Scores and Comments

21.c.ps.170.375

Enterprise Preservation Society, Inc.

Application Details
Proposal Type	General Program Support - Discipline-Based
Request Amount	$7,000
Total Score	589.000
Average Score	84.143

Panelist Scores

Panelist	Excellence	Impact	Management	Accessibility	Total
Baker Holly	38	26	19	10	93
Falwell Kerry	36	26	16	8	86
Hipschman Dorrie	28	25	20	8	81
Horowitz Sharon	32	29	19	10	90
McLane Preston	32	25	15	8	80
Overton Robert	32	25	17	9	83
Tomor Michael	32	23	13	8	76

Comments
Baker Holly - Score: 93.000
I appreciate all that the Enterprise Preservation Society has accomplished, and with no paid staff. The dedication of your volunteers is admirable. It would be wonderful if you could somehow extend your hours in the future so that more people can visit.
Falwell Kerry - Score: 86.000
More detail in the accessibility and collections section would have strengthened the application.
Hipschman Dorrie - Score: 81.000
Timeline is outside of grant period. Goals and objectives are not well described in relation to the grant request. Accessibility should include more than simply physical access.
Horowitz Sharon - Score: 90.000
{No comments provided.}
McLane Preston - Score: 80.000
Timeline does not reflect activities that will occur during the FY2021 grant period. It is not clear how much of the stated programming is arts/culture/or history related. The small nature of this organization, with no paid management staff is noted.
Overton Robert - Score: 83.000
{No comments provided.}
Tomor Michael - Score: 76.000
Excellence: I'm not getting a clear picture of what EPS is doing to preserve the identity, history and interests of Enterprise residents while I do see how it is preserving the rural character of the region in their projects and tours (adopt a road, bike tours). The timeline is for 2019-20, not 2020-21. Collection summary is a bit vague. What is in the permanent local history exhibit and travelling exhibits. The Steamboat Salon Series is a lecture series program and looks well balanced, somewhat. Impact: Impact statement is pretty vague as well. It is unclear what the impact is, although they are attempting to make a greater impact during the grant cycle. Marketing and promotion and development is modest. No Evaluation plan. Management: All funds requested are to drive fundraisers, and although it is stated the fundraisers have a community engagement program in the facility (local artists on view, etc.) I'm not sure of its impact or significance. The total project costs represents the almost the entire amount of this fiscal year's budget not including in-kind. Not convinced of next fiscal year's budget projections increasing? ADA - no description of how the programs are accessible to all members of the general population. Does this include the blind, or signing for the hearing impaired for example? Being able to attend is not the equivalent of being accessible in terms of ADA compliance. Perhaps a further explanation is needed.