01 - February 9, 2021 RIPA Committee Agenda Package
Rural Initiatives/Planning Advisory Committee Meeting
Tuesday,February 9, 2021
2:30 P.M.
Meeting to be held electronically.
Agenda
1.Approval of Agenda
2. Approval of the Minutesfrom December 1, 2020
3.Community Grant Program Survey – Committee Review and Approval
i.Draft Final Report Template
ii.Draft Survey Questions
iii.Draft Funding Agreement (Walk-on)
4.Community Grant Program – Committee Feedback
5.RIPA Committee Involvement in the Official Plan – 5 Year Review(Committee
Discussion)
6.Correspondence
7.Date of Next Meeting
8.Adjournment
DRAFT MINUTES
Rural Initiatives/Planning Advisory Committee Meeting
Date: December 1, 2020
Location: Elgin County Administration Building, 450 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas
rd
Administrative Services Boardroom, 3Floor
Time:1:00 P.M.
Attendees:Members of the Rural Initiatives/Planning AdvisoryCommittee
Councillor Ed Ketchabaw (electronic)
Councillor Sally Martyn (electronic)
(electronic)
Heather Derks (electronic)
Warden Dave Mennill(electronic)
Elgin County Staff
Chief Administrative Officer, Julie Gonyou(in-person)
Supervisor of Legislative Services, Katherine Thompson (electronic)
Legislatives Services Coordinator, Carolyn Krahn(in-person)
1.Call toOrder
st
The Rural Initiatives/Planning Advisory Committee met this 1day of December, 2020
in the Administrative Services Boardroom, at the County Administration Building, St.
Thomasat 1:00 P.M. Committee Membersjoined the meeting electronically.
2.Approval ofAgenda
Moved by: Warden Mennill
Seconded by:Councillor Martyn
Resolved that the agenda be approved as presented.
Recorded Vote
YesNo
WardenDaveMennillYes
CouncillorDominiqueYes
CouncillorSallyMartynYes
HeatherDerksYes
CouncillorEdKetchabawYes
50
-Motion Carried.
3.Adoption of Minutes
Moved by: Councillor Giguère
Seconded by: Warden Mennill
Resolved that the minutes of the previous meeting be adopted.
Recorded Vote
YesNo
WardenDaveMennillYes
CouncillorDominiqueYes
CouncillorSallyMartynYes
HeatherDerksYes
CouncillorEdKetchabawYes
50
-Motion Carried.
4.Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof
None.
5.2021 Community Grant Program Requests
The Chair confirmed that Committee members judged the applications according to the
criteria set out in the Community Grant Packages.
The Chief Administrative Officer presented information regarding proposed 2021
Community Grant allocations.
Moved by:Warden Mennill
Seconded by:Heather Derks
RESOLVED THATthe funding request from the Port Stanley Optimists be denied; and
THAT the funding allocation for 4H be increasedto $2,000.
Recorded Vote
YesNo
WardenDaveMennillYes
CouncillorDominiqueNo
CouncillorSallyMartynYes
HeatherDerksYes
CouncillorEdKetchabawYes
41
-Motion Carried.
Moved by: Councillor
Seconded by: Warden Mennill
RESOLVED THAT the surplus funds be distributed equally among the three (3)
remaining Community Services applications – Second Stage Housing, STEAM Centre,
and Multi Service Centre.
Recorded Vote
YesNo
WardenDaveMennillYes
CouncillorDominiqueYes
CouncillorSallyMartynYes
HeatherDerksNo
CouncillorEdKetchabawYes
41
-Motion Carried.
Moved by: Warden Mennill
Seconded by: Councillor Martyn
RESOLVED THAT the application for the Dutton Night Market be rejectedas the
application doesnot meet the grant program criteria; and
THAT the funds be reallocated back into the Festival and Events Community Grant
Program.
Recorded Vote
YesNo
WardenDaveMennillYes
CouncillorDominiqueYes
CouncillorSallyMartynYes
HeatherDerksYes
CouncillorEdKetchabawYes
50
-Motion Carried.
Moved by: Warden Mennill
Seconded by: Councillor
RESOLVED THAT the funding allocation for the Plowmen’s Associationbe increasedto
$250, and the VON Seniors Day in the Parkallocation be increasedto $1,500; and
THAT the remaining allocations be adjusted to accommodate these increases.
