Commission Agenda Item No. 6
Exhibit A

LOCAL PARKS AND OUTREACH GRANTS SCORING RULES
PROPOSAL PREAMBLE

1. Introduction.

        The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (the department) proposes the repeal of §§61.81, 61.121, 61.131, and 61.133-61.139, an amendment to §61.132, and new §§61.133-61.139, concerning Guidelines for Administration of Texas Local Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Fund Program.

        The proposed repeals, amendments, and new sections are a result of the department’s continual outreach and communication efforts with the regulated community. As part of that ongoing process, the department has assessed the efficacy of the current rules and concluded that the current rules are problematic in several respects and can be improved by streamlining them and focusing more closely on the articulation of the department’s administrative priorities and the goals of the regulated community. Accordingly, the proposed new rules emphasize the importance of quality over all other considerations in the preparation and evaluation of project proposals. Additionally, the department seeks to locate all rules governing local park and outreach grants in a single subchapter, as opposed to the current structure, which locates applications procedures in one subchapter, a policy statement in another subchapter, and additional policy and rules governing evaluation of grants in yet another subchapter.  The proposed repeals, amendments, and new sections are intended to modernize references and designations, eliminate cumbersome and abstruse regulatory structures and language, make the rules easier to interpret, and in general replace the current rules with rules that are more intuitive, navigable, and helpful.

        The proposed repeal of §61.81, concerning Application Procedures, §61.121, concerning Policy, and §61.131, concerning Application Procedures, are necessary to relocate the contents of those sections to a single section within Subchapter E (which is being retitled as Local Parks and Outdoor Recreation Grants), with modifications intended to modernize and streamline those rules.

        The proposed amendment of §61.132, concerning Texas Local Park Grants Programs Manual, would incorporate the contents of current §61.81, modified to reflect the current title of the federal publication containing the procedural guide governing applications for federal funds through the department’s grants program, and §61.121, concerning Policy, modified to remove deadlines and administrative provisions that are no longer applicable. The proposed amendment also would rename the section as Grants Manual and Federal Procedural Guide and specify that the documents be made available on the department’s website.

        Proposed new §61.133, concerning General Provisions, would set forth provisions of universal applicability to the grant programs contained in the subchapter.

        Proposed new subsection (a) would set forth the department policy guiding the administration of the local park and outreach grant programs, which is to provide high-quality outdoor and indoor recreational opportunities for Texas, consistent with Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 24, and the priorities and policies articulated in the department’s  Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan and the Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan (required for federal funding), as applicable. The department believes that because the financial resources made available by the legislature in any given biennium are almost always insufficient to fund every request for assistance, it is therefore important to ensure that the greatest number of projects with achievable maximal beneficial outcomes be approved.

        Proposed new subsection (b) would stipulate that the department will not accept or evaluate a project proposal that is not submitted to the department via the department’s on-line application process. The department has utilized technology to create a single portal for submission of project proposals. Requiring all proposals to be submitted via the electronic portal increases administrative efficiencies for both the department and the regulated community.

        Proposed new subsection (c) would provide that the department will not score an application that is not in substantive compliance with the requirements of the subchapter, as determined by the department. The provision is necessary because the department believes it is important to maximize administrative efficiency by not investing time and effort on project proposals that are incomplete and therefore unable to be evaluated thoroughly.

        Proposed new subsection (d) would provide that applications will be scored only if the applicant is in compliance with the conditions of existing or previous grant agreements. Sometimes it is the case that an application for a grant is received from an entity that has not fulfilled the obligations of a previous grant or has otherwise not complied with applicable administrative provisions. The department reasons that a project proposal from such an entity should not be processed until all deficiencies are resolved or a credible plan of action to achieve compliance is submitted.

