires a commitment of time that is difficult for the individuals
within the department who are tasked with completing the application to meet. It is not
clear how we are supposed to stop our day-to-day responsibilities and pursuing grant
applications can create challenges and additional effort for other staff who have their own
work but need to provide coverage for the staff working on the grant or regular work is
delayed and then it is hard to catch up.
The first paragraph under “PURPOSE” in the grants policy refers to identification of the
roles and responsibilities of the Grants Office, Budget and Finance Department and
applicable Department Grants Project Manager, but I could not find the related
information. The manual is not complete and needs to be revised and updated.
Workloads and time frames for application development and submission are typically
short and become an “other duty as assigned.” Reporting processes tend to be the same
for a majority of grants, so that creates a workload/time compression issue, as well.
Specific areas where training should definitely be provided include understanding the
City’s process and procedures for grant seeking/grant management. The policy is helpful
but understanding how we meet the requirements of the policy is still needed.
There is a strong appreciation for the value of grants and the opportunities they could
provide the City, but it is difficult under the current process and approach to always
pursue viable options.
Looking back on previous grant applications or projects common concerns that arise
during grant application efforts and ongoing grant funding management tend to be
centered on communication, coordination, and collaboration which is often hindered by
grants being an “other duty as assigned” and personnel not being able to dedicate the
necessary time and attention to them.
From my review of the City’s grants management policies and procedures, changes I
would recommend ensuring that there are written processes and procedures in place
and training to those processes and procedures. Absent this information, we are left to
do the best we can at interpreting the policy and accomplishing the necessary
steps/tasks that should be part of the process.
Program implementation is the responsibility of the project point of contact/SME. These
individuals typically do not have any formal training or readily available guidance to
review to understand everything that is needed.
Lack of consistency in process and an overall understanding of programs and best
practices regarding how to apply makes it difficult to be successful.
They really would like to have a consistent and comprehensive grant management
approach that the City uses consistently so they could collaborate and have a support
network across the City they could work with.
Assessment Section 2: Review of Current Grant Management Activities Across
Departments - | 49
Standard meetings, check-ins, budget reviews, or other collaboration mechanisms with
Finance are not formally scheduled at this time with all departments.
Respondents from across departments showed a real interest in expanding grant
activities but did not indicate any upcoming plans to do so without support.
There are no opportunities for departments to support each other or cross-train each
other due to a lack of organized communication. A grant activity group that meets
occasionally but consistently would be nice.
Reporting information is typically gathered from the project point of contact/SME
responsible for program implementation. No training or documented guidance is
available for program managers to understand their roles and responsibilities which can
be time consuming and frustrating.
Would love to collaborate across other departments, they are unsure if there is sufficient
staffing capacity to take on grant-funded programs, but there is no clear plan for how to
address that.
Heavy reliance on manual tracking methods (e.g., spreadsheets) for grant activities.
Compliance with federal reporting requirements remains a challenge, particularly for
multiyear grants.
Lack of coordinated actions related to grant planning and application development.
Department has a responsibility to review each opportunity identified and makes a
determination as to whether they think they will be successful.
While units within a department use similar assessment decision processes they are
fragmented across units and inconsistent and the decision to determine whether to
pursue a grant is based upon the individual staff member’s general assessment of
opportunities with no real direction or guidance on how to perform the assessment.
While there are project ideas that are identified as needing funding, there is no formal
attempt to identify discretionary funding proactively and is dependent upon department
leadership and staff being aware of opportunities and promoting the application process
to move forward.
No one person is monitoring opportunities, it is ad hoc and based upon communication
from outside opportunities and staff raising opportunities based upon their ability to
promote and advocate.
(The comments and observations noted below specifically address the perceived interactions
between individual departments and the Budget and Finance Department)
Jose provides reviews of grant applications, but this is not done across all departments,
nor is it done consistently due to varied departmental practices and efforts.
Finance is notified when funding is being applied for once it has gone through
departmental review and approved. They use MUNIS to track the applications, and they
work with Jose to document and record activities.
Managing funding is done at the department level as is programmatic reporting. Finance
pulls together supporting documentation for reporting, but the department completes the
reporting.
Spending the funds is managed by the department and then admin provides information
to Finance for recording and monitoring. Procurement processes are managed at
department, but Finance makes the actual payments.
Assessment Section 2: Review of Current Grant Management Activities Across
Departments - | 50
The information available through MUNIS is not often reliable so they often utilize
customized spreadsheets that are individualized at the department and unit level.
Heavy workload on a small number of grant managers, leading to delays in submissions.
For financial tracking, program implementation, and reporting the Senior Grants
Accountant prepares reimbursement requests based on expenditures charged to grant
awards. Once the reimbursement request is prepared, I review it to ensure that it meets
the scope of the grant award.
Although not directly responsible for developing the financial information for financial
reports, the process to extract data from our financial system, the process is
cumbersome and not intuitive and requires a lot of manual effort to produce a report that
is easily digestible for the intended purpose.
Reliance on Senior Grants Accountant for the preparation of financial reports.
Performance reports can be challenging since typically only the PM knows what is going
on with the project, if the project point of contact/SME has changed and information has
not yet been communicated there is great difficulty addressing program continuity.
Pre-award Grant Project Activities and Planning
The importance of activities that occur during the pre-award grant activities is significant. Staff
across departments note that they are primarily dependent on either listservs, emails from
associations, or occasional guidance from the City’s Grant Program Manager to identify grant
opportunities they may wish to pursue. Overall, departments note that a lack of access to formal and
focused grant opportunity search tools or regular updates on grant activities further complicates their
grant funding activities. Determinations regarding which grants to pursue often fall on the individual
within the department who will also be tasked with developing the grant application and managing
the grant if it is awarded. This results in significant challenges for any kind of consistent activities to
occur as other work demands, varied levels of experience and understanding, and general writing
skills impacts the overall outcomes of efforts taken, and if the staff tasked with submitting grants
should happen to be unsuccessful in their efforts, they have a tendency possibly see grant funding
as being an inefficient use of their time, given their other responsibilities. The City does not provide
sufficient support or training for any of the responsibilities the department’s staff are expected to
provide, which leads to an overall average rating by departments of the City’s success in pursuing
grant opportunities being rated as low.
Departments report a low success rate in identifying grant opportunities, citing a primarily
reactive approach. Currently, grant opportunities are discovered informally by individual
staff members, who have other primary responsibilities. This limits the City's ability to
proactively pursue high-value funding opportunities.
Other than listservs, no tools or specific guidance searching for opportunities is occurring
though it is planned.
Often find out about opportunities with little or no time to respond and there is no
strategic planning for opportunities currently performed.
Grant opportunity identification is being done through an open process. Individuals can
raise possible options and then they would be processed through department
administration and ultimately Finance and the City Council.
Primary grant funding pursued is mostly entitlement, pass-through funding from the State
or through community agencies that receive money to disburse. Departments do pursue
Assessment Section 2: Review of Current Grant Management Activities Across
Departments - | 51
discretionary grants, but typically only ones that there is a fair degree of certainty around
funding awards being made which typically are small in nature, i.e., $10,000, or less.
Understand there are expectations to apply for funding, but the majority of applications
actually pursued are through the State or organizations funded by the State and then
disbursed across certain regions. Though the award is not formula it still has a certain
level of expectation that all communities that “request” funding will get some, but those
that have more formal approaches typically get more.
(We have separated the comments and findings recorded from our interview with the Budget and Finance
Department staff, to document their overall perspective of the grants management process across the City)
Payment allowability outside the individual departments is only reviewed after invoices
have been paid and reimbursement from the funder is being requested. If disallowed the
individual departments must cover the costs with their operating budget, the process is
reactive vs. proactive. This happens more often than not with certain departments though
it could happen at all of them.
Staff have familiarity with procurement and cost allocation standards.
Jose is available to provide opportunities as much as possible, general grant application
support, and grant program management and compliance support.
Jose uses keyword searches in Google, ChatGPT and Grants.gov to identify
opportunities but does not have access to a formal grant opportunity approach.
Jose manages a few grants and some Congressionally Directed spending.
Jose states that departments know their funding needs, but they report that they do not
necessarily know all their funding needs because they are not aware of what funding is
available.
No dedicated grant writer is assigned to any departments.
Some departments may be using outside consultants for grant writing support.
Workflows and expectations are not clearly defined in the manual or any other document
beyond the Grant Application and Administration memo last updated April of 2022.
Consistent department sticking points related to the legal review process which impacts
the ability to get grant programs up and running.
Significant financial reporting is hindered by some departments not properly accounting
for expenditures such as personnel costs which results in journal entries needing to be
made which is time consuming and results in delays in financial reporting capabilities.
Finance department does not have a grant management system in place that allows the
City to actually manage grant activities, it is focused on financial management of funding
primarily.
MUNIS is the only grant software system that is used across the City.
Finance only receives invoices after the departments have approved them. This creates
a situation where the department is responsible for managing the funding and Finance’s
accounts payable process will only raise a red flag if the expenditure of funds if the total
amount expended is greater than the amount of funding available.
Sharon, when requesting reimbursement from the funder will review expenditures and if
she feels that the expenditures should not be charged to the grant, she will disallow them
but at that point the funds have been expended, and this results in the individual
departments needing to cover those expenditures through their other budgeted funds.
Assessment Section 2: Review of Current Grant Management Activities Across
Departments - | 52
Eligible and allowable expenditure determinations are made in the department.
Significant manual processes due to a lack of a grant management system do not
promote efficient activities.
Finance department is aware that documentation could be improved and training offered,
but unable to provide those services currently.
Some departments work very well with Finance and others are independent.
Jose is more active with those that work well and communicate well within the
department.
Jose provides grant opportunity identification support, but most departments stated that
they feel that the responsibility for grant identification falls upon them, which they
describe as a burden that reduces their efforts to try and secure funding through grants.
Responses from departments showed a real interest in expanding grant activities but did
not indicate any upcoming plans to do so without support.
Jose has interaction with departments, but they have limited interaction with him due to
their lack of time to focus on grants.
Was unable to gather sufficient information and evidence that current practices
demonstrate success with any of the 5 E’s of performance auditing. Effective, Efficient,
Economical, Ethical, Equitable.
No formal training for all departments is currently provided nor is it available at this time.
A high-level overview training is being finalized but it is focused on being utilized to train
individual departments and is not a specific policy and best practices focused training.
No external training options exist currently that would educate subrecipients on their
responsibilities.
Monitoring of subrecipients is not consistently performed.
Limited visibility into departmental grant activities before the budget approval stage.
Reactive rather than proactive support due to staffing limitations.
Need for better tools to automate financial reporting tied to grants.
Summarized Theme Findings Across All Departments
Departments are motivated but unable due to the challenges noted across the five
themes addressed above to secure grant funding and align it with their operational goals.
Department staff have high levels of expertise in specific programmatic areas and would
be able to develop and manage programs if funding were available.
A decentralized approach to grants, while advantageous in many ways, prevents the
sharing of knowledge and resources effectively and efficiently within departments.
Inconsistent knowledge, training, guidance, and policies make grant funding efforts
inefficient and leads to many missed opportunities.
Significant time and resource limitations at all levels exist.
Departments lack sufficient staff and time to effectively manage grants, from application
to close-out.
A lack of tools and systems to facilitate the management of grants creates ongoing
challenges across all City departments.
Assessment Section 2: Review of Current Grant Management Activities Across
Departments - | 53
Heavy reliance on spreadsheets and paper-based processes creates risks of errors and
inefficiencies.
Lack of collaboration and integration of activities across departments propagates
inconsistent outcomes and inefficiencies.
No access to grant management systems to facilitate financial and programmatic
activities results in inefficient and time-consuming processes to address or fix issues that
arise.
Inconsistent integration and utilization of MUNIS, hampers efficient grant management.
Challenges and risks with tracking allowable costs, indirect cost allocations, and meeting
federal reporting standards.
Recommendations
Strategic Grant Funding Management Planning
Based upon the comments received, departments note that they do not feel that they have received
sufficient guidance to understand their roles and responsibilities related to grant funding activities. It
is likely that this is because of the City not having a clearly articulated or developed, proactive,
strategic approach to grant funding upon which the individual departments could prioritize their grant
efforts. Without a citywide strategic grant funding management plan, opportunities for the City as a
whole to successfully develop strong and successful grant funding results, is limited. A strong
strategic grant funding framework provides a clear road map for how the City’s individual
departments should identify, assess, and manage funding opportunities in alignment with their
financial plans, infrastructure goals, and operational needs, which in turn support the City’s overall
priorities and community needs. Without guidance and support at the citywide level, which is a
recommended best practice, departments typically have only limited success winning competitive,
discretionary awards of amounts over $100,000. The City should explore performing a strategic
grant funding management review to establish its citywide grant strategy.
Additional information including key activities, components, costs, and benefits that can be achieved
through this recommendation are addressed within the relevant theme above within the
recommendations contained within the “Assessment Section 1: Review of the City’s Existing Grant
Management Support Documentation” narrative.
Training and Capacity Building
The City of Glendale’s ability to secure and manage grant funding effectively is heavily dependent on
the expertise of its workforce. However, the results of our interviews with City staff indicate that
Glendale lacks a systematic, structured approach to training and capacity building in grant
development, management, and compliance. While some individuals have developed some
expertise through their work experience, the vast majority of the departmental employees tasked
with grant management responsibilities have very limited, if any, knowledge related to grant
management activities. This leaves departments dependent upon staff who are tasked with a vital
task, which feel overwhelmed and unprepared to successfully meet the requirements of the role.
This leaves departments vulnerable to limited effort being made to pursue grants, limited success in
securing grant funding that is applied for, and potential turnover in staff who feel overwhelmed by the
Assessment Section 2: Review of Current Grant Management Activities Across
Departments - | 54
responsibilities assigned to them. Without a structured training and capacity building framework that
departments can have their staff participate in and develop skills through, the department’s grant
activities effectively operate inefficiently and ineffectively.
