Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20250811AGENDA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 11, 2025 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen I.Work Session I.A Consideration of Ballot Language for a Dedicated Tax for Public Education I.B Regional Grantors Collaborative Update & Off-Cycle Requests Recommendation I.C Non-Profit Grants Policy & Programming I.D City Manager Selection Process II.Council discussion of the items published in the most recent information update, as needed Zoom Meeting Instructions Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84417425497?pwd=PAdNcrpGZzxl3VKYn9baacAW1ALHws.1 Passcode:81611 Join via audio: +1 346 248 7799 Webinar ID: 844 1742 5497 Passcode: 81611 International numbers available: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kccDShomZj Memo - School District Ballot Question Discussion Follow Up.docx 8.11.25_Regional_Grantors_Collaborative_Memo (1).docx Attachment A - LIFTUP Application.pdf Attachment B - Community Health Services Application.pdf Attachment C - Preliminary MCFNS Food Insecurity Cost Estimate.pdf 8.11.25_Grants Work Session Memo.docx Attachment A - Point B(e) Initial Report.pdf Attachment B-Point B(e) After Action Report.pdf Attachment C - 2025 Grants Application Review Criteria.pdf Attachment D - Summarized Sources of Grant Process Recommendations.pdf City Manager Selection Council Memo 082025 .docx 1 1 TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Pete Strecker, Interim City Manager MEMO DATE: August 11, 2025 RE: Potential Tax Question to Benefit Public Education PURPOSE: Following up on past discussions, this meeting continues Council assessment of a potential tax question to benefit public education for the upcoming November election. Based on input from Council at tonight’s meeting, staff anticipate bringing a resolution forward on August 12, 2025 for Council action. BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen’s sales tax levy equates to 2.40%, which includes the existing 0.30% dedicated sales tax for education . When aggregated with other taxing jurisdictions, the combined sales tax charged in Aspen is 9.30%.  1.50% for Parks and Open Space – approved into perpetuity  0.45% for Childcare and Affordable Housing – sunsets Dec. 31, 2060  0.15% for Transportation – approved into perpetuity  0.30% for Education – sunsets Dec. 31, 2026 2.40% total City sales tax  3.60% for Pitkin County  0.40% for Roaring Fork Transit Authority  2.90% for State of Colorado 9.30% total aggregate sales tax Currently, there are two other entities that have considered tax questions this Fall that are not included above: Aspen Fire District is contemplating to move ahead with a sales tax question of up to 0.50%, and the Early Childhood Education Coalition determined to move forward with its 0.25% sales tax question. DISCUSSION: The City has provided financial support to the School District via a dedicated 0.30% sales tax since January 2013. Over the last twelve years, this has generated more than $31M for the District. While this tax is currently approved through 2026, due to needs of the School District and future changes in public education funding at the State level, the District is seeking Council support to extend and increase this levy into the future. 2 Based on conversations to date, staff believes there is majority Council support to consider a November ballot question to extend the sunset date of the existing 0.30% dedicated sales tax, which is anticipated to generate roughly $4M per year in today’s economic conditions. Staff are looking for general feedback to affirm this position such that a ballot question can be drafted to reflect this and allow for a formal vote. Example language of just an extension question: WITHOUT IMPOSING ANY NEW TAX, SHALL THE CITY OF ASPEN BE AUTHORIZED TO EXTEND ITS EXISTING .30% SALES TAX DEDICATED TO EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE VOTERS IN 2012 AND EXTENDED BY APPROVAL OF THE VOTERS IN 2016 AND 2020, AND IS SCHEDULED TO EXPIRE ON DECEMBER 31, 2026, AND CONTINUE TO COLLECT SUCH SALES TAX THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2031, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 AS DESCRIBED IN THE PRIOR BALLOT QUESTIONS; AND SHALL THE REVENUE FROM SUCH SALES TAX AND EARNINGS THEREON BE COLLECTED, RETAINED AND SPENT BY THE CITY AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LIMITS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW? In addition, there was discussion at the Council table during the last meeting around whether or not to go beyond the current 0.30% sales tax and to ask Aspen voters to support up to an additional 0.30% tax (doubling of the current levy). Staff are seeking additional input from Council on whether it wishes to advance an additional tax levy, to commence for collection on January 1, 2026 and if so, by what amount? This question would read to be contingent upon the passage of the existing 0.30% being extended. Example of a separate question to levy more than the 0.3% existing tax: SUBJECT TO AND CONTINGENT ON THE PASSAGE OF BALLOT ISSUE __; SHALL THE CITY OF ASPEN TAXES BE INCREASED $_____ COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2026; AND BY WHATEVER AMOUNTS AS ARE GENERATED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER BY IMPOSING AN ADDITIONAL CITY SALES TAX AT A RATE OF ___% EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2026, WITH SUCH TAX CONTINUING THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2031, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1; WITH SUCH TAX INCREASE ONLY IMPOSED IF THE VOTERS APPROVE BALLOT ISSUE ___; AND SHALL THE REVENUE FROM SUCH SALES TAX AND EARNINGS THEREON BE COLLECTED, RETAINED AND SPENT BY THE CITY AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LIMITS 3 CONTAINED IN ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW? Note that the extension of the existing tax and the levy of an additional sales tax could be combined into one question - a draft of that type of language is shown. While this does reduce the total number of questions on the ballot, there may be benefits to keeping the questions separate as two questions provide voters choice around the level of support they wish to affirm, rather than an all or nothing option under a single question. Example of a single question (includes new tax increase and extending current tax): SHALL THE CITY OF ASPEN TAXES BE INCREASED $_____ IN 2027 AND BY WHATEVER AMOUNTS AS ARE GENERATED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER BY IMPOSING AN ADDITIONAL CITY SALES TAX AT A RATE OF ___% EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2026, AND SHALL THE CITY SALES TAX OF .30% APPROVED BY VOTERS IN 2012 AND EXTENDED BY APPROVAL OF THE VOTERS IN 2016 AND 2020, CONTINUE TO BE COLLECTED ON AND AFTER JANUARY 1, 2026, WITH EACH SUCH TAX CONTINUING THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2031, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 AS DESCRIBED IN THE PRIOR BALLOT QUESTIONS; AND SHALL THE REVENUE FROM SUCH SALES TAX AND EARNINGS THEREON BE COLLECTED, RETAINED AND SPENT BY THE CITY AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LIMITS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW? The proposed ballot questions would reflect Council support for a minimum of the existing 0.30% tax and can be structured to reflect support for up to the full School District request to double the current levy. Funds from such taxes would go to support staff and programming across all schools, as outlined by exhibits A and B which were provided by the School District. NEXT STEPS: Based on direction provided by Council tonight, staff shall prepare a resolution with the desired ballot language for Council consideration on August 12. Final language needs to be adopted and shared with Pitkin County by September 5. MANAGER’S COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: School District provided uses of existing 0.30% sales tax Attachment B: School District provided uses of an additional 0.30% tax 4 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John Barker, Strategy & Innovation Director THROUGH: Alissa Farrell, Administrative Services Director MEMO DATE: August 4, 2025 MEETING DATE: August 11, 2025 RE: Regional Grantors Collaborative Update & Off-Cycle Requests Recommendation _____________________________________________________________________ REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Many regional non-profits in the Health and Human Services space are experiencing dual pressures related to increased demand for services combined with loss of federal funding dollars. This has led to an increase in requests for funding support outside of the city’s normal grants cycle. Staff requests council guidance on the review and recommendations of the Regional Grantmakers Collaborative (RGC), for two specific requests from LIFTUP and Community Health Services. For the application from LIFTUP, staff and the RGC advise against funding this off-cycle request as it is not aligned with eligibility criteria as defined by the RGC. As an alternative, the RGC recommends exploring the establishment of an intergovernmental agreement to provide regional food insecurity services. For Community Health Services, staff and the RGC recommends approving funding in the amount of $8,091 to ensure continuity in medical services that address identified gaps within the Roaring Fork Valley community. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: For the past several years, a group of grantmakers in the upper Roaring Fork Valley, has been working together to identify ways to increase collective impact, reduce inefficiencies, and streamline the grant application process for local non-profits. This group, the Regional Grantmakers Collaborative, currently consists of representatives from the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Aspen Community Foundation, and Aspen One. 5 2 One area of recent success is this group’s response to the increase in funding requests each organization has received outside their normal grants process. The RGC has developed a collective off-cycle grant application and eligibility criteria so that the group can weigh these applications together against consistent criteria and provide a regional recommendation for consideration by each board/elected body. These are: Eligibility Criteria 1. Sudden loss of funding that covers a critical, long-standing service 2. Filling community gap/s with creative or seed concept proposals 3. Capital requests Assessment Questions 1. Is the request achievable, filling a gap, or will the recommendation solve a current issue that exists in the community? 