Montgomery County committee presses executive for clear plan after competitive community grants leave nonprofits uncertain

Chair Stewart and members of the Montgomery County Council’s Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee urged the County Executive’s office to deliver a written strategic plan after a competitive FY24 community grants process left many local nonprofits unsure of funding prospects.

The committee heard a staff briefing from the Office of Grants Management that described the FY24 competition as unusually competitive — with an average winning score of 98.18 out of 100 — and outlined the executive branch’s intent to provide short-term support for legacy recipients while the county refines its grant strategy. Rafael Camiller, director of the Office of Grants Management, told the committee the county found leftover FY24 and FY25 funds to give one additional year of funding to about 102 legacy organizations, totaling roughly $4.7 million, and that the county intends to continue three‑year multiyear grants for newly awarded community grantees pending council appropriation and satisfactory performance.

The committee’s concern centered on stability and timing. Chair Stewart said, “I cannot go to a community meeting without some nonprofit or group in our community asking us, what are we doing with our community grants?” and later pressed officials that “we're gonna need a plan yesterday” given uncertainty among service providers. Members repeatedly asked for a concrete, public timeline, more transparency about how legacy recipients were selected for renewals, and how the county will assess whether individual programs should move into departmental base budgets.

Why it matters: nonprofit partners told council members the county’s protracted grant process makes planning difficult and threatens service continuity for residents who rely on those programs. Committee members said the executive branch’s written strategic plan should include clearer eligibility parameters, timelines tied to the county budget calendar, and review criteria showing how departments or grant panels will evaluate whether services should be absorbed into ongoing county budgets.

What the Office of Grants Management described Rafael Camiller, director of the Office of Grants Management, reviewed the FY24 competition timeline and results. He said the office opened a broad competition that drew many high‑quality applications and required extensive reviewer time; the competitive pool left several long‑standing partners below the award cutoff even though some scored in the high 90s. Camiller said the overall competitive pot for community grants was about $5.3 million and that the county is moving toward a more targeted approach in future cycles — dividing funding into topic‑specific “pots” (for example: youth services, aging/disability, natural resources) so subject‑matter expert reviewers can be better matched to applications.

Camiller also described administrative changes the office has made to improve communication and workflow, including monthly forums, a weekly newsletter, and migration to a new grants platform. He said the office allows up to 15% in indirect costs as a floor for grant awards and described the practical differences between grant agreements (cash upfront, permitted indirect costs) and procurement contracts (typically reimbursement‑based).

Legacy renewals and timing Camiller told the committee the County Executive’s office located leftover funds in FY24 and FY25 to provide one additional year of funding to approximately 102 legacy recipients (about $4.7 million total) so those programs would not be cut off immediately before the fiscal year ended. He said the executive intends to include funding for legacy renewals in the proposed FY26 budget, but that any continuations would be “subject to appropriation, of course, and subject to performance.” The director said the county will stop funding partners that fail to meet performance expectations and would recycle those funds to other priorities.

Committee members pressed for certainty about when legacy recipients could expect funds. Camiller said the office plans to open a special module in its grants platform to collect updated scopes of work, budgets and contact information, then execute grant agreements and issue funding (direct purchase orders or ACH transfers) as soon as the FY26 grant agreements are fully signed and the fiscal year begins (the director cited a target for FY26 grant agreements to be in place by the start of FY26). For smaller awards under the office threshold (roughly $25,000), the office currently provides full upfront payments; larger awards receive an initial tranche and subsequent tranches after progress reporting.

Cost‑sharing capital (state matched) grants The committee also discussed cost‑sharing capital grants that require state matches. Camiller said the office will prioritize state‑matched awards in future cycles to limit the applicant pool and shorten review times. He described a multistage application process: an initial simple eligibility stage (confirming a state award and basic contact info) followed by a second stage requesting full documentation. When the state finalizes capital awards, the office expects to open a module in its platform and to process state‑matched applicants in a targeted review that should be faster and smaller in volume than prior open calls.

Review panels and oversight Committee members asked who serves on review panels. Camiller said reviewers will be recruited from county departments with relevant experience (for example, Intergovernmental Relations, OMB, Department of General Services) and that award administration will be handed off to the supervising department (DGS for capital grants). For the FY25 cost‑sharing competition he said he expects roughly 15–20 eligible applications and teams of three reviewers per category; the office may use two such teams to separate arts from non‑arts applications for speed. The panel recommendations are forwarded to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) for final approval; Camiller said the CAO signs awards before notification letters issue.

Outstanding items and committee requests Council members asked the executive branch for an explicit, written strategic plan covering: (1) how the county will target grant pots and set eligibility for future competitions; (2) the schedule and timeline tied to the FY26 budget cycle; (3) the criteria and process for moving legacy grants into departmental base budgets where appropriate; and (4) a roster of reviewers who will participate in imminent cost‑sharing reviews so the council can review panel composition. The committee also asked that the Office of Grants Management proactively alert prior state award recipients when the county opens the cost‑sharing module and copy the county’s state delegation on that outreach.

The county attorney’s office is performing a concurrent risk assessment about federal exposure for county grants; OGM said the county attorney asked that questions about that legal review be directed to the county attorney.

Ending: next steps Committee members said they will continue oversight and requested the County Executive deliver a strategic plan and timeline for grants. The Office of Grants Management said it will share reviewer rosters, timelines for the cost‑sharing review, and information on the FY25/FY26 application modules so council members and nonprofit partners can plan ahead.