Q&A - 092-BEPAC27 & BEPAPD27

Question

Answer

Collaboration powered by Smartsheet | Report Abuse

Would a project including roof repair/replacement, a new gym floor, and potentially heating/air conditioning for a gymnasium qualify for the TSET Physical Activity Building Grant? Our gym floor is very old, uneven, and potentially unsafe, while the lack of heating/air limits use of the building. The roof also leaks and must be addressed before replacing the floor to prevent water damage, so the roof and floor are directly connected to improving safe access to physical activity for our students and community.

Yes, as long as all other RFA requirements are met.

We are wanting to apply for a grant that helps our community by resurfacing our walking trail. It appears to me that this would be in the Built Environment Q2. When does that open to be able to apply?

This RFA in Construction Track 3 includes walking trails on school property. Be sure to carefully read the RFA and that your application fully addresses all the requirements.

Can churches apply that have a private school ?

The RFA on pages 12-13 lists the eligible entities for this RFA, and a school must meet the PK-12 School District /Site Eligibility requirements listed on pages 13-14.

At this stage of the process, the little information provided in your question does not help to clarify or provide sufficient context regarding the project.

I was wondering if our school could apply for this grant, to resurface our track? Our current track is asphalt and has very large cracks and holes in it. We are wanting to fill in the cracks and then resurface it with rubber. I wasn't sure if this project would be eligible to apply for the grant?

Yes, if the track will be open for public use as explained in the RFA on pages 16-17. Be sure to carefully read the RFA and that your application fully addresses all the requirements.

Once grant is submitted and if approved, how quickly can the project begin?

If awarded, proposed grant work can begin on or after the grant start date listed in the RFA, but no later than 75 days after the grant start date. All required post award documentation and processes, including execution of a cooperative agreement must be completed and approved by TSET prior to project start.

Yes, if the track will be open for public use as explained in the RFA on pages 16-17. Be sure to carefully read the RFA and that your application fully addresses all the requirements.

How can applicants with paywalled projects best position their proposals to remain competitive with projects that are freely accessible to the public?

The RFA on page 15 provides explanation of ways to fulfill the requirement of having public access to the eventual project when completed. The section on Public Accessibility of the Project provides some strategies for you to consider such as a sliding fee scale, scholarships or other options that may meet the requirement, like a fee waiver for those who cannot pay. We value creative approaches to meeting the requirement.

Our project would be built on an individual school site, which leads us to believe we would use the school enrollment numbers for that site. However, the facility would also be open to the public as a walking/running trail, so we wanted to confirm the correct method for determining our population.

The RFA provides the guidance you need on page 10 and is based on student enrollment rather than city population. The applicable match required is that for an individual school site.

We are building a tiny house community. 16 unit community affordable living. I have started this project with working class in mind. We are wanting funding for structure, future growth, clean communities.

Affordable homes are outside the scope of work and ineligible for funding of this RFA.

Question 1: The site hosts an annual event in October. Could a construction grant start after the annual event?

Question 2: Or would the work need to start when the grant cycle starts?

Answer to question 1: No, the project must be shovel-ready and construction must start as required in the RFA.

Answer to question 2: See the definition of shovel-ready on pages 6 and 14. If awarded, proposed grant work can begin on or after the grant start date listed in the RFA, but no later than 75 days after the grant start date. All required post award documentation and processes, including execution of a cooperative agreement must be completed and approved by TSET prior to project start.

Can a public school district submit separate applications under Track 3 for playground improvements at multiple school sites that are not connected, adjacent, or contiguous?

Yes.

Our organization was awarded a two-year TSET Built Environment Grant that ends July 31, 2027. However, construction is expected to be completed well before the grant period ends. The new grant period begins July 1, 2027, creating a one-month overlap between the two grant periods (July 1–31, 2027). Given that construction under the current grant will be completed before the new grant period begins, would our organization be eligible to apply for this funding round despite the one-month administrative overlap?

TSET has no prohibitions related to an applicant applying for a new TSET funding opportunity while also being a current grantee of a separate TSET funding opportunity. However, expenses for the existing TSET grant should not duplicate expenses for a new funding request.

Our organization is a nonprofit organization that serves more than 30 young adults with disabilities and their families throughout the year. While our programs and activities primarily serve our registered members, we also host multiple events annually that are open to the broader community.

Would the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust (TSET) consider funding the development of an inclusive activity center featuring a basketball gymnasium, weight room, sensory gym, multipurpose room, and space for Special Olympics programming? The facility would provide year-round opportunities for our members while also serving the broader community through designated public events and activities throughout the year.

With construction shovel-ready and anticipated to begin in late October, we would appreciate guidance on whether this project aligns with TSET’s funding priorities and eligibility requirements, particularly regarding facilities that primarily serve a defined membership but also provide periodic access and programming for the public.

Only Track 3 for school or school district serving Pk-12 grade provides funding for facility upgrades and related equipment expenses. These two funding opportunities focus on planning and designing projects and construction projects for parks and open spaces managed by state, local, or tribal governments for public use (Track 1) and safe routes to schools, grocery stores or parks that are safe and easy to access via walking, biking and public transit (Track 2).