        Proposed new subsection (e) would establish the methodology for scoring applications, specifying that the department will evaluate proposed projects on a qualitative basis, awarding points within the specified range from 0 (no points) to the maximum allowable for each criterion, according to the department’s determination of how the applicant’s treatment of any given component places along a continuum from poor to excellent. The provision would also establish that the department will not automatically award points for cursory, mechanical attempts to amass as many criteria as possible solely in an effort to increase the numerical score of a project. As previously discussed, the department believes that the quality of projects is more important than the number of projects or simply the number of persons affected by a project. The goal of the local park and outreach grants programs is to create meaningful, lifelong participatory relationships between the public and the mission of the agency, in the process enriching and informing the lives of citizens and communities. The department has noticed that the primary motivation of some applicants is simply to receive funds, as opposed to a bona fide intent to work cooperatively with the department to advance shared goals and priorities. In such instances, the application is merely a pretense, an exercise engaged in to obtain funds, irrespective of the goals of the program. The department seeks to encourage all entities with an authentic and genuine desire for service but will not fund project applications that in the view of the department are not in good faith. To that end, the scoring system will not simply award points for “checking a box” but for earnest attempts to provide quality recreational opportunity.

        Proposed subsection (f) would stipulate that applications be scored according to the provisions of the subchapter and ranked in relation to the scores of other proposals. Because the nature of the availability of funds is such that not every eligible project can be funded, the department uses a competitive system to determine the ultimate funding of approved projects; therefore, projects are scored and then ranked in comparison to each other, with funding going to the highest scoring projects first, and then in descending order until all available funds are expended.

        Proposed new subsection (g) would require funded projects to be pursued by the sponsor in accordance with the timelines established by the department for each project, unless the department determines that circumstances beyond the sponsor’s control warrant timeline extension, and would stipulate that failure to meet timelines or timeline extensions constitutes grounds for the department to initiate cancellation of the affected project. The department has determined that it is necessary to explicitly state in rule that sponsors are expected to abide by the conditions of grant agreements, which establish timelines for the accomplishment of grant-funded activities, and that such agreements are subject to cancellation in the event that a sponsor is clearly unable to discharge its obligations under a grant agreement.

        Proposed new subsection (h) would provide that grant awards are dependent on the availability of grant funds. It is intuitively obvious that the department cannot fund projects if there are insufficient funds to do so, but in any case the department believes it is necessary to state the fact by rule.

        Proposed new §61.134, concerning Local Park Grants, would replace current §§61.133, concerning Grants for Outdoor Recreation Programs; 61.134, concerning Grants for Indoor Recreation Programs; 61.138, concerning Outdoor Urban Park Grants Program; and 61.139, concerning Indoor Urban Park Grants Program. The current rules governing these grant programs are complex and confusing, consisting of multi-levelled parameters that distract from the central ideas driving the application and review process. Additionally, the department has determined that the distinctions nominally represented by the rules are misleading, because each rule imposes essentially the same scoring criteria and all four grant programs are really just one grant program with four subcategories of application. The department believes that the scoring criteria should simply address the fundamental components of a project proposal and stress the importance of the qualitative analysis used by the department to evaluate and score project applications, while the department’s grants manual can be used to develop a more granular and nuanced understanding of both how to prepare and evaluate a given grant application.

        Proposed new subsection (a) would establish the purpose for which the section exists, which is to provide a mechanism for determining the suitability of project proposals for funding the acquisition of land and the development of public indoor and outdoor recreation facilities. The new subsection is necessary to clearly define the ambit of the proposed new section.