2. Is this request to provide an essential service that aligns with a local or strategic initiative or plan? 3. Does the application provide enough information to make an informed funding recommendation? 4. If the funding is not granted, are other options offered in the application? Specifically, representatives from each of these organizations, along with several other governments in the Roaring Fork Valley, received a request from LIFTUP to provide emergency funding totaling $2,500,000. LIFTUP requested this funding to “eliminate unsustainable debt and stabilize the infrastructure needed to deliver regional food and nutrition services from Aspen to Parachute.” This application is included as Attachment A to this memo. Additionally, the RGC received a request from Community Health Services in the amount of $90,000 to offset federal funding cuts that support the organization’s reproductive and preventative health operations for the remainder of 2025. This application is included as Attachment B to this memo. DISCUSSION: LIFTUP Application The RGC had a robust discussion about this application. While there was unanimous agreement that their application does not meet eligibility criteria for the RGC’s ‘Off-Cycle’ 6 3 grant request, the group recognized the immense need for food security solutions. Given the upcoming changes in Federal programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the valley will likely have more individuals and families in need on top of those that are uninsured, underinsured, and no longer eligible for public benefits programs that allow them to make decisions to keep themselves and their families safe and basic needs met. The RGC agreed that the loss of these types of functional services would have a devastating effect on the region and the community. The following are the recommendations made by the RGC for moving forward with this request. 1. Given the increased need for food security services in the current environment, the RGC is requesting additional data and information regarding the future food security concerns to evaluate the financial request . RGC would like to better understand what the actual costs of these services would be for the region to continue providing a high-quality level of service. The Mountain Coalition for Food and Nutrition Security (MCFNS), a group focused on delivering a regional approach to food insecurity, has provided a preliminary budget that outlines the basic needs of the Roaring Fork Valley community for the next 3 years. This report is included as Attachment C to this memo. Note that this report does not include the cost of fixed pantries, which will be included in the final proposal. 2. The RGC would like to move forward with exploring and executing an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) and development of a Scope of Work with a budget to issue a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) to conclude by December of 2025 and begin service delivery by January 1, 2026. The RGC recognizes the importance of food security programs and services and has an interest in preserving these, given the upcoming changes in access to food for low-income families. The RGC, led by staff from Pitkin County, is exploring a partnership with MCFNS to issue an RFP with administrative support from the counties and municipalities. The RFP would be open for any organization to apply. Community Health Services Application Community Health Services (CHS) has been a longstanding regional provider of reproductive, sexual health, cancer screening, adolescent, prenatal, and immunization services for over 50 years. Their services specifically target low-income, uninsured, and underinsured populations and are uniquely positioned to fill major public health gaps in the upper Roaring Fork Valley and beyond. Effective July 1, 2025, CHS will experience a significant and unexpected loss of funding, approximately 37%, to core programs due to reductions in Title X Family Planning and CDC Women's Wellness Connection grants. These losses will significantly impact CHS’s 7 4 ability to maintain current service levels and force the organization to tap into emergency reserves to sustain programming through the end of the year. The current request is for $90,000 in bridge funding to preserve service continuity during this transition period. The request meets the highest-priority criteria for off-cycle consideration, namely, the sudden loss of funding supporting essential, long-standing services that are not easily replaced. The RGC recommends that this funding be distributed proportionally among members and regional partners, based on the organization’s past funding levels. The approximate recommended funding breakdown is:  Pitkin County Public Health (HCF Mandated Services): 31.61% ($28,449)  Eagle County Public Health: 23.18% ($20,862)  Garfield County Public Health: 13.57% ($12,213)  Healthy Community Fund (Grant Program): 13.00% ($11,700)  Town of Snowmass Village: 9.61% ($8,649)  City of Aspen: 8.99% ($8,091) FINANCIAL IMPACTS: 1) LIFTUP Request As the RGC is not recommending support of the LIFTUP request, there are no immediate financial impacts. If Council supports joining a regional food insecurity IGA as recommended, the city’s annual cost share allocation is yet to be determined by our regional partners but is anticipated to be around $100,000. 2) Community Health Services Request If Council supports the RGC’s recommendation in full, a new expense of $8,091 would need to be accounted for. These funds could be reallocated from the Mayor and Council budget, where there is currently $32,210 in uncommitted funds which could be used as support dollars for these types of requests. ALTERNATIVES: Council may choose to make a contribution to LIFTUP’s application or request additional information from LIFTUP to further evaluate their request. Council additionally has alternatives to consider regarding the possible IGA to provide food insecurity services. Council may choose to join the IGA, provide independent support to this area, or not support a contribution towards the IGA. 8 5 For the Community Health Services Request, Council may choose to deny the request or suggest that they apply for funding through the city’s annual grant application process. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that Council support the RGC's recommendations to participate in an RFP and an eventual IGA, which would jointly support food insecurity services from Aspen to Glenwood Springs. Additionally, staff recommends funding the Community Health Services Request in the amount of $8,901 through the Mayor and Council budget. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – LIFTUP RGC Application Attachment B – Community Health Services RGC Application Attachment C – MCFNS Preliminary Budget 9 Dave Reed LIFT-UP (Life Inter Faith Team on Unemployment and Poverty) Printed On: 14 May 2025 Regional Grantor Group RFI 1 General operating Regional Grantor Group RFI LIFT-UP (Life Inter Faith Team on Unemployment and Poverty) Mr. Dave Reed 100 Midland Ave Unit 270 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 director@liftup.org O: 970-625-4496 Mr. Dave Reed 100 Midland Avenue, Unit 270 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 grants@liftup.org O: 970-625-4496 10 Dave Reed LIFT-UP (Life Inter Faith Team on Unemployment and Poverty) Printed On: 14 May 2025 Regional Grantor Group RFI 2 Application Form Request for Information The Regional Grantor Group is an informal network of local funders who are exploring ways to better understand the full scope of regional funding needs and to coordinate grantmaking practices for maximum impact. The group consists of representatives from the City of Aspen, Aspen Community Foundation, Aspen One, and Pitkin County Healthy Community Fund. As funders, we recognize that funding needs don’t always align with scheduled processes. These needs may occur due to sudden loss of funding or be critical to seed concepts for important gaps in services identified through community plans, capital projects, or new and innovative programs meant to strengthen the social capacity of the community. This Request for Information aims to centralize and clarify funding needs made by individual organizations outside of scheduled processes to help inform government, municipal, private sector, and other funding entities. Nonprofit organizations seeking monetary support outside the scheduled processes of any of the Regional Grantor Group members are asked to complete this RFI. The Regional Grantor Group will review these requests, provide any relevant context, invite other critical funding partners, and provide a recommendation for how to proceed. Please note: This review process is the first step in seeking funding outside of scheduled grant processes. Individual Regional Grantor Group members may require additional information or steps to gain approval from their governing bodies. Request Overview Type of Request* General Operating Purpose of Request* Write "General Operating" or define your program/project request. General operating Grant Request Amount* $2,500,000.00 11 Dave Reed LIFT-UP (Life Inter Faith Team on Unemployment and Poverty) Printed On: 14 May 2025 Regional Grantor Group RFI 3 Request Details Describe your request and why this should be considered outside of standard grant cycles* LIFT-UP is requesting $2.5 million in emergency funding to eliminate unsustainable debt and stabilize the infrastructure needed to deliver regional food and nutrition services from Aspen to Parachute. This urgent request falls outside standard grant cycles due to rapidly compounding financial strain: historic spikes in need, sharp declines in unrestricted giving, rising food/fuel costs, and looming state and federal funding cuts. Without immediate action, LIFT-UP will be forced to cut food purchases—turning away 1 in 3 guests—and begin program closures and asset sales that could permanently destabilize the region’s emergency food system. This funding will: • Retire $1.5M in debt on the regional food hub to preserve this core distribution asset. • Pay down $400K in debt on Parachute and Rifle facilities to ensure continuity of operations. • Cover $200K in equipment debt and repairs. • Provide $400K in forward funding to stabilize services through 2025. LIFT-UP has already enacted dramatic cost-saving measures: eliminating drive-thru pantries (31,918 guests served in 2024), reducing 72-hour bag