No, Tracks 1 and 2 are not funding opportunities for eligible entities to design and construct buildings/facilities and purchases of fitness and recreational equipment to be housed in buildings/facilities.

Expenses incurred before grant award approval are not eligible for reimbursement.

At this time we do not have a funding opportunity for facilities that primarily serve a defined membership but also provide periodic access and programming for the public.

Our organization is a nonprofit organization serving more than 30 young adults with disabilities and their families throughout the year. Our mission is to provide inclusive opportunities that promote physical health, independence, social connection, and overall well-being. We are preparing to break ground on a new activity center in late October that will include a basketball gymnasium, weight room, Special Olympics practice space, and sensory gym. While the facility will primarily serve our members, we also host multiple community events open to the public throughout the year.

Would our organization be eligible for the TSET Built Environment Grant to help fund this project through a phased approach, with Year 1 funding supporting eligible construction costs for these spaces and Year 2 funding supporting the purchase of fitness, recreational, and sensory equipment? If so, would an itemized construction budget be sufficient, and are there any restrictions on construction timelines or expenses incurred before grant approval?

Only Track 3 for school or school district serving Pk-12 grade provides funding for facility upgrades and related equipment expenses. These two funding opportunities focus on planning and designing projects and construction projects for parks and open spaces managed by state, local, or tribal governments for public use (Track 1) and safe routes to schools, grocery stores or parks that are safe and easy to access via walking, biking and public transit (Track 2).

No, Tracks 1 and 2 are not funding opportunities for eligible entities to design and construct buildings/facilities and purchases of fitness and recreational equipment to be housed in buildings/facilities.

Please also note that expenses incurred before the grant award is approved are not eligible for reimbursement.

Hello,

We are looking at applying for the TSET Built Environment Grant that is due on November 18th. For the matching portion of the grant (5% match based on our population), what would be considered a "confirmed" match? Would a letter from our City Manager stating that we will budget the matching funds in the next fiscal year's budget be appropriate to meet that requirement? Our fiscal year runs from July 1- June 30, and our City Council approves the next fiscal year's budget in the April/May timeframe. If we received the grant, the matching funds would be made available next fiscal year, which begins on July 1, 2027. Thank you for your help.

Matching funds will be considered only if they have been confirmed prior to or at the time of application submission. Allowable match includes cash, other non-TSET grants, and in-kind support that is directly related and applied to the proposed project.

Confirmed match in the scenario presented requires formal approval by the City Council to include the match amount earmarked for the grant in the City’s FY28 budget (July 1, 2027, through June 30, 2028) at their April/May meeting. If confirmed match cannot be provided at the time of grant application submission, the application will not meet the confirmed matching criteria of the grant and will not be eligible for a full review.

Does a playground replacement project involving equipment removal, minor grading, new equipment, rubber mulch, and containment borders require engineer-stamped plans, or can finalized manufacturer layouts, installation specifications, grading details, and current contractor quotes satisfy the design and shovel-readiness requirements?

Engineer-stamped plans are the standard. Engineer-stamped plans are legally binding, certified documents verifying structural safety and code compliance, while the manufacturer documents are practical, project-specific guides used for basic design, budgeting and purchasing.

Our school district is considering improvements to multiple outdoor physical activity areas located on district-owned property, including two elementary playgrounds and outdoor areas at the middle and high schools. All facilities are located within the same school district campus area. I'm unable to attach a map for clarity. All school sites are all connected together on one piece of property.

Would these locations qualify as a single project site or as connected, adjacent, or contiguous sites under the RFA, allowing all improvements to be included in one application?

Yes, the locations mentioned qualify as a single project site or as connected, adjacent, or contiguous sites under the RFA.

Our organization is considering developing a Community Fitness and Recreation Center on our organization-owned property in Guthrie, Oklahoma. The proposed facility would be similar to a traditional church or community recreation center, featuring an indoor multipurpose gymnasium for basketball, volleyball, and other recreational activities, along with a general fitness room containing exercise equipment. The facility would be available to the general public during reasonable operating hours.

Under Funding Opportunities 092-BEPAPD27 (Planning and Design for Physical Activity) and 092-BEPAC27 (Construction Implementation for Physical Activity), would the planning, design, and construction of a new indoor Community Fitness and Recreation Center be allowable under Track 1: Parks and Open Spaces, or another eligible funding track?

Additionally, would related improvements such as accessible restrooms, entrances, sidewalks, parking, lighting, and other necessary recreational facility infrastructure be allowable expenses?

Is it common for nonprofit applicants to apply for both the FY27 Built Environment Planning and Design for Physical Activity Grant (092-BEPAPD27) and the Construction Implementation for Physical Activity Grant (092-BEPAC27) during the same funding cycle? Does TSET recommend applying for both opportunities simultaneously, or should organizations pursue planning and design funding before applying for construction funding?

No, it is not common nor recommended for an applicant to apply for both opportunities for the same project. The funding opportunities are open simultaneously with the same timelines and therefore do not allow an application for one project at the same time in a phased approach where a trail is designed in one opportunity and then constructed with the other opportunity. Each opportunity has start up requirements, launch ready for planning and design, and shovel ready for construction that cannot be met by a phased approach. In this instance, an application for planning and design would be submitted first.

