Scores and Comments
19.c.cf.200.249
City of Coral Springs
Application Details |
|
|---|---|
| Proposal Type | Cultural Facilities - Renovation |
| Request Amount |
$157,993
|
| Total Score | 837.000 |
| Average Score | 83.700 |
Panelist Scores
| Panelist | ScopeOfWork | MatchingFunds | ProjectImpact | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benson Lois | 20 | 15 | 30 | 65 |
| Davis LaVon Bracy | 27 | 27 | 35 | 89 |
| Deratany Tim | 15 | 27 | 39 | 81 |
| Dickenson Katharine | 28 | 29 | 36 | 93 |
| Fraser Towson | 29 | 29 | 35 | 93 |
| Lochrie Glenn | 20 | 25 | 36 | 81 |
| McMath Hope | 22 | 24 | 32 | 78 |
| Olson Terry | 28 | 26 | 32 | 86 |
| Townsend Kathryn | 25 | 26 | 35 | 86 |
| Williams Pat | 28 | 20 | 37 | 85 |
Comments |
|
|---|---|
| Benson Lois - Score: 65.000 | |
| There are a number of problems with this application. Primarily, the application uses previous roof replacement as a match. However, guidelines preclude using previous expenditures as a match. I believe this probably disqualifies this project. Of course I am a broken record. This project as all based on public money with no private fundraising. There are plenty of allowable vehicles for private donations to public entities, e.g. "Friends of..." | |
| Davis LaVon Bracy - Score: 89.000 | |
| There is no sense in bringing great art to a city if all people do not have access to that art. The ADA access upgrades seem to be of utmost importance. Indeed a need. | |
| Deratany Tim - Score: 81.000 | |
| confusing description of scope of work. | |
| Dickenson Katharine - Score: 93.000 | |
|
This is a well written grant with each request for funds clearly articulated as to work to be accomplished. The budget is reasonable for all the improvements to the Coral Springs Center for the Arts.I recall your grant last year was excellent as well. Earned income is impressive and the number of visitors is huge! |
|
| Fraser Towson - Score: 93.000 | |
| {No comments provided.} | |
| Lochrie Glenn - Score: 81.000 | |
| This grant seemed to go back and forth with details between the larger multi-year project and smaller phase this grant is requesting funds for. It was at times hard to follow and much of the support materials were speaking to the larger effort and not specific to this grants ask. The expense detail included line items that I don't think has anything to do with the requested phase and some line items seemed to be from phases that should have already been completed. This grant was really missing new architect plans and floor plans also pictures of what needs replacing. Show the wear and tear. Show the limited space. Great letters of support. | |
| McMath Hope - Score: 78.000 | |
|
I appreciate the need to replace things like assisted listening devices, signage, door locks, etc. (in previous request) and items like patching and painting walls, adding outlets, fixing damaged flooring, etc. but feel like organizations/cities should be including these kinds of items in an operational plan for facility repair and replacement. Are the architectural drawings included here from 1995? This grant was difficult to navigate. Trying to understand the activities of THIS proposal in comparison to past work, current work took too much work. There seems to be more emphasis on what has already happened instead of focusing on making a strong case for THIS grant. Another example of single donor support...city. There is a solid statement as to why donors can't be solicited. What is the reference to philanthropy in operating budget?
|
|
| Olson Terry - Score: 86.000 | |
| {No comments provided.} | |
| Townsend Kathryn - Score: 86.000 | |
| {No comments provided.} | |
| Williams Pat - Score: 85.000 | |
| {No comments provided.} | |