-
Job Description
Marketing Statement
Ride BART to a satisfying career that lets you both: 1) make a difference to Bay Area residents, and 2) enjoy excellent pay, benefits, and employment stability. BART is looking for people who like to be challenged, work in a fast-paced environment, and have a passion for connecting riders to work, school and other places they need to go. BART offers a competitive salary, comprehensive health benefits, paid time off, and the CalPERS retirement program.
Job Summary
AFSCME Pay Band E (Senior Grants Officer)
Annual Salary Range $116,530.67 (Minimum) - $151,489.49 (Maximum)
AFSCME Pay Band G (Principal Grants Officer)
Annual Salary Range $ 132,605.65 (Minimum) - $ 172,387.34 (Maximum)
Reports To
Manager of Grants and Funding Advocacy
Current Assignment
*Initial review of applications will begin on Monday, December 23, 2024.
This posting is to fill two (2) vacant positions at either a Senior Grants Officer or Principal Grants Officer level.
Come join the BART Funding Strategy Department and help fund the infrastructure that keeps the Bay Area moving! BART is currently seeking to fill two vacant positions at either the Senior Grants Officer or Principal Grants Officer level in the Grants & Funding Advocacy Division of the Funding Strategy Department, in the Office of Performance and Budget.
The Senior or Principal Grants Officer will oversee all phases of grant funding acquisition, playing a critical role in driving funding success for capital improvement projects at BART. You will work with a dynamic team and collaborate with various internal departments, including Planning, Real Estate, Infrastructure & Delivery, and Police to prepare grant applications and manage post-award grant activities. You will monitor grant specific deliverables and reports and ensure proper close-out of grants. You will also work with multiple external partners, including government agencies, to negotiate and execute funding agreements. In addition, the Senior or Principal Grants Officer will play a crucial role in funding advocacy at the local, state and federal level, including implementing strategies to secure funding commitments in county sales tax measures and collaborating with BART’s Government & Community Relations team on efforts related to funding opportunities and legislative advocacy. Periodically, the position may be required to work after hours to conduct presentations or attend grant related trainings and meetings.
Selection Process
This position is represented by American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Applications will be screened to assure that minimum qualifications are met. Those applicants who meet minimum qualifications will then be referred to the hiring department for the completion of further selection processes. The selection process for this position may include a skills/performance demonstration, a written examination, and/or an individual or panel interview.
Examples of Duties
Principal Grants Officer
Examples of Duties
Participates in the complex planning, development and implementation of the District’s external work to advocate for and secure grant funding.Oversees the development of grant strategies for potential projects; monitors and coordinates complex grant funding opportunities; creates and manages overall grant funding plans.Represents the District at a variety of external transportation related meetings.Monitors and coordinates grant funding opportunities and establishes grant funding agreements; creates and manages overall grant funding plans; manages multiple grants to ensure all expenses are allocated properly.Assists management and Board members to develop strategies and responses to issues and funding opportunities; responds to grant planning and development requests from Board members, management, and various external stakeholders; coordinates projects with internal planning and external staff to align grant applications and funding. Participates in the development of policies and procedures; makes recommendations for changes and improvements to existing standards and procedures; monitors work activities to ensure compliance with established policies and procedures; implements approved policies and procedures. Prepares and presents project and funding updates to external partners; prepares analytical and statistical reports and presentations on operations and activities for internal departments and external agencies; conducts complex technical analysis on current issues and trends; identifies resource needs and makes recommendations for change and improvements to existing standards and procedures.Provides oversight on funding of grant projects; identifies grant funding costs and sources; compiles actual project costs; performs financial, statistical and comparative analysis of actual and budgeted costs and projects cash flow requirements; conducts specialized analyses and studies related to the District's grant planning, development and implementation process. Participates in the preparation and administration of District-wide grant funded budgets; compiles and analyzes budget data; coordinates activities within other divisions and departments. Participates in the selection of assigned staff; provides or coordinates staff training. Attends and participates in professional group meetings; stays abreast of new trends and innovations in the field of financial analysis and program management. Senior Grants Officer
Examples of Duties