An applicant may apply for both opportunities at the same time for two distinct projects, for example planning and designing a trail and beginning construction on a playground.

Our organization is exploring the development of a Community Fitness and Recreation Center on our organization-owned property in Guthrie, Oklahoma.

The proposed facility would be similar to a traditional church or community recreation center, featuring an indoor multipurpose gymnasium for basketball, volleyball, and other recreational activities, along with a general fitness area containing exercise equipment.

We also plan to incorporate a free public health clinic within the facility, allowing individuals and families to access basic health screenings and preventive healthcare services while participating in physical fitness and recreational activities. Our goal is to create an accessible community space that promotes physical activity, preventive healthcare, and overall health and wellness, particularly for underserved populations.

The fitness and recreation center would be available to the general public during reasonable operating hours, regardless of income or housing status.

Under Funding Opportunities 092-BEPAPD27 (Planning and Design for Physical Activity) and 092-BEPAC27 (Construction Implementation for Physical Activity), would the planning, design, and construction of this type of indoor Community Fitness and Recreation Center be allowable under Track 1: Parks and Open Spaces or another eligible funding track?

Additionally, could the free public health clinic be incorporated into the overall facility design, and would its associated planning, design, and construction expenses be allowable, or would the clinic component need to be funded separately?

Regarding Funding Opportunities 092-BEPAPD27 (Planning and Design for Physical Activity) and 092-BEPAC27 (Construction Implementation for Physical Activity), our organization serves approximately 1,000 unduplicated individuals annually across all organizational programs, including residential programs, temporary and emergency shelter, overnight services, and public walk-in services.

For purposes of determining the required matching contribution under the Construction Implementation grant, may we count all individuals served annually across these programs, including members of the general public who access our walk-in services, or must we count only individuals enrolled in residential programs?

If our documented annual service population is approximately 1,000 unduplicated individuals, would our organization qualify for a 0% matching requirement under the applicable population-served category?

For a project located at a non-profit worksite, applicants should include the number of clients served by the organization annually. This is the guidance provided on page 10 of the RFA.

If the two groups you mention (members of the general public who access our walk-in services and individuals enrolled in residential programs) are considered clients, then you include both. If walk-ins are not clients, then they would not be included.

Match is required for programs serving 10,000 or more persons.

Can a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization submit separate applications for both Funding Opportunity 092-BEPAPD27 (Planning and Design for Physical Activity) and Funding Opportunity 092-BEPAC27 (Construction Implementation for Physical Activity) during the FY27 funding cycle? If so, may the applications involve distinct phases or separate improvements on the same organization-owned property, provided there is no duplication of grant-funded activities or expenses?

It is generally not common practice, nor is it recommended, for an applicant to apply for both funding opportunities for the same project. However, an applicant may apply for both opportunities simultaneously if the applications are for two distinct projects. For example, an applicant could apply for funding to plan and design a trail while also applying for funding to begin construction on a playground.

At this stage of the process, the little information provided in your question does not help to clarify or provide sufficient context regarding the project.

Regarding Funding Opportunities 092-BEPAPD27 (Planning and Design) and 092-BEPAC27 (Construction Implementation), do the Parks and Open Spaces provisions allow planning, design, or construction of an indoor or enclosed community fitness center/gym that provides free public access to physical activity facilities? Additionally, may a free public health clinic be incorporated into the same development, and if so, would the clinic space and related infrastructure be allowable grant expenses, or would those costs need to be funded separately?

No. Parks and Open Spaces (Track 1) does not allow for construction of a building or facility. A public health clinic space would not be an allowable expense and is outside the purpose and focus of both funding opportunities.

Question 1: Can an eligible 501(c)(3) nonprofit submit separate applications under both the FY27 Built Environment Planning and Design for Physical Activity RFA (092-BEPAPD27) and Construction Implementation for Physical Activity RFA (092-BEPAC27), provided the proposed projects have distinct scopes, budgets, and deliverables?

Question 2: If so, may both projects be located on different portions of the same organization-owned property?

Question 1: Yes.

Question 2: Yes

Question 1 – Playground Safety Improvements
Are construction grant funds eligible to be used for improvements to existing school playgrounds that enhance student safety? For example, would replacing or upgrading deteriorating playground borders and containment barriers surrounding impact-absorbing materials beneath swings and other playground equipment qualify as an allowable expense?

Question 2 – Playground Shade Structures
Can construction grant funds be used to install permanent shade structures over existing playground equipment? These improvements would help reduce students' exposure to direct sunlight and excessive heat, creating a safer, cooler, and more comfortable outdoor play environment.

Question 3 – Playground Security Fencing
Are construction grant funds eligible to be used for the installation or improvement of security fencing around an existing pre-kindergarten playground? The playground is located adjacent to a heavily traveled roadway, creating potential safety concerns for our youngest students. The addition of secure perimeter fencing would provide an enhanced barrier between students and vehicular traffic, help prevent students from inadvertently accessing the roadway, and improve overall campus security by restricting unauthorized access to the playground area.

Question 1: Yes.

Answer to Q2: Yes.

