10 likes | 145 Vues
Based on the amount of funding available, and the amount of funding requested, HNVF staff recommended that all 69 selected projects get funded at 73% of their requested amount.
E N D
Based on the amount of funding available, and the amount of funding requested, HNVF staff recommended that all 69 selected projects get funded at 73% of their requested amount At the May 2006 meeting, HNVF Committee voted to cap new projects at $25K; took $385K from new projects to give to existing projects which end up getting 88% instead of 73% recommended) New projects coming into HNVF in Cycle 8 capped at $25K HNVF committee decided on parameters & criteria for Cycle 8; considered giving 9 new projects in Cycle 7 only 5% increase over $25K for Cycle 8 9 new projects (never funded by HNVF); of these, 6 projects belong to agencies that have existing projects 60 existing projects (funded by HNVF before): 74% funded 4+yrs; 37% funded 6+yrs out of 7 years in HNVF Request for Proposal said no limit for new projects, existing projects can ask for 5% increase from what they received last year Placed a 2nd-year cap on 9 new projects in Cycle 7 at $37,500 (max request in Cycle 8) 3-4 days before the May meeting, email was sent to 9 new projects, asking if they can work with $25K pilot phase; 4 Yes, 1 No, 4 did not answer 69 projects were selected for funding (4 Highs=40, 3High1Medium=28) ICAN appealed to City Council but no avail; City Council approved Cycle 7 funding HNVF Committee decided on parameters & criteria for Cycle 8 Total of Y projects with 3 Highs & 1 Medium HNVF issued Cycle 7 RFP - “competitive basis” ICAN submitted proposal for Happy5 project April meeting: motion introduced to cap new projects at $25K (“pilot phase) Total of X projects scored 4 Highs (including ICAN) Oct’05 Dec’05 Apr-May’06 June ‘06 Aug ‘06 Feb-Mar ‘06 San Jose HNVF - Unfair funding practices Timeline