To transform individual department’s staff into successful and high-performing grant management
personnel, access to a grant management training and capacity building resources must be
provided.
Additional information including key activities, components, costs, and benefits that can be achieved
through this recommendation are addressed within the relevant theme above within the
recommendations contained within the “Assessment Section 1: Review of the City’s Existing Grant
Management Support Documentation” narrative.
Tools and Templates
BerryDunn recommends that the City initiates a review and development of the organizational tools
and templates its departments currently have access to and explore opportunities for improvements.
Such items help streamline the complex process of applying for, managing, and reporting on grants,
ensuring accuracy, efficiency, compliance with funder requirements, and ultimately maximizing the
chances of securing funding and achieving project goals by providing a structured framework to
track key details, deadlines, budgets, and progress across all stages of the grant life cycle.
Key benefits of using organizational tools and templates in grant management that we anticipate the
City would achieve across departments include:
Improved Efficiency:
o Templates for proposal writing, budget breakdowns, and progress reports save time
by providing pre-formatted structures, allowing staff to focus on content and data
input rather than formatting.
Enhanced Accuracy:
o Standardized fields and clear sections within templates minimize the risk of errors in
critical information like contact details, project timelines, and funding amounts.
Streamlined Collaboration:
o Centralized platforms with shared access to grant documents and updates facilitate
collaboration among team members involved in the grant process.
Better Compliance:
o Templates designed to align with donor guidelines ensure that all necessary
information is included in grant applications and reports, reducing the risk of
noncompliance.
Data-Driven Decision-Making:
o Tracking key metrics and progress through dedicated tools allows for informed
decision-making about grant strategies and resource allocation.
Clear Visibility:
o A well-organized system with clear folder structures and labeling provides easy
access to all grant-related documents, facilitating quick reference and retrieval.
Assessment Section 2: Review of Current Grant Management Activities Across
Departments - | 55
In line with the development and distribution of improved tools and templates, we advise that the City
abandon its current passive and reactive approach to identifying and applying for grant funding. We
recommend that the City explore one of two potential options regarding the search, identification and
qualification of grant funding opportunities, and the subsequent application for funding.
Option 1 - The City should explore creating and hiring a grant coordinator position,
responsible for all search, identification, and in line with City and department’s strategic
funding plans, the qualification of opportunities that the City may wish to apply for. We further
recommend that the City review subscription options for search optimization services that
can provide focused grant funding opportunities based upon criteria the City has established.
We strongly advise that the City not attempt to utilize existing staff resources to perform this
function. Industry data shows only limited successful outcomes when individuals responsible
for this critical task are assigned other day-to-day work. The City may wish to fill this position
with a staff member who has documented success in planning and applying for grant funding
from a variety of funders. This would provide departments with experienced support that
could mentor and guide individual department’s staff on the application process to expand
experienced grant application capacity across the City.
Option 2 – Alternatively, the City may wish to explore, at least initially, the contracting out to
a consulting firm the functions listed above for the proposed Grant Coordinator position. It is
quite common for local governments to take this approach to limit overhead costs and to
provide an opportunity to assess the cost vs. benefit of having a focused resource that is
responsible for managing the critical initial phases of the grant management process.
Utilizing outside contractors further benefits the City by having the ability to modify service as
grant funding cycles occur and eliminates the need for the City to enter into any subscription
search services initially, until it has had time to fully vet the full costs and benefits of this
recommendation.
Additional information including key activities, components, costs, and benefits of this
recommendation are addressed within the relevant theme above within the recommendations
contained within the “Assessment Section 1: Review of the City’s Existing Grant Management
Support Documentation” narrative.
Compliance Monitoring and Management
Organizational grant management success across multiple departments requires a strong
compliance monitoring framework. Under the City’s current system, the Grant Program Manager
appears to have insufficient time to monitor and successfully engage with all departments to
maximize the City’s ability to secure grant funding. Compliance responsibilities related to grants
expand far beyond the requirements of just funders. To cover such areas as both funder-mandated
financial and outcome reporting, as well as the management of State and City requirements placed
on each award, the City must have a staff member who is focused on the management of funding
vs. its assigned activities. Compliance with performance objectives and deliverables is a significant
responsibility that is not easily performed without having the opportunity to be focused and dedicate
sufficient effort. Finally, organizational compliance with policies and procedures related to grant
program staffing, procurement and reporting coupled with program outcomes and cost vs benefits
assessments, should be constantly monitored by recipients of grant funding. Based upon the data
Assessment Section 2: Review of Current Grant Management Activities Across
Departments - | 56
we collected as well as the assigned work responsibilities noted, it is our recommendation that the
City consider better defining the Grant Program Manager’s responsibilities to be more focused on
the City’s overall grant management compliance and conformance needs. This would include
overseeing previously noted tasks related to improvements and additions previously recommended
for the City’s grant documentation, development, and implementation of formal training for impacted
departmental staff, and the planning and procurement of possible tools and templates to facilitate
grant management activities.
We would advise that at the start of any recommended project activities, that the Grant Program
Manager be initially tasked with the creation of a comprehensive compliance monitoring and
management plan to help the City’s departments be better supported, and able to proactively identify
and address any potential compliance issues. Such a plan would likely minimize the risk of legal and
financial penalties, reputational damage, and financial losses by ensuring adherence to relevant
laws, regulations, and internal policies, ultimately safeguarding the City’s integrity and operational
stability.
Key benefits and efficiencies of a formal compliance monitoring and management plan include:
Risk mitigation:
o Regularly monitoring activities allows for early detection of compliance risks,
enabling timely corrective actions to prevent violations and potential legal
consequences.
Improved decision-making:
o By providing insights into compliance gaps, the plan empowers management to
make informed decisions regarding risk management and resource allocation.
Enhanced stakeholder trust:
o Demonstrating a robust compliance program builds confidence with customers,
investors, and regulatory bodies.
Operational efficiency:
o Streamlined processes for monitoring compliance can reduce administrative
burden and improve operational effectiveness.
Reputation protection:
o Proactive compliance efforts can prevent negative publicity associated with
noncompliance incidents.
Cost savings:
o By identifying and addressing compliance issues early, organizations can avoid
costly fines, penalties, and litigation.
Additional information including key activities, components, costs, and benefits that can be achieved
through this recommendation are addressed within the relevant theme above within the
recommendations contained within the “Assessment Section 1: Review of the City’s Existing Grant
Management Support Documentation” narrative.
Pre-award Grant Project Activities and Planning
A key weakness in Glendale’s current approach to grant funding initiatives is the absence of a
centralized framework guiding pre-award processes and decisions. Without standardized and
consistent criteria for evaluating whether an opportunity is a good fit for the City, significant efforts
Assessment Section 2: Review of Current Grant Management Activities Across
Departments - | 57
and inefficiencies in the process exist. The utilization of varied staff to identify grant opportunities
without a formal strategy and regular communication is ineffective and inefficient. Best practices
indicate that local governments are typically most successful in consistently securing grant funding
when dedicated personnel are assigned responsibility for planning, identifying, and applying for grant
funding. BerryDunn recommends that the City explores one of two options, either hiring staff or
ongoing contracting with outside consultant services for grant opportunity identification and
application support services; or the use of experience consultants to develop training and mentoring
opportunities for assigned staff within each department to build internal capacity. The success of this
recommendation is deeply dependent upon the City implementing the recommendations noted prior
to this recommendation or at least working to address some alternative solutions that may yield
comparable benefits and results.
Additional information including key activities, components, costs, and benefits that can be achieved
through this recommendation are addressed within the relevant theme above within the
recommendations contained within the “Assessment Section 1: Review of the City’s Existing Grant
Management Support Documentation” narrative.
Assessment Section 3: Comparative Peer Community Benchmarking | 58
Assessment Section 3: Comparative Peer Community
Benchmarking
To assess opportunities for potential grant management capacity and performance improvements by
the City of Glendale, BerryDunn conducted a benchmarking survey targeting regional municipalities
with similar governance structures and grant portfolios. The purpose of this assessment was to:
Identify common grant management structures and best practices among peer
municipalities.
Compare Glendale’s grant application, award, and management processes to those of its
peers.
Highlight key challenges and strengths in grant administration across the surveyed cities.
Provide data-driven recommendations for improving Glendale’s grant operations and
capacity.
The Survey of Peer Communities Focused on Several Key Grant Policy, Procedures,
and Activities, Including:
1. Grant Management Structure and Staffing
2. Grant Identification and Application Processes
3. Policies and Procedures
4. Technology, Tools, and Systems
5. Collaboration and Interdepartmental Coordination
6. Compliance and Risk Management
7. Training and Capacity Building
8. Challenges and Barriers to Success
Key Peer Benchmarking Themes Defined
Grant Management Structure and Staffing
Through these survey questions, we aimed to determine how peer municipalities structure their grant
management activities and allocate staffing resources. The focus was on identifying whether grant
functions are centralized or decentralized, the number of personnel dedicated to grant management,
and how municipalities organize oversight of grant application, compliance, and reporting processes.
Understanding these structures helps highlight best practices and potential gaps in Glendale’s
current model.
Grant Identification and Application Processes
This theme explores how municipalities identify grant opportunities, determine which departments
are responsible for applications, and what approval processes are required before submission. It
also examines the overall grant seeking activity, including the volume of applications submitted and
the rate of success in securing funds. These insights provide a clearer picture of whether peer
Assessment Section 3: Comparative Peer Community Benchmarking | 59
municipalities take a strategic, proactive approach to grant applications or if they rely on ad hoc
identification of funding opportunities.
Policies and Procedures
This section evaluates whether municipalities have formal policies and procedures guiding their
grant activities and how frequently these documents are reviewed and updated. A well-defined
grants policy provides structure and consistency in compliance, application development, and
financial tracking. The goal of these survey questions was to determine how peer communities
document their grant processes, whether they incorporate cost-benefit analyses, and how they
handle indirect cost recovery mechanisms.
Technology, Tools, and Systems
The survey aimed to understand the extent to which municipalities utilize technology for grant
tracking, reporting, and compliance. Grant management software and automated systems can
significantly enhance efficiency and accuracy, reducing reliance on manual spreadsheets. This
theme investigates whether municipalities have dedicated grant management platforms, whether
grant-related processes are automated, and how effectively different departments coordinate
through technology.
Collaboration and Interdepartmental Coordination
This section focuses on how municipalities coordinate grant-related activities across different
departments and external partners. Effective grant management requires collaboration between
finance, program staff, and leadership to ensure efficient resource allocation and compliance.
Additionally, interdepartmental coordination can prevent duplication of efforts and improve overall
success rates. The survey assessed whether municipalities engage in collaborative grant
applications and how they facilitate communication across departments.
Compliance and Risk Management
Compliance with Federal, State and Local regulations is essential for avoiding financial penalties and
ensuring sustained grant funding. This theme investigates how municipalities track compliance
requirements, manage financial and programmatic reporting, and mitigate risks such as unallowable
costs or audit findings. The goal of these questions was to determine how peer municipalities
structure their compliance frameworks and risk management protocols.
Training and Capacity Building
Grant management is a specialized field that requires ongoing training and professional
development to keep up with evolving regulations and best practices. This theme examines whether
municipalities provide formal training opportunities for grants personnel, who is responsible for
delivering that training, and where knowledge gaps exist. Ensuring staff are well-trained can
enhance grant success rates and compliance performance.
Challenges and Barriers to Success
This section identifies key difficulties and common obstacles municipalities face in securing and
managing grant funding. These challenges may include staffing capacity, lack of centralized support,
difficulty identifying funding opportunities, administrative burdens, or lack of strategic planning.
Assessment Section 3: Comparative Peer Community Benchmarking | 60
Understanding these barriers helps to highlight areas where Glendale may need to improve or invest
in additional resources to increase its grant competitiveness and efficiency.
Beyond identifying Glendale’s internal challenges, this section also serves to compare the City’s
experience with that of its peer communities. By assessing whether similar municipalities face the
same barriers, we can better determine if Glendale's challenges are unique or reflective of broader
regional trends. This analysis provides valuable context for identifying targeted improvements,
prioritizing resources, and implementing best practices that have proven effective in other
jurisdictions.
Key Peer Benchmarking Observations
1 - Grant Management Structure and Staffing
Peer Cities: All surveyed cities have dedicated grant personnel, though staffing levels vary. Three
cities have 1-3 dedicated grant staff, while two cities have more than 10. Most municipalities operate
under a decentralized approach, where departments manage their own grants, but some cities
provide centralized oversight for grant strategy, compliance, or administration. Mesa takes the
approach of using centralized oversight of a decentralized system. For instance, while the City's
Grant Coordinator assists and supports all departments, the departments are also responsible for
identifying opportunities and writing the key grant application proposal content. Some departments
have individuals whose roles are more heavily dedicated to grants and fund development, rather
than management of grants.
Peoria: Peoria follows a hybrid model, where a centralized grants staff member helps identify
opportunities based on:
The City’s Strategic Plan
The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
The City Council’s funding priorities
Any grant that does not align with these priorities is left to individual departments to
pursue.
Glendale Comparison: Glendale follows a decentralized model, with individual departments
responsible for identifying and managing grants. However, there is no formalized citywide strategy
for grant identification or prioritization. Glendale has no dedicated grant writing team, and the City’s
Grants Manager is significantly overextended.
2 - Grant Identification and Application Processes
Peer Cities: Departments typically take the lead in identifying and applying for grants, though some
cities provide centralized strategic oversight. Application volume varies:
Two cities submitted 11-20 grants in 2024
Three cities submitted 21-50 grants in 2024
Success rates ranged from 26% to above 75%
Assessment Section 3: Comparative Peer Community Benchmarking | 61
Glendale Comparison: Staff indicate that grant pursuit is reactive rather than strategic, often based
on ad hoc identification rather than a planned funding strategy.
3 - Policies and Procedures
Peer Cities: Four out of five cities have formal, written grant policies, though only one city actively
recovers indirect costs. Policies are typically reviewed and updated annually.