Answer to Q3: The fencing of the existing playground area must ensure that the playground remains accessible to the public in accordance with the requirements outlined in the “Public Accessibility of the Project” section on page 17 of the RFA.

Question 1: Regarding the matching funds portion that is population based. Do we use the population size designated by the 2020 Census Hard data or do we go off the most recent estimate for our population (2025)?

Question 2: As a local municipality, we are subject to Title 61 of the Oklahoma Competitive Bidding Act. Are we allowed to procure detailed and realistic cost estimates or do we have to put the project out to bid before the application due date?

Question 3: Can we request up to $300,000 for a one-year project?

Question 4: In order to be shovel-ready for a playground that already exists but will be replaced, does the equipment need to be removed prior to application submission?

Question 5: Are we required to submit a signed resolution with our application?

Your review and guidance regarding the above questions is greatly appreciated.

Question 1: Applicants should use the most current available census data that is not older than 2020.

Question 2: Applicants should include cost estimates, quotes and/or bids within the last three months that detail the proposed costs to be covered by TSET.

Question 3: Yes. Applicants may request up to $300,000 per year for a maximum of two years, provided all proposed grant expenses directly align with the project, comply with allowable cost requirements, and do not include any costs incurred prior to grant award approval.

Question 4: Shovel-ready projects are those that can begin work immediately or within 75 days of the grant start date. Applicants should demonstrate clear evidence that a project is on track to meet shovel-ready status by the required timeline defined in the RFA. This includes evidence that the proposed project site will be shovel-ready by the time of the grant start date (7/1/2027).

Question 5: A list of required attachments can be found on page 34 of the RFA.

Is it possible for a school to apply for the Built Environment Grant: Physical Activity that is currently open, and then in January 2027 apply for the Healthy Incentive Grants: School Districts grant as well? Are there any limitations to this? Would the funding be split between the two? Are we even allowed to apply for the second? We have a strategic plan that calls for use of BOTH grants at their full funding limits. Is this allowed? If not, our K8 School system intends to apply for two separate but complementary grants that would interwork one with the other.

An applicant may apply for both opportunities for two distinct projects. The project, budget and expenses for the Healthy Incentives Grant for School District application must in no way duplicate the project, budget and expenses in the application for the current Built Environment Grants for Physical Activity, Track 3 for Schools PreK-12th grade.

For a nonprofit-owned outdoor recreation area open to the general public at no cost during reasonable hours, should the applicant use its annual unduplicated client count to determine population reach under 092-BEPAPD27 and 092-BEPAC27, even when surrounding community members who are not clients may also use the facilities?

Yes.

Would construction of a small inclusive outdoor playground, together with ADA-accessible sidewalks connecting the playground, multipurpose sports court, and pavilion, qualify as eligible expenses under 092-BEPAC27, Track 1?

Track 1 Strategy Scope of Work on page 22 of the RFA provides examples of prospective projects and sufficient guidance for applicants to determine whether a proposed project is a “fit” for the funding opportunity.

Outdoor Multipurpose Pavilion (092-BEPAC27, Track 1)
Would construction of a permanent, open-air pavilion with a roof, accessible seating, and lighting qualify under 092-BEPAC27, Track 1, if it is located within a publicly accessible recreation area and available at no cost for community meetings, group activities, educational programs, and recreational gatherings?

Construction Track 1 Strategy Scope of Work on page 22 of the RFA provides examples of prospective projects and sufficient guidance for applicants to determine whether a proposed project is a “fit” for the funding opportunity.

Would construction of a single outdoor multipurpose court designed for both tennis and basketball, including permanent basketball goals, a removable tennis net, appropriate surfacing, and sport-specific markings, qualify as an eligible physical activity improvement under 092-BEPAC27, Track 1?

TSET prefers refurbishing existing courts and fields rather than constructing new ones as you propose. Track 1 Strategy Scope of Work on page 22 of the RFA provides examples of prospective projects and sufficient guidance for applicants to determine whether a proposed project is a “fit” for the funding opportunity.

If a nonprofit submits a Planning and Design application under 092-BEPAPD27 for parking-area accessibility and pedestrian circulation and a separate Construction Implementation application under 092-BEPAC27 for outdoor recreation amenities on the same property, would TSET consider these sufficiently distinct projects if their scopes, budgets, locations, and deliverables do not overlap?

As described, it appears access to the property by the public is a proposed planning and design project and should happen first and the construction project on the property should come later rather than at the same time. At this stage of the process, the little information provided in your question does not help to clarify or provide sufficient context regarding the project.

Safe Routes to a Proposed Recreation Area (092-BEPAPD27, Track 2, RFA Page 21)

Does 092-BEPAPD27, Track 2 permit planning and design of pedestrian connections to a proposed public recreation area on nonprofit-owned property, or must the destination already be an established park or open space?

Yes, Planning and Design Track 2 permits pedestrian connections as you describe with the understanding that the proposed public recreation area or property will be developed at the same time or shortly after the pedestrian connects are constructed. The destination, the park or open space, does not have to be established but the timelines for the construction of the pedestrian connections and the recreation amenities of park/open space should aligned so that the property may be used by the public at the same time or soon after the pedestrian connections are constructed.