        Proposed new subsection (b) would set forth the scoring criteria used by the department to evaluate local park grant project proposals, describing each component criterion and establishing a potential point award range for each. In general, the point range for each category reflects the relative importance of that category within the overall scheme of criteria.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(1) would award up to 10 points for the category of Community Need, subdivided into an automatic five-point award for a current Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan or other comparable plan on file with the department and a 0-5 point award for the quality of the application’s description of how the applicant determined the need for the project. This includes how need influenced the site design, a description of the public input process and the applicant’s decisions in response to public comment, and a description of other needs assessments impacting the applicant’s decisions. The department has determined that because the recreation needs of Texas communities are broad, nuanced, and diverse, the mission of the department and the program is best served by encouraging communities to engage in long-term parks planning by inventorying existing resources and using public input to evaluate recreation needs. Parks and Wildlife Code, §24.007 and §24.057, condition the award of grants on the existence of present or future needs and a statement from a planning authority that a proposed project is consistent with local needs; therefore, the needs assessment component is intended to specifically identify an applicant’s needs, verify the  processes used to engage the public in arriving at that determination, and illustrate how the proposed project addresses the need. The point range is intended to allow the department to award points based on the thoroughness of the applicant’s efforts.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(2) would award 0-10 points for the applicant’s ability to identify specific, well-defined goals and objectives that both clearly explain the local priorities to be addressed by the proposed project and illustrate how the proposed project, if funded, will support the department’s likely Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan, Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan, and Local Park Grant program objectives, as applicable. The department’s Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan is the master planning document that guides all agency decisions regarding the best and highest use of state resources to provide land and water conservation and related recreational activities. The department believes that grant applications consistent with the department’s mission and goals should receive preference. Similarly, the Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan is a state planning document required by federal law as a condition of receiving federal funds that are passed through the department for local park and recreation projects. It is therefore necessary for grant applications to be consistent with the priorities established in that document. Additionally, preference will be given to proposed projects that would provide direct recreational opportunity for citizens, which the department believes is the most efficacious use of grant funds.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(3) would award 0-5 points for the quality of the applicant’s timeline and budget for a proposed project. It is intuitively obvious that a thoughtful, realistic budget that correlates to a timeline for project completion is a good predictor of the likelihood of project success, as well as an indicator that a prospective project will not place excessive demands on administrative personnel. Budgets that reflect realistic understanding and expectations (based on the department’s experience with similar projects) are far more likely to succeed and far less likely to require time-consuming amendments. The department understands that expenditures during project development and implementation are likely to diverge from application budgets; however, the more realistic a budget is, the better able the department is to evaluate the true competitiveness of the prospective project and the more likely it is that the project, if funded, will succeed.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(4) would allow 0-10 points for the quality and thoroughness of a proposed project’s site design. The department believes that a well-considered site design is crucial for assisting the department in understanding a project and a good indicator of the overall quality and effectiveness of the project. Vague plans that do not enable the department to envision the unity of a project’s physical manifestation make it difficult to assess the fullness of the project’s impact. Therefore, the proposed new rule would reward applications that provide a thorough accounting of the basic physical layout of the proposed project, identify significant natural or cultural features, and provide evidence of emphasis on recreation. The proposed new provision also would award up to five points for the extent to which the project maximizes the use of funds, determined by dividing the direct acquisition, recreational, and conservation costs by the total construction costs and multiplying the result by five. This formula was derived as a result of consultations with the regulated community in an effort to determine an appropriate method for creating a useful coefficient for determining funds maximization.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(5) would award 0-5 points for organizational capacity. Organizational capacity is the applicant’s ability to responsibly implement, manage, and maintain the project once funding has been acquired. The department believes it is irresponsible to fund projects that are beyond the applicant’s ability to bring to fruition and/or operate moving forward. Therefore, the proposed new provision would require applicants to prove or offer reasonable assurance that the necessary resources for project completion and continuing success are in place.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(6) would award 0-10 points for past performance. The department believes that an applicant with a history of competent performance on previous grants represents a lower risk of failure than an applicant with a history of problematic performance. Therefore, up to ten points could be awarded to an applicant that either is in full compliance with previous grant agreements or can offer reasonable assurances that existing deficiencies with prior grant performance will be remedied. First-time applicants would receive an automatic award of ten points, since there is no history of unresolved compliance issues.  