Peoria: Peoria has structured post-award processes, including:
Immediately highlighting key award letter details
Involving the finance department early in grant setup
Holding kickoff meetings to define responsibilities, next steps, and key deadlines
Glendale Comparison: Glendale has a grant management manual, but it is outdated and not
aligned with current cross-cutting federal and state regulations and requirements. Departments are
aware of its existence, but it is not actively used across the City due to its lack of clarity, practical
tools such as checklists, templates, and workflows, or updated regulations. The document does not
provide sufficient guidance on cost recovery, compliance requirements, or subrecipient monitoring.
4 – Technology, Tools, and Systems
Peer Cities: Some cities have begun adopting grant management software such as Workday,
MUNIS, AmpliFund or eCivis. However, the majority still rely heavily on manual tracking.
Glendale Comparison: Glendale uses MUNIS, but there is no centralized grant management
platform accessible and consistently used across departments. Tracking and compliance efforts are
manual, inconsistent, and fragmented across various departments. Some departments are
beginning to procure individual tracking tools, but there is no citywide approach to integrating grant
data, reporting, or compliance management.
5 - Collaboration and Interdepartmental Coordination
Peer Cities: Three cities submitted collaborative grant applications in 2024, but the volume was low,
and most of these cities did not indicate that they have structured interdepartmental grant
coordination efforts. Some cities noted that finance and program staff worked closely together but
lacked dedicated coordination mechanisms. Some cities hold monthly or quarterly grant coordination
meetings to align efforts across departments.
Glendale Comparison: Glendale’s interdepartmental coordination is informal and mostly ad hoc,
with no standing grant coordination meetings. Glendale did not submit any collaborative grant
applications in 2024. Glendale’s interdepartmental coordination is informal and mostly ad hoc, with
no standing grant coordination meetings. Communication between finance, programmatic staff, and
leadership is mostly ad hoc, leading to missed opportunities for strategic, multi-departmental grant
applications.
6 - Compliance, Risk Management and Reporting
Peer Cities: Three out of five cities reported challenges in tracking allowable costs, indirect costs,
and reporting requirements. Most municipalities do not fully leverage indirect cost recovery options,
and compliance is often reactive rather than proactive.
Assessment Section 3: Comparative Peer Community Benchmarking | 62
Glendale Comparison: Glendale’s compliance processes are fragmented and inconsistent across
departments. The grants manual lacks clarity on compliance requirements, and reporting is often at
risk of delays due to limited functionality and personnel responsible for tracking and communicating
deadlines. The City does not apply indirect cost recovery, resulting in significant unrecovered
administrative expenses.
7 - Training and Capacity Building
Peer Cities: Only two of the five surveyed cities offer structured grants training, while others rely on
on-the-job learning and informal training. Most municipalities acknowledge a lack of formal
professional development for grant staff.
Glendale Comparison: Glendale does not have a structured training program for grant
management. Staff across departments do not receive formal guidance on compliance, application
processes, or reporting requirements. There is strong interest in professional development
opportunities, but no citywide training initiatives are in place to build grant capacity.
8 - Challenges and Barriers to Success
Peer Cities:
The most commonly reported challenges include:
1. Limited staffing capacity (reported by all cities).
2. Internal organizational issues (including difficulties in identifying and applying for grants due
to competing priorities).
3. Lack of grant compliance expertise leads to audit risks and reporting inefficiencies.
4. Relationship-building with funders.
Glendale Comparison: Glendale faces similar barriers, particularly staffing shortages and limited
citywide grant coordination. The City has no dedicated grant writer, and most grant responsibilities
fall to program staff with little formal training. Departments report lack of time and expertise as major
barriers to pursuing new funding opportunities.
Appendices | 63
Appendices
Appendix A: Glendale Staff Surveys
Appendix B: Glendale Non-Budget and Finance Department Survey Responses
Appendix C: Glendale Budget and Finance Department Survey Responses
Appendix D: Peer Benchmarking Survey Questions and Responses
Appendix E: Key City of Glendale Current Grant Documentation
City of Glendale - Department Grant Assessment 1
City of Glendale - Department Grant Assessment
Enter Department Name:
Attendees:
We appreciate your taking the time to work within your department to review and address these
questions. We will use the information we gather from each department to assist the City in developing
an assessment of current activities and opportunities for increased grant funding awards.
The Overall Purpose of These Department Questions Include:
1. To understand the systems and tools available to each department.
2. To identify any gaps in current workflows or technology.
3. To uncover areas for process improvement or training needs to increase grant funding success.
4. To learn about successes and challenges across the City’s departments and develop a
consistently strong and effective policy that all departments can utilize to be successful.
General Questions for the Grants Manager and
Departmental Engagement Team
Processes and Workflow
1. Who in your department is responsible for working on grants and what are the roles and
responsibilities of assigned staff? What training or support do you provide them?
2. How do you ensure consistency in grant-related processes across different staff? What training
or guidance do your consistently provide?
3. Are there any common/consistent bottlenecks or delays in your grant project workflows, such as
during the application or reporting stages? What do you think is the cause of them?
4. What systems or tools does your department use to track and manage grants at different stages
(application, award, reporting)?
5. Who from within your department, or at the City level, do you work with or receive
supervision/guidance from related to grants?
6. How much training in required policies and procedures does your department supply to staff?
7. How would you rate your success with identifying, applying and securing grant funding? What
would help you the most to be even more successful?
City of Glendale - Department Grant Assessment 2
1. Grant Awareness and Opportunity Identification:
o How does your department typically learn about grant opportunities?
2. Application Process:
o What challenges does your department face during the grant application process?
o Are there specific resources or support you feel you lack when preparing applications?
3. Approval Workflow:
o Can you describe your internal approval process for developing grant applications?
o How does your department interact with the Grants Office or City Council during this
phase?
Grant Management and Administration
4. Roles and Responsibilities:
o Who is responsible for overseeing and managing grants once awarded in your
department?
o How are roles divided between financial tracking, program implementation, and
reporting?
5. Monitoring and Compliance:
o What measures are in place to ensure compliance with grant terms and conditions?
o How do you handle discrepancies or audit findings, if they occur?
6. Budget and Financial Tracking:
o How does your department track grant expenditures against the approved budget?
o Are there challenges in distinguishing grant-funded costs from other departmental
expenses?
Systems and Technology
6. Does departmental staff who work on grants interact with the following grant support systems:
SimpliCity, E-Civis, or MUNIS?
How well do you feel the various software systems you need to utilize, integrate with
each other to facilitate efficient and effective grant data and compliance management?
7. Are there processes currently handled manually within your department, such as tracking grant
awards on spreadsheets, etc. that you feel could benefit from automation or digitization?
City of Glendale - Department Grant Assessment 3
8. Are there any processes or procedures either automated and manual, that you or your team
perform that are likely to be difficult to track and review for compliance that you would like to see
changed to ensure data is accurate and consistent?
9. What, if any, challenges have you encountered using the system that are available to you for
reporting or monitoring grants?
10. Are there any system upgrades or new tools you at the department level or the City as a whole
are considering implementing to improve grant management?
11. Data and Reporting:
1. How does your department track performance metrics and progress for grants?
2. Are you able to easily pull data for required financial or performance reports?
Interdepartmental Coordination
12. How do you communicate your department’s grant activities, requirements and project updates
to other departments? What other departments do you interact with regularly related to grants?
13. What challenges, if any, do you face in coordinating with other departments during the grant
application or reporting process?
14. Are there standard meetings, check-ins, or other collaboration mechanisms you use to ensure
your department stay aligned with grant requirements?
Compliance and Risk Management
15. What are your current practices for ensuring grants comply with federal and state regulations?
16. How do you identify and address potential risks of non-compliance, such as missed deadlines or
unallowable expenses?
17. Are there specific areas of compliance where you feel your department faces challenges or
could use additional assistance, such as procurement or sub awards or the pursuit of cost
allocation/indirect costs?
Pitfalls and Challenges
18. Common Issues:
o What are the most common challenges or pitfalls your department faces with grants
(e.g., time constraints, unclear guidelines)?
o Have you ever missed a grant opportunity or reporting deadline? What contributed to
that?
19. Audit and Oversight:
o How prepared is your department for grant audits or monitoring visits?
o Have you experienced any issues with reconciling records or justifying costs?
City of Glendale - Department Grant Assessment 4
Reporting and Monitoring
20. What do you find are the most challenging aspects of preparing reports for grantors (financial,
technical, or performance reports) and how do you manage them in your department?
21. How do you currently monitor grant performance to ensure your department is meeting its
committed objectives and outcomes and any required funder expectations?
22. Are there processes in place to evaluate and improve your department’s ability to measure the
impact of grant-funded programs over time or to increase grant application efforts?
Training and Capacity Building
23. What kind of training or support is provided to your staff who work with grants, including
managing grant awards?
24. Are there specific areas where you feel your staff could benefit from additional training or
resources?
25. How do you ensure that staff that are new to grant-related responsibilities are informed and
complying with the City’s policies and processes?
Lessons Learned and Improvements
26. Looking back on previous grant applications or projects, are there recurring issues or lessons
learned that have shaped how you approach grant application efforts and ongoing grant funding
management?
27. What are the areas where you feel your department is excelling in with regards to grants?
28. If you could improve one or two parts of the City’s grants management policies and procedures,
what would it be and why? (Please feel free to share more than 2 if you would like)
Strategic Goals and Systems Integration
29. How do you ensure that grant opportunities your department pursues are in alignment with the
department and the City’s strategic goals and priorities?
30. Based upon your understanding of other department’s grants activities, are there any cross-
departmental information sharing opportunities or projects that you feel could benefit from
additional grant funding that is collaboratively applied for by multiple departments?
31. How does your team stay updated on new funding opportunities and regulatory changes?
32. Policy and Procedure Feedback:
1. Are the City’s grant policies and procedures clear and useful to your team?
2. Are there any specific areas in the policies where you’d like more guidance?
City of Glendale Budget & Finance Grants Assessment 1
City of Glendale Budget & Finance Grants
Assessment
Attendees:
We appreciate your taking the time to work within your department to review and address these
questions. We will use the information we gather from each department to assist the City in developing
an assessment of current activities and opportunities for increased grant funding awards.
The Overall Purpose of These Questions Include:
1. To understand the systems and tools available to each department.
2. To identify any gaps in current workflows or technology.
3. To uncover areas for process improvement or training needs to increase grant funding success.
4. To learn about successes and challenges across the City’s departments and develop a
consistently strong and effective policy that all departments can utilize to be successful.
General Questions for the Budget & Finance Staff
Assigned Grants Management Support Roles
Processes and Workflow
1. How would you describe the full lifecycle of a typical grant in the City—from identification to
closeout?
2. How do you ensure consistency in grant-related processes across different departments?
3. Are there any common bottlenecks or delays in your workflows, such as during the application
or reporting stages?
4. What systems or tools do you use to track and manage grants at different stages (application,
award, reporting)?
Systems and Technology
6. How well do SimpliCity, E-Civis, and MUNIS integrate with each other for managing grant data
and compliance?
City of Glendale Budget & Finance Grants Assessment 2
7. Are there processes currently handled manually that you feel could benefit from automation or
digitization?
8. How do you ensure that data across these systems is accurate and consistent?
9. What challenges have you encountered with using these systems for reporting or monitoring
grants?
10. Are there any system upgrades or new tools you are considering to improve grant
management?
Interdepartmental Coordination
11. How do you communicate grant requirements and updates to other departments?
12. What challenges do you face in coordinating with departments during the grant application or
reporting process?
13. Are there standard meetings, check-ins, or other collaboration mechanisms to ensure
departments stay aligned with grant requirements?
Compliance and Risk Management
14. What are your current practices for ensuring grants comply with federal and state regulations?
15. How do you identify and address potential risks of non-compliance, such as missed deadlines or
unallowable expenses?
16. Are there specific areas of compliance where you feel the City faces challenges, such as
procurement or cost allocation/indirect costs?
Reporting and Monitoring
17. What are the most challenging aspects of preparing reports for grantors (financial, technical, or
performance reports)?
18. How do you currently monitor grant performance to ensure the City is meeting its objectives and
outcomes?
19. Are there processes in place to evaluate and improve the impact of grant-funded programs over
time?
Training and Capacity Building
20. What kind of training or support is provided to departments managing grants?
21. Are there specific areas where staff across departments could benefit from additional training or
resources?
22. How do you ensure new hires in grant-related roles quickly understand the City’s policies and
processes?
City of Glendale Budget & Finance Grants Assessment 3
Lessons Learned and Improvements
23. Looking back on previous grant applications or projects, are there recurring issues or lessons
learned that have shaped how you approach grant management?
24. Are there areas where you feel the City is excelling in grants management?
25. If you could improve one part of the City’s grants management process, what would it be and
why?
Strategic Goals and Systems Integration
26. How do you ensure that grant opportunities align with the City’s strategic goals and priorities?
27. Are there any cross-departmental projects that you feel could benefit from additional grant
funding?
28. How does your team stay updated on new funding opportunities and regulatory changes and do
you convey that information to departments?
