UW-Extension Arts Grant Evaluation Panel -Special Meeting

Arts, Humanities & Historic Preservation Grant Evaluation Panel – ARTS

Minutes of the Special Meeting

March 10, 2014

 

Panel Members Present:  Dale Loomis, Judy Spring, Kay Taylor.  Bev Strand attempted to participate by phone, however, due to poor connection could not.  She faxed her ranking from high to low.

UW Extension Staff Present:  Lisa Wenzel

UW Extension Arts and Culture Members Present:  Judy Ashford and Donna Stehling

 

Call to Order:  The meeting was called to order at 1:08 p.m. by Wenzel.  Attempt was made to have Bev Strand participate by phone for the meeting as a panelist.  A clear connection was not able to be made and she faxed her rankings from high to low for the group; her recommendation for full or partial funding was not on the fax.

Approval of the Sauk County Board of Supervisors Meeting Agenda:  Motion made by Taylor, second by Spring to approve the agenda.  Motion carried.

Open Meetings Law:  The requirements of open meeting law notice was met and confirmed by Wenzel.

Introductions:  All individuals present above, introduced themselves.

Review of Process Procedure:  Wenzel presented an overview of the roles and responsibilities of the panel members, staff, and UW Extension Arts and Culture Committee members.

Election of Chairperson:  Motion made by Spring and second by Taylor to elect Loomis to serve as chair of the panel for the meeting.  Motion carried.

General Comments:  Opportunity for general comments were presented.  Taylor indicated that all of her scores were very close and that based on Process Procedure indicated above, she would recuse herself from the room when the City of Reedsburg grant is discussed.

Consideration of grant awards and development recommendations:  The panel reviewed and ranked eight (8) grants.  The pros and cons were discussed for each grant application.  The following are the funding recommendations and comments for each application in ranked order, highest to lowest:

 

1. American Players Theatre requested $3000 and the panel recommended fully funding for this project.  The panel awarded this project 241 points based on the grant evaluation criteria.

 PROS:

Project is phenomenal.

Demonstrate good mix of funding and support.

Appreciate reach to High School.

County wide public and private partners, and is a great example

Class act.

Very worthwhile to student population.

Top notch professional program that students need.

Going to multiple schools outreach is excellent.

Program development to work with teachers and how teachers can integrate and build is excellent.

CONS:

None.

 

2. Sauk County Instrumental Honors Music Program c/o Wisconsin Dells School District requested $1750 and the panel recommended fully funding for this project.  The panel awarded this project 239 points based on the grant evaluation criteria.

 

PROS:

Like that it is 26 years old and like that there will be new.

Guest audience great idea.

Glad to see modest ticket price, and this is a great direction.

Appreciate partnership.

Great experience for kids.

Exemplifies Sauk County through the school districts involved.

This is an honor for the musicians.

Band directors leading is excellent.

CONS:

Try to expand to middle school.

Why just band and jazz; add singing.

More professional public relations; publicity and marketing needs big increase.

Need to reach more than families involved. Increase marketing budget.

Vocal could be separate grant.

3. CAL Center Presents Inc. requested $2200 and the panel recommended fully funding for this project.  The panel awarded this project 224 points based on the grant evaluation criteria.

 PROS:

This is new, different, and innovative.

Great example of local.

Collaboration with high school and veteran involvement is excellent.

Multi media approach is appreciated.

Price point well formatted.

Original with live stories impressive.

Will appeal to wide audience.

Will be good for students who write and perform it.

CONS:

Look for more sources of fiscal support.

Would help to see personal description, resume, bio given that is overall cost of project.

4. Reedsburg Public Library requested $1500 and the panel recommended fully funding for this project.  The panel awarded this project 222 points based on the grant evaluation criteria.

PROS:

Exciting line of presenters.

Diverse line of topics.

Great partnerships.

Good balance in kind to grants.

Love the curriculum.

Appealed to all ages.

Nice selection on who will do presentation.

Good variety.

Appreciate outreach portion.

Expansion to include adults is great.

Length of program over months is great.

CONS:

Concern over fiscally sustainable in future; maybe through free will donation.

Concern over who involved in community will help.

Not sure how it will be covered if there is no grant award.

Sustainability should be looked at to maintain programming long-term.

5. City of Reedsburg requested $5000 and the panel recommended fully funding for this project.   The panel awarded this project 166 points based on the grant evaluation criteria.  Taylor recused herself for this grant review.

PROS:

Public art is wonderful.

Unique project with a very successful project that is ongoing.

City partnership is very positive.

Year round viewing is appreciated.

Benefit to Reedsburg and county to draw people to area and add to tourism is beneficial.

Partners are important to success.

Art and agriculture together is a wonderful combination.

CONS:

Overall project costs seem high, but might not understand all involved to make it a permanent piece.

Still need quite a bit of funding.

6. UW-Baraboo Sauk County requested $5000 and the panel recommended fully funding for this project.  The panel awarded this project 215 points based on the grant criteria.

PROS:

Appreciate expansion into science field and community, novel.

Like that it attempts to reach low income.

Always looking at new and exciting.

Appreciate number of partners.

Working with Boys & Girls Club is excellent and can be long term.

Growth over years is excellent.

Really nice growth in overcoming past debt.

CONS:

Could do better at naming matching funds.

Not sure about sustainability.

Self-sustaining should be looked at more.

Add more: wood working, taxidermy, etc. in trying to be encompassing.

Would like to see expansion outside of Baraboo.  Build marketing into Spring Green etc.; other areas of Sauk County to come.

Comments:  Not sure other grants are awarded yet.

7. Al. Ringling Theatre requested $5000 and the panel recommended fully funding for this project.  The panel awarded this project 201 points based on the grant evaluation criteria.

PROS:

Great partnerships.

Reasonable ticket price.

Good mix of income.

Al. Ringling draws from all over county, so good cause.

Producing original play from local play write is great.

Creative way to fundraise.

Give credit for trying to complete a project started.

Partners through in kind are great.

Well thought out plan especially where funds will go.

Opportunity to work on original piece, no preconceived prior performance.

Appreciate that it ties Sauk County writer about Sauk County.

Idea of talk session with audience about play content very original.

Timing in September should help revenue.

CONS:

Outreach is more narrow.

Need more fundraising avenues.

Localized to Baraboo; depends on marketing strategy.

8. Reedsburg Players requested $1750 and the panel recommended partially funding for this project.  The panel awarded this project 193 points based on the grant evaluation criteria.

PROS:

Steadfast job.

Including youth.

Charging student tuition is good.

Good job on in kind.

Really like involvement of youth engagement.

Show will be popular.

CONS:

Funded over many year.

No real new creativity.

Not much partnership support.

Diversify funding with donation requests.

Creative and innovative when started, but nothing new creatively now.

Explore other methods of funding.

Explore more marketing to reach more than family of cast and crew.

Comment:  Typo “2010 project”.  Would be interesting to know how scholarship works.

 

Ashford asked panelists whether they felt that the score sheet should be revised.  Spring thought it was okay.  Taylor expressed that they have experience with it.  Donna expressed that it could be the difference between Historic review and Arts review.   Ashford said if the group is comfortable with it there is no need to change it.

 

Adjourn:  The meeting was adjourned at 2:11 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Lisa Wenzel