distribution by half (5,000 guests served via 10 partners), and delaying key leadership hires. Despite these efforts, we face irreversible losses without this collective investment. This is a defining moment for our region’s food security—requiring bold, unified response now. Describe the issue you are addressing and what regional community or strategic plan it supports* LIFT-UP is addressing a regional crisis in food and nutrition insecurity. Across Garfield, Pitkin, and Eagle Counties, demand for food assistance has soared 300% since 2020, while flexible funding has declined and major public programs face cuts. Rising food, gas, and housing costs—paired with stagnant wages—are forcing more working families, seniors, and vulnerable residents to rely on food banks. LIFT-UP serves as the region’s primary nonprofit food security provider, but without immediate relief, we face cuts that would destabilize the entire system. This request directly supports the regional priorities identified by the Mountain Coalition for Food and Nutrition Security (MCFNS), a cross-sector alliance including local governments and nonprofits. It sustains the regional food hub—recognized as essential infrastructure—and prevents the loss of facilities, equipment, and programs serving thousands. It also aligns with Pitkin County’s Health Equity Action Plan, the City of Aspen’s food access goals, and Aspen Community Foundation’s focus on basic needs and community vitality. LIFT-UP’s work, informed particularly by the MCFNS, reflects a regionally coordinated response to hunger and poverty. This emergency request ensures continuity of core infrastructure that was built through collaborative investment and is vital to local food access. Describe how you collaborate in the community.* Collaboration is central to LIFT-UP’s model, magnifying our impact and ensuring responsive, community- driven service. We serve as both a direct provider and a regional backbone organization, coordinating with local nonprofits, governments, businesses, and volunteers to strengthen the food security network from Parachute to Aspen. Our food distribution network relies on partners such as Catholic Charities and the River Center. Our Extended Table soup kitchens operate in collaboration with area faith-based organizations, offering hot meals and community connection. 12 Dave Reed LIFT-UP (Life Inter Faith Team on Unemployment and Poverty) Printed On: 14 May 2025 Regional Grantor Group RFI 4 We lead the Farm 2 Food Pantry program, sourcing fresh, culturally relevant food from 10 local farms, prioritizing partnerships with racially diverse growers. We rescued 237,879 pounds of food in 2024 through partnerships with local grocers and wholesalers, reducing food waste and environmental impact. Strategic partnerships with Valley Meals & More, Food Bank of the Rockies, and the Colorado Department of Human Services expand our reach to vulnerable seniors. Collaborations with funders such as Western Colorado Community Foundation and Yampa Valley Community Foundation support innovative efforts like our new Mobile Pantry. With over 250 volunteers donating thousands of hours, LIFT-UP’s collaborative approach strengthens community resilience, ensuring that no one faces hunger alone. State your anticipated results and evaluation method.* This emergency investment will eliminate $2.1M in debt tied to our food hub, core facilities in Rifle and Parachute, and essential equipment—ensuring continued, full-capacity operations across the Western Slope. An additional $400K in forward funding will stabilize operations through 2025, allowing us to maintain pantry hours, continue bulk food purchases, and meet rising demand. Without these funds, we face immediate service cuts—including turning away one in three guests and closing thrift stores that also serve as food distribution sites. Anticipated results: • Continued food access for 188,000+ annual visits • Sustained operations of five fixed pantries, Extended Table soup kitchens, and mobile/partner distributions • Preservation of Farm 2 Food Pantry partnerships with 10 local farms • Stabilized staffing, volunteer coordination, and community relationships We evaluate impact through guest visit data, pounds distributed, partner usage, and demographic metrics to assess equity. We also gather insights through surveys, partner feedback, and focus groups. Financial health is monitored via KPIs, audits, and board oversight. Results are reported annually to stakeholders. This investment prevents collapse—and sustains our ability to measure, adapt, and improve for long-term impact. Describe the potential challenges you may encounter.* LIFT-UP faces converging structural and emergent challenges that threaten our ability to sustain core services. Chief among them is escalating demand: guest visits have risen 300% since 2020, from 46,872 visits to 188,000 in 2024. If this trend continues—and all indicators suggest it will—our infrastructure will be overwhelmed without major new investment. Rising food, fuel, and utility costs compound this strain. We are also navigating an increasingly volatile and unpredictable funding landscape. The 2023 SNAP benefit reduction left many families with up to 45% less support overnight, forcing them to rely more heavily on organizations like LIFT-UP. Beginning in January 2025, abrupt changes to longstanding federal programs and funding mechanisms under the current administration have disrupted reimbursement schedules and cast uncertainty over major safety net programs. These policy shifts are straining state budgets and trickling down to local providers. While community foundations and donors remain critical partners, they may not be able to fully backfill large-scale public funding shortfalls over the long term. Other challenges include aging infrastructure, retaining staff during leadership transition, and preserving equity while implementing cost-saving measures. We’ve paused hires, cut budgets, and deepened partnerships—but without immediate investment, these challenges will intensify, risking collapse of a critical regional food security lifeline. 13 Dave Reed LIFT-UP (Life Inter Faith Team on Unemployment and Poverty) Printed On: 14 May 2025 Regional Grantor Group RFI 5 Itemized Project Budget* Lift Up_ACF_EmergRequest_Budget_05.14.25.pdf Describe how funding will be sustained.* This emergency funding request is designed to stabilize LIFT-UP’s operations and infrastructure, giving us the time and capacity to implement long-term sustainability strategies already underway. In the short term, we are controlling costs through operational efficiencies—reducing 72-hour bag budgets, pausing leadership hires, consolidating programs, and closing underperforming thrift locations. These actions have allowed us to continue accommodating over 188,000 visits annually while reducing debt burden. To ensure future financial sustainability, LIFT-UP is actively diversifying and strengthening our revenue streams. We’ve hired a local development director focused on expanding our donor base—especially among high-net-worth individuals, a largely untapped segment in our region. We’ve also increased board engagement, expanded food drives, and grown volunteer participation across our programs. Our long-term plan includes rebuilding thrift store revenue through a leaner, more sustainable model; growing our Farm 2 Food Pantry initiative to attract values-aligned funders; and deepening public-private partnerships. We will continue seeking federal and state grants, while engaging civic, faith-based, and philanthropic leaders around regional investment in shared food infrastructure. Ultimately, sustaining LIFT-UP’s work requires sustained partnership. This emergency support buys critical time to implement a strategy that is values-driven, community-powered, and built to last. Funding Sources* List all sources of funds/grants received in the past 3-5 years in the region. This includes government and municipal funders, Aspen Community Foundation, Aspen One, etc. LIFT-UP receives funding from a range of private individuals, foundations, corporations, and government sources. Over the last several years, funders have included: Alpenglow Foundation Alpha Gamma Delta Foundation Alpine Bank Anschutz Family Foundation Aspen Community Foundation Aspen One’s Caring for Community Fund (SkiCo) Aspen Thrift Shop Black Hills Energy Corporation Foundation Chevron City of Aspen City of Glenwood Springs Clough Family Foundation Colorado Blueprint to End Hunger Colorado Housing and Finance Authority Defiance Thrift Store Diane and Bruce Halle Foundation Diane and Ron Miller Fund El Pomar Foundation Ernst and Wilma Martens Foundation Eunice and Joshua J. Stone Foundation Fred and Elli Iselin Foundation Garfield County Human Services Commission Gates Family Foundation Henry and Ruth Blaustein Rosenberg Foundation 14 Dave Reed LIFT-UP (Life Inter Faith Team on Unemployment and Poverty) Printed On: 14 May 2025 Regional Grantor Group RFI 6 HJ Promise Foundation Holy Cross Energy Round-Up Foundation Lampton Family Foundation Louis & Harold Price Foundation Melvin and Bren Simon Foundation O'Shaughnessy Foundation Pajwell Foundation Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County Healthy Community Fund Reuben H. Fleet Fdtn Robins Foundation Rocky Mountain Health Foundation The Beaufort Foundation Town of Basalt Town of Carbondale Town of New Castle Vail Valley Cares Thrift Shops Vera and Joseph Dresner Foundation West Mountain Regional Health Alliance Western Colorado Community Foundation Wilson Sexton Foundation Yampa Valley Community Foundation Zander Family Foundation Financial Overview Fiscal year date range* 01/01/2025-12/31/2025 Current Operating Budget* $2,140,450.61 Total revenue for LAST fiscal year* $3,210,080 Total expenses for LAST fiscal year* $3,438,118 Total projected revenue for CURRENT fiscal year.* $2,060,722.04 15 Dave Reed LIFT-UP (Life Inter Faith Team on Unemployment and Poverty) Printed On: 14 May 2025 Regional Grantor Group RFI 7 Total projected expenses for CURRENT fiscal year.* $2,140,450.61 Anticipated budget for NEXT fiscal year.