Key Themes and Recommendations
What We Learned from Each Department
1. Environmental Resources/Water Services Department – Participant(s) offering
insights: Megan Sheldon, Joanne Toms
Key Observations regarding funding identification and application submission
processes:
o Staff have a strong knowledge of technical aspects related to project needs that could be
supported through water infrastructure grants.
o Lack of experience and understanding with planning and preparing grant applications
beyond regional formula funding opportunities.
o Department attempts to be proactive in identifying state and federal funding
opportunities. Opportunities available come from listservs, agency emails announcing
programs, and some direct research.
o Typically, the Water Department has applied for small grant opportunities and regional
grant opportunities, they have not applied for larger grant opportunities through federal
agencies.
o Application process is not prescribed or documented, and staff pursue grants as time
permits and opportunities arise.
o Aware that the City has a grant manual but do not utilize it.
o Appreciate the work of Jose to try and assist them, but his support is limited due to
competing demands the significant need for support across the City’s departments.
o Going after funding requires a commitment of time that is difficult for the individuals
within the department who are tasked with completing the application to meet and can
create challenges and additional effort for other staff who are working on day-to-day
work as they sometimes need to provide coverage for the staff working on the grant or
delay activities until the staff are done the application effort.
o There is a strong appreciation for the value of grants and the opportunities they could
provide the City, but it is difficult under the current process and approach, to always
pursue viable options.
o Training is needed if departments are going to be responsible for developing grants and
would likely need additional training on managing grants if awards were received to
ensure compliance with award requirements.
o Staff pursuing grants have some experience applying but no formal training or
supporting documentation regarding processes is available to help with the planning and
management of the grant application process.
o Responses from department showed a real interest in expanding grant activities but did
not indicate any upcoming plans to do so without support
o Was unable to gather sufficient information and evidence that current practices
demonstrate success with any of the 5 Es of performance auditing. Effective, Efficient,
Economical, Ethical, Equitable.
o Would love to collaborate across other departments, they are unsure if there is sufficient
staffing capacity to take on grant funded programs, but there is no clear plan for how to
address that.
o Often find out about opportunities with little or no time to respond and there is no
strategic planning for opportunities currently performed.
Challenges:
o Limited capacity to manage grants due to staffing constraints and undue burden being
placed on others while staff would be focused on grants and likely delays in active
project activities.
o Heavy reliance on manual tracking methods (e.g., spreadsheets) for grant activities.
o Coordination with the Grants Office is inconsistent, leading to delays in approvals.
o Most grants are developed by staff who have no formal training, templates or experience
preparing a grant applications.
2. Community Services Department - Participant(s) offering insights: Matthew Hess,
Ismael Cantu
Library Services – Participant(s) offering insights: Dawn Ferro
Key Observations regarding funding identification and application submission
processes:
o Experienced in managing federal formula/entitlement grants (e.g., HUD programs).
o Good understanding of compliance requirements for specific programs like CDBG.
o Training is needed if departments are going to be responsible for developing grants and
would likely need additional training on managing grants if awards were received to
ensure compliance with award requirements.
o Responses from department showed a real interest in expanding grant activities but did
not indicate any upcoming plans to do so without support.
o Within Community Services Department there is a reorganization that is occurring. Final
determination related responsibilities focused on who is doing the management of
funding either internal programs or subrecipient management.
o Community Services: Overall planning for compliance and finance staff are being
developed and then responsibilities assigned will need direction and guidance related to
policies, etc.
o Department is experiencing flat funding through formula and entitlement programs.
o No formal plan for identifying opportunities at the department level. The leadership team
level tracks opportunities through relationships with funders and opportunities that have
“come their way.”
o They have started tracking their source of funding but are not staffed presently to pursue
discretionary grants.
o Aware that the City has a grant manual but do not utilize it.
o No training or written documentation to provide guidance or best practices has been
provided or is available as far as they know.
o Appreciate the work of Jose to try and assist them, but his support is limited due to
demands for his time and a very significant need for support at many levels.
o Was unable to gather sufficient information and evidence that current practices
demonstrate success with any of the 5 Es of performance auditing. Effective, Efficient,
Economical, Ethical, Equitable
o Community Services uses a tracking tool that has just the information related to the total
grant amount and drawdowns that have occurred. They also use a spreadsheet and they
update it through reviewing the voucher payments.
o They currently are procuring a new software to track grants and will be implementing it
over the next year. The system they will procure are specifically focused on public
housing and not technically viable to be used for other programs and would not be able
to be used to track discretionary.
o They are also transitioning from the existing Oracle system to one that is specifically
focused on “Neighborly” and covers community development and planning, including
requirements and regulations related to CDBG funding activities. This system should be
implemented by the end of the fiscal year. They will use it for currently active programs
and then build historical data in.
o CAP60 is used by Community Action Committee planning. There are other potential
uses of this software but it is primarily a community planning grant funded tracking tool.
o Library applies for discretionary grants and they are typically small grant awards to
support budget initiatives
o Senior level library staff identify opportunities and lead grant application development
o Dawn monitors project reporting and tracking of grants through a spreadsheet. She
provides that for 5-6 grants that they receive. Most grants are small grants.
o Library gets the majority of their funding from state. Opportunities come through
communications with State Library where they have communication with them about
opportunities for funding and then they run it through Community Services reviews.
o Other than funding through State Library, other funding is not consistently pursued.
o Jose actively reviews the library’s applications and assists with managing the
applications through Munis.
Challenges:
o Struggles with consistent reporting formats and deadlines.
o Lack of training for newer staff on grant systems and compliance processes.
o Poor integration of MUNIS, creating inefficiencies.
o There does not exist any guidance or requirements related to a process for determining
whether a grant should even be pursued.
o No strategic planning and application support is provided and most grants are prepared
by individuals who are completing the application based on the fact that the funding is for
their division’s program needs.
o Most discretionary/competitive grants are developed by staff who have no formal
training, templates or experience preparing a grant applications.
3. Police Department - Participant(s) offering insights: KC Oakes, Adam Beghtol, Aimee
Stacker
Key Observations regarding funding identification and application submission
processes:
o Established processes for tracking grant outcomes.
o Responses from department showed a real interest in expanding grant activities but did
not indicate any upcoming plans to do so without support
o Grant opportunity identification is being done through an open process. Individuals can
raise possible options and then they would be processed through department
administration and ultimately Finance and the City Council.
o Listservs provide grant opportunities that are considered frequently but they are
reviewed as one of many daily tasks assigned to the department’s grant facilitator who
assumed the role in July of 2024, who has some prior grant experience.
o No formal process identifying opportunities or a review criteria process exists
o A wish list item would be for the City to develop a grant user group that receives
consistent training and also provides an opportunity for meetings on a regular basis to
share ideas
o Other than listservs, no active searching for opportunities is occurring though it is
planned
o Finance is notified when funding is being applied for once it has gone through
departmental review and approved. They use MUNIS to track the applications and they
work with Jose to document and record activities
o Jose provides reviews of grant applications
o Tracking of opportunities found is only done through email being sent to potential
interested staff and then a reminder in the system, but that would require a manual
search of emails that have been sent and no data tracking or analysis is currently
performed
o Funding is mostly pass-through though the department does pursue discretionary
grants
o Managing funding is done at the department level as is programmatic reporting. Finance
pulls together supporting documentation for reporting, but department completes the
reporting.
o Spending the funds is managed by the department and then Finance provide information
to Finance for recording and monitoring. Procurement processes are managed at
department, but Finance makes the actual payments
o Department rates their ability to identify grant opportunities and being successful as low
given that their approach is traditionally “passive” as they are waiting for opportunities to
be raised by individuals who find them but those individuals have other responsibilities
o No formal procedures are documented or available for managing grant awards that have
been provided but they work closely with Jose on the management and disbursement of
funds. They really would like to have a consistent and comprehensive grant
management approach that the City uses consistently so they could collaborate and
have a support network across the City they could work with
o The information available through MUNIS is not often reliable so they often have to
perform additional resource to figure out where funding is
o Grant planning and development is conducted by whatever unit would receive the
funding with limited guidance and application review occurring.
o Training is needed if departments are going to be responsible for developing grants and
would likely need additional training on managing grants if awards were received to
ensure compliance with award requirements.
o Was unable to gather sufficient information and evidence that current practices
demonstrate success with any of the 5 Es of performance auditing. Effective, Efficient,
Economical, Ethical, Equitable
o Aware that the City has a grant manual but do not utilize it since it is incomplete and
does not provide useful guidance related to matters that staff need help with.
o Appreciate the work of Jose to try and assist them, but his ability to provide support is
limited due to competing demands for his time and the significant need for support at
many levels.
o Most discretionary/competitive grants are developed by staff who have no formal
training, templates or experience preparing a grant applications.
Challenges:
o Compliance with federal reporting requirements remains a challenge, particularly for
multi-year grants.
o Lack of coordinated actions related to grant planning and application development.
o Heavy workload on a small number of grant managers, leading to delays in
submissions.
o Gaps in training related to grant identification, management, compliance, and grant
reporting systems leads to confusion and significant delays in each component.
4. Transportation Department – Participant(s) offering insights: Patrick Sage
Key Observations regarding funding identification and application submission
processes:
o Experience with federal grants such as DOT and highway funding.
o Formula grants are applied for through Maricopa Association of Governments, a regional
planning agency. This funding typically is provided through State which receives funds
from federal grant.
o Most regional planning grants are the key source through Maricopa Association of
Governments
o Expectations to apply for funding, but the majority of applications are for formula grants
for region then they are competitive and discretionary.
o Federal IIJA funding has resulted in some grant applications being directly submitted.
o Department reviews each opportunity identified and makes a determination as to
whether they think they will be successful. While they use similar assessment decision
processes via a collaborative approach it is not documented and is not consistent.
o A formal process to determine whether to pursue grants is based upon each staff
member’s general assessment of opportunities.
o There is some proactive planning for funding needs that will use formula grants through
MAG.
o While there are project ideas that are identified as needing funding, there is no formal
attempt to identify discretionary funding proactively and is dependent upon department
leadership and staff being aware of opportunities and promoting the application process
to move forward.
o No one person is monitoring opportunities, it is ad hoc and based upon communication
from outside opportunities and staff raising opportunities based upon their ability to
promote and advocate.
o Individual administrators for airport or transportation are expected to lead application
efforts, with limited direct guidance or training.
o Responses from department showed a real interest in expanding grant activities but did
not indicate any upcoming plans to do so without support
o Was unable to gather sufficient information and evidence that current practices
demonstrate success with any of the 5 Es of performance auditing. Effective, Efficient,
Economical, Ethical, Equitable
o Aware that the City has a grant manual but do not utilize it.
o Training would be needed if departments are going to be responsible for developing
grants and they would need additional training on managing grants if awards were
received to ensure compliance with award requirements.
o Appreciate the work of Jose to try and assist them, but his support is limited due to
competing demands the significant need for support at many levels.
o They have pursued approximately 10-15 competitive funding opportunities through direct
Federal agencies in the past three years.
o
Challenges:
o Inconsistent communication with the central Grants Office.
o Lack of consistency in process and an overall understanding of programs and best
practices regarding how to apply makes it difficult to be successful.
o Prioritizing application development process for standard information does not occur.
o Time allocation for creating a strong application is not presently occurring which results
in compressed and difficult application development efforts.
o Most discretionary/competitive grants are developed by staff who have no formal
training, templates or experience preparing a grant applications.
o There is not sufficient staff resources available to make application development to be
strategic, it is often reactive with substantial pressure and stress.
o Manual processes for project monitoring, updates and compliance tracking create
inefficiencies in the time it takes to keep things up to date, the quality of the information,
and the ability to manage grant funded projects easily.
o There is hesitancy to pursue grants knowing the amount of effort required given
competing demands and expectations that can’t simply be put on hold.
5. Fire Department - Participant(s) offering insights: E. Lorence, Chrys Davis
Key Observations regarding funding identification and application submission
processes:
o Focused grant efforts on equipment and training initiatives, ensuring alignment with
operational needs.
o Good success rate in obtaining grants for critical public safety projects.
o Responses from department showed a real interest in expanding grant activities but did
not indicate any upcoming plans to do so without support
o Was unable to gather sufficient information and evidence that current practices
demonstrate success with any of the 5 Es of performance auditing. Effective, Efficient,
Economical, Ethical, Equitable
o Training is needed if departments are going to be responsible for developing grants and
would definitely need additional training on managing grants if awards were received to
ensure compliance with award requirements.
o Both respondents are new to grants but have received no formal training or guidance so
they are figuring out the process as they go. This can be challenging and frustrating.
o Grants are only applied for if someone provides them information about the opportunity
o They have no means of seeking opportunities and limited time to focus on them
o The funding they do get is typically formula funding that they do not apply for they
receive it directly
o In previous years they had a grant writer who could help them identify opportunities but
without that, their lack of experience hinders them pursuing them due to multiple
responsibilities
o Aware that the City has a grant manual but do not utilize it.
o Appreciate the work of Jose to try and assist them, but they have only directly had one
meeting due to his limited time and multiple demands.
o They truly believe that having a focused SME for grant applications and identifying
opportunities would yield significant benefits as they get very limited funding now, but
that individual would have to be focused on grants and not simply have those duties
assigned as part of a long list of job responsibilities
o At the very least, they need greater support to be successful. They do not feel hiring
Jose is sufficient to address the need for support they have.
