Flagstaff Sustainability Commission begins review of 31 grant applications, sets Nov. 14 scoring deadline
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The commission received an overview of the Sustainability Grant (FSG) process, scoring rubric and timeline. Staff said 31 applications were submitted; reviewers were assigned 11–12 applications each and asked to submit scores and clarifying questions by Nov. 14 ahead of a Nov. 20 scoring discussion.
The Flagstaff Sustainability Commission received a step‑by‑step briefing Oct. 20 on the city’s Sustainability Grant (FSG) review process and scoring rubric, after the sustainability office said 31 applications were submitted this year.
Jenny Niemann, Climate Action Section Director for the City of Flagstaff, and Diane Bridger, the new sustainability engagement specialist who is serving as the commission liaison, walked commissioners through the online grant folder, an updated scoring spreadsheet and a timeline that staff will use to collect clarifying questions from applicants. Bridger told the commission each reviewer was assigned roughly 11–12 grants and that all reviewer scores and any questions for applicants are due to staff by Nov. 14; staff plans a scoring discussion Nov. 20.
Niemann and Bridger said the scoring tool is based on the rubric the commission previously approved; it highlights where reviewers should enter values, includes a one‑point bonus for projects that meaningfully involve community goals, and integrates a space for questions to applicants. Bridger said staff is conducting an eligibility and compliance screening concurrently and will reach out to applicants to resolve questions that might affect eligibility.
Commissioners were instructed to score each application against the rubric rather than by comparing applications to one another, and staff emphasized consistency across a single reviewer’s scores is more important than identical scores between different reviewers. The commission also completed a brief bias‑mitigation review that included conflict‑of‑interest disclosures and guidance about avoiding outside research while scoring.
Bridger said the grant evaluation materials are posted in a Google Drive folder and that staff will redistribute permissions so each reviewer can access their scoring worksheet. She also asked reviewers to reference page and paragraph numbers when justifying scores to speed the group discussion at the November meeting.
The commission approved the minutes from its September meeting at the start of the session.