PUC board outlines quarterly grant cycle, review committee and rubric to fund 911 projects

At a special July 20 meeting, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission’s enterprise board discussed a plan to launch a grant program meant to deliver funding to the state’s 911 community. Michael Berry, who called the meeting to order, said the board should set evaluation criteria before accepting applications so members can review submissions individually and then meet in public to discuss rankings.

Daryl Branson (PUC) proposed a quarterly grant cycle so applications submitted in one quarter would be evaluated in the following quarter, arguing the cadence would allow applicants that are close to approval to rework and resubmit in the next cycle. “If we start right now, September 30 would be the end of the first cycle,” Branson said, recommending an initial cadence that could be adjusted later.

Board members debated who could review applications and how to manage conflicts. Branson suggested an external committee of public-safety volunteers to evaluate submissions, with no more than one enterprise board member serving on that committee and excluding evaluators who had submitted an application in that cycle. “I do think it would be a good idea for a board member to be on that committee, but no more than one,” Branson said.

Legal and records considerations also shaped the discussion. Kirsten Grooms (COAG) told the board that applications could be subject to Colorado public-records requests and noted it is common practice to provide documents ahead of meetings even when not required. “Most of the documents will be able to be requested through CORA by the public,” Grooms said, adding that the board should plan how to handle any records requests.

On procurement and contracting, Branson said staff would work with DORA Purchasing to issue grant contracts for awarded agencies and urged the board to decide what accountability—progress reports, final attestations or modification procedures—should be built into agreements. Michael Berry said he would draft a starting rubric and spreadsheet example for scoring applications and circulate it to staff and board members ahead of the next meeting.

The board discussed timing and review windows: one option is opening applications Oct. 1 through Dec. 31 with initial decisions early in the new year; reviewers would ideally deliver recommendations within about 30 days but keep the window under 90 days to avoid overlapping cycles. Matt Goetsch supported trying a 30-day review target while acknowledging flexibility if reviews required more time.

Next steps include recruiting volunteer reviewers for the external committee, finalizing the size of that committee, and producing a draft rubric and set of scoring questions for the next regular meeting. The board’s next scheduled regular meeting is Wednesday, Aug. 5 at 3 p.m. Matt Goetsch moved to adjourn; Lynn seconded and the meeting ended at 3:32 p.m.