Scores and Comments

Central Florida Zoological Society, Inc.

Application Details

Proposal TypeCultural Facilities - New Construction
Request Amount
Total Score670.000
Average Score74.444

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


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