Parking Lot Planning and Design (092-BEPAPD27, Track 2, RFA Page 21)

Would planning and design for improvements to existing parking lots on nonprofit-owned property qualify under 092-BEPAPD27, Track 2, if the project includes ADA-accessible parking, pedestrian safety, drainage, vehicle circulation, and accessible routes connecting parking areas to a publicly accessible outdoor recreation area?

Planning and Design Track 2 Strategy Scope of Work on page 21 of the RFA provides examples of prospective projects and sufficient guidance for applicants to determine whether a proposed project is a “fit” for the funding opportunity.

For a proposed outdoor recreation project under Track 1: Parks and Open Spaces, would improvements to existing parking areas be allowable when they directly support safe and ADA-accessible public access to the recreational facilities?

Our nonprofit property currently has deteriorated parking surfaces, uneven pavement, and drainage concerns. We are considering developing an outdoor multipurpose sports court, walking paths, and outdoor fitness areas.

Would the grant allow resurfacing or repairing the portions of our existing parking areas serving these recreational improvements, along with accessible parking spaces, connecting sidewalks, drainage improvements, and pedestrian safety measures?

If eligible, would these improvements need to be included within the same project scope and supported by an itemized contractor estimate?

The proposed outdoor recreation area and outdoor multipupose courts, paths, and fitness areas should be constructed or under construction before TSET would consider the construction of the types of infrastructure improvements you mention to your non-profit building or facility. The construction RFAs purpose is to fund infrastucture for exercise and active living.

We receive tobacco funds (state excise tax), but only from the state level. As a City, we don't have a special tax on tobacco products. Are we eligible to apply? Thank you.

Cities receiving sales or tax on tobacco products are not excluded from applying.

Does a "notice of coverage" suffice for the copy of Worker's Compensation Insurance Coverage Policy?

Yes.

Unsure which of the Built Environment Grants to apply for. Referring to Section E Question 3 of the Application asking "what steps have been taken to be ready to begin 75 days of being awarded". We have only identified where we would like to build the playground, but no other work or planning has been done. I've not applied for this type of grant before and would like some guidance.

The information provided is insufficient to determine what track your project is eligible for. For construction projects, the project must be shovel-ready. Shovel-ready refers to the project being ready to begin within 75 days of the construction project start date mentioned in the application. Public school construction projects typically begin during the summer break (late May to early August) to avoid disrupting the academic calendar and school session. This means the project is ready to begin either immediately or within 75 days of the project start date mentioned in the application. It is fully designed, all necessary approvals and permits have been obtained, the site is ready for construction and free of ownership disputes or utility conflicts. Necessary contractors are identified with contracts ready for signature, and construction equipment and supplies are identified and ready for procurement.

Your organization is responsible for determining whether the proposed project meets these requirements.

It appears that this opportunity is reimbursement based, requiring the school to have upfront funding. Is that accurate? If so, can the school take out a loan as upfront funding?

Yes, all awards are paid on a reimbursement basis; awarded applicant organizations must be able to expend funds up front before TSET will reimburse for any charges. The applicant agency is responsible for determining how to meet the requirements. If a loan is obtained, TSET cannot reimburse any associated interest or fees.

In the sample project timeline it appears that all sections of the plan happen after the grant period including permitting and contract awarding. I thought those items had to be completed prior to the application being submitted to be considered shovel ready. Can you please clarify?

The timeline provided is for illustrative purposes only. Each project is unique and may require different milestones, and construction permits may be required at various stages. Additionally, some organizations, such as cities and schools, may not be able to begin the contractor procurement process until after a grant is awarded. All projects must be shovel-ready and able to begin work immediately or within 75 days of the grant start date. Applicants are responsible for completing the necessary preliminary tasks to ensure they can meet this requirement.

When looking at experience on the application are you only wanting to hear about the asking organization or the contracted construction company as well?

Our preference is for both to have the experience necessary to complete the project.

On the proposed project overview section it listed preliminary work (site prep, demolition) as things already done for the site to be project ready. So does this mean those costs cannot be covered with the grant? For example, our area of already cleared but some leveling may be required for the new size of the playground. Can that work and cost be included in the project costs?

Yes.

Our organization is headquartered in Kay county, but as a foster placement agency we accept children from all over the state, so should we choose statewide or kay county on the application?

Please select the county where you are proposing the project to take place.

For the insurance requirements, is that the organization applying or the contractor completing the project or both?

The insurance requirements outlined in the Terms and Conditions apply to the grantee.

Do all funds run through the applicant organization or do you pay contractors directly? And when we are naming a financial officer, is it someone on our staff or if you are paying the contractor directly, someone on theirs?

If funded, the cooperative agreement will be between TSET and the applicant agency approved by the TSET Board of Directors. Grantees will be responsible for identifying contractors to complete work on the proposed project and paying them directly for completed work. Please note that TSET is a constitutionally created state agency and must comply with all state laws. Oklahoma law prohibits payment for goods and services in advance, according to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act, 74 OS Section 85.1. Therefore, all awards are paid
on a reimbursement basis; awarded applicant organizations must be able to expend funds up front before TSET will reimburse for any charges.

