Loading...
03/26/2024 - Meeting Minutes ERIN MENDENHALL ! DEPARTMENT of Mayor = SUSTAINABILTTY r. nT Food&Equity Program /„tom SLCgreen FOOD EQUITY MICROGRANT MEETING MINUTES Tuesday,March 26th,2024 2:30pm-4:00pm The following members of the Food Equity Microgrant Program Selection Committee were present: In person Maria Schwarz, Chair Afa'Aikona,Vice Chair Joshua Rebollo Karina Villalba Electronic Monica O'Malley,Secretary,non-voting member James Hunter The following members were absent: Xris Macias Also Present: None Minutes by Monica O'Malley,Salt Lake City Sustainability Department, Special Projects Assistant Meeting Start Time: 2:43 pm I Time Commenced: 3:55 Pm 1. Roll call (5 minutes) 2. Approve meeting minutes (5 minutes) Ms. O'Malley noted a typo in the minutes where the day of the week was written as Thursday instead of Tuesday. Chair Schwarz noted a second type where `scoring'was written as`soring'. Committee Member Villalba motioned to approve the written minutes for the 03/05/2024 meeting given the two typos identified are corrected. Vice Chair'Aikona seconded the motion.With no further discussion,the committee voted to approve the 03/05/2024 minutes unanimously. 3. Review Home Food Grant application scores/questions (20 minutes) Char Schwarz reported that, of the 71 Home Food Production applications received, 67 were deemed eligible due to being located within the Salt Lake City boundary. This equates to a total of $16,750.00 in funding asked by eligible Home Food Production applicants. Chair Schwarz presented the Home Food Production applications and scores, highlighting applications in which there were large disparities in score. Committee Member Rebollo asked what process was used last year to decide which Home Food Production applications to award. Chair Schwarz explained that last years' committee voted to fund all eligible Home Food Production Grant applications, encompassing about 27% of the total 2023 budget. Chair Schwarz suggested adding a component to the Home Food Production scores that ties in the three priority categories examined: population, location, and income. 4. Review Community Grant application scores/questions (40 minutes) Chair Schwarz reported that, of the 31 Community Grant applications received, 1 application submitted by the Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District may be ineligible because the organization is a government agency. This equates to a total of$124,690.33 in funding asked by eligible Community Grant applicants. Committee Member Villalba mentioned that one of the Community Grant applicants may be ineligible for indicating a false partnership with Wasatch Community Gardens. Chair Schwarz presented the Community Grant applications and scores, highlighting applications in which there were large disparities in score. committee members discussed the reasons why they scored those applications the way that they did. The following are some common points committee members brought up when discussing why they scored applications differently: • The applicant organization's access to funding, resources, and support from other sources and their establishment in the community. With a total of$141,440.33 requested by all applicants and only $40,750.00 to award, it was discussed whether applicant organizations who are not yet well funded and established in the community should be prioritized for funding because the impact will likely be greater for these organizations. The committee also noted the importance to consider whether an organization would be able to fulfill their project without funding from the Program when selecting awardees. • Projects focused on capacity building vs one-time use of funds for operations or direct purchases. The committee discussed how to weigh and balance these different types of projects against each other. Some members feel the committee should prioritize funds for capacity building projects, as these types of projects may maintain an impact over longer period of time. • The communities the organization serves. Many committee members agreed organizations that work with historically under-served and underrepresented populations should be prioritized for funding. Committee members also agreed that organization who reach a larger population should be funded vs organizations with a relatively smaller reach. • The overall diversity of projects the committee supports. The committee discussed that they would prefer funding a variety of projects vs funding many community projects with similar objectives. Committee members also discussed looking at whether the applicant is doing something that is already happening in the community or if they're proposing something new. The committee discussed how this process could be used to inform unfunded organizations of other funding opportunities that may better align with their projects. Committee members changed their scores on several Community Grant applications during the discussion. The committee also discussed that members may adjust scores after the meeting and before the next meeting. 5. Discuss funding ratio (20 minutes) 6. Adjourn Committee Member Rebollo motioned to adjourn the meeting. C Vice Chair'Aikona seconded the motion.With no further discussion,the committee voted to adjourn. APPROVED: Date: This document and the recording constitute the official minutes of the Food Equity Microgrant Program Selection Committee meeting held March 26,2024.