Recorded Vote
YesNo
WardenDaveMennillYes
CouncillorDominiqueYes
CouncillorSallyMartynYes
HeatherDerksYes
CouncillorEdKetchabawYes
50
-Motion Carried.
Moved by: Councillor Martyn
Seconded by: Councillor
RESOLVED THAT the signage application be approved for the Periscope Playhouse in
the amount of $300.
Recorded Vote
YesNo
WardenDaveMennillYes
CouncillorDominiqueYes
CouncillorSallyMartynYes
HeatherDerksYes
CouncillorEdKetchabawYes
50
-Motion Carried.
6.Correspondence
The Chief Administrative Officer introduced the correspondence from Loyalist Township
to the Prime Minister of Canada andPremier of Ontario regarding funding for community
groups and serviceclubs affected by the pandemic.
The Committee directed staff to determine whether the federal and provincial
governments have announced funding for community groups and services clubs and to
present further information to Council if necessary.
7.New Business
The Chief Administrative Officer asked the Committee if they wished to request
additional funds from County Council for a second in-take of the Community Grant
Program in 2021.The Committee agreednot to request funding for a second in-take at
this time and to reconsider in March 2021.
The Committee agreed to ask applicants for feedback on the new grant program when
the letters confirmingthe2021 funding allocations are sent out.
The Committee will determine the 2021 meeting schedule at the first meeting of 2021.
8.Next Meeting Date
The next meetingwill be called after the feedback from the applicants has been received
in March or Aprilof 2021.
9.Adjournment
Moved by: Councillor Martyn
Seconded by:Councillor Mennill
Resolved that the meeting adjourn at2:05 p.m. to meet again in March or April of2021.
Recorded Vote
YesNo
WardenDaveMennillYes
CouncillorDominiqueYes
CouncillorMartynYes
HeatherDerksYes
CouncillorEdKetchabawYes
50
- Motion Carried.
Community Grant Program (CGP)
Final Report 2021
Background
Organization:___________________________________________________
Primary Contact:
Email: __________________________________________________
Phone: _________________________________________________
Please tell us which grant you received (check one):
Community Services – Seed Grant
Community Services – Cultivate Grant
Festival and Events – Seed Grant
Festival and Events – Cultivate Grant
How much funding did you receive from Elgin County in support of your program: $_______________
1.)Please briefly describe the program/service/festival/event that was funded through the Community
Grant Program (CGP).
2.)Please confirm how this funding was used (please select all that apply):
Supplies
Volunteer expenses
Professional fees
Direct Program Expenses
Comments:
3.)Please confirm that the CGP funding was NOT used for the following: operating expenses
(staffing/wages/benefits); capital projects; deficit reductions; or retroactive activity/program/event.
I confirm that CGP was not used for the aforementioned items.
I’m not sure.
Please indicate which expenses you are unsure of, and provide an explanation in the
comments section.
Operating Expenses
Capital Projects
Deficit reductions
Retroactive activity/program/event
I cannot confirm that CGP was not used for the aforementioned items.
Comments:
4.)Please briefly describe how successful your program/service/festival/event was.
5.)Please describe how successful you were in reaching your target audience (provide details if
possible, i.e. number of participants).
6.)Please tell us whether your program/service/festival/event was successful targeting areas of the
County facing greatest need or greatest inequities.
7.)Please describe how impactful your program/service/festival/event was (i.e. number of participants,
user impact statements, etc.)
8.)Did your program/service/festival/event increase participation and engage persons with disabilities?
Yes. Please tell us how in the comments section.
No. Please tell us why you weren’t able to accomplish this in the comments section.
Not sure. Please explain in the comments section.
Comments:
9.)Please tell us whether your program/service/festival/event followed the schedule and key dates that
you identified in your application. Please provide additional information/explanation if you made
changes to the schedule and key dates.
10.)Please let us know how the CGP supported the following:
Continued capacity of your organization;
Contribution to the sector; and
Your organization’s ability to achieve funding priorities and outcomes.
Comments:
11.)Please attach a financial statement with actual program/service/festival/event costs.
12.)Please attach or detail all available metrics or statistics that you used to measure the success of your
program.
13.)CULTIVATE ONLY: How successful were the changes you made to your
program/service/festival/event?
14.)How likely is your organization to apply for CGP funding in 2021?
Very likely
Unlikely
Not sure
Other: ____________________________________________________________________
15.) Optional – Please attach any supplemental information (e.g. organizational year end reports) to this
application.
