Scores and Comments

Village of Wellington

Application Details

Proposal TypeCultural Facilities - Renovation
Request Amount
Total Score849.000
Average Score84.900

Panelist Scores

Panelist ScopeOfWork MatchingFunds ProjectImpact Total
Benson Lois 25 20 25 70
Davis LaVon Bracy 27 28 34 89
Deratany Tim 26 25 36 87
Dickenson Katharine 26 28 36 90
Fraser Towson 28 29 37 94
Lochrie Glenn 24 24 36 84
McMath Hope 23 26 30 79
Olson Terry 20 27 30 77
Townsend Kathryn 24 26 32 82
Williams Pat 29 29 39 97


Benson Lois - Score: 70.000
I believe this grant is not eligible because it does not include a mission statement. It is fully government funded with no local individual donors.
Davis LaVon Bracy - Score: 89.000

The need is present however I would have liked to read more detail about impact and partnering with the underserved community in an effort to expose to the arts. I read how some of the local groups will continue to utilize this facility and how this renovation will add to the marketability. However, I would have liked to read more about partnerships and exposure. I would have also liked more detail regarding how this facility will reach people who would not have had the opportunity to enjoy the arts that are offered but for the Village of Wellington’s efforts.

Deratany Tim - Score: 87.000
{No comments provided.}
Dickenson Katharine - Score: 90.000

good grant. Very nice Division comments about your recent FY17 Grant Audit. 

Do you have a full time Arts Programmer?

The Village of Wellington is far seeing and quite correct in realizing the value of arts programming increases property values.


Fraser Towson - Score: 94.000
{No comments provided.}
Lochrie Glenn - Score: 84.000
Well written grant. Would have liked to hear any plans around accessibility. The impact of this grant was not shown, I understand the want just not the need. A detailed schedule, costs, and plans are still unknown. Only shown estimates in the application. Only gov money being spent, why no community or corporate partnerships?
McMath Hope - Score: 79.000

What is balance of arts programming vs. rental events, art related vs. not art related?

Would like a more detailed timeline...most of timeline relates to grant process vs. construction process.

Would like to have seen additional donors involved from private or corporate sectors.

Glad to see increase in personnel to oversee this space and the community center.

I don't see any architectural drawings beyond identifying the space in a much larger context?  It is making it difficult to understand the nature of the 'back of house' changes and reconcile these with the increase in programs and quality of programs discussed in grant.

Good diversity in who submitted support letters, but form letters don't give me a sense of what the space means to them and their stakeholders.

Olson Terry - Score: 77.000

Do you charge arts groups or not?   You wrote, "The Village provides use of the amphitheater and arts programming at no cost to the residents of the community. Arts groups are able to work with the Village in coordinating performances and events. The Village offers rental for performances."  That seems contradictory.

With a flat lawn and not a very high stage, I'd think improving sight lines would be a more immediate need.  There were no architectural drawings to indicate the current state house (which appears to have back stage and side stage buildings) nor what the improvements would be.  I don't even see anywhere what the square footage would be.  I'm not sure what the public would be getting for the money spent.

And how do equestrian events relate to the amphitheater?  Do people coming for equestrian events during the day want to go to a concert/play/dance at night?  

Townsend Kathryn - Score: 82.000
Like that "pay as you go" philosophy!
Williams Pat - Score: 97.000
{No comments provided.}