Challenges:
o Limited understanding of newer compliance standards.
o Gaps in documentation and reporting due to reliance on outdated processes.
o Need for greater support in identifying and applying for larger, multi-departmental
grants.
o Most discretionary/competitive grants are developed by staff who have no formal
training, templates or experience preparing a grant applications
6. Emergency Management – Participant(s) offering insights: Nicole Munson
Key Observations regarding funding identification and application submission
processes:
o As a small department, all responsibilities from grant seeking to grant writing to
programmatic grant management reside with Nicole, but she has multiple responsibilities
that make finding time to focus on grant activities difficult. She does occasionally serve
as a resource to the Fire Department, which includes advice on approaches to
applications, and reviews of grant applications developed, if asked
o Delays that are encountered during the application phase are related to data gathering
and information development for the application. Sometimes it is a matter of not knowing
where to find the information, and other times it’s the result of having a project idea but
not having the idea proactively planned out or not having required information and/or
documentation readily available.
o Leans heavily on Munis Grants Master module for this for financial management of
grants, however, it is does not have any automated features, so things such as reporting
requirements and deadlines are manually entered into Outlook as a task with a reminder
set to ensure the reporting requirement is met timely.
o Responses from department showed a real interest in expanding grant activities but did
not indicate any upcoming plans to do so without support
o Was unable to gather sufficient information and evidence that current practices
demonstrate success with any of the 5 Es of performance auditing. Effective, Efficient,
Economical, Ethical, Equitable
o Aware that the City has a grant manual but do not utilize it. Do not find it provides any
support related to the department’s specific needs.
o Training is needed if departments are going to be responsible for developing grants and
would likely need additional training on managing grants if awards were received to
ensure compliance with award requirements.
o Receives supervision/guidance from both the City’s Grant Programs Manager and
Senior Grants Accountant
o In the past she has been somewhat successful with identifying, applying for, and
securing grant funding with the City of Glendale. At present, time and more efficient
means to identify potential grant funding would be the most helpful. Researching grant
opportunities and having a means to determine if projects are a good fit is time
intensive.
o Emergency Management learns about grant opportunities through the receipt of emails
from federal funding agencies/state pass-through agencies.
o Consistent challenge to grant applications is data collection for background information;
timelines; collaboration with stakeholders involved in the grant management process;
understanding whether or not formal approval is needed to submit the application
o Specific resources lacking when preparing applications includes a formal and easy to
follow document that outlines who the appropriate departments/department contacts are
or resources to lean into for background information (i.e., planning area; number of
street miles; demographics; industry composition; etc
o My interactions the Finance Departments staff related to grants includes reaching out to
the Grant Programs Manager with questions or to provide situational awareness on
grant-related activity. I work closely with the Senior Grants Accountant on any financial
questions related to grant awards. Engagement with City Council only occurs with grant
awards over $50,000. In these instances, an agenda item is requested and a Council
Report is developed, to include any pertinent attachments (i.e., Subrecipient Agreement)
regarding the funding opportunity.
o In Emergency Management, I am responsible for overseeing and managing grants once
awarded. I work with the project managers to ensure regular activity is occurring under
the grant award and that all reporting requirements are being met. This is time-
consuming and competes with other projects for attention.
o For financial tracking, program implementation, and reporting the Senior Grants
Accountant prepares reimbursement requests based on expenditures charged to grant
awards. Once the reimbursement request is prepared, I review it to ensure that it meets
the scope of the grant award. Program implementation is the responsibility of the project
point of contact/SME. Reporting efforts are coordinated by me, with information gathered
from the project point of contact/SME responsible for program implementation. No
training or documented guidance is available to the contact/SME currently.
o Compliance with grant terms and conditions upon award is managed by me. I review the
grant terms and conditions and make note of any significant items to share with the
project point of contact/SME. If questions come up from the project point of contact/SME
regarding the allowability of a purchase/activity, I refer back to the grant terms and
conditions to determine what actions would be allowable and what steps may need to be
taken
o If discrepancies in records at the department level occur, I review what occurred and
identify why it occurred, then make adjustments to the process to avoid future
occurrence
o Munis can sometimes be cumbersome to navigate and use. There also is no automation
available in Grants Master (that I’m aware of) that can be leveraged to assist with
reporting or monitoring grants, such as setting deadline reminders. It is also my
understanding that there are significant manual processes that have to be taken to
process personnel-related expenses charged to grant awards, which has created delays
in up-to-date financial information being available.
o Information for reporting is typically gathered from the project point of contact/SME. The
grants that I have managed previously have not had specific performance metrics and
rather required reporting on how many X have been purchased/completed in a certain
period. This will be a difficult skill to implement but it will be required with federal
funding.
o Interdepartmental coordination has been limited. Most communication and coordination
occurs with Budget & Finance. I have not yet been involved with a grant
application/award that required coordination with other departments to carry out the
intent of the grant award. As Emergency Management grows and develops a grant
seeking strategy, I have no doubt that our need to coordinate and communicate
interdepartmentally will increase, as many of the projects we would pursue would require
high levels of coordination.
o Workloads and timeframes for application development and submission are typically
short and become an “other duty as assigned.” Reporting processes tend to be the same
for a majority of grants, so that creates a workload/time compression issue, as well.
o Are there you use to ensure your department stay aligned with grant requirements?
o Standard meetings, check-ins, or other collaboration mechanisms with Finance are not
formally scheduled at this time with all departments. When I was managing grants for the
Fire Department, I would send a regular email communication to the project point of
contact/SME to check status and determine if there were any areas of concern based on
the information provided to me. If there were concerns raised, I would schedule a
meeting to discuss.
o Time constraints is the biggest challenge to seeking grants. It takes staff time to develop
projects and programs well to be able to seek funding opportunities. And then it takes a
significant amount of time to research funding opportunities to determine alignment
before developing the grant application. And then time to write the application and get it
through review/approval processes.
o Grant opportunity deadlines have been missed. Most often, the contributing factor was
that there was not enough time (staff capacity) to develop a strong application in the
application period. Sometimes this was further aggravated by late awareness of the
funding opportunity.
o Although I am not responsible for developing the financial information for financial
reports, I am familiar with the process to extract data from our financial system. The
process is cumbersome and not intuitive and requires a lot of manual effort to produce a
report that is easily digestible for the intended purpose. I lean into the Senior Grants
Accountant for the preparation of financial reports. Performance reports can be
challenging if the project point of contact/SME has changed and information has not yet
been communicated (this has occurred with fairly regular rotations of sworn personnel in
the Fire Department) and continuity of responsibility has not been maintained.
o At present, I am not aware of any formal training that is provided to staff who work with
grants. When I expand the staff in my area who work with grants, I will provide them with
training on key things to be aware of when managing grants and provide them
opportunity for attending outside training. I would also make myself available to address
any questions they have that come up in the process.
o Specific areas where training should definitely be provided include understanding the
City’s process and procedures for grant seeking/grant management. The policy is helpful
but understanding how we meet the requirements of the policy is still needed.
o Although I do not currently have staff who are new to grant-related responsibilities, when
I have staff assigned to a new responsibility, I provide them access to the related policies
and share any written information on processes that I may have access to. I also provide
them with contacts for assistance. Additionally, ensuring open dialog and conversation
on grant-related responsibilities allows for opportunity to identify areas where additional
guidance may be needed.
o Looking back on previous grant applications or projects common concerns that arise
during grant application efforts and ongoing grant funding management tend to be
centered on communication, coordination, and collaboration which is often hindered by
grants being an “other duty as assigned” and personnel not being able to dedicate the
necessary time and attention to them. My approach is to ensure that there is a single
coordination person responsible for ensuring that there are deadlines for work that
needs to be completed and that there are frequent reminders sent as the deadline
approaches.
o From my review of the City’s grants management policies and procedures, changes I
would recommend ensuring that there are written processes and procedures in place
and training to those processes and procedures. Absent this information, we are left to
do the best we can at interpreting the policy and accomplishing the necessary
steps/tasks that should be part of the process.
o When determining if grant opportunities align with the department and the City’s
strategic goals and priorities, I review the grant guidance and requirements to ensure
first and foremost that any projects we are pursuing funding for meet the requirements. If
funding is being pursued from a private funder, I review the mission, vision, and values
of the organization to ensure that it aligns with ours. Having an understanding of the
Balanced Scorecard goals and priorities and reviewing the funding opportunity through
that lens is also helpful.
o At this time, cross-departmental information sharing opportunities or projects that could
benefit from additional grant funding that is collaboratively applied for by multiple
departments does not occur as there is no means to know and be familiar with other
department’s grant activities outside of the Fire Department.
o Information about opportunities is typically received directly from the funding agencies,
whether that be a federal funder or a pass-through funder. This means a lot of
opportunities are likely missed.
o The first paragraph under PURPOSE in the grants policy refers to identification of the
roles and responsibilities of the Grants Office, Budget and Finance Department and
applicable Department Grants Project Manager, but I could not find the related
information. The manual is not complete and needs to be revised and updated.
Challenges:
o Limited cross-departmental communication and sharing hinders success of City overall.
o Gaps in documentation and reporting create unclear and inefficient approaches to
grants.
o Need for greater support and training of staff either expected to pursue grants or
specifically assigned responsibility to ensure consistent outcomes and increased
funding.
Key Themes and Recommendations
What We Learned from Budget and finance
7. Budget and Finance Department - Participants offering insights: Levi Gibson, Jose
Echeverria Vega
Key Observations regarding funding identification and application submission
processes:
o Strong financial oversight and budget tracking for grant expenditures.
o Familiarity with procurement and cost allocation standards.
o Jose is available to provide opportunities as much as possible, general grant application
support, and grant program management and compliance support.
o Jose uses keyword searches in Google, ChatGPT and Grants.gov to identify
opportunities but does not have access to a formal grant opportunity approach.
o Jose manages a few grants and some Congressionally Directed spending.
o Jose states that departments know their funding needs, but they report that they do not
necessarily know all their funding needs because they are not aware of what funding is
available.
o No dedicated grant writer is assigned to any departments. Transportation may be using
outside consultants for grant writing support.
o Workflows and expectations are not clearly defined in the manual or any other document
beyond the Grant Application and Administration memo last updated April of 2022.
o Consistent department sticking points related to the legal review process which impacts
the ability to get grant programs up and running.
o Significant financial reporting is hindered by some departments not properly accounting
for expenditures such as personnel costs which results in journal entries needing to be
made which is time consuming and results in delays in financial reporting capabilities.
o Finance department does not have a grant management system in place that allows the
City to actually manage grant activities, it is focused on financial management of funding
primarily.
o MUNIS is the only grant software system that is used across the City.
o Finance only receives invoices after the departments have approved them. This creates
a situation where the department is responsible for managing the funding and Finance’s
account payable process will only raise a red flag if the expenditure of funds if the total
amount expended is greater than the amount of funding available.
o Sharon, when requesting reimbursement from the funder will review expenditures and if
she feels that the expenditures should not be charged to the grant, she will disallow
them but at that point the funds have been expended and this results in the individual
departments needing to cover those expenditures through their other budgeted funds.
o Eligible and allowable expenditure determinations are done at the department
o Significant manual processes due to a lack of a grant management system does not
promote efficient activities.
o Finance department is aware that documentation could be improved and training
offered, but unable to provide those services currently.
o Some departments work very well with Finance and others are independent.
o Jose is more active with those that work well and communicate well with the
department.
o Jose provides grant opportunity identification support but most departments stated that
they feel that the responsibility for grant identification falls upon them, which they
describe as a burden that reduces their efforts to try and secure funding through grants.
o Responses from department showed a real interest in expanding grant activities but did
not indicate any upcoming plans to do so without support
o Jose has interaction with departments but they have limited interaction with him due to
their lack of time to focus on grants.
o Was unable to gather sufficient information and evidence that current practices
demonstrate success with any of the 5 Es of performance auditing. Effective, Efficient,
Economical, Ethical, Equitable
Challenges:
o No formal training for all departments is currently provided nor is it available at this time.
A high-level overview training is being finalized but it is focused on being utilized to train
individual departments and is not a specific policy and best practices focused training.
o No external training options exist currently that would educate subrecipients on their
responsibilities.
o Monitoring of subrecipients is not consistently performed.
o Limited visibility into departmental grant activities before the budget approval stage.
o Reactive rather than proactive support due to staffing limitations.
o Need for better tools to automate financial reporting tied to grants.
o Payment allowability outside the individual departments is only reviewed after invoices
have been paid and reimbursement from the funder is being requested. If disallowed the
individual departments must cover the costs with their operating budget, the process is
reactive vs. proactive. This happens more often than not with certain departments
though it could happen at all of them.
1-3 3
4-6 0
7-10 0
More than 10 2
Responses
5
Average Time
30:02
Duration
28 Days
Responses Overview Active
1. Please enter your Name, Title and Municipality (OPTIONAL)
2
Responses
Latest Responses
"Sharon Skinner, Grants Coordinator, City of Mesa"
"Ann Fang, Controller, Tempe"
2. Does your municipality have dedicated personnel focused on grant application and/or grant award management activities?
Yes 4
No 0
Other 1
3. How many employees does your municipality have focused on grant activities?
4. Does your municipality have formal, written policies and procedures for grant application development and ongoing management?
Yes 4
No 1
Other 0
5. How often are these policies and procedures reviewed and updated?
4
Responses
Latest Responses
"The City Management Grants Policy is an overarching policy that is reviewed ann… "
"Annually"
. . .
6. What is the primary sources of your municipality’s grant funding? (Select all that apply)
Direct federal 5
Federal pass-through (via State of AZ or other
entities) 3
State 3
Private or other sources 1
7. Approximately what percentage of your direct federal grants are entitlement versus discretionary?
10% or less 1
11% to 25 % 2
26% to 50% 1
51% to 75% 1
Over 75% 0
8. Please briefly describe the process for grant application approval in your municipality. What levels of approval, if any, are required by mun
icipality leadership?
5
Responses
Latest Responses
"This is dependent on the requirements of the grant, the funding amounts, etc. De… "
"Department Leaders, Town Manager and Budget department provide approval fo… "
"Approval by council"
. . .
9. Who has the responsibility for identifying and preparing a grant application?
5
Responses
Latest Responses
"While the City's Grant Coordinator assists and supports all departments, the depa…"
"Department Leaders or middle managers designated as the lead on the grant init… "
"Each department"
. . .
10. Are standardized cost-benefit analyses or feasibility studies part of the decision-making process?
5
Responses
Latest Responses
"Feasibility is a key component of determining when to apply for funding. CBA is u…"
"Yes"
"no"
. . .
11. What tools or systems do you use to track grants and report on their status? Are these systems centralized or managed within individual
departments?
5
Responses
Latest Responses
"Our financial system is a key tool in tracking grants and related expenditures. De… "
"The Tyler-Munis software allows the Accounting Department to track grant fundi… "
"spreadsheets"
. . .
12. Have any portions of your grant management process been automated with software? If so, what benefits or challenges have you experi
enced?
5
Responses
Latest Responses
"Most systems that track physical grant activities do not integrate with the city's e… "
"We will begin using the Grants Module within the Munis program shortly. The be… "
"no"
. . .
13. Please list the Department names that actively pursue grant funding in your municipality:
5
Responses
Latest Responses
"All of the City's departments are encouraged to seek grant funding and are supp… "
"Community Resources, Homeland Security/Fire Department, Police Department, T… "
"transportation, housing, police and fire"
. . .