Applicants with existing compliance issues would be awarded up to ten points in accordance with their past performance.  The department wishes to encourage participation by all legitimate entities and believes that a ten-point award for first-time participants will provide an incentive for potential applicants for grants. Similarly, the department believes that an entity with a history of unresolved compliance issues should be given an incentive to develop and implement appropriate corrective measures.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(7) would award from 0-5 points for projects that improve the geographic distribution of recreational opportunities within the applicant’s service area. Five points would automatically be awarded to a project providing the first public park in a jurisdiction. There are still many communities in Texas without public park or recreation facilities. The department believes that such communities deserve preference in scoring. For proposals that do not meet criteria for a first park, up to five points could be awarded based on the project’s ability to fill a critical recreation gap and to provide for safe access to the park. Of these five points, up to three could be awarded to projects that fill a critical recreation need. There are many communities in Texas with identified gaps in recreational opportunity that should receive points. Up to two points could be awarded for projects that are safely accessible to the public via multiple modes of transportation. The department believes that accessibility is a key component of park and recreational opportunity enjoyment; therefore, projects that show accessibility by multiple means of transportation are more desirable than projects that are difficult for the public to access.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(8) would award 0-10 points to projects that improve access to parks and outreach facilities for under-served populations (defined by Parks and Wildlife Code, §24.002, as “any group of people that is low income, inner city, or rural as determined by the last census, or minority, physically or mentally challenged, youth at risk, youth, or female”). Parks and Wildlife Code, §24.005 requires the department to make grants of money to “a political subdivision or nonprofit corporation for recreation, conservation, or education programs for underserved populations to encourage and implement increased access to and use of parks, recreational areas, cultural resource sites or areas, and open space areas by underserved populations.” Local parks are often the key or gateway to a love of outdoor recreation and the department believes it is important to ensure that all segments of the population are provided with the opportunity to experience first-hand the valuable benefits of outdoor recreation. The point total would be determined by multiplying the sum of percentage of population qualifying as low-income and percentage of population qualifying as minority by 5. This formula was derived as a result of consultations with the regulated community in an effort to determine an appropriate method for creating a useful coefficient for determining a project’s involvement of under-served populations.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(9) would award 0-5 points for projects that provide opportunities for physically/mentally challenged citizens that exceed federal and state required accessibility standards. As discussed with respect to underserved populations, the department believes that the benefits of outdoor recreation should be available to all citizens, and that projects eliminating barriers to participation by citizens with physical and mental challenges should receive preference. Therefore, the proposed new provision would allow up to five points to be awarded to projects based on the extent to which meaningful accessibility to such citizens is provided.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(10) would award 0-10 points to projects that protect or conserve sensitive ecosystems and natural and/or cultural resources. The department’s mission is to manage and conserve natural and cultural resources; thus, it is axiomatic that proposed projects containing components to protect or restore sensitive ecosystems or incorporate elements that cultivate support for and awareness of natural and/or cultural resources should receive preference. The department also intends for the criterion to encourage local communities to identify and include sensitive ecosystems and/or cultural resources in their application and to incorporate them if possible into the site design of prospective projects.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(11) would award 0-10 points for sustainable park design. The department believes that sustainability is an important concept, as it improves efficiency, lowers costs, and reduces negative impacts to the environment. Therefore, the proposed provision would allow the award of points based on the extent to which a prospective project incorporates sustainable design and operation features.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(12) would award 0-5 points for the quality of and degree to which a proposed project involves coordination with subject matter experts. The department concludes that successful projects contemplate the need for subject matter experts where necessary and effective, such as permitting processes, consultants, professional services, and associated factors that impact the development and operation of a project. Proposed projects that reflect engagement with this criterion are likely to require less administrative assistance from the department and are therefore desirable.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(13) would award 0-5 points for the extent to which the proposed project involves the contribution of resources from sources other than the applicant to serve as all or part of the applicant’s matching share of funds. The criterion is subdivided into two subcategories, either documented guarantees of support from external entities (up to three points) or evidence of community engagement and mobilization greater than the required match (up to two points). The department does not wish to impede communities from obtaining matching funds in any way possible. Therefore, the proposed provision would allow the department to recognize non-traditional or unorthodox methods of raising matching funds in addition to the traditional methods.