Declaration:
Authorized Signature(s) (two (2) needed if not incorporated):
Name:_________________________________________
Position: _______________________________________
Signature:______________________________________
Name:_________________________________________
Position:_______________________________________
Signature:______________________________________
1
Community Grant Program
Draft Applicant Feedback Survey
In 2020, County Council launcheda new Community Grant Program (CGP). The CGP
invests in both established and emerging community programs and events that meet
identified community need, build capacity and support Elgin County’s Strategic Plan
2020-2022. Through this program, organizations and services can apply for
supplementary funds to strengthen their responsiveness, effectiveness and resilience.
The CGP was designedby the Rural Initiatives and Planning Advisory Committee
(RIPA) to ensure the process as a whole is fair and unbiased, aligns with Council’s
Strategic Plan including enhanced accountabilityand transparency. There are two (2)
funding streams, each with their own application package:
1.) Community Services(cultivate and seed); and
2.) Festivals and Events(cultivate and seed).
Survey
Thank you for your submission to the CGP. Your feedback is important to us!
The Rural Initiatives and Planning Advisory (RIPA) Committee is surveying all recent
applicants to assess the effectiveness of the new CGP. Feedback from those who
filled out the applicationis very important to us and the RIPACommitteewill use your
feedback and suggestions to inform any adjustments to the CGP before the next intake
in September 2021.
This survey will take you approximately 10 minutes to complete.
Community Grant Program
General Questions:(confirm which stream, how much $ applied for, and the amount of
time it took to fill out the application)
1.)Please tell us which Community Grant Program funding stream you applied for:
o Community Services – SEED(new program or service)
o Community Services – CULTIVATE (established program or service with
some changes)
o Festival and Events – SEED (new festival or event)
o Festival and Events – CULTIVATE (established program or service with
some changes)
2
2.)Approximatelymuch CGP funding did you request?
o$1– 1,000
o$1,001 - $2,500
o$2,501 - $5,000
o$5,001 - $10,000
o Other:
3.)Eligible organizations may be eligible to apply for up to 50% of program, service
or event expenses up to a maximum of $10,000. (please pick all that apply):
o This is reasonable
o I would like to be able to apply for more than 50% of funding
o I would like to be able to apply for more than $10,000 of funding
o Comments:
o Skip
4.)How long did it take you to complete the application?
o Less than 1 hour
o Longer than 1 hour, but less than 2 hours
o Longer than 2 hours
o Comments/Suggestions for Improvement:
o Skip
To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:
1.)The new CGP includes Seed Grants and Cultivate Grants. Seed Grants provide
funding for new programs or services and Cultivate Grants provide funding for
established programs that are building on their success. I understood the
difference between Seed Grants and Cultivate Grants.
o Strongly Agree
o Agree
o Neutral
o Disagree
o Strongly Disagree
o Comments/Suggestions for Improvement:
o Skip
2.)When I filled out the application, it was clear to me that myorganization was
eligible to apply based on the information provided.
3
o Strongly Agree
o Agree
o Neutral
o Disagree
o Strongly Disagree
o Comments/Suggestions for Improvement:
o Skip
3.)I understood what program or service expenses were eligible for funding through
the CGP.
o Strongly Agree
o Agree
o Neutral
o Disagree
o Strongly Disagree
o Comments/Suggestions for Improvement:
o Skip
4.)The Community Grant Program guidance documents were helpful, clear and
informative.
o Strongly Agree
o Agree
o Neutral
o Disagree
o Strongly Disagree
o Comments/Suggestions for Improvement:
o Skip
5.)The financial information I was required to submit as part of my application was
reasonable.
o Strongly Agree
o Agree
o Neutral
o Disagree
o Strongly Disagree
o Comments/Suggestions for Improvement:
o Skip
6.)The amount of information requested about my organization to measure the
success of the program or service was reasonable.
4
o Strongly Agree
o Agree
o Neutral
o Disagree
o Strongly Disagree
o Comments/Suggestions for Improvement:
o Skip
7.)The 2021 intake for CGP opened on September 1, 2020and closed on
November 10, 2020. The application intake period worked well for my
organization.
o Strongly Agree
o Agree
o Neutral
o Disagree
o Strongly Disagree
o Comments/Suggestions for Improvement:
o Skip
8.)I understand from the CGP guidance documents how proposals are evaluated by
the Rural Initiatives and Planning Advisory Committee.
o Strongly Agree
o Agree
o Neutral
o Disagree
o Strongly Disagree
o Comments/Suggestions for Improvement:
o Skip
9.)The evaluation of CGP proposals is fair and transparent.
o Strongly Agree
o Agree
o Neutral
o Disagree
o Strongly Disagree
o Comments/Suggestions for Improvement:
o Skip
10.)Please share any additional feedback or considerations for the Committee
while they review the Community Grant Program in the coming months.
