Buncombe County grants panel reviews 76 FY27 applications; legal and budget checks underway

Chair Brandon opened a meeting of the committee and introduced a newly seated member, Charlie Beck, before staff led a detailed walkthrough of the county’s FY27 grant process.

Staff said the county received 76 applications for the FY27 strategic partnerships grant program, with six applying under the smaller up-to-$10,000 option and 70 under the larger option. A staff presenter explained the office performed a preliminary screening and found at least one duplicate entry caused by a fiscal sponsor relationship; staff will check Secretary of State and IRS records to confirm nonprofit status before final scoring.

A key focus for the committee was eligibility. Charlie Beck, a new committee member who said he reviewed the submissions, asked whether applications focused on early childhood education should be excluded under the program’s guidelines and whether capital improvements — including solar installations or ADA restroom work — should be eligible. Staff clarified the grant rules exclude capital campaigns but allow capital equipment and smaller capital expenditures such as plumbing fixtures; high-cost capital projects (for example, multi‑thousand‑dollar solar installations) may not pass county legal review.

Staff also told members that county attorneys are conducting a legal review of every application for county authority. "There is something in the constitution of the state of North Carolina that prohibits public money going to a private purpose," staff said, and legal flagged submissions that might involve private schools or similar private purposes for closer review.

Committee members raised concerns about incomplete budget worksheets. As one member put it, "Attached in the submissions was a budget worksheet to be filled out. Was it an expectation that those were supposed to come with the submission? Because I'll tell you 90% of the folks didn't fill it out," which staff confirmed is an issue the team will address. Staff demonstrated how reviewers can open uploaded budget documents in the application software, add comments, and track staff budget-review notes; staff said they will perform a methodical budget review in March and annotate reviewer comments in the system.

On scoring, staff said eight evaluators will produce averaged scores that determine initial rankings. Partial funding is not permitted under the program rules; if top projects concentrate in one geography or category the committee expects to hold a balancing conversation among finalists rather than redistributing scores automatically. Staff also reported category counts were heavily concentrated in health and human services/community health (about half the applications), but emphasized that category volume does not guarantee proportional funding.

Members asked whether applicants used artificial intelligence to craft responses and whether that affects scoring. Staff and members noted signs that AI-generated wording appears in some submissions and suggested the committee consider whether application questions or character limits should be revised in future cycles. The committee also discussed language access; staff reminded members a Spanish version of the application and translation support have been made available and past Spanish submissions were translated for reviewers when requested.

Staff reminded the committee that the scoring deadline is March 31; staff will download final scores the following day and include results in the packet for the April 2 meeting so members may study the rankings before a final recommendation is developed. The chair called for a motion to adjourn and ended the meeting by voice consent.

The committee’s next meeting is scheduled for April 2 at 1:00 p.m. (hybrid).