        Proposed new §61.135, concerning Grants for Community Outreach Outdoor Programs (CO-OP), would set forth the scoring criteria for CO-OP grants.

        Proposed new subsection (a) would establish the purpose for which the section exists, which is to provide a mechanism for determining the suitability of project proposals to award funding to tax-exempt organizations for programming that engages under-served populations in outdoor recreation, conservation, and environmental education activities that support the department’s mission. The department believes that because the financial resources made available by the legislature in any given biennium are almost always insufficient to fund every request for assistance, it is therefore important to ensure that the greatest number of projects with achievable maximal beneficial outcomes be approved; therefore, there must be some objective method of comparing and ranking applications for grants in order to determine those projects most deserving of funding.

        Proposed new subsection (b) would set forth the scoring criteria used by the department to evaluate CO-OP grant project proposals, describing each component criterion and establishing a potential point award range for each. In general, the point range for each category reflects the relative importance of that category within the overall scheme of criteria.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(1) would allow the department to award 0-15 points on the basis of the extent to which a project proposal aligns with the mission priorities of the CO-OP program, subdivided into a range of 0-8 points awarded for the department’s assessment of the proposal’s quality and efficacy relative to program priorities, and a 0-7 point award for the department’s assessment of the quality of the project’s involvement of participants in sustained direct connections to the department, including department sites, programs, and personnel. Based on input from the regulated community and staff review, the department has determined that the current scoring criteria are a measure of the quantitative relationships with department personnel, programs and sites for each application. The proposed new criteria would place greater weight on the qualitative aspect of these relationships, one dimension of which is sustained contact with department programs, sites, and personnel. As a state agency designated for the conservation and management of outdoor resources, the department considers that it is uniquely positioned to provide optimal benefits to the regulated community and the constituents for whom they advocate.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(2) would allow the award of 0-30 points to projects that improve access to parks and outreach facilities for under-served populations (defined by Parks and Wildlife Code, §24.002, as “any group of people that is low income, inner city, or rural as determined by the last census, or minority, physically or mentally challenged, youth at risk, youth, or female”). Parks and Wildlife Code, §24.005, requires the department to make grants of money to “a political subdivision or nonprofit corporation for recreation, conservation, or education programs for underserved populations to encourage and implement increased access to and use of parks, recreational areas, cultural resource sites or areas, and open space areas by underserved populations.” Local parks are often the key or gateway to a love of outdoor recreation and the department believes it is important to ensure that all segments of the population are provided with the opportunity to experience first-hand the valuable benefits of outdoor recreation. The proposed criterion would be subdivided into subcategories for award of points. The first would be the extent to which the proposed project includes target populations (0-6 points per underserved segment of the population served, up to a maximum of 24 points). The department believes that the majority of the points potential for this criterion should be awarded for the diversity of underserved population served by the proposed project. For projects that have a clearly articulated plan of action that convinces the department that the project will reach the target demographic, there would be a 0-3 point award, and evidence of an effective tracking and reporting function to allow for assessment would also be awarded 0-3 points. The department believes that it is important that a proposed project be realistic and measurable.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(3) would award 0-30 points based on the extent to which the department, based on the application, is able to gauge the probable impact of the proposed project. The point awards for this criterion would be subdivided into five subcategories: a project narrative (0-5 points), the potential for the development of life-long behaviors (0-5 points), the likelihood of professional development (0-5 points), activities that utilize a hands-on, active engagement approach to skill development (0-5 points), and the quality of tangible environmental benefits resulting from the project (0-10 points). The department, based on many years of experience managing grant programs, believes that a project narrative illustrating goals that are feasible, fully developed, specific, measurable, attainable, and relevant is a predictor of likely success. The department also believes that grant programs with the potential to inculcate in participants lifelong behaviors that create environmentally responsible stewards of natural resources are very important, as those behaviors are key in developing future generations of environmentally responsible citizens. Similarly, the department wishes to encourage in participants a desire to make outdoor recreation a career path, which is beneficial to future generations for obvious reasons. The department also considers that direct, hands-on activities provide the most direct method for program participants to become engaged in subject matter, and finally, that the extent to which a project will result in tangible environmental benefits is worthy of preference.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(4) would award 0-20 points for the quality of the applicant’s timeline and budget for a proposed project. It is important that an application contain a thoughtful, realistic budget that correlates to a timeline for project completion. Budgets that reflect realistic understanding and expectations (based on the department’s experience with similar projects) are far more likely to succeed. The more realistic a budget is, the better able the department is to evaluate the true competitiveness of the prospective project and the more likely it is that the project, if funded, will succeed.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(5) would award 0-5 points for organizational capacity. Organizational capacity is the applicant’s ability to responsibly implement, manage, and maintain the project once funding has been acquired. The department believes it is irresponsible to fund projects that are beyond the applicant’s ability to bring to fruition and/or operate moving forward. Therefore, the proposed new provision would require applicants to prove or offer reasonable assurance that the necessary resources for project completion and continuing success are in place.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(6) would provide for a deduction of 0-20 points for past performance. The department believes that an applicant with a history of competent performance on previous grants represents a lower risk of failure than an applicant with a history of problematic performance. Similarly, the department believes that an entity with a history of unresolved compliance issues should be provided an incentive for developing and implementing appropriate corrective measures on previous grants.

