Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee recommends $62,000 in community support grants; supervisors question conservancy funding and discuss tourism match
Summary
The Community Services Grant Advisory Committee recommended roughly $62,000 in FY2027 community support grants across about 20 organizations; supervisors raised concerns after press reports that the Historic Virginia Land Conservancy backed a large housing project and proposed using tourism funds and county fundraising support to match local cultural group requests.
Dr. Walt Akers, reporting for the Community Services Grant Advisory Committee, presented the committee’s FY2027 recommendations and the process by which applications were evaluated and balanced across districts.
The committee recommended allocations totaling about $62,000 to a range of local nonprofits, prioritizing shelter services, behavioral-health supports and targeted community programs. Dr. Akers said the committee balances individual panel members’ recommendations and attempts to leverage other funding sources: “A lot of these guys can get grants from the federal government, but a lot of them are matching grants ... anything that we give them, it actually goes a lot farther than you would think,” he said.
The board discussed several individual recommendations. The 1781 Foundation submitted a new request to support York County’s 250th events; the committee flagged the request as a one‑time event and noted possible tourism‑fund matches. The board also discussed a matching approach for the Fife & Drum corps’ HVAC and headquarters needs, with one supervisor suggesting tourism funds as a better fit than the community grants line.
A substantive point of contention arose over the Historic Virginia Land Conservancy (HVLC). One supervisor said he was "particularly disappointed to see them in the press this past weekend recommending rather large housing complex" and questioned whether the conservancy’s support aligned with its historic‑preservation mission. Multiple supervisors said they would withhold or reconsider funding until HVLC clarifies its position or provides requested supplemental information; one supervisor reported he had reached out to the conservancy’s CEO and received no response.
The committee suggested a county role beyond direct grants: training and publicity for existing library grant‑search databases to help small nonprofits increase fundraising capacity. Dr. Akers proposed the county could publicize and possibly host training on donor‑database resources so organizations could “get out there and make some requests” themselves rather than relying solely on county allocations.
Dr. Akers said that, after balancing requests, the subtotals for the committee amount to approximately $62,000 and that many groups leveraged county funds to attract additional support. He said he would post the committee’s materials online and follow up on specific unanswered items (HVLC response, specific UPC clarifications requested during the VDOT update).
The board thanked the committee and asked staff to pursue the follow‑up items; several supervisors expressed support for matching tourism funds to cultural events and for helping nonprofits improve fundraising capacity.