A member of the applicant agency’s staff may serve as the grant’s financial officer, provided they have the capacity and expertise to perform the required financial duties, including preparing and submitting reimbursement requests and monitoring and tracking project expenditures.

Our community is considering an application under Track 1 – Parks and Open Spaces for the planning and conceptual design of a Safety Town and Outdoor Classroom component of a larger proposed development known as Discovery Campus. The property is city-owned.

For the TSET proposal this planning and design component would incorporate pedestrian and bicycle pathways, active-play areas and outdoor spaces intended to encourage physical activity among children and families. Safety Town would also provide opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle safety education, while the Outdoor Classroom would support outdoor learning activities.

Given the educational elements of these facilities, would the combined Safety Town/Outdoor Classroom project qualify under Track 1, provided the planning and design activities demonstrate a clear emphasis on increasing physical activity and public recreational opportunities?

Alternatively, would TSET recommend limiting the proposed scope to specific physical activity infrastructure components to ensure alignment with Track 1 requirements?

The information provided is insufficient to determine whether the proposed project aligns with the intent of Track 1 – Parks and Open Spaces Planning and Design. Additionally, TSET is unable to recommend limiting or modifying the scope of a proposed project.

Would an applicant be penalized in anyway for not agreeing to certain terms in the Terms and Conditions (Appendix A)?

No, this question is not scored. Please identify within the grant application any terms and conditions with which your organization does not agree.

Our throwing areas (shot put & disc) need to be replaced along with a multi-sport facility to protect our equipment from weather conditions.
Should I choose 1 or the other for this grant or would this grant cover both projects?

The projects you mention do not fit within the purpose and scope of work of the RFA. Projects TSET funds must be accessible to the public for their use after the school day ends as mentioned in the RFA. The spaces you mention, shot put and disc throwing areas, and a facility to protect equipment are not typically accessed by the public for exercise, physical activity, and recreation.

1. As a local government, we do not have a Certificate of Good Standing. Do we need to obtain this?

2. Our tobacco-free policy is in the form of an ordinance. It meets all Appendix B Policy requirements. Will this suffice if the mayor signs and dates Appendix B? Will we need to attach the ordinance?

3. As a local government we have a parks department. We would like to do a project that involves playground equipment replacement for a current playground that has aged out. We have a design and detailed cost estimate that we received from Sourcewell which meets our city procurement requirements and includes demolition and installation. This is how we would proceed with any playground equipment replacement project. Will this be sufficient if we don't have engineer-stamped plans?

Question 1: Certificates of Good Standing from the Oklahoma Secretary of State and the Oklahoma Tax Commission are not required to be submitted with the grant application. However, all applicants must attest that their organization is in good standing with both entities to be eligible to proceed with a TSET grant application.

Question 2: Tobacco-free ordinances are an acceptable form of policy, provided they meet all requirements outlined in Appendix B. The ordinance must be signed and included as an attachment to the grant application.

Question 3: Yes, provided the project is ready to begin either immediately upon the start date of the cooperative agreement or within 75 days of the grant start date.

Part of our project would require purchasing new playground equipment. Do we need written approval prior to the application for the purchase?

The information provided is insufficient to determine whether written approval is required prior to submitting the application.

Question 1: Is replacement of existing grass with permanently installed synthetic turf an eligible Track 3 refurbishment of a school playground?

Question 2: Are turf materials, drainage/base preparation, grading and installation labor allowable construction costs?

Question 3: Can the district apply for one playground while separately improving another noncontiguous playground using local funds?

Question 4: May the same school district submit separate Track 3 applications for two individual school sites in one funding cycle?

Question 5: What school playground public-access schedule and population measure would TSET accept?

Questions 1 and 2: Yes, as long as the turf is for a project aimed at increasing access to physical activity opportunities.

Question 3: Yes.

Question 4: Yes.

Question 5: TSET is unable to provide guidance or recommendations regarding public access schedules.

Page 10 of the RFA states, to determine the population size and reach for the proposed project, applicants should use current, verifiable data. Examples of appropriate data sources are listed below.
For a project at a school district (when all schools within the district are located on one property), applicants should utilize Oklahoma State Department of Education school district enrollment numbers for the most current school year. For total student enrollment, visit this website: https://oklahoma.gov/education/services/student-information/state-public-enrollment-totals.html

For a project at an individual school site, applicants should utilize Oklahoma State Department of Education school site enrollment numbers for the most current school year. For total student enrollment, visit this website: https://oklahoma.gov/education/services/student-information/state-public-enrollment-totals.html

If we are a public school entity with one campus, but our two playgrounds are not connected, can the project still encompass both, or do they have to be adjacent, connecting, or contiguous? I didn't know if it is considered one site since our campus is all together.

Yes, provided the playgrounds are located at the same project site address.

Is there a character limit for the questions? My answers are long and they fit into the box, but I want to make sure they don't get caught off for the review.

No, there is not a character limit for the questions or any of the sections within the RFA.

We are a nonprofit counseling agency as well as a youth shelter. We have playground equipment currently for the shelter and are interested in updated the playground through the grant. However, reading on page 16 it says that it needs to have public accessibility to qualify for the grant. Because we are a youth shelter the playground cannot be accessed by the public. Would this disqualify us from the grant?

