TO: Napa County Wildlife Conservation Commission
FROM: Dana Morrison, Secretary to the Wildlife Conservation Commission
REPORT BY: Pam Arifian, Planner III
SUBJECT: Grant Award Process Improvements
RECOMMENDATION
title
Review and discuss proposed ideas for process improvements and provide direction to Staff on items to include in a revised improvements approach for discussion and potential action at a future meeting date yet to be determined.
body
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Review and discuss proposed ideas for process improvements and provide direction to Staff on items to include in a revised improvements approach for discussion and potential action at a future meeting date yet to be determined.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Not a “project” under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Repeat Grant Recipients - Revised Information
At the April 27th meeting, the Commission requested an update for Table 2 from that Meeting Agenda Item 7(C) to include average amount of awards received per year by the organizations that have repeatedly received grant awards. Table 2 has been revised and included as an attachment to this staff report, and is summarized here:
Napa County RCD: 21 times since 2005 ($208,956 total /$9,950 average annual award)
Land Trust of Napa County: 21 times since 2003 ($186,679 total/$9,032 average annual award)
Napa Wildlife Rescue: 19 times since 2003 ($148,815 total /$7,832 average annual award)
Napa-Solano Audubon Society: 12 times since 2013 ($78,024 total /$6,502 average annual award)
CDFW: 10 times since 2002 ($50,219 /$5,022 average annual award)
ICARE: 10 times since 2007 ($49,800 total /$4,980 average annual award)
International Bird Rescue: 7 times since 2019 ($31,650 total /$4,521 average annual award)
American Canyon Community & Parks Foundation: 3 times since 2023 ($35,011 total /$11,670 average annual award)
Carolyn Parr Nature Center: 3 times since 2006 ($10,691 total /$3,564 average annual award)
Napa County WCC Grant Application - Priorities
There was a request at the last meeting for clarity on current Napa County WCC Application priorities. Please refer to the Attachment to this staff report for full Application; the specific priorities are listed below:
1) Eligible proposals which directly benefit wildlife and/or their habitat, and can meet one or more of the purposes listed in CDFG Section 13103 will be given a higher priority over projects which do not have a direct benefit.
2) Eligible proposals that are educational in nature and directed toward school age children will be given higher priority if it can be demonstrated that the proposal meets state educational curriculum standards and can easily be integrated into the classroom.
3) Eligible proposals submitted by or on behalf of schools will be given higher priority if the funding would enhance wildlife and would provide long-term educational value over one-time events (i.e., acquisition of books vs. one-time field trip).
4) Proposals which use Commission funding as a match for other funding sources will receive priority consideration.
Grant Process Improvements
The following issues have emerged from past discussion and from the survey that was circulated to past recipients earlier this spring. These are the predominant issues that this grant award improvement process is seeking to rectify, including:
1) Current deliberation process is uncomfortable in front of applicants
2) Having applicants present and available to answer questions is valued by both Commissioners and applicants.
3) Presentations are more or less valued by both commissioners and applicants.
4) Funding decisions are arbitrary, priorities are vague, and personal biases exist.
5) Inconsistent funding strategies year to year (for example, a 15% cut across the board vs. arbitrary decision to fully fund those under X amount and percentage of those above, etc.).
What has emerged from this understanding of the predominant issues is that there is a need for improvements in the following areas:
1) Application Process
2) Decision Process: Selection Criteria
3) Decision Process: Rubric for scoring
Recommendation to Consider
Staff has the following proposal for consideration and direction. The following proposal would address many of the issues these improvements seek to rectify, and the elements of this proposal have been previously discussed by this Commission. The intent is to get clear directions from the Commission on potential consensus and what items to continue to move forward in the decision process.
1) Application and Decision Process: Two-Meeting Decision Schedule
2) Criteria: Adopt Selection Criteria that reflects Napa County WCC
3) Rubric: Adapt and Adopt a Rubric - Mendocino County FGC rubric and/or Commissioner Xie weighted scores.
Each of these items are discussed in more detail as follows:
1) Application Process: Two-Meeting Decision Schedule
Shift from one-meeting with presentations, questions and answers followed by deliberations and motion(s) for funding recommendations to a two-meeting decision model whereby:
Meeting 1: Commissioners review applications and applicants are invited to attend to provide information and optional presentations.
Meeting 2: Commissioners come prepared with specific ideas and rationale of how to allocate funding. First step in Meeting 2 is to allow each commissioner to share their opinions and scores, and preliminarily how they would allocate funds. Once everyone has had their chance to speak, then a member can make a motion on funding allocations, amendments, etc. Applicants are allowed to attend as members of public, but would not be available for questions at this meeting.
2) Decision Process: Adopt Selection Criteria that reflects Napa County WCC
Address the need for clear priorities and more structure decision-making by adapting the selection criteria established by the Mendocino Fish and Game Commission to align with Napa County WCC, which was introduced at the April 27th, 2026 WCC meeting. Refer to page 43 of the April 27th 2026 Meeting staff report.
Mendocino County FGC’s criteria are as follows:
1) Meets Fish & Game Code Sections and Restrictions
2) Work proposed is feasible
3) Work benefits the local ecology
4) Work benefits local communities
5) Applicant(s) work(s) well and cooperatively with related agencies
6) Proposed activities represent the “best use” of limited funds
Options for amending include some language from Commissioner Xie’s proposal for criteria, also attached, which has significant overlap in criteria.
3) Adopt a Rubric
Consider merits of the rubrics for both the Mendocino County FGC and Commissioner Xie’s proposal and make recommendations to staff on drafting a rubric with clear criteria to more objectively inform decisions on funding allocations. The complete versions of the grant application for Mendocino County FGC and Commissioner Xie’s proposal are attached to this staff report within the April 27, 2026, Staff Report attachment; they are reproduced in the Criteria and Rubric attachment for easier comparison.