The Community Foundation and the Common Ground advisory committee presented commissioners on Tuesday with recommendations from a competitive grant cycle that prioritized forest health and working‑lands projects but could not fully meet demand.

Anna Hendrix, director of purpose at the Community Foundation, explained the review process: applicants passed an initial screening, underwent site visits to fill information gaps, and were evaluated against a posted rubric. “One of the things we had decided to do is, you know, we always kinda have this place of, like, is there somebody that's really not gonna be competitive to move forward and maybe making eliminations. And then for everybody that was moving forward in the process, what are the gaps of information? So that's really what the site visits are about,” Hendrix said.

Ben Lentz, chair of the Homegrown advisory committee, told commissioners the CAC had been more engaged than in prior cycles and performed several site visits. “Our funding available is about 54% of the requests,” Lentz said, summarizing the committee’s challenge in allocating limited dollars across many high‑scoring applicants.

What was recommended: the packet and committee notes show a mix of project types earning support, including on‑the‑ground forest treatments (projects implemented or matched by Colorado Fire Camp, Colorado State Forest Service and others), irrigation infrastructure repairs for historic ditches that protect working farms and ranches, and conservation easements pursued by Central Colorado Conservancy. Several high‑scoring projects were recommended at scaled‑back amounts to spread limited dollars more broadly; some capital equipment requests — for example, a portable sawmill requested by a training program — were removed from recommendations because committee members considered them unsustainable in this funding round.

Why it matters: committee members weighted urgency and readiness, favoring projects that could be implemented quickly or that already had state or federal match. Hendrix said the CAC asked applicants to identify “minimum” funding levels that would still allow them to deliver usable outcomes; the committee avoided recommending awards that would leave applicants unable to proceed.

Not funded or deferred: a handful of applicants did not move past the pre‑application or were encouraged to reapply with more detailed proposals. Project types the CAC did not recommend for this cycle included several large capital‑equipment asks and some river restoration proposals where permitting and a broader watershed approach were judged necessary before awarding funds.

Next steps: the Community Foundation staff said they will provide feedback to unsuccessful applicants and invite a number of them to reapply in future cycles with stronger readiness information and permitting in place. Commissioners were also asked to consider the CAC recommendations on the consent agenda at a subsequent meeting.

Speakers listed in the meeting packet and quoted in this article are Anna Hendrix (Community Foundation, director of purpose) and Ben Lentz (Homegrown advisory chair).