Projects that are not accessible to the public do not qualify for this funding opportunity. All proposed projects must be open and accessible to the public during reasonable usage hours.

The project is mostly upgrades to park infrastructure and a shaded structure. There are currently two grills that are in disrepair. Can replacing the grills be an allowable expense?

Yes, as long as there are other project infrastructure components aimed at improving physical activity.

Does the construction project have to be completed by the end of the two-year grant cycle?
Is the funding up to $300,000 a year for a total of up to $600,000 or is it a total of $300,000?

A project, or that portion of a larger project, designated by the applicant organization for TSET funding must be completed during the term of TSET's funding.

Funding is available for up to $300,000 per year, up two years for a total of $600,000.

I am working toward bringing a fitness trail to my community and am considering applying for this grant, but I am confused about the ownership of the site issue. The fitness trail would run mostly along city streets where the city has a public right-of-way, and the remainder would be on city owned property. The city is the applicant. Can you tell me if the public right-of-way would be eligible as owned property for this project?

As provided in the Applicant Eligibility section of the RFA, the project area or property where the project will be located must be owned by the applicant organization at the time of submitting the grant application. The project must be carried out within indoor or outdoor eligible applicant property that is open and accessible to the public during reasonable usage hours. “Eligible Applicant Property” is defined as “any land or facility owned by the applicant organization, excluding the legal or statutory easement where the proposed built environment construction project will be located.”

The RFA addresses right-of-way separately: "The project area or property where the project is to be located must be owned by the applicant at the time of submitting the grant application. Projects involving the potential declaration of eminent domain will not be considered. Applicants should have existing control of the project's right-of-way."

Please note that "existing control" means control sufficient for the proposed project. Holding a right-of-way or easement for one purpose (such as a sidewalk, utilities, or drainage) does not necessarily include the right to construct and maintain a fitness trail in that location, particularly if the underlying property is privately owned. The applicant is responsible for confirming that its existing rights permit the proposed project along each portion of the route. A project located on privately owned property that is not accessible to the public during reasonable usage hours is subject to disqualification; a project that would involve the potential declaration of eminent domain will not be considered; and all projects must be shovel-ready — fully designed, with all necessary approvals and permits obtained and the site free of ownership disputes.

TSET cannot respond to questions about whether an applicant organization's specific project is eligible for a TSET grant. Potential applicants should read the TSET RFA to determine if the applicant organization's project aligns with the TSET mission and the specific RFA's scope of work. If you have questions about the City’s property ownership or whether the City’s existing rights in a right-of-way are sufficient to construct and maintain the proposed trail, particularly along segments abutting private property, please consult your legal counsel.

We are a public school district that is considering a planning project focused on district-owned campus facilities. The district also has an adjacent five-acre tract under a lease-purchase agreement. The bank retains title until payoff, and early payoff is permitted.
1. Does this lease-purchase arrangement satisfy the ownership requirement?
2. If not, may grant-funded planning evaluate the tract as a potential long-term solution and recommend future improvements there, contingent on the district acquiring title before implementation? We do not want to predetermine the study’s recommendations or exclude a potentially useful solution.
3. Is there a distinction between considering the tract in an alternatives analysis and phased campus plan versus preparing preliminary designs specifically for that property?
4. If neither is permitted, may the tract appear on the campus map solely as future-development context, clearly identified as outside the TSET-funded scope?

1 - As provided in the Applicant Eligibility section of the RFA, the project area or property that will be the focal point of the project must be owned by the applicant organization at the time of submitting the grant application. The RFA does not include an exception to the ownership requirement for lease-purchase agreements. TSET cannot respond to questions about whether an applicant organization's specific project is eligible for a TSET grant. Potential applicants should read the TSET RFA to determine if the applicant organization's project aligns with the TSET mission and the specific RFA's scope of work. If you have questions about whether your specific lease-purchase agreement makes you the property owner at the time of grant application, please consult your legal counsel.

2 - As provided in the Applicant Eligibility section of the RFA, the project area or property that will be the focal point of the project must be owned by the applicant organization at the time of submitting the grant application. The RFA does not include an exception to the ownership requirement. The RFA defines the "project site" as "a specific site or geographic area, where an eventual construction project is to be undertaken as a result of completed planning and/or design documents." In evaluating a proposal, applicants should consider whether the planning would treat the tract as the site where the resulting plans contemplate eventual improvements, and, if so, how that is consistent with the requirement that the focal-point property be owned by the applicant at the time of application rather than at a later date. TSET cannot respond to questions about whether an applicant organization's specific project is eligible for a TSET grant. Potential applicants should read the TSET RFA to determine if the applicant organization's project aligns with the TSET mission and the specific RFA's scope of work.

Under Funding Opportunity 092-BEPAC27 – Construction Implementation for Physical Activity, Track 1: Parks and Open Spaces, for an integrated construction project containing several outdoor recreation components, must engineer-stamped plans, grading and drainage assessments, permits, and final contractor specifications be completed before application submission?

Alternatively, may certain technical documents be finalized after an award, provided the project meets TSET's shovel-ready requirements and can begin construction within 75 days of the July 1, 2027 grant start date?