* $1,900,000 Explain any significant budget differences. The primary driver of the projected budget difference between LIFT-UP’s FY25 ($2,140,450.61) and estimated FY26 ($1,900,000) budgets is the anticipated reduction in debt service obligations. If outstanding debts are paid down as planned, interest expenses alone could decrease by approximately $100,000. This would eliminate a significant ongoing expense and allow LIFT-UP’s operating budget to reflect a positive net income. Additionally, reducing principal liabilities would free up approximately $160,000 in cash for direct program support, enabling LIFT-UP to sustain and potentially expand food security services despite economic and policy-driven funding volatility. It is important to note that principal payments on LIFT-UP’s GWS loan are scheduled to begin in 2026. The FY26 projections above conservatively assume that this loan remains active with continued interest-only payments. If circumstances allow for earlier payoff or refinancing, additional cost savings may be realized. Overall, the anticipated budget difference reflects LIFT-UP’s focus on improving financial resilience by reducing debt, lowering fixed expenses, and reallocating resources to meet the region’s growing food insecurity needs. Current cash reserve balance* Temp restricted assets of $1.259M If your organization has an endowment, please share the balance. No endowment Upload: Current FY Budget vs. Actual* LU_4.30.25 P&L.pdf Upload: Current FY year-to-date Balance Sheet* LU_4.30.25 Balance Sheet.pdf 16 Dave Reed LIFT-UP (Life Inter Faith Team on Unemployment and Poverty) Printed On: 14 May 2025 Regional Grantor Group RFI 8 Upload: Last FY Income and Expenses* LU_12.31.24 P&L.pdf Upload: Last FY Balance Sheet* LU_Balance Sheet_12.31.24.pdf 17 Dave Reed LIFT-UP (Life Inter Faith Team on Unemployment and Poverty) Printed On: 14 May 2025 Regional Grantor Group RFI 9 File Attachment Summary Applicant File Uploads • Lift Up_ACF_EmergRequest_Budget_05.14.25.pdf • LU_4.30.25 P&L.pdf • LU_4.30.25 Balance Sheet.pdf • LU_12.31.24 P&L.pdf • LU_Balance Sheet_12.31.24.pdf 18 Emergency Request - Operating Expenses Expenses A. DEBT RELIEF Debt Relief: Eliminate debt on the regional food hub - a critical regional priority identified through MCFNS and collaborative studies as improving efficiency and effectiveness of food storage and distribution across the region. $1,500,000 Debt relief: Eliminate debt on the Parachute and Rifle facilities - critical to providing food distributions and continuing our social enterprise thrift store operations for helping ensure long-term sustainability. $400,000 Debt and repair relief: Eliminate debt and repair costs to sustain critical equipment necessary for moving food - trucks, lifts, racks, freezers & refrigeration. $200,000 SUB-TOTAL $2,100,000 B. FORWARD FUNDING To provide forward funding for the balance of 2025 anticipated operational costs that will enable LU to meet continually escalating demand (300% increase since 2020). $400,000 SUB-TOTAL $400,000 TOTAL COSTS $2,500,000 LIFT-UP 2025 Regional Grantor Group Budget 19 Foundation Corporate Government United Way Earned Income Individuals Special Events Other 20 Apr 25 Budget Jan - Apr 25 YTD Budget Annual Budget Ordinary Income/Expense Income Rental Income 4045 · Rifle Office Leases 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,000.00 Total Rental Income 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,000.00 Retail 4010 · Rifle Thrift Store 16,532.05 12,419.93 57,571.21 49,679.72 149,039.16 4020 · Parachute Thrift Store 4,679.83 6,925.54 20,286.44 27,702.13 83,106.61 4030 · Glenwood Thrift Store 594.04 0.00 15,970.31 15,376.27 15,376.27 Total Retail 21,805.92 19,345.47 93,827.96 92,758.12 247,522.04 Workforce Grants 4250 · Health Navigator Grant 3,380.66 4,000.00 16,352.71 16,000.00 24,000.00 4260 · Cook Inclusive 540.32 390.00 924.61 774.29 3,900.00 Total Workforce Grants 3,920.98 4,390.00 17,277.32 16,774.29 27,900.00 4200 · Competitve Grants 0.00 28,666.64 28,000.00 30,166.64 259,500.00 4220 · Local Government Grants 24,000.00 0.00 81,000.00 57,000.00 173,000.00 4310 · Individual/General Contribution 60,430.77 46,571.64 212,051.36 181,027.04 553,600.00 4700 · Fundraisers 4710 · Donate to The Plate 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 346,000.00 4760 · Colorado Gives 225.00 0.00 1,675.00 0.00 69,200.00 4765 · F2FP 0.00 0.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 346,000.00 4799 · Capital Campaign 0.00 3,200.00 Total 4700 · Fundraisers 225.00 0.00 54,875.00 50,000.00 761,200.00 Total Income 110,382.67 98,973.75 487,031.64 427,726.09 2,028,722.04 Gross Profit 110,382.67 98,973.75 487,031.64 427,726.09 2,028,722.04 Expense Fundraising Expenses 7025 · Contractors 10,000.00 10,000.00 52,250.00 40,000.00 96,000.00 7070 · Advertising - Fundraising-WDR 5,025.00 0.00 20,540.00 19,000.00 22,000.00 7072 · Fundraising Software 0.00 0.00 39.86 0.00 1,010.00 7073 · Fundraising Postage 0.00 0.00 703.97 500.00 2,200.00 7074 · DoD Reimbursables 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,125.00 Total Fundraising Expenses 15,025.00 10,000.00 73,533.83 59,500.00 124,335.00 Operating Expense 6510 · HR Advertising 0.00 500.00 425.00 500.00 2,500.00 6515 · Auto/Building Insurance 2,832.00 2,750.00 11,940.35 11,000.00 33,000.00 6520 · Bank Charges 2,202.77 1,145.83 6,694.77 4,583.36 13,750.00 6525 · Licensing & Fees 30.00 0.00 205.00 0.00 100.00 6535 · D&O Liability 0.00 0.00 1,472.00 0.00 1,500.00 6537 · Worker's Comp Insurance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,000.00 6565 · Maintenance & Equipment 6565.1 · Maintenance & Equip Rifle 0.00 583.33 3,067.28 2,333.36 7,000.00 6565.2 · Maintenance & Equip Parachute 149.00 416.67 1,211.34 1,666.64 5,000.00 6565.3 · Maintenance & Equip HQ 0.00 416.67 418.71 1,666.64 5,000.00 6565.4 · Maintenance & Equip Warehouse 0.00 416.67 886.40 1,666.64 5,000.00 6565 · Maintenance & Equipment - Other 0.00 140.00 Total 6565 · Maintenance & Equipment 149.00 1,833.34 5,723.73 7,333.28 22,000.00 6575 · Memberships/Subscriptions 542.09 532.50 3,508.43 2,130.00 6,390.00 6576 · Phones 301.96 756.67 1,556.30 3,026.64 9,080.00 6577 · Internet 832.88 1,160.00 2,520.98 4,640.00 13,920.00 6580 · Office Equipment Misc 0.00 833.33 1,142.78 3,333.36 10,000.00 6590 · Postage 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 100.00 6595 · Printing & Supplies 234.78 483.33 1,289.02 1,933.36 5,800.00 6600 · Consulting/Development 21,000.00 21,000.00 84,000.00 84,000.00 126,000.00 6610 · Professional Fees - Acctg 5,750.00 5,750.00 23,000.00 23,000.00 92,000.00 6615 · Professional Fees - HR & PR 174.25 225.00 727.60 900.00 2,700.00 6620 · Utilities-Bldg 6620.1 · Utilities HQ 670.55 442.08 2,148.39 1,768.36 5,305.00 6620.2 · Utilities Warehouse 259.31 441.67 1,545.23 1,766.64 5,300.00 6620.3 · Utilities GWS Thrift 237.05 0.00 955.51 733.33 733.33 6620.4 · Utilities Rifle 600.89 929.17 2,831.77 3,716.64 11,150.00 6620.5 · Utilities Parachute 1,019.90 875.00 4,791.12 3,500.00 10,500.00 6620.6 · Utilities GWS Pantry 0.00 108.33 0.00 433.36 1,300.00 6620 · Utilities-Bldg - Other 29.66 56.13 Total 6620 · Utilities-Bldg 2,817.36 2,796.25 12,328.15 11,918.33 34,288.33 6635 · Informational Technology 213.85 83.33 263.85 333.36 1,000.00 6640 · Staff Training 0.00 0.00 75.06 1,250.00 2,500.00 6645 · Travel/Mileage/Lodging 0.00 416.67 647.20 1,666.64 5,000.00 6660 · Volunteer Insurance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 400.00 6730 · Salaries 36,275.75 49,000.00 186,180.61 198,904.86 632,574.58 6735 · Medical Benefits 845.52 900.00 4,103.85 4,158.33 26,607.83 6740 · Taxes 3,538.81 4,348.08 17,968.30 18,777.57 60,501.57 6745 · Retirement 218.72 1,430.00 874.19 1,885.47 17,252.90 6746 · Health Insurance Brokerage Fees 0.00 83.33 105.00 333.36 1,000.00 6747 · Interpreters 0.00 166.64 0.00 166.64 1,500.00 Total Operating Expense 77,959.74 96,194.30 366,752.17 385,799.56 1,126,465.21 Programs & ServicesExpenses 5000 · Programs & Services 5035 · Food 5035.1 · Shelf Stable FB of the Rockies 8,288.37 10,708.33 55,090.96 42,833.36 128,500.00 5035.2 · Produce 0.00 4,000.00 6,490.00 16,000.00 48,000.00 5035.3 · Dairy 0.00 375.00 0.00 1,500.00 4,500.00 5035.4 · Eggs 0.00 583.33 810.00 2,333.36 7,000.00 5035.5 · Meat 2,774.82 4,583.33 2,774.82 18,333.36 55,000.00 5035.6 · Farm to Food 10,000.00 9,166.67 30,000.00 36,666.64 110,000.00 5035.7 · Admin 0.00 375.00 0.00 1,500.00 4,500.00 5035.9 · Holiday Food 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15,000.00 5035.10 · 72-Hour Bags 0.00 3,000.00 0.00 12,000.00 36,000.00 5035.11 · Stand Alone Pantries 0.00 3,083.33 0.00 12,333.36 37,000.00 Total 5035 · Food 21,063.19 35,874.99 95,165.78 143,500.08 445,500.00 5040 · Transportation Expenses 5040.1 · Program Mileage and Parking 1,039.08 583.33 3,459.45 2,333.36 7,000.00 5040.2 · Fuel 756.85 1,666.67 5,935.47 6,666.64 20,000.00 5040.3 · Maintenance & Repairs 313.14 1,250.00 6,513.42 5,000.00 15,000.00 5040.4 · Vehicle Registration and Fees 0.00 291.67 126.91 1,166.64 3,500.00 5040 · Transportation Expenses - Other 0.00 33.56 Total 5040 · Transportation Expenses 2,109.07 3,791.67 16,068.81 15,166.64 45,500.00 5045 · Internet & Phones 0.00 319.56 5050 · Volunteer Recognition 430.64 0.00 526.14 0.00 7,500.00 5051 · Health Navigator Expenses 655.29 783.33 2,373.73 3,133.34 4,700.00 5055 · Rent 5055.1 · New Castle Pantry 650.00 652.08 2,600.00 2,608.36 7,825.00 5055.2 · Carbondale Pantry 1,439.07 1,253.38 5,199.21 5,013.52 7,520.28 5055.3 · Glenwood Pantry 400.00 400.00 1,600.00 1,600.00 2,400.00 5055.4 · Glenwood Thrift 16,005.53 4,549.08 29,651.83 18,196.32 54,588.96 Total 5055 · Rent 18,494.60 6,854.54 39,051.04 27,418.20 72,334.24 3:51 PM LIFT-UP 05/10/25 Profit & Loss Budget Performance Accrual Basis April 2025 Page 1 21 Apr 25 Budget Jan - Apr 25 YTD Budget Annual Budget 5060 · Supplies 5060.1 · Office 144.50 666.67 485.44 2,666.64 8,000.00 5060.2 · Rifle Thrift Store 0.00 250.00 639.64 1,000.00 3,000.00 5060.3 · Glenwood Thrift Store 1,100.00 0.00 1,164.40 64.40 64.40 5060.4 · Parachute Thrift Store 0.00 250.00 48.19 1,000.00 3,000.00 5060.5 · Programs 0.00 250.00 105.81 1,000.00 3,000.00 5060.6 · Warehouse 58.08 250.00 1,178.39 1,000.00 3,000.00 5060.7 · Operations 0.00 83.33 262.15 333.36 1,000.00 5060.8 · Extended Table 0.00 833.33 5,106.41 3,333.36 10,000.00 5060.9 · Wee Cycle 375.00 125.00 375.00 500.00 1,500.00 Total 5060 · Supplies 1,677.58 2,708.33 9,365.43 10,897.76 32,564.40 5081 · Sales Tax 1,024.25 1,650.15 6,872.51 6,600.56 19,801.76 5082 · Sales Tax Licenses 0.00 25.00 0.00 25.00 50.00 5083 · Software - Thrift Store 0.00 0.00 0.00 450.00 1,800.00 5084 · Software - Pantry 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,575.00 6,300.00 Total 5000 · Programs & Services 45,454.62 51,688.01 169,743.00 208,766.58 636,050.40 Total Programs & ServicesExpenses 45,454.62 51,688.01 169,743.00 208,766.58 636,050.40 Reimbursements 0.00 0.00 Total Expense 138,439.36 157,882.31 610,029.00 654,066.14 1,886,850.61 Net Ordinary Income -28,056.69 -58,908.56 -122,997.36 -226,340.05 