Coordinates drafting, technical analysis and submittal of grant applications, including securing letters of support and other supporting material as necessary.Performs a variety of complex planning, development, and implementation of the District’s external work to advocate for and secure grant funding. Assists in the development of grant strategies for active and potential projects; monitors and coordinates grant funding opportunities. Monitors and attends meetings of external funding agencies, providing information and insight to internal decision makers regarding relevant developments; represents BART at external funding agency commission meetings as needed and on technical working groups and advisory committees. Manages execution of grant funding agreements. Responds to grant planning and development requests from various internal and external stakeholders; coordinates projects with internal planning and external staff to align grant applications and funding. Participates in the development of policies and procedures; makes recommendations for changes and improvements to existing procedures and practices; as appropriate, implements approved policies and procedures. Prepares and presents project and funding updates to external partners; prepares analytical reports and presentations for internal departments and external agencies; conducts complex technical analysis on current funding issues and trends. Monitors funding plans, project cashflows, and total project costs (project estimate to complete) for assigned projects to identify potential funding and cashflow gaps that require additional funding. Contributes to Grant Development and Advocacy website; updates Funding Tracker and Capital Improvement Program. Coordinates and participates in District, department, or division organizational studies involving administrative or operational systems, procedures, functions, processes, and techniques. Trains assigned employees in their area of work including work methods, procedures, and techniques. Attends and participates in professional group meetings; stays abreast of new trends and innovations in the field of financial analysis and program management.
Minimum Qualifications
Principal Grants Officer
Education :
A Bachelor’s degree in public policy, public administration, business administration, finance, or a closely related field from an accredited college or university.
Experience :
Four (4) years of (full-time equivalent) verifiable professional grant development and planning experience including budgetary or financial analysis experience.
Substitution :
Additional professional experience as outlined above may be substituted for the education on a year-for-year basis. A college degree is preferred.
Senior Grants Officer
Education :
A Bachelor’s degree in public policy, public administration, business administration, finance, or a closely related field from an accredited college or university.
Experience :
Three (3) years of (full-time equivalent) verifiable professional grant development, legislative advocacy and/or planning experience including financial analysis experience.
Substitution :
Additional professional experience as outlined above may be substituted for the education on a year-for-year basis. A college degree is preferred.
Knowledge and Skills
Principal Grants Officer
Knowledge of :- Operations, services and activities of a comprehensive budget and financial control program
- Principles of supervision, training and performance evaluation
- Principles of financial and operational analysis
- Financial, statistical and comparative analysis techniques and formulas
- Principles and practices of project budget development, administration and control
- Principles and practices of financial project management and scheduling
- Methods and techniques for assessing performance against established objectives
- Current office procedures, methods and equipment including computers
- Applicable computer software applications
- Related Federal, State and local laws, codes and regulations
Skill in :- Performing complex financial, statistical, comparative and management analyses
- Establishing and implementing procedures for budget and project control
- Identifying funding sources for proposed and current projects
- Performing accurate complex financial calculations
- Developing, organizing and maintaining accurate financial records
- Interpreting complex computerized records and reports
- Interpreting complex contract provisions and change orders
- Interpreting and explaining District policies and procedures
- Preparing clear and concise financial and administrative reports
- Operating office equipment including computers and supporting word processing and spreadsheet applications
- Communicating clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing
- Establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of work
Senior Grants Officer
Knowledge of :- Financial, and comparative analysis techniques and formulas
- Principles and practices of project funding, plan development, and grant advocacy
- Methods and techniques for assessing performance against established objectives
- Current office procedures, methods and equipment including computers
- Applicable computer software applications
- Related Federal, State, and local laws and grant guidelines and requirements
- Performing complex financial, comparative and management analyses
- Identifying funding sources for proposed and current projects
- Assessing potential projects probability of success in securing potential grant opportunities
- Drafting compelling grant applications that meet the grant guidelines and requirements
- Performing accurate complex financial calculations
- Developing, organizing, and maintaining accurate grant records
- Interpreting complex computerized records and reports
- Interpreting and explaining District policies and procedures
- Preparing clear and concise grant reports, presentations, internal guidance, and other materials
- Operating office equipment including computers and supporting word processing and spreadsheet applications
- Communicating clearly, concisely, and coherently, both orally and in writing
- Establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of work
Equal Employment Opportunity GroupBox1
The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District is an equal opportunity employer. Applicants shall not be discriminated against because of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age (40 and above), religion, national origin (including language use restrictions), disability (mental and physical, including HIV and AIDS), ancestry, marital status, military status, veteran status, medical condition (cancer/genetic characteristics and information), or any protected category prohibited by local, state or federal laws.