Question 1: No, but the more that gets done early the less for you to complete later.

Question 2: Yes.

Under Funding Opportunities 092-BEPAC27 – Construction Implementation for Physical Activity and 092-BEPAPD27 – Planning and Design for Physical Activity, may an eligible nonprofit submit separate applications for outdoor recreation construction under Track 1 and future parking, ADA accessibility, and pedestrian circulation planning under Track 2, on different portions of the same organization-owned property?

If the property already provides functional public access, would documentation demonstrating that the outdoor recreation construction project can operate independently of the proposed parking improvements satisfy TSET's requirement that the two projects be distinct?

Based on the information provided, there is insufficient detail to determine whether the two proposed projects, submitted under separate applications, meet the requirements of the RFA.

Question 1: Under Funding Opportunity 092-BEPAC27 – Construction Implementation for Physical Activity, Track 1: Parks and Open Spaces, would construction of a permanent open-air pavilion qualify as an allowable component of a larger outdoor recreation project if the pavilion is primarily used for outdoor exercise classes, group physical activities, and shaded rest areas for individuals participating in recreation?

Question 2: Are there restrictions on the pavilion's size or proportion of the overall construction budget?

Question 1: Yes.

Question 2: No.

Under Funding Opportunity 092-BEPAC27 – Construction Implementation for Physical Activity, Track 1: Parks and Open Spaces, the published Q&A indicates that TSET prefers refurbishment of existing sports courts.

If an eligible nonprofit does not currently have an outdoor sports court, would construction of a new multipurpose basketball/tennis court still qualify for consideration, provided it is publicly accessible and supported by documented community need?

Yes.

Question 1: Under Funding Opportunity 092-BEPAC27 – Construction Implementation for Physical Activity, Track 1: Parks and Open Spaces, may an eligible 501(c)(3) nonprofit include multiple complementary outdoor recreational improvements within a single construction grant application?

For example, our proposed project would include an outdoor multipurpose basketball/tennis court, inclusive playground, permanent open-air pavilion, accessible walking paths, and related site preparation and safety improvements.

All components would be located on organization-owned property and developed as one integrated, publicly accessible outdoor recreation area.

Question 2: Would TSET consider these improvements one eligible construction project with an itemized budget, or would separate applications be required?

Question 1: Yes, as long as your proposed project meets all other RFA requirements.

Question 2: Each application may include one or more projects when all projects are located on a single project site, or when two sites are connected, adjacent, or contiguous to one another. Applications with projects that span across separate, detached sites, such as infrastructure improvements for two unconnected playgrounds will not be considered for review. If your project fulfills this criteria and other RFA requirements, then separate grant applications will not be required and only one detailed budget will need to be completed and submitted with the grant application.

I’m seeking clarification on applicant eligibility for the FY27 BEPA Planning Grant.

Our organization is a Tulsa-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit exploring planning and design improvements for an existing public outdoor space owned by River Parks Authority. We have permission to explore improvements to the site and are interested in applying for a separate project.

Given the RFA’s property ownership requirement, could SK8 DATE serve as the applicant with written authorization from River Parks, even though we do not own the property? Additionally, would River Parks pursuing a separate TSET application affect our eligibility to apply for this project?

Thank you for your guidance!

As provided in the Applicant Eligibility section of the RFA, The project area or property that will be the focal point of the project must be owned by the applicant organization at the time of submitting the grant application. The RFA does not provide an exception for a non-owner who has permission of a property owner. TSET cannot respond to questions about whether an applicant organization's specific project is eligible for a TSET grant. Potential applicants should read the TSET RFA to determine if the applicant organization's project aligns with the TSET mission and the specific RFA's scope of work. If you have questions about your authorization or property arrangement, or about which organization should serve as the applicant, please consult your legal counsel.

We have a permanent Vietnam Wall (Oklahoma's official Vietnam Wall) and Veterans Park with an Educational Center and outside static displays at Woodring Airport. We want to apply for this grant to place concrete pads under all the outdoor static equipment and make the park ADA compliant with new sidewalks connecting all the exhibits. We have a rendering ready and the grant paperwork started but have a question? If the City of Enid owns the land that we are on but leases it out to us, is this a project that the grant would consider. We have a tobacco free policy for our veterans park, but since we don't own the land, can we partner with the City of Enid if they don't have a tobacco free policy?

As provided in the Applicant Eligibility section of the RFA, the project area or property where the project will be located must be owned by the applicant organization at the time of submitting the grant application. The RFA does not include an exception to the ownership requirement for leased property; a project located on property not owned by the applicant at the time of application is listed among projects that will not be considered. Applications may be supported by partners, but the eligibility requirements (including the ownership and conforming tobacco-free policy) are required of the applicant; whoever is the applicant must both own the property and have a tobacco-free policy. TSET cannot respond to questions about whether an applicant organization's specific project is eligible for a TSET grant. Potential applicants should read the TSET RFA to determine if the applicant organization's project aligns with the TSET mission and the specific RFA's scope of work. If you have questions about your ownership or lease arrangement, or about whether either entity should apply, please consult your legal counsel.