141,871.43 Other Income/Expense Other Income Other Income 8100 · Miscellaneous Income 200.00 200.00 8110 · Interest Income 1,103.93 1,000.00 4,420.71 4,000.00 12,000.00 8160 · Gain/Loss on Sale of Assets 5,000.00 1,666.67 5,000.00 6,666.64 20,000.00 Total Other Income 6,303.93 2,666.67 9,620.71 10,666.64 32,000.00 Total Other Income 6,303.93 2,666.67 9,620.71 10,666.64 32,000.00 Other Expense Other Expense 8310 · Interest Expense 8310.1 · Glenwood 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42,000.00 8310.2 · Glenwood COA Fees 2,348.61 2,916.67 9,394.44 11,666.64 35,000.00 8310.3 · Rifle 465.69 483.33 1,894.91 1,933.36 5,800.00 8310.4 · Parachute 446.83 433.33 1,811.96 1,733.36 5,200.00 8310.5 · Equipment 346.78 416.67 1,432.26 1,666.64 5,000.00 Total 8310 · Interest Expense 3,607.91 4,250.00 14,533.57 17,000.00 93,000.00 8330 · Depreciation Expense 12,242.57 13,291.67 49,012.78 53,166.64 159,500.00 8340 · Bad Debt Expense 0.00 0.00 1,100.00 1,100.00 1,100.00 Total Other Expense 15,850.48 17,541.67 64,646.35 71,266.64 253,600.00 Total Other Expense 15,850.48 17,541.67 64,646.35 71,266.64 253,600.00 Net Other Income -9,546.55 -14,875.00 -55,025.64 -60,600.00 -221,600.00 Net Income -37,603.24 -73,783.56 -178,023.00 -286,940.05 -79,728.57 3:51 PM LIFT-UP 05/10/25 Profit & Loss Budget Performance Accrual Basis April 2025 Page 2 22 Apr 30, 25 ASSETS Current Assets Checking/Savings 1000 · Cash - Operations 1004 · Alpine Bank Capital Campaign 175,586.36 1005 · Alpine General Operating (0571)273,573.06 1007 · Rifle Thrift Store (0485)1,450.14 1008 · Parachute Thrift Store (1414)1,431.23 Total 1000 · Cash - Operations 452,040.79 1150 · Rifle Thrift Store Petty cash 300.00 1160 · Glenwood Springs Thrift Store 250.00 Total Checking/Savings 452,590.79 Accounts Receivable 1200 · Accounts Receivable 216,880.66 Total Accounts Receivable 216,880.66 Other Current Assets 1300 · Inventory Asset 1305 · Inventory - Warehouse 9,418.78 1310 · Food Pantry Inventory-Aspen 2,017.81 1320 · Food Pantry Inventory-C'dale 954.61 1330 · Food Pantry Inventory-GWS 1,141.80 1340 · Food Pantry Inventory-New Castl 2,041.37 1350 · Food Pantry Inventory-Parachute 2,352.30 1360 · Food Pantry Inventory-Rifle 2,542.84 1390 · Thrift Store Inventory-Rifle 18,000.00 1300 · Inventory Asset - Other 15,200.00 Total 1300 · Inventory Asset 53,669.51 1475 · Gift Cards 2,340.00 1560 · Prepaid Expense 4,509.64 1600 · Investments 1610 · CD 48638 (3 Mo. Reserve Acct)328,658.25 1600 · Investments - Other 28,020.81 Total 1600 · Investments 356,679.06 Total Other Current Assets 417,198.21 Total Current Assets 1,086,669.66 Fixed Assets 1710 · Furn. & Equip.131,525.68 1720 · Automobile 205,158.16 1730 · Building Improvements 1.41 1750 · Parachute Food Pantry Building 177,186.47 1751 · Parachute Thrift Improvements 14,548.17 1755 · Glenwood Springs Building 1,750,000.00 1756 · GWS Building Improvements 71,968.15 1760 · Building-Rifle 402,095.13 1770 · Building-Parachute 289,753.00 1780 · Aspen Building Improvements 31,650.89 1790 · Land 320,932.00 1795 · Land Improvements 0.08 1799 · Accum Depreciation-Vehicles, et -593,966.46 Total Fixed Assets 2,800,852.68 4:01 PM LIFT-UP 05/10/25 Balance Sheet Accrual Basis As of April 30, 2025 Page 1 23 Apr 30, 25 Other Assets 1550 · Security Deposit 89,641.31 Total Other Assets 89,641.31 TOTAL ASSETS 3,977,163.65 LIABILITIES & EQUITY Liabilities Current Liabilities Accounts Payable 2000 · Accounts Payable 24,275.44 Total Accounts Payable 24,275.44 Credit Cards 2240 · Alpine Bank CC - 9340 4,072.31 Total Credit Cards 4,072.31 Other Current Liabilities 2320 · Accrued Expenses 20,716.76 2410 · Sales Tax Payable 1,024.25 2500 · Payroll Liabilitlies -2,901.03 Total Other Current Liabilities 18,839.98 Total Current Liabilities 47,187.73 Long Term Liabilities 2900 · Notes Payable 2910 · Mortgage - Parachute #1101 115,128.07 2920 · Mortgage - Rifle #6101 119,912.48 2930 · Truck Loan 50,952.51 2940 · Mortgage Glenwood Springs 1,500,000.00 Total 2900 · Notes Payable 1,785,993.06 Total Long Term Liabilities 1,785,993.06 Total Liabilities 1,833,180.79 Equity 3100 · Board-designated Operating Resr 313,548.23 3200 · Board-designated/Cap Camp Note 200,000.00 3300 · Board-designated Capital Camp 100,000.00 3700 · Temp. Restricted Net Assets 449,210.00 3900 · Net Assets 1,259,247.63 Net Income -178,023.00 Total Equity 2,143,982.86 TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY 3,977,163.65 4:01 PM LIFT-UP 05/10/25 Balance Sheet Accrual Basis As of April 30, 2025 Page 2 24 Jan - Dec 24 Ordinary Income/Expense Income Retail 4010 · Rifle Thrift Store 208,657.31 4020 · Parachute Thrift Store 17,650.72 4030 · Glenwood Thrift Store 73,934.82 Total Retail 300,242.85 Workforce Grants 4250 · Health Navigator Grant 46,331.17 Total Workforce Grants 46,331.17 4200 · Competitve Grants 140,500.00 4220 · Local Government Grants 91,798.98 4300 · Contributions 36.05 4310 · Individual/General Contribution 338,924.18 4700 · Fundraisers 4710 · Donate to The Plate 204,608.22 4760 · Colorado Gives 40,891.67 4765 · F2FP 247,858.52 4799 · Capital Campaign 696,695.07 Total 4700 · Fundraisers 1,190,053.48 Total Income 2,107,886.71 Gross Profit 2,107,886.71 Expense Fundraising Expenses 7025 · Contractors 201,500.00 7070 · Advertising - Fundraising-WDR 86,609.16 7071 · Event Expense 200.00 Total Fundraising Expenses 288,309.16 Operating Expense 6501 · Advertising 300.00 6510 · HR Advertising 2,407.52 6515 · Auto/Building Insurance 32,601.87 6520 · Bank Charges 14,974.14 6525 · Licensing & Fees 5,515.04 6535 · D&O Liability 1,410.00 6537 · Worker's Comp Insurance 4,257.00 6545 · Gifts for Staff 69.93 6565 · Maintenance & Equipment 6565.1 · Maintenance & Equip Rifle 1,193.00 6565.3 · Maintenance & Equip HQ 145.50 6565 · Maintenance & Equipment - Other 23,509.43 Total 6565 · Maintenance & Equipment 24,847.93 6566 · Maintenance - Insurance 13,065.87 6575 · Memberships/Subscriptions 9,335.66 6590 · Postage 1,654.45 6595 · Printing & Supplies 3,147.59 6600 · Consulting/Development 22,415.04 6610 · Professional Fees - Acctg 92,000.00 6615 · Professional Fees - HR & PR 4,067.00 6620 · Utilities-Bldg 35,616.02 4:10 PM LIFT-UP 05/10/25 Profit & Loss Accrual Basis January through December 2024 Page 1 25 Jan - Dec 24 6635 · Informational Technology 12,069.95 6640 · Staff Training 465.00 6645 · Travel/Mileage/Lodging 27,438.61 6660 · Volunteer Insurance 400.00 6730 · Salaries 742,402.51 6735 · Medical Benefits 25,225.57 6740 · Taxes 68,392.46 6745 · Retirement 2,809.76 Total Operating Expense 1,146,888.92 Programs & ServicesExpenses 5000 · Programs & Services 5035 · Food 5035.1 · Shelf Stable FB of the Rockies 221,306.91 5035.2 · Produce 166,487.26 5035.3 · Dairy 1,575.00 5035.4 · Eggs 5,736.07 5035.5 · Meat 62,652.81 5035.7 · Admin 9,096.75 Total 5035 · Food 466,854.80 5040 · Transportation Expenses 5040.1 · Program Mileage and Parking 14,763.54 5040.2 · Fuel 24,115.62 5040.3 · Maintenance & Repairs 17,111.25 5040 · Transportation Expenses - Other 92.05 Total 5040 · Transportation Expenses 56,082.46 5045 · Internet & Phones 23,210.05 5050 · Volunteer Recognition 1,624.30 5055 · Rent 5055.1 · New Castle Pantry 7,300.00 5055.2 · Carbondale Pantry 15,093.34 5055.3 · Glenwood Pantry 4,800.00 5055.4 · Glenwood Thrift 54,115.32 5055 · Rent - Other 342.00 Total 5055 · Rent 81,650.66 5060 · Supplies 5060.1 · Office 7,998.23 5060.2 · Rifle Thrift Store 3,554.31 5060.3 · Glenwood Thrift Store 13,940.30 5060.4 · Parachute Thrift Store 4,419.90 5060.5 · Programs 2,860.12 5060.6 · Warehouse 4,275.07 5060.7 · Operations 762.10 5060.8 · Extended Table 677.70 5060 · Supplies - Other 185.00 Total 5060 · Supplies 38,672.73 5081 · Sales Tax 24,284.07 Total 5000 · Programs & Services 692,379.07 6756 · Invntory Adj - All Programs -20,629.00 Total Programs & ServicesExpenses 671,750.07 Reimbursements 0.00 Total Expense 2,106,948.15 Net Ordinary Income 938.56 4:10 PM LIFT-UP 05/10/25 Profit & Loss Accrual Basis January through December 2024 Page 2 26 Jan - Dec 24 Other Income/Expense Other Income Other Income 8100 · Miscellaneous Income 2,917.76 8110 · Interest Income 12,495.41 8150 · Insurance Proceeds 43,986.10 Total Other Income 59,399.27 9210 · In-Kind (Voln Hrs & General) 9220 · Volunteer Hours 787,205.80 9240 · Food Donations/Pounds 37,551.56 9250 · Grocery Rescue/Pounds 182,882.93 9260 · Food Drives/Pounds 24,966.61 9265 · Supplies 10,186.77 Total 9210 · In-Kind (Voln Hrs & General)1,042,793.67 Total Other Income 1,102,192.94 Other Expense Other Expense 8310 · Interest Expense 8310.1 · Glenwood 97,500.00 8310.2 · Glenwood COA Fees 32,060.90 8310.3 · Rifle 6,288.98 8310.4 · Parachute 5,916.26 8310 · Interest Expense - Other 5,425.27 Total 8310 · Interest Expense 147,191.41 8330 · Depreciation Expense 145,880.39 8350 · Unrealized Gain/Loss on Invest -4,695.52 Total Other Expense 288,376.28 9610 · In-Kind 9620 · Volunteer Value 787,205.80 9640 · Food Donation/Pounds 37,551.56 9650 · Grocery Rescue/Pounds 182,882.93 9660 · Food Drives/Pounds 24,966.61 9665 · Supplies 10,186.77 Total 9610 · In-Kind 1,042,793.67 Total Other Expense 1,331,169.95 Net Other Income -228,977.01 Net Income -228,038.45 4:10 PM LIFT-UP 05/10/25 Profit & Loss Accrual Basis January through December 2024 Page 3 27 Dec 31, 24 ASSETS Current Assets Checking/Savings 1000 · Cash - Operations 1005 · Alpine General Operating (0571)633,661.95 1007 · Rifle Thrift Store (0485)121.23 1008 · Parachute Thrift Store (1414)5,370.16 1130 · Designated Funds-7104 54,668.76 Total 1000 · Cash - Operations 693,822.10 1150 · Rifle Thrift Store Petty cash 300.00 1160 · Glenwood Springs Thrift Store 250.00 Total Checking/Savings 694,372.10 Accounts Receivable 1200 · Accounts Receivable 261,174.33 Total Accounts Receivable 261,174.33 Other Current Assets 1300 · Inventory Asset 1305 · Inventory - Warehouse 9,418.78 1310 · Food Pantry Inventory-Aspen 2,017.81 1320 · Food Pantry Inventory-C'dale 954.61 1330 · Food Pantry Inventory-GWS 1,141.80 1340 · Food Pantry Inventory-New Castl 2,041.37 1350 · Food Pantry Inventory-Parachute 2,352.30 1360 · Food Pantry Inventory-Rifle 2,542.84 1390 · Thrift Store Inventory-Rifle 18,000.00 1300 · Inventory Asset - Other 15,200.00 Total 1300 · Inventory Asset 53,669.51 1475 · Gift Cards 2,340.00 1560 · Prepaid Expense 0.03 1600 · Investments 1610 · CD 48638 (3 Mo. Reserve Acct)325,061.00 1600 · Investments - Other 28,020.81 Total 1600 · Investments 353,081.81 Total Other Current Assets 409,091.35 Total Current Assets 1,364,637.78 Fixed Assets 1710 · Furn. & Equip.103,538.49 1720 · Automobile 205,158.16 1730 · Building Improvements 1.41 1750 · Parachute Food Pantry Building 177,186.47 