        Proposed new §61.136, concerning Small Community Grant Program, would set forth the criteria for small community grants.

        Proposed new subsection (a) would establish the purpose for which the section exists, which is to provide a mechanism for determining the suitability of project proposals for funding the acquisition of land and the development of public outdoor recreation facilities by small communities.

        Proposed new subsection (b) would set forth the scoring criteria used by the department to evaluate project proposals.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(1) would award 0-10 points for the extent to which the project proposal identifies specific, well-defined goals and objectives that both clearly explain the local priorities to be addressed by the proposed project and illustrate how the proposed project, if funded, will support the department’s Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan, Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan, and Local Park Grant program objectives, as applicable.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(2) would allow the award of 0-10 points for the category of Community Need. The criterion would allow a 0-5 point award for the quality of the application’s description of how the applicant determined the need for the project, the influence of that need on the site design, the public input process and the applicant’s decisions in response to public comment, and a description of other needs assessments impacting the applicant’s decisions. The department has determined that because the recreation needs of Texas communities are broad, nuanced, and diverse, the mission of the department and the program is best served by encouraging communities to engage in long-term parks planning by inventorying existing resources and using public input to evaluate recreation needs. Parks and Wildlife Code, §24.007 and §24.057, condition the award of grants on the existence of present or future needs and a statement from a planning authority that a proposed project is consistent with local needs; therefore, the needs assessment component is intended to specifically identify an applicant’s needs, verify the processes used to engage the public in arriving at that determination, and illustrate how the proposed project addresses the need. The point range is intended to allow the department to award points based on the thoroughness of the applicant’s efforts.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(3) would award 0-5 points for the quality of the applicant’s timeline and budget for a proposed project. It is intuitively obvious that a thoughtful, realistic budget that correlates to a timeline for project completion is a good predictor of the likelihood of project success, as well as an indicator that a prospective project will not place excessive demands on administrative personnel. Budgets that reflect realistic understanding and expectations (based on the department’s experience with similar projects) are far more likely to succeed and far less likely to require time-consuming amendments. The department understands that expenditures during project development and implementation are likely to diverge from application budgets; however, the more realistic a budget is, the better able the department is to evaluate the true competitiveness of the prospective project and the more likely it is that the project, if funded, will succeed.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(4) would allow 0-10 points for the quality and thoroughness of a proposed project’s site design. The department believes that a well-considered site design is crucial for assisting the department in understanding a project and a good indicator of the overall quality and effectiveness of the project. Vague plans that do not enable the department to envision the unity of a project’s physical manifestation make it difficult to assess the fullness of the project’s impact. Therefore, the proposed new rule would reward applications that provide a thorough accounting of the basic physical layout of the proposed project, identify significant natural or cultural features, and provide evidence of emphasis on recreation. The proposed new provision also would award up to five points for the extent to which the project maximizes the use of funds, determined by dividing the direct acquisition, recreational, and conservation costs by the total construction costs and multiplying the result by five. This formula was derived as a result of consultations with the regulated community in an effort to determine an appropriate method for creating a useful coefficient for determining funds maximization.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(5) would award 0-5 points for organizational capacity. Organizational capacity is the applicant’s ability to responsibly implement, manage, and maintain the project once funding has been acquired. The department believes it is irresponsible to fund projects that are beyond the applicant’s ability to bring to fruition and/or operate moving forward. Therefore, the proposed new provision would require applicants to prove or offer reasonable assurance that the necessary resources for project completion and continuing success are in place.