5
o The CGP was great! I don’t have any suggested changesto the CGP
o Comments:
o Skip:
\[survey end\]
February 9, 2021
ulie Gonyou, Chief Administrative Officer
J
Review of CGP Allocation Process
Community Grant Program (CGP)
Committee Feedback Discussion of what worked/what didn’t work Options & Next Steps Consider feedback from Applicant Survey and revised process for Adjudication/Allocations (if necessary)Questions
Discuss any outstanding items
Agenda
Community Grant Program
Overview Priorities identified during the CGP redesign.Adjudication/Allocation Process Review of the Committee’s review process and funding allocation process. Considerations Staff recommendations
Committee
9
December
Council Reviews
Recommendations
2021
-
November
10
2022 Intake #1 CLOSES
Key Dates
1
September
2022 Intake #1 OPENS
3
Council reviewed CGP allocations as recommended by the Rural Initiatives and Planning Advisory Committee
Rural Initiatives and Planning Advisory Committee review of applications
December 10, 2020•
Elgin County Council Review
Committee Review November 25, 2020•
0304
2021 Allocations
–
Timeline
Feb/March 2021
Elgin County Council’s review of 2021 Budget
-
Intake #1 closed
Mid•
Intake #1 Closed November 10, 2020•
0205
2021 Budget & Committee Review of CGP
Community Grant Program
Successful and unsuccessful applicants notifiedApplicant Survey distributed
Program materials posted to websitePrevious applicants notified Video posted to website as resource
Survey & Funding Notifications March 2021••
Intake #1 Opened September 1, 2020•••
0106
4
REVIEW TODAY
profit
-
Overview
Annual requests for funding exceed available fundingThe aim of the program is to share available resources throughout the CountyCGP should be reviewed regularly to ensure applicants
are treated fairly and consistentlyObtaining funding through the CGP is increasingly competitive.
Elgin County is committed to providing modest levels of financial assistance (<$70K) through the County’s Community Grant Program (“CGP”) to qualifying nonCommunity Services organizations
and Festivals and Events organizers.
COMMITTEE REVIEW OF EVALUATION TOOLS AND ALLOCATION PROCESS
2022;
-
new evaluation tools to reduce
Overview
alignment with priorities identified in Council’s Strategic Plan 2020applicants are treated fairly and consistently;enhanced transparency and accountability, including subjectivity/bias
In 2020, the Rural Initiatives and Planning Advisory (RIPA) Committee redesigned the Community Grant Program to ensure: Funding is not guaranteed, even if applicants satisfy the eligibility
criteria and meet the objectives of the CGP. Submission of an application does not guarantee the organization will be awarded all or part of the grant request.
Adjudication/Allocation Process & Feedback
Process
Developed Program Guides and Evaluation Tools to ensure alignment with objectives of the CGPDetailed objectives established by the Committee provide clarity around how funds should be
allocatedDoes the evaluation matrix effectively translate strengths and weaknesses into a numeric rating?
A key step in the CGP process is effectively allocating funds. This requires that the Committee objectively review the applications and work collaboratively to avoid bias while making
transparent and fair recommendations to Council. Committee Members shared the goal of awarding the most deserving grantsCommittee Members must differentiate the best applications from
comparatively weaker ones.
using scoring matrix/matrices to
avoids bias and “groupthink”
–
individually
Workflow
-
stage review process that reflected the needs and
-
Process
This was the first step to collecting objective reviews
Committee screened applicants for eligibility criteria (pass/fail)Committee members reviewed applications ensure greater impartiality.Staff compiled the scores and the Committee distributed
funds. Committee recommended allocations to County Council for approval
The Committee defined a multipriorities of the CGP.How can the Committee improve the workflow? (next slide)
2021 Grant Allocation Workflow
Council
allocations meeting
Report to
Chairman
-
The 2020 meeting was only Part II (used average scores)
Scoring
-
Allocations
-
Meeting
Consensus
Part I
Part II
–
Adjudication Process
-
Individual
Evaluations
Committee
Staff & Committee
Applications &
Evaluation Tools
Considerations
sent to Committee
Applications
Staff Receive
important?
specifically, whether it aligns with the goals
–
Consensus Meeting
Why is a
-
In 2021, there was a significant discrepancy in individual scores for two applications with scores ranging from ~ 67 to 90. It is important to hear more from reviewers about each application.