1751 · Parachute Thrift Improvements 14,548.17 1755 · Glenwood Springs Building 1,750,000.00 1756 · GWS Building Improvements 71,968.15 1760 · Building-Rifle 402,095.13 1770 · Building-Parachute 289,753.00 1780 · Aspen Building Improvements 31,650.89 1790 · Land 320,932.00 1795 · Land Improvements 0.08 1799 · Accum Depreciation-Vehicles, et -538,350.76 Total Fixed Assets 2,828,481.19 8:19 AM LIFT-UP 02/24/25 Balance Sheet Accrual Basis As of December 31, 2024 Page 1 28 Dec 31, 24 Other Assets 1550 · Security Deposit 9,641.31 Total Other Assets 9,641.31 TOTAL ASSETS 4,202,760.28 LIABILITIES & EQUITY Liabilities Current Liabilities Accounts Payable 2000 · Accounts Payable 29,208.99 Total Accounts Payable 29,208.99 Credit Cards 2240 · Alpine Bank CC - 9340 4,115.62 Total Credit Cards 4,115.62 Other Current Liabilities 2320 · Accrued Expenses 20,716.76 2410 · Sales Tax Payable 2,941.50 2500 · Payroll Liabilitlies 11,640.69 Total Other Current Liabilities 35,298.95 Total Current Liabilities 68,623.56 Long Term Liabilities 2900 · Notes Payable 2910 · Mortgage - Parachute #1101 119,369.59 2920 · Mortgage - Rifle #6101 125,449.65 2930 · Truck Loan 57,089.05 2940 · Mortgage Glenwood Springs 1,500,000.00 Total 2900 · Notes Payable 1,801,908.29 Total Long Term Liabilities 1,801,908.29 Total Liabilities 1,870,531.85 Equity 3100 · Board-designated Operating Resr 313,548.23 3200 · Board-designated/Cap Camp Note 200,000.00 3700 · Temp. Restricted Net Assets 449,210.00 3900 · Net Assets 1,587,286.08 Net Income -217,815.88 Total Equity 2,332,228.43 TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY 4,202,760.28 8:19 AM LIFT-UP 02/24/25 Balance Sheet Accrual Basis As of December 31, 2024 Page 2 29 Logan Hood Community Health Services, Inc Printed On: 13 June 2025 Regional Grantor Group RFI 1 General Operating for Reproductive/Sexual Health and Cancer Screenings Regional Grantor Group RFI Community Health Services, Inc Logan Hood 360 W Sopris Creek Road Suite 201 Basalt, CO 81621 logan.hood@aspencommunityhealth.org O: 970-920-5420 M: 970-379-0781 Logan Hood 0405 Castle Creek Road Aspen, CO 81611 Logan.hood@aspencommunityhealth.org O: 970-920-5010 M: 970-379-0781 30 Logan Hood Community Health Services, Inc Printed On: 13 June 2025 Regional Grantor Group RFI 2 Application Form Request for Information The Regional Grantor Group is an informal network of local funders who are exploring ways to better understand the full scope of regional funding needs and to coordinate grantmaking practices for maximum impact. The group consists of representatives from the City of Aspen, Aspen Community Foundation, Aspen One, and Pitkin County Healthy Community Fund. As funders, we recognize that funding needs don’t always align with scheduled processes. These needs may occur due to sudden loss of funding or be critical to seed concepts for important gaps in services identified through community plans, capital projects, or new and innovative programs meant to strengthen the social capacity of the community. This Request for Information aims to centralize and clarify funding needs made by individual organizations outside of scheduled processes to help inform government, municipal, private sector, and other funding entities. Nonprofit organizations seeking monetary support outside the scheduled processes of any of the Regional Grantor Group members are asked to complete this RFI. The Regional Grantor Group will review these requests, provide any relevant context, invite other critical funding partners, and provide a recommendation for how to proceed. Please note: This review process is the first step in seeking funding outside of scheduled grant processes. Individual Regional Grantor Group members may require additional information or steps to gain approval from their governing bodies. Request Overview Type of Request* General Operating Purpose of Request* Write "General Operating" or define your program/project request. General Operating for Reproductive/Sexual Health and Cancer Screenings Grant Request Amount* $90,000.00 31 Logan Hood Community Health Services, Inc Printed On: 13 June 2025 Regional Grantor Group RFI 3 Request Details Describe your request and why this should be considered outside of standard grant cycles* Effective July 1, 2025, Community Health Services will face major funding cuts to its reproductive, sexual health, and cancer screening programs which we have been providing the community for over 50 years. These reductions threaten access to essential care for individuals already facing systemic barriers and will have a devastating impact on the community. The sudden loss poses an urgent need for support to prevent service disruption. Bridge funding would help maintain operations, ensure continuity of care, and provide crucial time for scenario planning and program adjustments. An off-cycle grant investment would offer the necessary flexibility and stability during this transition. Describe the issue you are addressing and what regional community or strategic plan it supports* Community Health Services (CHS) addresses critical barriers to affordable, equitable, and high-quality preventive healthcare for low-income, uninsured, and underinsured individuals who might otherwise rely on the emergency room or delay care altogether. Key focus areas include: Reproductive and preventive care: CHS helps individuals both achieve and prevent pregnancy, provides lifesaving cancer screenings and STI testing and treatment with an emphasis on serving those with no other care options. Pediatric oral health: CHS delivers free dental hygiene and basic procedures to over 1,200 PreK–8th grade students annually in schools from Aspen to Parachute. Immunizations: The clinic provides free vaccines for children, low-income adults, first responders, and teachers, helping prevent the spread of infection. Adolescent health: In the absence of school-based health centers, CHS offers confidential, non-judgmental adolescent services including testing, supplies, counseling, mental health screenings, education, and referrals. Safety net support: CHS is one of the few upper valley providers that accepts Medicaid and offers a sliding fee scale. It also provides essential supplies like food, diapers, formula, bus passes and grocery gift cards. Prenatal care: For Medicaid and Cover All Colorado recipients’ pregnant people from Eagle and Pitkin counties can be monitored because CHS is the sole provider of prenatal care, contributing to a quarter of births at Aspen Valley Health. Describe how you collaborate in the community.* Community Health Services (CHS) serves a region with significant geographic, cultural, language, and economic barriers that contribute to health disparities, including high living costs, isolation, and low-wage, seasonal jobs that often leave individuals uninsured. CHS facilitates care through patient navigation and coordinated referrals. Key partnerships look like: •Providing key public health nursing activities through contracts with CDPHE and local public health departments within three counties to address disease prevention, health promotion and ensure access to healthcare for all. •Collaborates with Response and Riverbridge to treat sexual assault survivors. •Offers monthly dental and reproductive health services via the MIRA Bus in partnership with Eagle Valley CF. •Works with Aspen Valley Health and Grand River Hospital to secure free diagnostic imaging for patients. •Partners with school districts from Aspen to Parachute for student dental screenings. •Collaborates with other health centers such as Mountain Family Health and La Clinic for Medicaid outreach and enrollment. •Supports Planned Parenthood by offering their patients cervical procedures they cannot currently provide. •Engages with a broad network of partners including All Valley Women’s Care, Pitkin County Public Health & Human Services, and various local nonprofits, and community organizations. 32 Logan Hood Community Health Services, Inc Printed On: 13 June 2025 Regional Grantor Group RFI 4 These partnerships enhance service reach, continuity of care, and health equity across vulnerable populations. State your anticipated results and evaluation method.* Bridge funding is expected to ensure uninterrupted delivery of critical services, preserving client care, trust, and health outcomes. It would also support staff retention, morale, and productivity. Anticipated results include timely interventions, fewer visits to the ER, reduced unplanned pregnancies, and avoidance of late- stage cancer diagnoses or untreated infections. Evaluation will include both quantitative and qualitative methods such as tracking client numbers, visits, and procedures compared to previous periods, and collecting testimonials from clients and staff. The organization will also assess how funding prevented layoffs or role reductions and evaluate the cost-effectiveness and impact of maintaining continuous care. Describe the potential challenges you may encounter.* Since gap funding is temporary and not a long-term solution, the potential elimination of the Title X Family Planning Program would create cash flow insecurity for Community Health Services and put pressure on partners. This could force reliance on invested emergency funds to maintain program operations that would last up to six months. Ideally, the organization aims to draw on these reserves gradually and strategically, prioritizing long-term stability and sustainability over immediate depletion. Itemized Project Budget* 2025 forecast total only.pdf Describe how funding will be sustained.* In response to federal funding cuts announced in April 2025, the board and staff initiated a scenario planning process to evaluate whether to pivot, partner, or pause programming. The committee is actively working with a contractor on analysis and forecasting, aiming to reach clearer decisions by August. This process has prompted new ways of thinking and involved discussions with key partners and funders to align with their priorities and learn how we can adapt to changes together. The organization is also exploring community fundraising strategies and recently hired a part-time contractor to support grant management, individual giving, and small events to diversify funding sources, a new position within the organization. Funding Sources* List all sources of funds/grants received in the past 3-5 years in the region. This includes government and municipal funders, Aspen Community Foundation, Aspen One, etc. Aspen Community Foundation (9-10K) Pitkin County Public Health ($209K) Healthy Community Fund ($70K) Aspen Valley Hospital ($12-15K) Garfield County Public Health ($136K) 33 Logan Hood Community Health Services, Inc Printed On: 13 June 2025 Regional Grantor Group RFI 5 Rifle Community Foundation ($5K) Eagle County Public Health ($56K) Aspen Thrift Shop ($4-6K) Town of Snowmass Village ($17-18K) Town of Basalt ($2K) Pitkin County Health & Human Services (in-kind space $58K) Financial Overview Fiscal year date range* January-December Current Operating Budget* 1,360586.50 Total revenue for LAST fiscal year* 1,414201 Total expenses for LAST fiscal year* 1,533,017 Total projected revenue for CURRENT fiscal year.