14. On average, approx. how many grant applications did your municipality submit in the past year?
0-5 0
6-10 0
11-20 2
21-50 3
More than 50 0
15. Approx. what percentage of those applications were awarded?
0-15% 0
16%-25% 0
26%-50% 2
51%-75% 0
Higher than 75% 2
16. What Departments within your municipality received grant funding in 2024?
5
Responses
Latest Responses
"Arts & Culture City Attorney Community Services Downtown Transformation Envi… "
"Community Resources, Homeland Security/Fire Department, Police Department, T… "
"Transportation, housing,"
. . .
17. Of the grant awards received in 2024, what was the largest source?
Direct Federal 4
Federal Pass-Through 1
State 0
Other 0
18. What was the TOTAL amount of grants awarded to your municipality in 2024?
Under $5,000 0
$5,000 - $10,000 0
$10,000 - $24,999 0
$25,000 - $49,999 0
$50,000 to $99,000 0
$100,000 - $499,999 0
$500,000 - $999,9999 0
$1 Million - $4,999,999 0
$5 Million to $9,999,999 0
Greater than $10 Million 5
19. In 2024, were any of your grant applications collaborative (joint applications with other entities outside of your municipality)?
Yes 3
No 2
Other 0
20. How many total collaborative grant applications did you submit in 2024?
5
Responses
Latest Responses
"2"
"None"
"not sure"
. . .
21. In 2024, how many of the collaborative grant applications that you submitted, were awarded?
5
Responses
Latest Responses
"0"
"None"
"not sure"
. . .
22. Does your municipality currently recover indirect costs on its grants?
Yes 1
No 4
Other 0
23. If yes, what method are you using to recover indirect costs?
Federally negotiated indirect cost rate agreement
(NICRA) 0
The de minimis rate 1
24. If you are currently using a software system to track and manage grants, what is it?
5
Responses
Latest Responses
"CGI - This system tracks the financial aspects of the grants and the lifecycle of gra…"
"Tyler-Munis Software to manage the accounting tasks for grants (i.e. reimbursem… "
"NA"
. . .
25. Do you utilize any automate processes for grant compliance and reporting, for both financial and performance?
4
Responses
Latest Responses
"Tyler-Munis Software to manage the accounting tasks for grants (i.e. reimbursem… "
"No"
. . .
26. Do your staff members regularly participate in grant management training or workshops?
Yes 2
No 3
Other 0
27. If training or workshops are provided, who is responsible for providing those services from within your municipality?
3
Responses
Latest Responses
"The City's Grants Coordinator"
. . .
28. What are the most significant challenges your municipality faces in securing and managing grant funding (e.g., staff capacity, eligibility, r
eporting requirements)?
5
Responses
Latest Responses
"The current federal administration"
"Challenges include capacity in the Accounting department to fiscally manage the …"
"not using a software to track grants and grant compliance."
. . .
29. Are there specific areas related to grant activities where additional resources or support are needed? If yes, please provide examples.
3
Responses
Latest Responses
"It would be nice to be able to fully centralize and take the burden off department… "
"We are in the process of developing a grants management procedural manual, co…"
. . .
30. Does your municipality have dedicated grant writers on staff? If so, are they centralized or at the Departmental level?
5
Responses
Latest Responses
"We have a City Grants Coordinator responsible for supporting all departments in … "
"No"
"department level"
. . .
31. Would you describe your grant management process as centralized or decentralized?
Centralized (managed by a central grants team) 0
Decentralized (handled by individual departments) 5
32. What, in your opinion, are the greatest challenges to successfully securing grant funding?
Competition 1
Reduced Funding 1
Economic Conditions 1
Internal Organizational Issues 3
Funder Practices and Requirements 1
Relationship Building with Funders 2
Lack of Time and/or Staff 5
Need for a Grants Specialist 1
Research, Finding Grants for Organizational
Mission
Writing Grant Proposals
1
1
Other 1
LG
Levi Gibson
Director, Budget & Finance
JE
Jose Echeverria Vega
Grants Program Manager
ME
Megan Ellgen
Controller
AL
Amy Lindsay
Assistant Director, Finance
EL
Elena Lopez
Supervisor, Payroll
LM
Latoya Mitchell
Management Assistant
ES
Esmeralda Saldana
Administrator, Business
Operations
SB
Sharon Broderius
Accountant, Sr
JL
Julianne Loyd
Accounting Project
Manager
MM
Maribel Moreno
Accountant, Sr
MM
Mark Munson
Accountant, Sr
JO
Junko Okabe
Accountant, Sr
ES
Elizabeth Smith
Accountant, Sr
City of Glendale
Finance Administrative Policy
No. 6
Title: GRANT APPLICATION & ADMINISTRATION
Effective: 5/1/2005 Revision: 8/18/2006
06/27/2014
04/12/2022
Contact: Finance Department – 623-930-2480
I. PURPOSE
This Grant Application and Administration Policy (Policy) provides departments with the requirements
in applying for and accepting competitive federal, state, county, tribal, private foundation, and corporate
grants. It also identifies the roles and responsibilities of the Grants Office, Budget and Finance
Department and the applicable Department Grants Project Manager.
This Policy does not apply to the categorical and formula grants; Community Development Block
Grants and Housing and Urban Development grants and it does not apply to direct corporate gifts and/or
donations made to the City or individual departments.
II. SYNOPSIS
A. Purpose in Applying for Grants
The City will only apply for grants that further City Council goals and objectives and support
projects and programs that are consistent with the mission and strategic plans and priorities of
the City and its departments.
1. Applications must be reviewed and approved in Simplicity Grant Master by the city
Grants Program Manager prior to submission to the funding agency.
2. Grant funding should be considered for one-time or time-limited projects such as
capital improvements, or program enhancements that do not have a long-term effect
on the ongoing operations budget. Grants may also be appropriate for start-up
funding mechanisms for priority projects already identified in a department’s
business plan.
3. Grants will not be used as the primary financing mechanism to create new ongoing
programs or services or to add unbudgeted positions.
4. Any grant application that includes a grant-funded position or a graduated match
resulting in the City assuming full financial responsibility subsequent to termination
of the grant, or directly increases the City’s ongoing operating costs, must be
reviewed by and approved by the Grants Program Manager Budget and Finance
Director, and City Manager or his/her designee.
5. The City may co-sponsor, serve as fiscal agent or join with multiple sponsored
community-based consortia or other jurisdictions when clear public benefit to
Glendale residents can be demonstrated.
B. Grant Policies and Procedures Manual
1. It is the responsibility of the Department requesting a grant, to ensure all staff
initiating the grant request or administration of a grant, adhere to the Grant Policies
and Procedures. A copy of the Grant Policies and Procedures Manual is available on
the GRID or by request through the Grants Office residing in the Budget and
Finance Department.
C. Award of Grant Funding
1. Grant awards that are less than $50,000 may be accepted administratively by the
City Manager or designee, unless otherwise required by the granting agency.
2. The Grants Office will provide City Council a monthly report of all grant awards.
3. Grants awards that are $50,000 or more will require a City Council Resolution prior
to spending of funds.
4. Grantors may require a governing body resolution for funding; therefore, it is critical
that this requirement be identified prior to the grant application by the applicant
Department. This information can be generally found in the Grant Notice of Funding
Availability (NOFA).
Lisette Camacho, Budget and Finance Director
FAP #6
Grants Application and Administration
Page 2 of 2
1
City of Glendale Grants Manual 2022
Table of Contents
I. Purpose
II. General Overview of the Grant Process
1. What is a Grant?
2. What are we agreeing to?
3. Who can help?
4. What is Your Responsibility?
5. The Award Cycle
III. Policies
1. Purpose in Applying for Grants
2. Developing Appropriate Grant Projects
3. Finding Funding
4. Grants Office
IV. Department Roles, Responsibilities and Procedures
1. Obtaining Initial Written Approvals to Proceed:
2. Assigning a Grant Project Manager
3. Writing the Proposal
4. Grant Guidelines
5. Submitting the Proposal
6. NON- Supplanting
7. Signature Authority for Applications
8. City Council Authorizations and Resolutions
9. Executing the Grant Contract
10. Receiving and Managing the Grant
11. Types of Award Funding
12. Establish the Grant Files
13. Expenditures and Collecting Revenue
14. Eligible Costs and Assigning Project Charges
15. Allowable Costs and Procurement Rules
Direct Costs
Indirect Costs
Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Exceptions
2
16. Collecting Revenue
17. Procurement
18. Monitoring and Oversight
19. Expenditure Monitoring
20. Cost Transfers
VII. Departments Grant Reporting and Monitoring Responsibilities
1. Reporting
2. Financial Reporting
3. Technical/Progress Reports
4. Final Reports
5. Subcontracting
Types of Subcontracts
Subrecipient Monitoring
6. Procurement and Suspension and Debarment
7. Cost Sharing/Matching
8. Program Generated Income
9. Support of Salaries and Wages
10. Equipment and Real Property Management
11. Modifications, Extensions, or Cancellations to the Budget or Project Scope
of Work
12. Grant Close-Out
13. Record Retention
VIII. Federal Law for Grants and Federal Spending Guidelines
1. OMB Super Circular
2. Federal Financial Assistance Transparency Act (FFATA)
3. Important Federal Guidelines Regarding Construction Projects
Davis-Bacon Act
Uniform Relocation Assistance Act
3
I. Purpose
This document establishes uniform procedures for City of Glendale (COG) departments in
applying for and accepting competitive federal, state, county and private foundation and
corporate grants, and identifies the roles and responsibilities of the Grants Office, City
Grants Program Manager, Finance, Grants Accountant, the Budget Department and the
Department Grant Project Manager.
This document does not apply to categorical and formula grants received by the City of
Glendale including Community Development Block Grants, Housing and Urban
Development grants. This document does not apply to direct corporate gifts and/or
donations made to the City or individual departments.
The purpose of this manual is to describe the policies and procedures of the City of
Glendale associated with:
The development of grant proposals to external public and private funding
sources,
Receipt and management of externally funded grant awards, and
To define the roles and responsibilities of staff pertaining to the management of
external funding and compliance with grant requirements.
This manual is designed to assist departmental Grants Project Managers in order to
avoid duplication of effort, maximize human resources on projects that potentially cross
departmental lines, minimize process questions relating to proposal development and
award management, and to maintain accurate grant records for the city. It includes the
procedures necessary for:
Approval for proceeding with a grant
Applying for a grant
Accepting a grant
Tracking the grant and expenditures
Closing out the grant
4
II. General Overview of the Grant Process
1. What is a Grant?
Grants awarded to the city are financial assistance from an external entity to carry out a
public purpose of support or stimulation. Funds can either be dispensed directly by the
granting agency to the city, or in certain situations may be passed through another
entity, such as the state or other governmental and non-state entities. "Grants" can be
in the form of cooperative agreements, joint participation agreements, contract for
services, private and business contributions or intergovernmental agreements, as well
as other types of contractual documents.
2. What are we agreeing to?
When the city applies for and receives a grant, it agrees to administer the funding
according to the granting agency’s (Grantor) terms and conditions. Including accounting
properly for grant expenditures and providing program documentation and evaluation.
3. Who can help?
The City Grants Program Manager and Grants Accountant in the Finance Department
oversee the acquisition and administration of grants executed by the city and assist city
staff in grant-related matters.
4. What is Your Responsibility?
It is the responsibility of assigned department staff, referenced as the Grant Project
Manager in this document to appropriately manage the project per grantor agreements
and guidelines and the policies and procedures of the city.
III. Policies
1. Purpose in Applying for Grants
The City’s policies regarding the acquisition and use of federal, state, county, private
foundation and/or corporate grants are directed toward achieving and maximizing
external financial resources while protecting the integrity of the City’s operating budget
and long-term financial condition. Therefore:
The City will apply only for grants that further City Council goals and objectives, and
support projects and programs that are consistent with the mission and strategic plans
and priorities of the City and its departments. To ensure this occurs, all applications must
be reviewed and approved by the city Grants Program Manager. The approval must be
secured prior to submission to the grantor.
5
Grant funding should be considered for one-time or time-limited projects such as capital
improvements, or program enhancements that do not have a long-term effect on the
ongoing operating budget.
Grants may also be appropriate start-up funding mechanisms for priority projects already
identified by the department. However, grants shall not be used as the primary financing
mechanism to create new ongoing programs or services or to add unbudgeted positions.
Any grant application that requires the guaranteed continuation of a grant-funded
position or a graduated match resulting in the City assuming full financial responsibility
subsequent to termination of the grant, or directly increases the City’s ongoing operating
costs, must be reviewed by:
City Grants Program Manager
Budget Office
Finance Director
Assistant City Manager
City Manager
Do not assume future grants will cover ongoing costs.
The City may co-sponsor, serve as fiscal agent or join with multiple sponsored community-
based consortia or other jurisdictions when a clear public benefit to Glendale residents
can be demonstrated. The City shall not act solely as fiscal agent for for-profit entities.
2. Developing Appropriate Grant Projects
Grant writing and grant management takes a considerable investment of time and
resources. When considering whether to apply for a particular grant, the initiating
department should consider the following questions:
1. Will the grant help the City maximize its goals and objectives or infrastructure
investments and fit into the City’s, or the departments, overall business plan?
2. Is the grant-supported service a high priority for the City Council, the department
or the public as evidenced by planning documents, inclusion in the CIP, local
resource commitment, service levels, etc.?
3. Is the proposed program one that is traditionally provided by local government or
will it create new program or service level commitments?
4. Are there other community agencies that provide or could provide the same or
similar services in a more efficient and cost-effective manner?
6
5. Is there sufficient budget appropriation for this grant application, and if matching
funds are required, will the match come from the department’s operating budget,
authorized capital improvement project funding, or another budget source?
6. If administrative and indirect costs, as well as department resources (e.g. Finance,
Risk Management, etc.) are involved, have these departments been consulted and
are these costs eligible for grant reimbursement?
7. What is the likely funding source for continuing the project/program or services,
or is there a plan for terminating the grant-supported services that addresses the
programmatic and political consequences of termination?