The BART Human Resources Department will make reasonable efforts in the examination process to accommodate persons with disabilities or for religious reasons. Please advise the Human Resources Department of any special needs in advance of the examination by emailing at least 5 days before your examination date at employment@bart.gov .
Qualified veterans may be eligible to obtain additional veteran's credit in the selection process for this recruitment (effective Jan. 1, 2013). To obtain the credit, veterans must attach to the application a DD214 discharge document or proof of disability and complete/submit the Veteran's Preference Application no later than the closing date of the posting. For more information about this credit please go to the Veteran's Preference Policy and Application link at www.bart.gov/jobs .
The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) prides itself in offering best in class benefits packages to employees of the District. Currently, the following benefits may be available to employees in this job classification.
Highlights- Medical Coverage (or $350/month if opted out)
- Dental Coverage
- Vision Insurance (Basic and Enhanced Plans Available)
- Retirement Plan through the CA Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS)
- 2% @ 55 (Classic Members)
- 2% @ 62 (PEPRA Members)
- Reciprocity available for existing members of many other public retirement systems (see BART website and/or CalPERS website for details)
- 6.65% employer contribution up to annual maximum of $1,868.65
Closing Date/Time: Continuous -
ABOUT THE COMPANY
-
-
BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)
Show moreThe BART story began in 1946. It began not by governmental fiat, but as a concept gradually evolving at informal gatherings of business and civic leaders on both sides of the San Francisco Bay. Facing a heavy post-war migration to the area and its consequent automobile boom, these people discussed ways of easing the mounting congestion that was clogging the bridges spanning the Bay. In 1947, a joint Army-Navy review Board concluded that another connecting link between San Francisco and Oakland would be needed in the years ahead to prevent intolerable congestion on the Bay Bridge. The link? An underwater tube devoted exclusively to high-speed electric trains.
Since 1911, visionaries had periodically brought up this Jules Verne concept. But now, pressure for a traffic solution increased with the population. In 1951, the State Legislature created the 26-member San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Commission, comprised of representatives from each of the nine counties which touch the Bay. The Commission's charge was to study the Bay Area's long range transportation needs in the context of environmental problems and then recommend the best solution.
The Commission advised, in its final report in 1957, that any transportation plan must be coordinated with the area's total plan for future development. Since no development plan existed, the Commission prepared one itself. The result of their thoroughness is a master plan which did much to bring about coordinated planning in the Bay Area, and which was adopted a decade later by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
The BART Concept is Born
The Commission's least-cost solution to traffic tie-ups was to recommend forming a five-county rapid transit district, whose mandate would be to build and operate a high-speed rapid rail network linking major commercial centers with suburban sub-centers.The Commission stated that, "If the Bay Area is to be preserved as a fine place to live and work, a regional rapid transit system is essential to prevent total dependence on automobiles and freeways."