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(6) would award 0-5 points for projects that improve the geographic distribution of recreational opportunities the applicant’s service area. Five points would automatically be awarded to a project providing the first public park. There are still many communities in Texas without public park or recreation facilities. The department believes that such communities deserve preference in scoring. For proposals that do not meet criteria for a first park, up to five points could be awarded based on the project’s ability to fill a critical recreation gap and to provide for safe access to the park. Of these five points, up to three points could be awarded to projects that fill a critical recreation need. There are many communities in Texas with existing parks, but with identified gaps in recreational opportunity and access challenges that should receive points. Up to two points could be awarded for projects that are safely accessible to the public via multiple modes of transportation.  The department believes that accessibility is a key component of park and recreational opportunity enjoyment; therefore, projects that show accessibility by multiple means of transportation are more desirable than projects that are difficult for the public to access.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(7) would award 0-10 points to projects that improve access to parks and outreach facilities for under-served populations (defined by Parks and Wildlife Code, §24.002, as “any group of people that is low income, inner city, or rural as determined by the last census, or minority, physically or mentally challenged, youth at risk, youth, or female”). Parks and Wildlife Code, §24.005 requires the department to make grants of money to “a political subdivision or nonprofit corporation for recreation, conservation, or education programs for underserved populations to encourage and implement increased access to and use of parks, recreational areas, cultural resource sites or areas, and open space areas by underserved populations.” Local parks are often the key or gateway to a love of outdoor recreation and the department believes it is important to ensure that all segments of the population are provided with the opportunity to experience first-hand the valuable benefits of outdoor recreation. The point total would be determined by multiplying the sum of percentage of population qualifying as low-income and percentage of population qualifying as minority by 5. This formula was derived as a result of consultations with the regulated community in an effort to determine an appropriate method for creating a useful coefficient for determining a project’s involvement of under-served populations.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(8) would award 0-5 points for projects that provide opportunities for physically/mentally challenged citizens that exceed federal and state required accessibility standards. As discussed with respect to underserved populations, the department believes that the benefits of outdoor recreation should be available to all citizens, and that projects eliminating barriers to participation by citizens with physical and mental challenges should receive preference. Therefore, the proposed new provision would allow up to five points to be awarded to projects based on the extent to which meaningful accessibility to such citizens is provided.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(9) would award 0-10 points to projects that protect or conserve sensitive ecosystems and natural and/or cultural resources. The department’s mission is to manage and conserve natural and cultural resources; thus, it is axiomatic that proposed projects containing components to protect or restore sensitive ecosystems or incorporate elements that cultivate support for and awareness of natural and/or cultural resources should receive preference. The department also intends for the criterion to encourage local communities to identify and include sensitive ecosystems and/or cultural resources in their application and to incorporate them if possible into the site design of prospective projects.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(10) would award 0-10 points for sustainable park design. The department believes that sustainability is an important concept, as it improves efficiency, lowers costs, and reduces negative impacts to the environment. Therefore, the proposed provision would allow the award of points based on the extent to which a prospective project incorporates sustainable design and operation features.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(11) would award 0-5 points for the quality of and degree to which a proposed project involves coordination with subject matter experts. The department concludes that successful projects contemplate the need for subject matter experts where necessary and effective, such as permitting processes, consultants, professional services, and associated factors that impact the development and operation of a project. Proposed projects that reflect engagement with this criterion are likely to require less administrative assistance from the department and are therefore desirable.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(12) would award 0-5 points for the extent to which the proposed project involves the contribution of resources from sources other than the applicant to serve as all or part of the applicant’s matching share of funds. The criterion is subdivided into two subcategories, either documented guarantees of support from external entities (up to three points) or evidence of community engagement and mobilization greater than the required match (up to two points). The department does not wish to impede communities from obtaining matching funds in any way possible. Therefore, the proposed provision would allow the department to recognize non-traditional or unorthodox methods of raising matching funds in addition to the traditional methods.

