Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montgomery County officials press for clear plan as grants office outlines legacy renewals and tighter targeting
Summary
The county’s grants director told the Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee that legacy renewals will provide about $4.7 million to 102 organizations for another year, while the office moves to more targeted competitions and a multistage FY26 application process. Council members demanded a written strategic plan and firmer timelines.
Montgomery County’s Office of Grants Management outlined steps to stabilize nonprofit funding and speed future competitions, saying the county executive intends one-year legacy renewals for roughly 102 organizations while the office redesigns grant competitions to be more targeted.
"A 98.18 out of 100 score was the average winning score," said Rafael Camillo Fuent Murphy, director of the Office of Grants Management, describing how competitive the FY24 community grants round was and why the process took about 10 months. Murphy said the county had about $5,300,000 available for community grants in FY24, which was quickly allocated given the volume and quality of proposals.
Murphy told the Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee that the county executive has identified leftover FY24 funds and FY25 resources to provide one additional year of funding—about $4,700,000 total—to legacy recipients so organizations are not cut off immediately before the fiscal year end. "Those programs are continuing to be implemented going through," Murphy said, adding that the renewals would be "subject to council appropriations, of course, and subject to performance."
The office is also planning changes to future competitions. Murphy said the county intends to continue three-year multiyear awards through FY27 where appropriate, but will introduce targeted "pots" of money for specific topics (for example, youth services or mental health) and limit eligibility to speed review and better match subject-matter expert reviewers to applications.
"If we want to do mental health, let's do mental health instead of parameters around it," Murphy said, arguing that narrower eligibility will reduce the number of applications and allow reviewers with relevant expertise to evaluate proposals more quickly.
Council leaders pressed the executive branch and OGM for more transparency and an actionable timeline. "This administration has no plan," a council member said during the meeting, adding that nonprofit partners are experiencing instability and need clarity. Chair Stewart said the committee has repeatedly asked for a strategic plan and demanded the executive transmit one for council review.
Council members sought specifics on timing and payment mechanics. Murphy said OGM will open a special module in its grants platform so legacy awardees can submit updated contact information, scopes of work and budgets; once grant agreements are executed the office will issue direct purchase orders and, depending on the award size, make upfront payments. Murphy said smaller grants (under $25,000) typically receive full upfront payment; larger grants receive an initial tranche (around 40%), with additional tranches tied to reporting and performance.
On cost-sharing capital grants, Murphy said the county will prioritize projects that demonstrate state matches and will use a two-stage application process for FY26: a short, first-stage module to confirm state awards and basic eligibility followed by a more detailed second-stage submission for applicants that advance. The office expects a more manageable pool when limited to state-matched requests and estimated results roughly a month after the application window closes, subject to Chief Administrative Officer signoff.
Council members asked OGM to recruit and share the names of reviewers for the FY25 cost-sharing review within two weeks; Murphy said reviewer recruitment is standard practice and that reviewers are typically county department staff with relevant experience. He also said OGM intends to hand off awards to departments (for example, DGS for capital grants) for oversight after the grant award process is complete.
Several council members requested an analysis of legacy grants to determine whether particular awards should move into departmental base budgets or be clustered into new, focused grant programs. They asked that analysis be provided before budget submission so committees of jurisdiction can assess candidates for base-budget inclusion.
Murphy also said OGM is assisting an internal county risk assessment of federal exposure related to grants and that the county attorney will handle detailed questions on that effort.
The committee did not take formal votes on policy changes during the session. Chair Stewart closed the meeting after thanking OGM staff and nonprofit partners for their participation.