Thus was born the environmental concept underlying BART. Acting on the Commission's recommendations, in 1957, the Legislature formed the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, comprising the five counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo. At this time, the District was granted a taxing power of five cents per $100 of assessed valuation. It also had authority to levy property taxes to support a general obligation bond issue, if approved by District voters. The State Legislature lowered the requirement for voter approval from 66 percent to 60 percent.
Between 1957 and 1962, engineering plans were developed for a system that would usher in a new era in rapid transit. Electric trains would run on grade-separated right-of-ways, reaching maximum speeds of 75-80 mph, averaging perhaps 45 mph, including station stops. Advanced transit cars, with sophisticated suspensions, braking and propulsion systems, and luxurious interiors, would be strong competition to "King Car " in the Bay Area. Stations would be pleasant, conveniently located, and striking architectural enhancements to their respective on-line communities.
BART employees in the 1970s.
Hundreds of meetings were held in the District communities to encourage local citizen participation in the development of routes and station locations. By midsummer, 1961, the final plan was submitted to the supervisors of the five District counties for approval. San Mateo County Supervisors were cool to the plan. Citing the high costs of a new system-plus adequate existing service from Southern Pacific commuter trains - they voted to withdraw their county from the District in December 1961.
With the District-wide tax base thus weakened by the withdrawal of San Mateo County, Marin County was forced to withdraw in early 1962 because its marginal tax base could not adequately absorb its share of BART's projected cost. Another important factor in Marin's withdrawal was an engineering controversy over the feasibility of carrying trains across the Golden Gate Bridge.
BART had started with a 16-member governing Board of Directors apportioned on county population size: four from Alameda and San Francisco Counties, three from Contra Costa and San Mateo, and two from Marin. When the District was reduced to three counties, the Board was reduced to 11 members: four from San Francisco and Alameda, and three from Contra Costa. Subsequently, in 1965, the District's enabling legislation was changed to apportion the BART Board with four Directors from each county, thus giving Contra Costa its fourth member on a 12-person Board. Two directors from each county, hence forth, were appointed by the County Board of Supervisors. The other two directors were appointed by committees of mayors of each county (with the exception of the City and County of San Francisco, whose sole mayor made these appointments).
The five-county plan was quickly revised to a three-county plan emphasizing rapid transit between San Francisco and the East Bay cities and suburbs of Contra Costa and Alameda counties. The new plan, elaborately detailed and presented as the "BART Composite Report, " was approved by supervisors of the three counties in July 1962, and placed on the ballot for the following November general election.
The plan required approval of 60 percent of the District's voters. It narrowly passed with a 61.2 percent vote District-wide, much to the surprise of many political experts who were confident it would fail. Indeed, one influential executive was reported to have said: "If I'd known the damn thing would have passed, I'd never have supported it. "
The voters approved a $792 million bond issue to finance a 71.5 mile high-speed transit system, consisting of 33 stations serving 17 communities in the three counties. The proposal also included another needed transit project: rebuilding 3.5 miles of the San Francisco Municipal Railway. The new line would link muni streetcar lines directly with BART and Market Street stations, and four new Muni stations would be built.
The additional cost of the transbay tube -- estimated at $133 million -- was to come from bonds issued by the California Toll Bridge Authority and secured by future Bay Area Bridge revenues. The additional cost of rolling stock, estimated at $71 million, was to be funded primarily from bonds issued against future operating revenues. Thus, the total cost of the system, as of 1962, was projected at $996 million. It would be the largest single public works project ever undertaken in the U.S. by the local citizenry.
After the election, engineers immediately started work on the final system designs, only to be halted by a taxpayer's suit filed against the District a month later. The validity of the bond election, and the legality of the District itself, were challenged. While the court ruled in favor of the District on both counts, six months of litigation cost $12 million in construction delays. This would be the first of many delays from litigation and time-consuming negotiations involving 166 separate agreements reached with on-line cities, counties, and other special districts. The democratic processes of building a new transit system would prove to be major cost factors that, however necessary, were not foreseen.
-