Adams County clarifies relationship to outside ‘funding catalyst’ as Right at Home pilot advances

Adams County Board of County Commissioners · February 11, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County staff told commissioners the new funding-catalyst nonprofit was created independently by a contractor (SHG) and that Adams County has not provided seed money; commissioners pressed for the contractor’s report, clearer governance rules and protections to avoid optics or competition with local nonprofits.

Adams County commissioners spent a follow-up study session probing how the county should relate to an outside contractor-created nonprofit called a “funding catalyst,” and how that nonprofit ties to the privately funded Right at Home pilot aimed at targeted eviction prevention.

County staff said the contractor SHG was hired through an open RFP to conduct an environmental scan of funding options and that the county did not create, control or seed the new 501(c)(3). “It’s not our nonprofit,” said Dionne, a county staff member, seeking to dispel a key confusion among commissioners. “We are not in charge of that nonprofit.”

The board’s concern centered on process and optics: at least one commissioner said the county had paid for a study and then saw the consultant use that work to fashion its own fundraising nonprofit, which raised questions about whether the deliverable was the assessment the county expected or a vendor-developed business plan. Commissioners asked staff to provide the contractor’s full report and a list of whom the contractor had approached in the local nonprofit community.

Staff described the funding catalyst as a mechanism to attract private and corporate donors for programs such as hospital diversion, solar installation tied to workforce development, and business beautification. Staff emphasized that the county’s role would be advisory or recommending priorities, not fiscal control. “We have influence, but we don’t have ownership,” staff said, noting the county’s intent would be to help align donor priorities with county needs through advisory seats or similar arrangements.

The conversation also addressed the Right at Home pilot, a separately funded national initiative focused on eviction prevention and wraparound supports. Matt, a county staff member, told the board the Right at Home pilot is privately financed and that communities selected for the program could expect substantial private investment; staff said Right at Home had indicated a range of about $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 for communities like Adams and Denver and that funds would be routed through the region’s continuum of care. Metro Denver Homelessness Initiative (MDHI) was identified as the continuum and fiscal agent for the Right at Home pilot in Adams County.

Staff said the University of Notre Dame will conduct an evaluation of the Right at Home pilot. By contrast, the funding catalyst is intended as a longer-term mechanism that could sustain services after a pilot ends, potentially through fee-for-service arrangements or private-donor campaigns that would not be carried on the county’s books.

Commissioners pressed several governance and ethics questions: whether county staff should serve on an advisory board or board of directors, whether staff time would amount to an in-kind subsidy, and how to avoid confusing county endorsement with county control. One commissioner asked whether the county should solicit other nonprofits to take on the catalyst role rather than defaulting to the SHG-created entity; staff said they would provide a list of organizations SHG had approached and that board members could decide if they wanted to endorse working with the SHG catalyst or seek another route.

There were no votes or formal decisions in the session. Staff committed to provide the contractor’s report, share the whiteboard/system map used in the meeting, return with a presentation on the Right at Home pilot, and discuss whether issuing an RFP for a community fund makes sense. The meeting included a scheduled executive session to review legal parameters.

The discussion left two clear distinctions: Right at Home is a privately funded pilot with MDHI as fiscal agent, and SHG’s funding catalyst is a privately created nonprofit that the county may advise or endorse but does not control or fund. Commissioners asked staff to return with the contractor report and a clearer governance proposal before any formal county endorsement or advisory commitments are made.