* 1,118320.20 Total projected expenses for CURRENT fiscal year.* 1, 265392.05 Anticipated budget for NEXT fiscal year.* 1,250,000 34 Logan Hood Community Health Services, Inc Printed On: 13 June 2025 Regional Grantor Group RFI 6 Explain any significant budget differences. We are now forecasting $148,000 shortfall by end of year 2025. We previously anticipated a loss of $33K in 2025, but with the amended budgets from Title X Family Planning and CDC Women's Wellness Connection and other political threats of even deeper cuts in 2026-2028 we now know that approximately 37% of these program funds will change effective July 1, 2025. Current cash reserve balance* 263,711 If your organization has an endowment, please share the balance. 425,000 Upload: Current FY Budget vs. Actual* Curent FY Budget to Actual 5-31-25.pdf Upload: Current FY year-to-date Balance Sheet* Balance Sheet 5-31-25.pdf Upload: Last FY Income and Expenses* FY 2024 P&L Budget to Actual.pdf Upload: Last FY Balance Sheet* Balance Sheet 2024.pdf 35 Logan Hood Community Health Services, Inc Printed On: 13 June 2025 Regional Grantor Group RFI 7 File Attachment Summary Applicant File Uploads • 2025 forecast total only.pdf • Curent FY Budget to Actual 5-31-25.pdf • Balance Sheet 5-31-25.pdf • FY 2024 P&L Budget to Actual.pdf • Balance Sheet 2024.pdf 36 Community Health Services, Inc. Budget vs. Actual Jan-May 2025 with Forecast June-Dec 2025 Ordinary Income/Expense Income Local Contracts 3302 · CMC & CO Safety Net 3301 · El Pomar 3300 · Pitkin County Biometrics 3239 · ReproCollab/Upstream 3264 · Rocky Mountain Health Foundatio 3266 · Caring for Community Fund 3298 · GarCO HSC/Rifle CF 3202 · PitCo FP 3204 · Thrift Shop 3208 · PitCo Iz 3213 · PitCo TB 3248 · Eagle Cty - FP 3253 · AVH - PN 3255 · City of Aspen Funds 3256 · Pitkin Cty HCF 3257 · Eagle Cty - PN+Dental 3259 · Town of Snowmass Village 3284 · Town of Basalt 3287 · Aspen Community Fdtn 3288 · State Dental (GarCo) 3289 · Garfield Cty - Dental Total Local Contracts Program Fees 3115 · IZ-TV (Travel Vax) 3111 · TB 3100 · Immunizations 3110 · Family Planning Fees 3151 · Dental Services 3155 · Prenatal Pitkin Cty Client Fees 3156 · Prenatal Eagle Client Fees Total Program Fees St. of Co Health Dept Contracts 3212 · CPED 3220 · State Title X/Family Planning Total St. of Co Health Dept Contracts 3280 · Donations 3260 · Pitkin County In-Kind Rent 3282 · FP Donations 3285 · General Donations Total 3280 · Donations 3290 · Other Income 3293 · Dividend/Interest Income 3297 · UnrlzdGain/Loss Total 3290 · Other Income Total Income Gross Profit TOTAL Jan - Dec 25 Budget Difference 15,000.00 15,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 15,000.00 (10,000.00) 5,470.00 3,000.00 2,470.00 5,000.00 17,500.00 (12,500.00) 10,000.00 31,500.00 (21,500.00) 0.00 6,000.00 (6,000.00) 5,000.00 10,000.00 (5,000.00) 57,680.00 57,680.00 0.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 0.00 174,543.00 191,000.00 (16,457.00) 12,040.89 8,925.00 3,115.89 41,000.00 41,000.00 0.00 14,750.00 7,000.00 7,750.00 15,900.00 27,000.00 (11,100.00) 70,000.00 70,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 0.00 17,000.00 18,000.00 (1,000.00) 2,000.00 2,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 0.00 26,228.75 21,480.00 4,748.75 116,263.32 112,799.00 3,464.32 621,875.96 673,884.00 9% 33,870.00 30,000.00 3,870.00 355.00 250.00 105.00 76,720.99 130,000.00 (53,279.01) 50,081.70 58,000.00 (7,918.30) 5,243.99 10,000.00 (4,756.01) 2,500.00 20,000.00 (17,500.00) 10,063.40 20,000.00 (9,936.60) 178,835.08 268,250.00 34% 94,886.78 142,634.00 (47,747.22) 116,238.23 128,976.00 (12,737.77) 211,125.01 271,610.00 23% 68,092.44 68,092.50 (0.06) 2,852.00 5,000.00 (2,148.00) 25,606.45 55,000.00 (29,393.55) 96,550.89 128,092.50 4,809.28 8,750.00 (3,940.72) 1,123.98 10,000.00 (8,876.02) 9,933.26 18,750.00 1,118,320.20 1,360,586.50 1,118,320.20 1,360,586.50 Page 1 of 2 37 Community Health Services, Inc. Budget vs. Actual Jan-May 2025 with Forecast June-Dec 2025 Expense General & Administrative 5672 · Equity,Diversity & Inclusion 5912 · Fundraising Expense 5299 · Admin Advertising 5907 · Miles,Tele,Travel & Meal 5210 · Advertising 5215 · Web Design & Upkeep 5260 · Computer County Network/Support 5275 · Board expense 5400 · Dues/Recerts/Cont Education 5410 · Employee Relations 5420 · Employee Benefits 5425 · Employment Expense 5531 · Liability Insurances 5600 · Office Services 5610 · Office Supplies 5615 · Practice Management Expense 5669 · Professional Fees, Development 5670 · Professional Fees, Accounting 5671 · Professional Fees. Paychex 5911 · Investment Advisory Fees Total General & Administrative Payroll FAMLI Comp FICA Comp MCARE Wages & Salary Gross Total Wages & Salary 5110 · Wellness Benefit 5510 · Health Benefit Premiums -ER 5515 · Health Savings Account 5520 · Insurance/Workmans State Comp 5525 · Employee Assistance Program 5529 · Unemployment Claims Expense 5802 · Simple IRA-ER Contrib 3% Total Payroll Program Expenses 5625 · Program Services 5630 · Program Supplies 5645 · Supervising Physcian 5965 · Pitkin County In-Kind Rent Total Program Expenses Total Expense Net Ordinary Income TOTAL Jan - Dec 25 Budget Difference 0.00 100.00 (100.00) 21,203.95 3,000.00 18,203.95 2,777.26 1,000.00 1,777.26 5,296.02 1,500.00 3,796.02 5,537.50 9,000.00 (3,462.50) 7,391.75 2,300.00 5,091.75 20,000.00 18,000.00 2,000.00 2,550.00 500.00 2,050.00 402.84 4,000.00 (3,597.16) 1,590.80 2,000.00 (409.20) 2,287.75 7,000.00 (4,712.25) 0.00 1,000.00 (1,000.00) 11,737.51 18,000.00 (6,262.49) 3,609.92 5,000.00 (1,390.08) 2,644.24 4,000.00 (1,355.76) 13,179.35 21,000.00 (7,820.65) 2,400.00 25,000.00 (22,600.00) 25,481.25 25,000.00 481.25 5,080.29 4,500.00 580.29 1,771.60 1,500.00 271.60 134,942.03 153,400.00 2,902.66 3,974.00 (1,071.34) 44,583.34 51,253.00 (6,669.66) 10,167.08 11,987.00 (1,819.92) 0.00 717,082.69 760,464.00 (43,381.31) 717,082.69 760,464.00 6,600.00 7,550.00 (950.00) 49,292.18 48,960.00 332.18 20,768.40 24,400.00 (3,631.60) 2,277.00 2,000.00 277.00 2,070.00 2,500.00 (430.00) 0.00 8,000.00 (8,000.00) 7,912.10 19,400.00 (11,487.90) 863,655.45 940,488.00 80,180.30 120,000.00 (39,819.70) 116,521.83 110,000.00 6,521.83 2,000.00 2,000.00 0.00 68,092.44 68,092.50 (0.06) 266,794.57 300,092.50 1,265,392.05 1,393,980.50 -147,071.85 -33,394.00 Page 2 of 2 38 Jan - May 25 Budget $ Over Budget % of Budget Ordinary Income/Expense Income Local Contracts 3302 · CMC & CO Safety Net 0.00 6,250.00 -6,250.00 0.0% 3301 · El Pomar 0.00 6,250.00 -6,250.00 0.0% 3300 · Pitkin County Biometrics 2,970.00 1,250.00 1,720.00 237.6% 3239 · ReproCollab/Upstream 0.00 7,291.65 -7,291.65 0.0% 3267 · ACF Capacity Building 0.00 4,166.65 -4,166.65 0.0% 3264 · Rocky Mountain Health Foundatio 10,000.00 13,125.00 -3,125.00 76.2% 3266 · Caring for Community Fund 0.00 2,500.00 -2,500.00 0.0% 3298 · GarCO HSC 0.00 4,166.65 -4,166.65 0.0% 3202 · PitCo FP 57,680.00 24,033.31 33,646.69 240.0% 3204 · Thrift Shop 0.00 1,666.65 -1,666.65 0.0% 3208 · PitCo Iz 36,543.00 79,583.31 -43,040.31 45.9% 3213 · PitCo TB 4,040.89 3,718.75 322.14 108.7% 3248 · Eagle Cty - FP 0.00 17,083.31 -17,083.31 0.0% 3253 · AVH - PN 12,750.00 2,916.65 9,833.35 437.1% 3255 · City of Aspen Funds 0.00 11,250.00 -11,250.00 0.0% 3256 · Pitkin Cty HCF 35,000.00 29,166.65 5,833.35 120.0% 3257 · Eagle Cty - PN 3,000.00 6,250.00 -3,250.00 48.0% 3259 · Town of Snowmass Village 17,000.00 7,500.00 9,500.00 226.7% 3284 · Town of Basalt 2,000.00 833.31 1,166.69 240.0% 3287 · Aspen Community Fdtn - Dental 10,000.00 3288 · State Dental (GarCo) 35,648.96 8,950.00 26,698.96 398.3% 3289 · Garfield Cty - Dental 14,426.64 46,999.57 -32,572.93 30.7% Total Local Contracts 241,059.49 284,951.46 -43,891.97 84.6% Program Fees 3115 · IZ-TV (Travel Vax) 20,370.00 12,500.00 7,870.00 163.0% 3111 · TB 250.00 104.15 145.85 240.0% 3100 · Immunizations 26,185.85 54,166.65 -27,980.80 48.3% 3110 · Family Planning Fees 21,333.14 24,166.65 -2,833.51 88.3% 3151 · Dental Services 6,517.09 4,166.65 2,350.44 156.4% 3155 · Prenatal Pitkin Cty Client Fees 1,757.75 8,333.31 -6,575.56 21.1% 3156 · Prenatal Eagle Client Fees 3,663.40 8,333.31 -4,669.91 44.0% Total Program Fees 80,077.23 111,770.72 -31,693.49 71.6% St. of Co Health Dept Contracts 3212 · CPED 38,721.39 59,430.81 -20,709.42 65.2% 3220 · State Title X/Family Planning 50,326.56 53,740.00 -3,413.44 93.6% Total St. of Co Health Dept Contracts 89,047.95 113,170.81 -24,122.86 78.7% 3280 · Donations 3260 · Pitkin County In-Kind Rent 28,371.85 28,371.85 0.00 100.0% 3282 · FP Donations 1,052.00 2,083.31 -1,031.31 50.5% 3285 · General Donations 5,606.45 22,916.65 -17,310.20 24.5% Total 3280 · Donations 35,030.30 53,371.81 -18,341.51 65.6% 3290 · Other Income 3293 · Dividend/Interest Income 4,809.28 5,833.31 -1,024.03 82.4% 3297 · UnrlzdGain/Loss 1,123.98 4,166.65 -3,042.67 27.0% Total 3290 · Other Income 5,933.26 9,999.96 -4,066.70 59.3% Total Income 451,148.23 573,264.76 -122,116.53 78.7% Gross Profit 451,148.23 573,264.76 -122,116.53 78.7% Expense General & Administrative 5672 · Equity,Diversity & Inclusion 0.00 41.65 -41.65 0.0% 5912 · Fundraising Expense 203.95 1,250.00 -1,046.05 16.3% 5299 · Admin Advertising 2,777.26 416.65 2,360.61 666.6% 5907 · Miles,Tele,Travel & Meal 2,530.78 625.00 1,905.78 404.9% 5210 · Advertising 3,537.50 3,750.00 -212.50 94.3% 5215 · Web Design & Upkeep 5,879.75 958.31 4,921.44 613.6% 5260 · Computer County Network/Supp... 0.00 7,500.00 -7,500.00 0.0% 5275 · Board expense 0.00 208.31 -208.31 0.0% 5400 · Dues/Recerts/Cont Education 402.84 1,666.65 -1,263.81 24.2% 5410 · Employee Relations 590.80 833.31 -242.51 70.9% 5420 · Employee Benefits 887.75 2,916.65 -2,028.90 30.4% 5425 · Employment Expense 0.00 416.65 -416.65 0.0% 5531 · Liability Insurances 6,089.70 7,500.00 -1,410.30 81.2% 5600 · Office Services 2,609.92 2,083.31 526.61 125.3% 5610 · Office Supplies 1,144.24 1,666.65 -522.41 68.7% 5615 · Practice Management Expense 6,779.35 8,750.00 -1,970.65 77.5% 5669 · Professional Fees, Development 600.00 10,416.65 -9,816.65 5.8% 5670 · Professional