County staff proposes competitive nonprofit funding process with reporting and limits on award size

Gabrielle Gunn, director of Community and Social Services, presented a proposed nonprofit funding plan to the commissioners that would use a standing nonprofit funding committee and an OpenGov application process to score requests across categories including organizational capacity, project design, justification and sustainability.

Key features presented: a review committee (appointed staff member by the county manager, director of Community & Social Services and director of Grants), a scoring matrix, a guideline that grants should not exceed 25% of an organization’s operating budget to encourage sustainability, reporting and presentation requirements, and a timeline aiming to open applications in October with BCC approval of awards in December and contract execution in January. Gunn told the board the plan was influenced by lessons from prior ARPA nonprofit funding rounds.

Commissioners offered multiple edits and questions: add points or requirements for partnerships and matching funds; require applicants to provide social‑media or reference information for vetting; consider pre‑screening for completeness; adjust scoring to incentivize multi‑year experience; decide whether the board wants a themed funding cycle (the director suggested aligning the first round with county community health improvement plan priorities); and review the timeline to avoid gaps in nonprofits’ budgeting cycles. Staff confirmed statutory recurring funding (about $275,000) is separate from this discretionary round and identified current recipients and amounts.

Why it matters: County nonprofit funding distributes limited public funds across many competing human‑service needs; the proposed process aims to improve transparency, accountability, and alignment with county priorities while managing risk of reputational or programmatic mismatches.

What’s next: Staff will incorporate commissioner feedback (partnership/matching credit, vetting fields, timeline adjustments) and return a revised plan at the second June meeting for final direction.