Greenbelt staff propose one-time out-of-cycle grant on-ramp for new recognition groups

City staff asked the Greenbelt City Council during a work session to approve a formal procedure to consider first-time recognition-group project grant applications outside the regular annual grant cycle.

Nicole DeWald, arts supervisor, told the council that recognition groups have grown from 29 to 51 since fiscal year 2018 and that the recreation department needs a faster, fair way to onboard groups that appear midyear. She said staff propose an on-ramp that would let first-time project-grant applicants be evaluated immediately through a compressed review and routed to a single advisory board whose mission most closely aligns with the request.

"We would do a compressed version of the review process," DeWald said, adding that the applicant would pass through the recreation business office hub and be evaluated using the same rubric applied during the regular cycle to preserve fairness.

Greg Varda, a recreation staff lead, told the council that the budget already includes $36,500 in miscellaneous discretionary funds for council to use for midyear grants. He said project-grant recipients typically receive cash upfront and provide receipts for disbursement; staff recommended keeping the same evaluation criteria while speeding the process for isolated, first-time applicants.

Council members raised concerns about creating an incentive to bypass the annual schedule. "If we make it a lower number, it would incentivize them to go through the annual process for a larger award amount," Mayor Emmett Jordan said while facilitating debate about a possible lower cap for out-of-cycle awards.

Council member Amy Neesel suggested a distinct program name and smaller maximum award for out-of-cycle requests so the option would not simply become a substitute for the regular grant process. Council member Kristen Weaver and others said a lower cap (for example, staff discussed $2,500 as a possible option compared with the $5,000 regular project-grant cap) would push groups toward the annual cycle when they need more funding.

Staff emphasized safeguards: eligibility limited to first-time applicants (one out-of-cycle opportunity per group as proposed), use of the same scoring rubric, and referral to a single advisory board rather than convening the multi-board panel. Nicole DeWald said the intent is to be responsive while preserving fairness and preventing politicized decisionmaking.

Public commenters supported the current, panel-based review process as a check against favoritism. Jay Davis told the council the system "takes that out of council's hand until the very final approval, which is during the budget process." Bob Brand, a resident and board member, urged simplifying financial-reporting requirements for some nonprofits to reduce administrative burden.

Key clarifying details from staff: - Discretionary midyear funds: $36,500 (already budgeted). - Regular project-grant cap: $5,000. - Proposed match for first-time project recipients: staff discussed easing to a 50¢ on the dollar (50%) match to improve accessibility; program-wide match rules remain in effect for subsequent awards. - Operating grants require 501(c)(3) status; project grants are available to not-for-profit groups (501(c)(3) not strictly required) using a fiscal sponsor when needed.

Next steps: staff will revise the memo based on council feedback (including suggested caps and reporting expectations) and bring language back for council consideration at a future meeting. No formal council action or vote occurred during the work session.