Encourages Committee Members to discuss the strengths and weaknesses associated with each application of the CGP.Determines a “consensus score” for each application
Considerations
Consensus
-
Considerations
Must be aware of unconscious biasCommittee Members should rely on the evaluation tools developed to ensure the process is as fair and unbiased as possible (lean on evaluation matrix/matrices
and link conversations back to established criteria wherever possible).Ensure alignment with CGP Goals/Priorities along with the evaluation matrix/matrices can not only break through
an impasse in Committee discussions, but can help the best applications filter to the top.
Committee Members:
In 2020, staff presented the Committee with an average score and recommended allocations. It is recommended that the Committee review individual scores and reach consensus scoring for
eligible applications before allocating funds.
2020 Allocation Process
–
Committee Feedback
“asks” =
–
“asks” now exceed funding by 1.4x and
–
Transition
oversubscribed
increasing impact.
The Committee overhauled the CGP and evaluation tools to safeguard against real or perceived bias. We can’t lose sight of the importance of these tools.It used to be possible to fund
all applications at “full” ask with some exceptions available funding.The program is now applicants have asked for 140% of available funds.Committee can’t operate under the old assumption
that we’ll be able to make everyone happy. The Committee has to be more selective.This is a good thing! It makes the process more competitive and allows the Committee/Council to provide
funding to more projects/services/events across the County –
Transitioning from past practice to a new model can be difficult.Prior to the 2021 CGP allocations, Committee Members used a scoring tool in the past when evaluating proposals but did
not directly use the scores when making decisions about allocations. A number of changes have happened over the past 5 years:
Year
-
over
-
year based on:
-
over
-
Year
–
Allocations
Scores/quality of application/impact of service/program/festival/event“Ask” Number of applications received for each funding streamAvailable money
Allocations can vary significantly year
driven decisions using the
-
Formulas
Weighting Factor
Total Score x Ask
Part II: Allocations
-
Sum of Scores x Sum of Asks
Total Weights X Available Funds
Process
In 2020, staff recommended that the Committee use average scores in a weighting formula to ensure Committee members were making dataevaluation tools prepared by the Committee and communicated
to all applicants. This information was presented to the Committee to offer a starting point for discussion.
Weighting FactorAllocation Calculation
both funded @
–
it can be an iterative process to arrive at the final allocations.
–
for a desired outcome has always been present it is virtually impossible to control
process
Preliminary Feedback
particularly when assigning 100% funding to select applicants.
–
Allocations are at the Committee’s discretion Allocation calculations were presented to the Committee in 2020 as a “starting point” for all allocations since they incorporate scoringFor
example: the impact on a $10,000 “ask” getting $6,000 “ask” is the same as a $500 “ask” getting $300 60% (assuming same evaluation score)Incorporating Committee scores and applying
the allocation calculations is likely the fairest assessmentThe opportunity to manipulate thesince we must be transparent about allocations. Does the committee need to assess the “realism
of the budget proposal” with greater scrutiny to safeguard against applicants who may inflate future asks? If so, what does this look like?
Committee members want to be able to use their discretion, rather than using the allocations calculation in all instances One Committee member questioned the usefulness of allocation
calculations, especially when applied to smaller “asks”Concern that applicants will increase their “ask” in future years to offset the funding formula.
