Scores and Comments
19.c.cf.300.193
Central Florida Zoological Society, Inc.
Application Details |
|
|---|---|
| Proposal Type | Cultural Facilities - New Construction |
| Request Amount |
$100,000
|
| Total Score | 670.000 |
| Average Score | 74.444 |
Panelist Scores
| Panelist | ScopeOfWork | MatchingFunds | ProjectImpact | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benson Lois | 25 | 12 | 30 | 67 |
| Davis LaVon Bracy | 27 | 23 | 29 | 79 |
| Deratany Tim | 20 | 10 | 35 | 65 |
| Dickenson Katharine | 26 | 20 | 30 | 76 |
| Fraser Towson | 25 | 25 | 35 | 85 |
| Lochrie Glenn | 22 | 22 | 28 | 72 |
| McMath Hope | 20 | 20 | 20 | 60 |
| Olson Terry | 27 | 25 | 36 | 88 |
| Townsend Kathryn | ||||
| Williams Pat | 18 | 30 | 30 | 78 |
Comments |
|
|---|---|
| Benson Lois - Score: 67.000 | |
| You indicated that the architectural design and development is complete. However, you claim as a $70,000 in-kind match. No donors are listed in support of this project. | |
| Davis LaVon Bracy - Score: 79.000 | |
|
This application makes very broad strokes. The application makes mention of in kind services and labor but I don't see any documentation to verify or support this. The community impact is vague. It was not clear on what community in particulate this project serves and how it makes an impact. It would have been helpful if this applicant named its partnerships. This application lacks detail.
|
|
| Deratany Tim - Score: 65.000 | |
| $70,000 inkind for an Architect for this project and as part of the match on a $300,000 project is questionable. | |
| Dickenson Katharine - Score: 76.000 | |
|
I am concerned that the grant from last year has not been executed.Why is that? My score is going to reflect that concern. The nightime activities at the Zoo are clever and a full lighting system would help. What is the attendance at the sleepovers? Any safety concerns etc.? I saw a figure of $400 for the costs on the electricity bill. Is that for the month or for the year.
|
|
| Fraser Towson - Score: 85.000 | |
| {No comments provided.} | |
| Lochrie Glenn - Score: 72.000 | |
| The Need for Project and Project Impact sections were lacking any details or estimates of the impact. What are the projected ticket sales? How many more visitors if the project is complete? Measurable outcomes and goals are always encouraged. List the additional programming that can take place at night? Would have liked to hear more about the programming planned and outreach to schools and other community organizations. The audit is from 2015. Need more recent. Was match of architectural services already performed? Match needs to be in grant period. | |
| McMath Hope - Score: 60.000 | |
|
A worthy project, especially as it will allow for expanded hours, programming, and general access. BUT the grant provides so little information to describe the need (what do we know from audiences, best practices, etc.) or the impact of the project on operations, the tangible impacts on the community (or who your community even is) or really any real information. No description of matching funds and only one letter of support. Way too little information to garner competitive and limited state funds. |
|
| Olson Terry - Score: 88.000 | |
| Nice, simple and clear . . . except, there was no map or diagram to show us where these lights would go. | |
| Townsend Kathryn - Score: 0 | |
| {No comments provided.} | |
| Williams Pat - Score: 78.000 | |
|
Narrative lacks detail on financial and community impact. Application does not provide evidence of cultural programming.
|
|