8. Is the value of the grant sufficient to justify the time and direct and indirect costs
involved in administering the grant?
9. Will the grant leverage other funding sources and/or foster more creative public-
private partnership arrangements?
3. Finding Funding
Grants.gov Grants.gov is the single access point for grant programs offered by all federal
grant making agencies. Grants.gov is the clearinghouse for all federal grant
opportunities, allows organizations to electronically find and apply for federal grants
and ultimately manage grant funds online through federal websites. Subscribing to
Grants.gov will provide email notifications of grant opportunities from federal agencies.
In addition, Google searches of grant will provide various grant forums.
4. Grants Office
The primary objectives of the Grants Office are to support and coordinate the City’s
efforts to successfully compete for and implement grants and other alternative funding
sources and to reduce the duplication of effort and unnecessary costs associated with
grant development. The City Grants Program Manager’s primary functions are to:
1. Act as a “clearinghouse” by providing a central source for gathering and
disseminating grant information, identifying potential funding sources.
2. Increase the City’s internal capacity to compete for grants by providing training
and mentoring opportunities for City staff interested in learning how to
develop successful grant applications.
3. Keep Council and City Management apprised of grant opportunities and grant
application activities.
7
4. Assist departments in navigating the various phases of developing fundable
proposal concepts that meet the criteria for using grants as the primary
funding source.
5. Provide support and technical assistance in the writing and editing of grant
documents.
6. Assist departments with the grant application and approval process including
review of council communications and resolutions.
7. Represent the city’s grant interests, maintain ongoing relationships with
external funders, and coordinate with funders when several departments are
applying to the same funding source.
8. Assist Grant Project Managers to resolve grant issues and remain in
compliance with the City and the grantor’s administrative rules and
regulations.
9. Assist Glendale community groups and agencies in applying for grants that
provide benefits to Glendale citizens and further Council goals and objectives.
IV. Department’s Roles, Responsibilities and Procedures
A successful grant application involves program design and planning activities that
precede the actual writing phase.
1. Obtaining Initial Approval to Proceed:
All proposed grant projects must be approved in SimpliCity Grant Master by the City
Grants Program Manager to ensure the project concept supports the city’s goals,
objectives and priorities and the impact to the city budget. The grant information must
be entered into SimpliCity Grant Master during the conceptual phase, once approval is
completed the application process begins.
2. Assigning a Department Grant Project Manager
The initiating department must assign a Grant Project Manager to be responsible for
moving the grant project from the conceptual stage through to formal closure of the grant
project.
This individual will be responsible for ensuring the project is properly administered and
remains in compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract regardless of which
City department is implementing the project.
The Grant Project Manager is responsible for ensuring project reporting requirements,
including financial reports, are met and records are maintained and retained in
accordance with the grantor’s requirements.
8
In rare instances, such as when there is no clear lead department or unusual
circumstances arise, the city Grants Program Manager may assume temporary
responsibility for the implementation and completion of a grant project.
3. Writing the Proposal
It is the submitting department's responsibility to prepare and submit the grant
proposal application. Successful grant writing includes planning, searching for data and
resources, writing and packaging a proposal, submitting a proposal to a grantor, and
follow-up.
Read the guidelines for specifications about required information and how it should be
arranged. Follow all guidelines as specified. Structure, attention to specifications,
concise, and persuasive writing and a reasonable budget with justification narrative are
the critical elements to consider during the writing stage.
4. Grant Guidelines
Grant application guidelines identify what to include in the respective grant proposal,
and therefore it is critical to thoroughly read and follow grant application guidelines.
Grant guidelines typically identify:
Submission deadlines
Grantee eligibility
Proposal format: specifies the forms to use, page limitations, page
margins, line spacing, etc.
Agency proposal review timetable
Budgets and budget justification narrative
Funding goals and priorities
Award levels
Evaluation process and criteria
Point(s) of contact
Any other submission requirements
5. Submitting the Proposal
It is the responsibility of each respective department to ensure the grant application is
internally approved in the SimpliCity Grants Master system. Applications that require
the City Manager for signature must be routed via appropriate system to the City
Manager’s Office. It is the department's responsibility to ensure the proposal is
submitted to the granting agency before the prescribed deadline
9
6. Non Supplanting
Many federal and state grants require assurance of non-supplantation. This means the
applicant warrants that the grant will be used to:
1. Provide new services or
2. Supplement, improve or increase existing programs and
3. Will not be used to replace (supplant) or reduce the existing level
of effort or existing funding.
If, for some reason, a reduction in the program level of effort or funding occurs, you may
be required to provide documentation that the reduction did not occur as a result
of supplantation. For example, if you apply to a grantor to add an additional site to a
program that has three sites, you cannot move one of the existing sites elsewhere, making
it 'new' and use the grant rather than the already budgeted funds to pay for its operation.
This is supplanting.
7. Signature Authority for Applications
The City Council has delegated discretionary authority to the City Manager to approve
and submit grant applications and obtain formal authorization when needed. However, if
the grantor requires governing body approval for application of the grant #9 is the
practice to follow.
8. City Council Authorizations and Resolutions
Grantors may require a governing body resolution for funding; therefore, it is critical
that this requirement be identified prior to the grant application by the applicant
Department. This information can be generally found in the Grant Notice of Funding
Availability (NOFA).
When a City Council resolution authorizing the submission of a grant application is
needed, the initiating Department Director and the assigned department Grant Program
Manager are responsible for scheduling the item on the agenda, preparing and submitting
the Council Communication, attending the agenda review and resolving outstanding
issues in accordance with existing City policies and procedures.
The Council Communication should include language authorizing submission of the grant,
approval of the matching funds, and authorization to accept and implement the grant if
awarded. Inclusion of this language eliminates the need to return to Council with an
acceptance request. A copy of the proposed Council communication and resolution will
need to be entered in Simplicity Grants Master is prior council authorization is required.
Grant awards that are less than $50,000 may be accepted administratively by the City
Manager or designee, unless otherwise required by the granting agency.
10
Grants awards that are $50,000 or more will require a City Council Resolution prior to
spending of funds.
The Grants Office will provide City Council a monthly report of all grant awards.
9. Executing the Grant Contract
An award notice or letter does not constitute authority to implement the grant project
even if the City Council has authorized acceptance of the grant.
The contract or agreement must be fully executed by authorized City officials and the
grantor and an account must be established in Simplicity by the Grants Accountant before
any grant activity is undertaken.
Funds encumbered or spent prior to the full execution of the contract document,
including matching fund expenditures, are usually deemed ineligible by the grantor.
Only the City Manager and the Assistant City Manager, or specified designees in their
absence, have the legal authority to sign contracts, agreements or other instruments that
legally bind the City.
City policy mandates that all contracts not drafted by the City Attorney’s Office must be
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney’s Office before going to the City Manager’s
Office for signatures.
The department grant project manager is responsible for ensuring formal City Council
action has been taken to accept the funds, contracts are properly executed by all
applicable parties and distributed appropriately, and a grant-specific account has been
established before any grant funds are expended.
10. Receiving and Managing the Grant
Grants should be set-up on a “reimbursement basis” rather than an “advance funds”
basis, unless specifically prohibited by the grantor. This eliminates problems related to
grant programs that prohibit the accrual of interest and permits the City to adequately
monitor grant project expenses. All requests for reimbursement should be coordinated
with the Finance Department’s Grant Accountant to ensure proper internal accounting
controls.
11
The preferable method of reimbursement is electronic funds transfers. If that choice is
not available, grant reimbursement checks should be made out to the City of Glendale
and mailed to:
CITY OF GLENDALE
Customer Service Office
Miscellaneous Accounts Receivable
5850 West Glendale Avenue
Glendale, AZ 85301-2599
City staff will not accept funds directly from the grantor agency. If a grant check is sent
to the city staff, the city grants program manager should be contacted and the check
hand-carried to Customer Service for processing within one business day. Customer
Service will issue a receipt.
11. Types of Award Funding
Cost-Reimbursable: Reimbursement is requested by the city after expenditures have
been paid, which means that the city subsidizes the project costs until reimbursement is
made by the grantor. Therefore, it is vital that correct, allowable charges are posted to
the right project and award and that reimbursement requests are submitted in a timely
manner.
Advance Funding: Some awards are received by the city in advance of the project being
performed, completed, or before expenditures are made. However, the reporting
requirements are much the same as for cost-reimbursable grants. In addition, it is
probable that any remaining, unspent funds must be returned to the grantor. Advance
funds normally require tracking interest revenues and either applying those funds to the
project or returning them to the grantor. These requirements are detailed in the grant
agreement. Contact the Grants Accountant for assistance in receiving advance funding
and monitoring interest earnings.
Fixed Price: These are awards wherein the city is paid a set amount by the grantor to
fulfill a project, and the city receives the full award amount regardless of whether all
funds are expended – as long as the project successfully fulfills the stated objectives as
proposed in the grant application. Requesting reimbursement of fixed price awards is
the same as cost-reimbursable awards, except they do not require a detailed listing of
expenditures and are normally reimbursed in fixed increments, with final payment
received once all deliverables have been submitted and approved by the grantor.
12
12. Establish the Grant Files
Upon receipt of the award, establish a unique grant file for each grant award, this can
be done using Simplicity Grant Master. At a minimum, the following documents must be
contained in the grant file:
Grant proposal/application
Grant award letter/executed agreement
Grant Release Checklist and Terms of Award
All modifications to the grant award, i.e. continuations, supplements,
modifications
Council agenda items and resolution(s)
Budget amendments/transfers
Purchase orders and expenditure documentation
Subcontract(s) (if applicable)
Reimbursement requests
All technical, progress and final reports
Property records (and disposal records if applicable)
All written documentation pertaining to the grant, including correspondence,
emails, notes (and phone log if applicable)
13. Expenditures and Collecting Revenue
The grant agreement and grantor general policies establish the requirements for
charging costs to the award, reporting those costs, and requesting reimbursement.
The Grants Account in Finance can assist department staff with properly expensing
award funds, invoicing and drawdowns, and identifying applicable expenditure backup
documentation.
14. Eligible Costs and Assigning Project Charges
In order to be charged against a grant award, all costs must be eligible, which means
they are allowable, allocable, necessary, and reasonable, and provide a direct benefit
to a grant funded project.
It is vital that transactions are properly charged to the correct grant award to avoid
unnecessary expenditure transfers later. Expenditure transfers on grants are audit flags
that can lead to disallowable costs.
15. Allowable Costs and Procurement Rules
It is the department grant project manager’s responsibility to be familiar with and
implement the required contractual and administrative guidelines. Many funders will
provide this information with the initial application packet instructions and/or in post-
award administrative manuals. Concerns not specifically addressed in the grantor’s
13
administrative guidelines can be directed to the Procurement Administrator or the Grants
Accountant.
1. Allowable costs are determined by each grantor’s grant administrative
guidelines, as well as City policy.
2. Direct Costs: Direct costs are those costs that have been included in the
proposal budget and can be directly attributable to the expenses
necessary to fulfill the project's objectives. Key direct costs typically
allowable on awards are those that have been budgeted and thus
approved via the award. These include:
o Salaries and fringe benefits of Project Manager and other technical
personnel; other workforce members as allowed per guidelines
o Capital equipment
o Project related supplies and materials as allowed per guidelines
o Long distance telephone charges
o Travel costs
o Consultants/Subcontractors
3. Indirect Costs are overhead costs or general and administrative (G&A)
costs, are those costs that generally are shared among projects, and
therefore cannot be directly attributable to a single project. These
include:
o Clerical and administrative salaries and fringe benefits
o Postage (including commercial delivery services such as FedEx and
DHL)
o Basic telephone service (i.e. monthly phone service)
o General purpose office supplies, e.g. copier paper, pens, ink
cartridges, etc.
o Software purchased for general purposes, e.g. Microsoft Office suite
o Subscriptions and Individual memberships
Exceptions to these principles will be permitted only under the following
circumstances:
1. Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Exceptions
a. Cost accounting standards (CAS) exceptions are costs that are
generally handled by the organization as indirect costs but may be
necessary and reasonable to charge to a grant award as a direct cost
due to the specific nature of a project.
b. CAS exceptions must be:
c. Specifically identified in the original grant proposal budget, or
d. Prior approval from the granting agency's grants officer must be
received before they are charged against a project.
14
e. The following identifies the types of costs that may be considered:
i. Clerical and Administrative
ii. Individuals whose salaries are paid from a federal granting
agency project must have responsibilities specifically
associated with the work of the federal granting agency
project.
iii. The specific association requirement may be satisfied by the
following:
iv. Unusually high levels of administrative activity associated
with unusually large and complex projects. Eligible
responsibilities include coordination of financial activities
for multiple projects, core units, coordinating meetings
amongst project participants, special reporting needs, etc.
v. The clerical and administrative salaries must support a major
project or activity. A major project would include large
complex programs that entail assembling and managing teams
from city departments and outside entities.
vi. Postage and Commercial Carrier Charges
vii. Direct charges for postage or commercial carrier services (e.g.
DHL, FedEx) should be restricted to projects with a high
demand for these items as described in the budget
justification narrative.
viii. Basic Telephone
ix. Basic telephone charges may be direct charged to major
projects/activities where it can be justified essential. However,
all toll calls are allowable as a direct cost.
x. General Office Supplies
xi. Direct charging of general office supplies should be restricted
to projects with an exceptionally high demand for these items
as described in the budget justification narrative.
16. Collecting Revenue
Most grant awards are cost-reimbursable and therefore generally supported by the city
until revenues are collected. Timely invoicing is critical to ensure that the city promptly
receives grant revenue as expenses are incurred. Most federal and some state grant
awards are electronically transferred lines-of-credit and are "invoiced" via electronic
drawdown.
17. Procurement
It is the department Grant Project Manager’s responsibility to be familiar with and
implement the required contractual and administrative guidelines listed in Department
Responsibilities of this manual.