        Proposed new subsection (b)(13) would award 0-10 points for past performance. The department believes that an applicant with a history of competent performance on previous grants represents a lower risk of failure than an applicant with a history of problematic performance. Therefore, up to ten points could be awarded to an applicant that either is in full compliance with previous grant agreements or can offer reasonable assurances that existing deficiencies with prior grant performance will be remedied. Applicants with existing compliance issues could be awarded up to ten points in accordance with their past performance.  The department wishes to encourage participation by all legitimate entities and believes that a ten-point award for first-time participants will provide an incentive for potential applicants for grants. Similarly, the department believes that an entity with a history of unresolved compliance issues should be provided an incentive for developing and implementing appropriate corrective measures on previous grants.

2. Fiscal Note.

        Dana Lagarde, Director of Recreation Grants, has determined that for the first five years that the repeals, amendment, and new sections as proposed are in effect, there will be no additional fiscal implications to state or local governments as a result of enforcing or administering the rules as proposed.

3. Public Benefit/Cost Note.

        Ms. Lagarde also has determined that for each of the first five years the proposed rules are in effect:

        (A) The public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing the rules as proposed will be administrative efficiency in the operation and administration of the local parks and outreach grants programs operated by the agency, which ultimately results in the provision of high-quality public recreational opportunity.

        (B) Under the provisions of Government Code, Chapter 2006, a state agency must prepare an economic impact statement and a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule that may have an adverse economic effect on small businesses, micro-businesses, or rural communities. As required by Government Code, §2006.002(g), the Office of the Attorney General has prepared guidelines to assist state agencies in determining a proposed rule’s potential adverse economic impact on small and microbusinesses and rural communities. Those guidelines state that an agency need only consider a proposed rule’s “direct adverse economic impacts”

to determine if any further analysis is required. The department considers “direct adverse economic impact “ to mean a requirement that would directly impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements; impose taxes or fees; result in lost sales or profits; adversely affect market competition; or require the purchase or modification of equipment or services.

        The department has determined that the proposed rules do not directly affect small businesses, micro-businesses, or rural communities. Therefore, neither the economic impact statement nor the regulatory flexibility analysis described in Government Code, Chapter 2006, is required.

        There also will be no adverse economic effect on persons required to comply with the rules as proposed.

        (C) The department has not drafted a local employment impact statement under the Administrative Procedures Act, §2001.022, as the agency has determined that the rules as proposed will not impact local economies.

        (D) The department has determined that Government Code, §2001.0225 (Regulatory Analysis of Major Environmental Rules), does not apply to the proposed rules.

        (E) The department has determined that there will not be a taking of private real property, as defined by Government Code, Chapter 2007, as a result of the proposed rules.

        (F) The department has determined that because the rule as proposed does not impose a cost on regulated persons, it is not necessary to repeal or amend any existing rule.

        (G) In compliance with the requirements of Government Code, §2001.0221, the department has prepared the following Government Growth Impact Statement (GGIS).  The rule as proposed, if adopted, will:

                 (1) neither create nor eliminate a government program;

                 (2) not result in an increase or decrease in the number of full-time equivalent employee needs;

                 (3) not result in a need for additional General Revenue funding;

                 (4) not affect the amount of any fee;

                 (5) not create a new regulation, but replace existing regulations;

                 (6) not expand or limit an existing regulation, but will repeal and replace existing regulations;

                 (7) neither increase nor decrease the number of individuals subject to regulation; and

                 (8) not positively or adversely affect the state’s economy.

4. Request for Public Comment.