Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grants Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident consultant apologizes after submitting multiple grant applications; commissioners raise concerns about process
Summary
A local consultant told commissioners she submitted several grant applications for county departments without prior notice; commissioners expressed concern about lack of budget oversight and asked to coordinate future applications through staff and the commission.
A local consultant who identified herself in the meeting as representing Freedom Brave Consulting addressed the commission Oct. 21 to explain and apologize for submitting multiple grant applications on behalf of county departments without first coordinating with commissioners.
She described several pending applications, including a Department of Commerce METAP application for vehicles and fire‑equipment funding. The consultant said the METAP program uses a first‑come, first‑served process and described reimbursements as generally processed within 30 days after receipt submission. She added she had also pursued federal discretionary funding leads for public‑safety infrastructure and other private foundation opportunities.
Commissioners expressed frustration that they had not been informed before applications were submitted and that some of the requested items (notably a $75,000 reimbursement match and a proposed $440,000 fire truck allocation mentioned in an application packet) had not been budgeted in the county general fund. Commissioners and staff stressed that high‑value purchases and grants requiring county matching or reimbursement commitments must be coordinated with the commission and routed through proper procurement and finance channels.
The consultant apologized repeatedly and offered to coordinate with county staff going forward; commissioners said they would not hold the applications against her but that future grant activity should be cleared with the county and follow procurement rules. Board members suggested the county “adopt” a process for using outside grant writers — by formally engaging a contractor or assigning work through county staff — and reaffirmed that reimbursements must run through county finance for audit purposes.
Why it matters: Uncoordinated grant applications can create budget commitments, trigger procurement rules and complicate audits; clear procedures ensure accountability and timely use of awarded funds.
What the meeting record shows: The consultant supplied copies of applications and said some awards remain pending; commissioners asked staff to review grant budget implications and to clarify whether county matching funds or interim payments are necessary. The board advised that awards and contracts must flow through county administrative controls.
Next steps: County staff to review outstanding grant submissions for budget and procurement implications and report back to the commission; commission signaled it will require staff coordination before any further external grant submissions are pursued on behalf of county departments.