Staff Comments:Staff Comments: Staff Comments:
During the 2021 CGP allocations meeting, Committee members identified the following concerns:
applicability
-
Allocations Calculations
67%66%64%63%64%64%72%66%73%67%
Percentage Allocation
$958
$6,733$6,647$6,302$6,388$3,194$3,240$6,647$7,251
$47,359
Recommended Allocation
0.015820.015620.002250.014810.015010.007500.007610.015620.017040.11128
Weighting Factor
$47,359
Funds Available
$1,500$5,000$4,500
$10,000$10,000$10,000$10,000$10,000$10,000$71,000
High scores resulted in a higher % allocation
Applying the Allocation Calculations
Ask (2020)
7877747374747784
83.4
694.4
Average Total Score
total
Festivals and EventsAylmer Mural Bayham BeachfestBayham EdisonfestCALIPSOPeriscope PlayhousePort Stanley TheatreShedden Ag Society Wallacetown AgRodney Ag
67%66%64%63%64%64%72%66%73%67%
Percentage Allocation
$958
$6,733$6,647$6,302$6,388$3,194$3,240$6,647$7,251
$47,359
-
Recommended Allocation
0.015820.015620.002250.014810.015010.007500.007610.015620.017040.11128
Weighting Factor
and scoring
$47,359
Funds Available
percent allocation based on available funds
Same impact on “small ask” as “large ask”
$1,500$5,000$4,500
$10,000$10,000$10,000$10,000$10,000$10,000$71,000
Impact on smaller “ask”
Ask (2020)
7877747374747784
83.4
694.4
Average Total Score
total
Festivals and EventsAylmer Mural Bayham BeachfestBayham EdisonfestCALIPSOPeriscope PlayhousePort Stanley TheatreShedden Ag Society Wallacetown AgRodney Ag
67%66%64%63%64%64%72%66%73%67%
Percentage Allocation
which resulted in
$958
–
$6,733$6,647$6,302$6,388$3,194$3,240$6,647$7,251
$47,359
Recommended Allocation
0.015820.015620.002250.014810.015010.007500.007610.015620.017040.11128
Weighting Factor
41% or $23,641 more funding was requested than was available.Scores were generally favourable most organizations receiving an average of 67% of their “ask”.
••
$47,359
Funds Available
$1,500$5,000$4,500
$10,000$10,000$10,000$10,000$10,000$10,000$71,000
What else is evident?
Ask (2020)
7877747374747784
83.4
694.4
Total Funding Available for Festivals and Events
Average Total Score
total
Festivals and EventsAylmer Mural Bayham BeachfestBayham EdisonfestCALIPSOPeriscope PlayhousePort Stanley TheatreShedden Ag Society Wallacetown AgRodney Ag
67%66%64%63%64%64%72%66%73%67%
Percentage Allocation
$958
$6,733$6,647$6,302$6,388$3,194$3,240$6,647$7,251
$47,359
Recommended Allocation
0.015820.015620.002250.014810.015010.007500.007610.015620.017040.11128
Weighting Factor
$47,359
Funds Available
$1,500$5,000$4,500
$10,000$10,000$10,000$10,000$10,000$10,000$71,000
Mean: 77 (average value of Committee Scores)Median: 77 (central number of scores)Mode: 74 (most frequently occurring)
•••
Let’s look at the data
Ask (2020)
7877747374747784
83.4
694.4
Average Total Score
total
11 submissionsMinimum score: 73Maximum score: 84No outliers
••••
Festivals and EventsAylmer Mural Bayham BeachfestBayham EdisonfestCALIPSOPeriscope PlayhousePort Stanley TheatreShedden Ag Society Wallacetown AgRodney Ag
All high scores!
Option 1: Applying the Allocation Calculations
Allocations:
Consensus:
–
–
Identify consensus scoresIdentify funds for each funding stream ($ for Community Services and $ for Festivals and Events)Identify which organizations should receive 100% funding, if
anyApply funding formula (weighting factor/allocation calculations) to remaining applications
Part I 1.2.3.Part II 1.
-
of
65%
impact
-
all others funded at
Option 2:
)
Note: 2021 allocations average for those not funded at 100% was 67%.
Allocations:
Consensus:
–
–
Identify consensus scoresIdentify funds for each funding stream ($ for Community Services and $ for Festivals and Events)Identify which organizations, if any, should receive 100% funding
(for example, 4 highimpact programs/services/festivals/events)Assign a percentage for all other eligible applications (for example, 4 highprograms/services/festivals/events funded at
100% and “ask”
Part I 1.2.3.Part II 1.
Council
Review & Approval
Committee recommendations are submitted to Council by the RIPA Chair.
Recommendations
•
Chairman’s Report
–
Review of
–
Part II
Committee meeting Part IIfunding allocations November 30, 2021 @ 1:00 pm
Consensus Meeting
•
November
-
Review of
–
Part I
Committee meeting Part IScoring 23, 2021 @ 1:00 pm
Consensus Meeting
•
2021
10
–
-
Recommended Adjudication/Allocation Process
7
th
Staff
to compile
November 10Intake #1 closesStaff require daysapplications and send evaluation packages to Committee members
Compile Applications
••
Feedback
Additional Comments/Concerns?
Next Steps