15
Procurements involving grant funds must be handled in accordance with the grantor’s
policies and procedures. Most federal and state grantors will provide a copy of
administrative rules with the fully executed agreement. If the funder has not provided
this document, the department’s Grant Project Manager should call and ask for a copy.
Some grantors, particularly small, private foundations, do not have specific procurement
rules. In this case, City policies and procedures will apply. Contact the Materials
Management-Purchasing Division in the Finance Department for more information
regarding City procurement standards.
As a general rule, when multiple funders are involved, the Grant Project Manager should
follow each funder’s cost and procurement requirements. When this is not possible, the
most stringent cost and procurement requirements should be applied to ensure adequate
and appropriate contractual compliance. If you are uncertain regarding how to proceed,
contact the Grants Office.
Allowable costs are determined by each grantor’s grant administrative guidelines,
as well as City policy. Additionally, the Office of Management and Budget Super
Circular effective December 26,2014 must be followed if it is a federal grant.
18. Monitoring and Oversight
Every award has reporting requirements specified in the grant agreement. It is critical
that all reports– technical and financial – are provided in a timely manner per the
specified timeframe outlined in the agreement. During the life of the grant, the
department shall notify the Grants Accountant of any type of any reports submitted to
the grantor.
19. Expenditure Monitoring
It is critical to the overall success of a project that grant funds are expended properly
and accurately. After initial setup Simplicity Project Expenditure accounts, grant awards
should be reconciled on a monthly basis to ensure:
o Expenditures are allowable, allocable, necessary, and reasonable based
on terms and conditions of the grant award
o Expenditures are adequately documented
o Award spending is commensurate with the project time frame.
20. Cost Transfers
Incorrectly posted charges to grant funded projects must be fixed within regulated time-
constraints.
16
Misdirected charges to federally funded projects must be transferred from the project
and charged to the correct one within 90 days of the mistake, which is why routine
account reconciliation is critical.
Failure to transfer incorrectly posted charges in a timely manner will result in the
possibility of the expense being disallowed for grant award reimbursement. If you have
any doubts or concerns regarding award expenditures, contact the Grants Accountant
VII. Departments Grant Reporting and Monitoring Responsibilities
1. Reporting
The purpose of grant reporting is to appraise the grantor of the progress made towards
fulfilling grant deliverables. The grant agreement or a grantor's guidance manual will
outline the types of reports and submittal time schedules required by the grantor. These
requirements will be used by the grantor as the basis for evaluation of grant award
compliance. Typically, grants require financial reports, technical progress reports,
annual progress reports (for multi-year awards), and a final report at grant end.
2. Financial Reporting
Financial reports are generally required when invoicing or drawdown occurs, and the
necessary format or form to use is defined in the grant document.
Depending on the award funding type, expenditure documentation may be required.
Providing the appropriate expense documentation in a timely manner is essential to
ensure that award revenue is collected as earned, is critical during year-end close out,
and is vital for reducing the risk of adverse audit findings and the return of improperly
accounted grant funds. Some grants may also have property reports that are part of the
final close-out.
3. Technical/Progress Reports
In addition to the fiscal responsibilities associated with implementing a grant-funded
project, there are also programmatic or activity-related responsibilities. Each grantor
requires different levels of reporting. Technical progress reports will often be in the
form of quarterly and/or annual reports (for multi-year awards). As with financial
reports, some grantors may require specific forms to be used when documenting grant
activity, which will be defined in the grant agreement and/or guidance manual provided
by the grantor.
4. Final Reports
Typically, all final financial, programmatic, and other reports such as property are
required to be submitted within 90 days after the end of the funding period. Meeting
this deadline is especially crucial if the award specifically stipulates final billings received
after the 90 day deadline are not acceptable and will not be paid.
17
5. Subcontracting
A subcontract is a purchase or other contractual arrangement made through a contract.
Types of Subcontracts
A vendor agreement is issued for obtaining routine commercial services,
supplies, and equipment that require no special handling or prior approvals and
are issued as standard purchase orders.
A subaward is issued when part of the programmatic effort of the prime award
must be performed by an external entity with special expertise or resources that
the city does not possess but are necessary to fulfill the overall objectives of the
project. This type of subcontract usually requires prior approval of the grantor
and is subject to subrecipient monitoring.
Subrecipient Monitoring
A subcontractor awarded via a subaward is referred to as a subrecipient. All
grant requirements placed upon the city will flow-down to any subrecipient, and
it is our responsibility to ensure subaward compliance with the prime grant
provisions.
All subawards issued under federal grants must contain language requiring
subrecipients to fulfill the prime grant requirements. The federal regulations that
describe subrecipient monitoring are general, but contain the following
core elements of compliance:
Advising subrecipients of all applicable federal laws and regulations, and
all appropriate flow-down provisions from the prime agreement
Routine receipt and review of technical performance/progress reports
Routine review of expenses-to-budget
Periodic on-site visits, or regular contact, if necessary
The option to perform "audits" if necessary
Review of audit reports filed by subrecipients and any audit findings
Review of corrective actions cited by subrecipients in response to their
audit findings
Consideration of sanctions on subrecipients in cases of continued inability
or unwillingness to have required audits or to correct non-compliant
actions
All subawards for which monitoring is mandated shall be reviewed regularly throughout
the year and at a minimum must include:
Reviewing financial and performance reports submitted by the subrecipient
Performing site visits to review records and observe operations
Maintaining regular contact and making appropriate inquiries concerning
program activities
18
6. Procurement and Suspension and Debarment
It is the responsibility of the department to ensure that any subcontractor or
subawardee that will be funded through a grant award is not prohibited from receiving
federal or state funds due to suspension or debarment .A person or entity debarred or
suspended is excluded from federal financial and non-financial assistance and benefits
under federal programs and activities. Debarment or suspension of a participant in a
program by one agency has government-wide, reciprocal effect. Contact the
Procurement Department for assistance in determining suspended or debarred
contractors.
7. Cost Sharing/Matching
Cost sharing (a.k.a. matching) is provided either through cash, in-kind services, or via a
third-party commitment. In the case of grants where cost sharing is committed, the
cost share must be an eligible cost as mentioned previously – it must be allowable,
allocable, necessary and reasonable, and provide a direct benefit to a grant funded
project in order to be charged against a grant award. Any charge that cannot normally
be applied to a grant award as a direct cost cannot be used as cost share. Source of cost
share must be identified at award setup.
8. Program Generated Income
Some grant programs contain tasks or objectives that may result in program generated
income (PGI). Typically, PGI could come from fees collected for services performed or
registration fees for conferences or workshops. Such fees can also be generated through
subawardees and must be accounted for in the same manner.
PGI may be used for a project in several ways:
o Additive: PGI is added to funds committed to the project by the grantor
and used to fulfill eligible project or program objectives.
o Cost Share: PGI is used to finance a share of the project or program.
o Deductive: PGI is deducted from the total project or program budget.
It is important that PGI be anticipated and disclosed in the grant proposal budget, which
should include a plan for utilization that identifies the method of use. The plan should
also include use of income collected in excess of expenditures. If PGI is not disclosed at
the proposal stage, the grantor must be promptly notified that the project will generate
PGI to determine how PGI is to be used. All program income must be accounted for
during the performance period of the award and be reported per the method of
utilization approved by the grantor. Failure to disclose program income may require that
all PGI be treated as Deductive.
9. Support of Salaries and Wages
Compensation for personnel services on federal grants must be based on payrolls
documented through standard city policy, and salaries and wages of employees used in
19
meeting cost sharing or matching requirements of federal awards must be supported in
the same manner as those claimed as allowable costs under federal awards. The
consequences of noncompliance with employee time and effort certification may be the
disallowance of such charges to a federal grant program.
Where an employee works on a single federal award, charges for their salaries and
wages must be supported by periodic certification that the employee worked solely on
that program for the period covered by the certification. Such certification must be
prepared at least semi-annually and must be signed by the employee or supervisor who
has first-hand knowledge of the work performed by the employee.
Where an employee works on multiple awards (including federal and non-federal), a
distribution of their salaries and wages must be supported by a personnel activity report
that:
o reflects an after-the fact distribution of the actual activity of the
employee
o accounts for total compensated activities
o must be prepared at least monthly and coincide with one or more pay
periods, and
o must be signed by the employee or supervisor who has first-hand
knowledge of the work performed by the employee.
10. Equipment and Real Property Management
Equipment purchased with grant funds shall be used exclusively for the project or
program for which it was acquired during the life of the grant. Equipment records must
be maintained per city policy, and the equipment must be properly maintained and
safeguarded. When no longer needed for its originally authorized purpose, the Grant
Manager shall request disposition instructions from the grantor.
11. Modifications, Extensions, or Cancellations to the Budget or Project Scope of Work
During the course of a grant’s lifetime, there are times when changes are necessary to
either the budget or the project scope-of-work. Most of these changes, typically called
grant amendments, are allowable, but it is important to follow the procedures written in
the grant agreement or in the guides provided by the grantor. These changes must be
pre-approved before they are considered eligible.
It is essential to get written confirmation from the grantor before any money is spent on
items different from what was approved in the original budget. Also, project activities
that deviate from those originally proposed in the grant application shall be
documented and receive prior approval from the grantor.
12. Grant Close-Out
A grant award is considered completed when:
(1) All work funded by the award is completed, or
20
(2) The award period-of-performance ends.
The department Grant Project Manager has the prime responsibility of ensuring that a
continuation, supplement, or no-cost time extension is requested in a timely manner to
continue the project, which is typically at least 45 days prior to the end of the award
end-date. If at the end of the award period-of-performance the city has not secured a
continuation, supplement, or no-cost time extension, grant close-out must occur.
The grant agreement identifies the grantor's process to close-out the award, including
record retention requirements. Key features of grant close-out are:
Settlement of cash, and cost share (if applicable)
Cancellation of outstanding purchase orders
Ending personnel distribution
Final property inventory, and disposition of property (if applicable)
Consideration of program generated income
Submission of all final technical and financial reports
13. Record Retention
The grant document or the grantor's guidance manual will define the period that all
grant records must be retained by the city. This period is normally three years after the
period-of-performance end date and will be defined in the Terms of Award.
VIII. Federal Law for Grants and Federal Spending Guidelines
1. OMB Super Circular
Federal Grant Managers and those seeking federal grants will need to review the
Federal Office of Management and Budget final guidance that makes sweeping changes
to federal grants management. The OMB "Super Circular," effective December 26, 2014,
or also called the OMB’s Uniform Guidance “Omni Circular” which streamlines
requirements, supersedes eight existing OMB Circulars and concludes a two-year effort
by OMB and the Council on Financial Assistance Reform (COFAR). For audit purposes,
the final guidance is effective for entities with fiscal years beginning on or after
December 26, 2014.
This uniform guidance codifies the following OMB circulars into the CFR Part 200
(Subparts A-F)
A-102, Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State and Local Governments
A-110, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Other Agreements
with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit
Organizations
A-89, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
A-21, Cost Principles for Educational Institutions
21
A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments
A-122, Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations
A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations
A-50, Audit Follow up
OMB-Omni-Circular-07 08 201 Webinar_CliftonLarsonAllen.pdf
D1S2-Discussion of 2CFR Part 200 Cost Accounting Standards.pdf
2. Federal Financial Assistance Transparency Act (FFATA)
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) was signed on
September 26, 2006. Prime Grant Recipients awarded a new Federal grant greater than
or equal to $25,000 as of October 1, 2010, are subject to FFATA sub-award reporting
requirements. The prime awardee is required to file a FFATA sub-award report by the
end of the month following the month in which the prime recipient awards any sub-
grant greater than or equal to $25,000. The Transparency Act requires a prime awardee
to provide, for their DUNS number and the DUNS number of their sub-awardee(s), the
names and total compensation of the five most highly compensated officers of a prime
or sub-awardee entity if the entity in the preceding fiscal year:
(1) Received 80 percent or more of its annual gross revenues in Federal awards and
$25,000,000 or more in annual gross revenues from Federal awards.
(2) the public does not have access to this information about the compensation of the
senior executives of the entity through periodic reports filed under section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §§ 78m(a), 78o(d)) or section
6104 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. See FFATA § 2(b)(1).
3. Important Federal Guidelines Regarding Construction Projects
It is the responsibility of the department to ensure compliance with the following
federal requirements involving construction related projects; Departments should plan
accordingly to ensure that adequate time, funding and staffing are available to carry out
these additional responsibilities. These requirements shall flow-down to all
subcontractors funded through a grant award.
Davis-Bacon Act
o The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 is a federal law that established the
requirement for paying prevailing wages on public works projects. All
federal government construction contracts, and most contracts for
federally assisted construction over $2,000, must include provisions for
paying on-site workers no less than the locally prevailing wages and
benefits paid on similar projects.
Uniform Relocation Assistance Act
o The Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (a.k.a. Uniform Act) of 1970 is a
federal law that establishes minimum standards for federally funded
22
programs and projects that require the acquisition of real property (real
estate) or displace persons from their homes, businesses, or farms.
o The Uniform Act's protections and assistance apply to the acquisition,
rehabilitation, or demolition of real property for federally funded
projects.
o When conducting a program or project under the Uniform Act there are
very specific legal responsibilities to affected property owners and
displaced persons that must be addressed. The following must be
considered prior to property acquisition:
For Real Property Acquisition
Appraise property before negotiations.
Invite the property owner to accompany the appraiser during the property
inspection.
Provide the owner with a written offer of just compensation and a summary of
what is being acquired.
Payment for property before possession.
Reimburse expenses resulting from the transfer of title such as recording fees,
prepaid real estate taxes, or other expenses.
For Residential Displacements
Provide relocation advisory services to displaced tenants and owner occupants.
Provide a minimum 90 days written Notice to Vacate prior to requiring
possession.
Reimburse residents for moving expenses.
Provide payments for the added cost of renting or purchasing comparable
replacement housing.
For Non-residential Displacements (businesses, farms, and nonprofits)
Provide relocation advisory services.
Provide a minimum 90 days written Notice to Vacate prior to requiring
possession.
Reimburse for moving and re-establishment expenses.