Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grant Applications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advisory committee questions several new applicants and for‑profit bids, flags senior oral‑health request
Summary
Committee members reviewed roughly 35–36 grant applications, questioned why some providers applied as for‑profit entities and raised concerns about the scope and price of a senior oral‑health proposal that requested roughly $232,000.
Members of the Buncombe County Home and Community Care Block Grant Advisory Committee spent the bulk of the March 25 meeting vetting a larger-than-usual pool of applicants and flagging proposals that may not fit the supplemental funding mission.
Committee members said they received about 35–36 applications this cycle, up from 29 the prior year, and that several were first‑time applicants. Several members questioned why some providers registered as for‑profit businesses were applying for supplemental aging funds and whether certain requests were appropriate given limited county resources.
One application that drew extended scrutiny was an oral‑health program presented as SOS Asheville Senior Oral Health. Members said the applicant is organized as a for‑profit entity and requested a large amount (a committee member noted a figure near $232,000 in the application). Members pressed staff to clarify whether the program is delivering services to seniors who otherwise could access Medicaid dental care, whether the program proposes home visits or facility‑based care, and why the organization filed as for‑profit rather than nonprofit. Several members signaled openness to funding novel, small or grassroots programs but also said they would be reluctant to reallocate limited funds from well‑established local providers to expensive new entrants.
The group also discussed duplicate services and coordination among providers for home repair and housing stability: Land of Sky’s HUD‑contracted program can use higher per‑repair caps (noted up to $15,000 with waiver) while Mountain Housing and Habitat coordinate through a regional application system to avoid overlapping work on the same home. Staff and committee members asked county analysts to check per‑repair caps and interagency coordination before final allocations.
Committee members asked staff (Billy and others) to contact several applicants to confirm key program details, including whether applicants have certified options counselors versus offering only information and assistance, and to verify budget pages that seemed unclear. Members repeatedly emphasized stewardship of scarce county dollars and the desire to support effective grassroots initiatives while avoiding funding proposals that duplicate existing services or appear to overstate costs.
The committee will compile member recommendations and return them to staff by Saturday the 18th so the group can finalize allocations at the April 22 meeting.