Fees, Accounting 12,281.25 10,416.65 1,864.60 117.9% 5671 · Professional Fees. Paychex 2,472.82 1,875.00 597.82 131.9% 5911 · Investment Advisory Fees 355.60 625.00 -269.40 56.9% Total General & Administrative 49,143.51 63,916.44 -14,772.93 76.9% Payroll FAMLI 1,255.18 1,655.81 -400.63 75.8% Comp FICA 18,249.66 21,355.40 -3,105.74 85.5% Comp MCARE 4,268.08 4,994.57 -726.49 85.5% Wages & Salary 4:43 PM Community Health Services, Inc. 06/12/25 Profit & Loss Budget vs. Actual Accrual Basis January through May 2025 Page 1 39 Jan - May 25 Budget $ Over Budget % of Budget Gross 299,297.41 316,860.00 -17,562.59 94.5% Total Wages & Salary 299,297.41 316,860.00 -17,562.59 94.5% 5110 · Wellness Benefit 600.00 3,145.81 -2,545.81 19.1% 5510 · Health Benefit Premiums -ER 20,600.91 20,400.00 200.91 101.0% 5515 · Health Savings Account 8,133.12 10,166.65 -2,033.53 80.0% 5520 · Insurance/Workmans State Comp 2,277.00 833.31 1,443.69 273.2% 5525 · Employee Assistance Program 575.00 1,041.65 -466.65 55.2% 5529 · Unemployment Claims Expense 0.00 3,333.31 -3,333.31 0.0% 5802 · Simple IRA-ER Contrib 3%7,077.53 8,083.31 -1,005.78 87.6% Total Payroll 362,333.89 391,869.82 -29,535.93 92.5% Program Expenses 5625 · Program Services 34,248.22 50,000.00 -15,751.78 68.5% 5630 · Program Supplies 53,321.83 45,833.31 7,488.52 116.3% 5645 · Supervising Physcian 0.00 833.31 -833.31 0.0% 5965 · Pitkin County In-Kind Rent 28,371.85 28,371.85 0.00 100.0% Total Program Expenses 115,941.90 125,038.47 -9,096.57 92.7% Total Expense 527,419.30 580,824.73 -53,405.43 90.8% Net Ordinary Income -76,271.07 -7,559.97 -68,711.10 1,008.9% Other Income/Expense Other Income Discounts Earned 873.40 Miscellaneous 4,000.00 Total Other Income 4,873.40 Other Expense 6175 · Client Reimbursement 271.22 Total Other Expense 271.22 Net Other Income 4,602.18 Net Income -71,668.89 -7,559.97 -64,108.92 948.0% 4:43 PM Community Health Services, Inc. 06/12/25 Profit & Loss Budget vs. Actual Accrual Basis January through May 2025 Page 2 40 May 31, 25 ASSETS Current Assets Checking/Savings 1010 · Alpine Bank Checking 94,984.94 1041 · Alpine Bank CD 26,968.96 1011 · Capital One 2,111.25 1048 · Timberline Savings 85,876.79 Cash Drawer 350.00 Total Checking/Savings 210,291.94 Accounts Receivable 1100 · Accounts Receivable CDPHE Dental 21,793.41 PitCo FP 57,680.00 PitCo Iz 17,543.00 Dnt Prg Fees/PitCo Snr Svc Supp 100.00 Garfield Cty - Dental 8,000.00 Aspen Valley Hosp/Pre-Natal 13,500.00 Eagle Cty Prenatal 3,600.00 CDPHE-FP/TitleX 6,280.33 CDPHE - CPED 5,217.60 1100 · Accounts Receivable - Other 6,000.00 Total 1100 · Accounts Receivable 139,714.34 Total Accounts Receivable 139,714.34 Other Current Assets 1200 · Prepaid Exp/Insurance 12,135.38 Total Other Current Assets 12,135.38 Total Current Assets 362,141.66 Fixed Assets 1450 · Office Furniture/Equipment 23,597.20 1550 · Accumulated Depreciation -16,676.79 Total Fixed Assets 6,920.41 Other Assets CNA Surety Unemployment Bond 1,828.00 1867 · Merrill Lynch Endowment Mgmt 424,604.84 Total Other Assets 426,432.84 TOTAL ASSETS 795,494.91 LIABILITIES & EQUITY Liabilities Current Liabilities Accounts Payable 2000 · Accounts Payable 6,133.52 Total Accounts Payable 6,133.52 Other Current Liabilities 2100 · Payroll Liabilities Accrued Payroll 26,695.87 Payroll-HSA-EE Contrib 150.00 Payroll-Health Premiums 1,252.79 Total 2100 · Payroll Liabilities 28,098.66 2170 · Copier Lease 6,300.19 Total Other Current Liabilities 34,398.85 Total Current Liabilities 40,532.37 Total Liabilities 40,532.37 4:56 PM Community Health Services, Inc. 06/12/25 Balance Sheet Accrual Basis As of May 31, 2025 Page 1 41 May 31, 25 Equity Fund Balance 826,631.43 Net Income -71,668.89 Total Equity 754,962.54 TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY 795,494.91 4:56 PM Community Health Services, Inc. 06/12/25 Balance Sheet Accrual Basis As of May 31, 2025 Page 2 42 Jan - Dec 24 Budget $ Over Budget % of Budget Ordinary Income/Expense Income Local Contracts 3242 · Dental 70,000.00 3300 · Pitkin County Biometrics 1,650.00 3277 · JSI 2,000.00 3276 · CO Safety Net 15,000.00 3275 · HPV Q1 Grant 1,500.00 2999 · Restricted Delta Dental 73,000.00 3269 · Rotary of Aspen 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 3239 · ReproCollab/Upstream 0.00 35,000.00 -35,000.00 0.0% 3240 · Latino Foundation 81,000.00 81,000.00 0.00 100.0% 3241 · Health Community Fund Collab 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 100.0% 3267 · ACF Capacity Building 9,000.00 9,000.00 0.00 100.0% 3264 · Rocky Mountain Health Found... 0.00 16,500.00 -16,500.00 0.0% 3266 · Caring for Community Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 3298 · GarCO HSC 3,450.00 10,000.00 -6,550.00 34.5% 3299 · Delta Dental Foundation 0.00 50,000.00 -50,000.00 0.0% 3202 · PitCo FP 56,000.00 56,000.00 0.00 100.0% 3204 · Thrift Shop 2,500.00 6,000.00 -3,500.00 41.7% 3208 · PitCo Iz 155,117.64 149,000.00 6,117.64 104.1% 3213 · PitCo TB 8,043.25 8,925.00 -881.75 90.1% 3248 · Eagle Cty - FP 41,000.00 41,000.00 0.00 100.0% 3253 · AVH - PN 11,250.00 10,000.00 1,250.00 112.5% 3255 · City of Aspen Funds 7,800.00 30,000.00 -22,200.00 26.0% 3256 · Pitkin Cty HCF 69,000.00 69,000.00 0.00 100.0% 3257 · Eagle Cty - PN 13,944.62 15,900.00 -1,955.38 87.7% 3259 · Town of Snowmass Village 16,500.00 18,000.00 -1,500.00 91.7% 3284 · Town of Basalt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 3288 · State Dental (GarCo) 103,149.60 104,792.00 -1,642.40 98.4% 3289 · Garfield Cty - Dental 87,292.74 47,195.00 40,097.74 185.0% Total Local Contracts 833,197.85 757,312.00 75,885.85 110.0% Program Fees 3115 · IZ-TV (Travel Vax) 29,671.21 3111 · TB 852.00 Adult Immunizations 3000 · Adult/Travel Vaccines -73,000.00 Total Adult Immunizations -73,000.00 3100 · Immunizations 132,127.38 165,000.00 -32,872.62 80.1% 3110 · Family Planning Fees 59,861.48 50,000.00 9,861.48 119.7% 3151 · Dental Services 8,304.20 10,000.00 -1,695.80 83.0% 3155 · Prenatal Pitkin Cty Client Fees 15,754.69 10,000.00 5,754.69 157.5% 3156 · Prenatal Eagle Client Fees 13,440.52 14,000.00 -559.48 96.0% Total Program Fees 187,011.48 249,000.00 -61,988.52 75.1% St. of Co Health Dept Contracts 3211 · State TB 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 3209 · State Immunizations 450.00 3212 · CPED 158,203.83 120,940.00 37,263.83 130.8% 3220 · State Title X/Family Planning 144,236.12 128,655.00 15,581.12 112.1% Total St. of Co Health Dept Contracts 302,889.95 249,595.00 53,294.95 121.4% 3280 · Donations 3260 · Pitkin County In-Kind Rent 58,365.00 58,365.00 0.00 100.0% 3282 · FP Donations 2,316.00 5,373.00 -3,057.00 43.1% 3285 · General Donations 44,856.32 25,000.00 19,856.32 179.4% Total 3280 · Donations 105,537.32 88,738.00 16,799.32 118.9% 3290 · Other Income 4301 · Restricted Release -143,000.00 4300 · Unrestricted Release 143,000.00 3293 · Dividend/Interest Income 27,430.89 15,000.00 12,430.89 182.9% 3297 · UnrlzdGain/Loss 16,150.26 5,000.00 11,150.26 323.0% 3290 · Other Income - Other 0.00 200.00 -200.00 0.0% Total 3290 · Other Income 43,581.15 20,200.00 23,381.15 215.7% Total Income 1,472,217.75 1,364,845.00 107,372.75 107.9% Gross Profit 1,472,217.75 1,364,845.00 107,372.75 107.9% Expense 5673 · Small Equipment -3,000.00 5092 · Office Renovations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 4286 · Foundations Restricted -16,500.00 5611 · Interest 461.23 General & Administrative 5672 · Equity,Diversity & Inclusion 0.00 500.00 -500.00 0.0% 5912 · Fundraising Expense 809.37 500.00 309.37 161.9% 5907 Mileage, Tele, Travel & Me 0.00 2,000.00 -2,000.00 0.0% 5999 · Miscellaneous -50.00 5299 · Admin Advertising 2,499.99 1,000.00 1,499.99 250.0% 5907 · Miles,Tele,Travel & Meal 6,679.77 5211 · Tuition/Books Reimbursement 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 5210 · Advertising 26,038.04 15,000.00 11,038.04 173.6% 5215 · Web Design & Upkeep 19,549.86 2,000.00 17,549.86 977.5% 4:46 PM Community Health Services, Inc. 06/12/25 Profit & Loss Budget vs. Actual Accrual Basis January through December 2024 Page 1 43 Jan - Dec 24 Budget $ Over Budget % of Budget 5260 · Computer County Network/Su... 18,000.00 19,699.47 -1,699.47 91.4% 5275 · Board expense 734.44 500.00 234.44 146.9% 5400 · Dues/Recerts/Cont Education 8,403.40 2,000.00 6,403.40 420.2% 5410 · Employee Relations 3,459.42 1,500.00 1,959.42 230.6% 5420 · Employee Benefits 5,232.80 6,500.00 -1,267.20 80.5% 5425 · Employment Expense 2,039.75 5531 · Liability Insurances 14,359.81 15,500.00 -1,140.19 92.6% 5600 · Office Services 10,519.12 10,000.00 519.12 105.2% 5610 · Office Supplies 3,104.10 6,000.00 -2,895.90 51.7% 5615 · Practice Management Expense 24,778.01 15,000.00 9,778.01 165.2% 5670 · Professional Fees, Accounting 24,143.75 25,000.00 -856.25 96.6% 5671 · Professional Fees. Paychex 5,637.43 3,600.00 2,037.43 156.6% 5911 · Investment Advisory Fees 1,328.53 1,850.00 -521.47 71.8% Total General & Administrative 177,267.59 128,149.47 49,118.12 138.3% Payroll FAMLI 3,796.15 3,592.00 204.15 105.7% 5110 Wellness Benefit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% Simple IRA ER Contribution 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% Comp FICA 53,373.82 49,494.00 3,879.82 107.8% Comp MCARE 12,482.48 11,575.00 907.48 107.8% Wages & Salary Gross 874,058.06 798,291.00 75,767.06 109.5% Total Wages & Salary 874,058.06 798,291.00 75,767.06 109.5% 5110 · Wellness Benefit 4,900.00 4,900.00 0.00 100.0% 5510 · Health Benefit Premiums -ER 67,633.42 49,920.00 17,713.42 135.5% 5515 · Health Savings Account 22,399.38 25,250.00 -2,850.62 88.7% 5520 · Insurance/Workmans State C... 1,359.49 1,985.00 -625.51 68.5% 5525 · Employee Assistance Program 3,225.00 1,000.00 2,225.00 322.5% 5802 · Simple IRA-ER Contrib 3%21,091.08 22,000.00 -908.92 95.9% Total Payroll 1,064,318.88 968,007.00 96,311.88 109.9% Program Expenses 5625 · Program Services 132,374.68 117,500.00 14,874.68 112.7% 5630 · Program Supplies 156,590.63 111,500.00 45,090.63 140.4% 5645 · Supervising Physcian 2,000.00 2,000.00 0.00 100.0% 5965 · Pitkin County In-Kind Rent 58,365.00 58,365.00 0.00 100.0% Total Program Expenses 349,330.31 289,365.00 59,965.31 120.7% 4000 · Reconciliation Discrepancies -0.72 Total Expense 1,571,877.29 1,385,521.47 186,355.82 113.5% Net Ordinary Income -99,659.54 -20,676.47 -78,983.07 482.0% Other Income/Expense Other Income Discounts Earned 39.54 Employee Retention Credit 0.00 21,000.00 -21,000.00 0.0% Total Other Income 39.54 21,000.00 -20,960.46 0.2% Other Expense 6175 · Client Reimbursement 2,246.00 323.53 1,922.47 694.2% 6120 · Depreciation Expense 2,129.00 Total Other Expense 4,375.00 323.53 4,051.47 1,352.3% Net Other Income -4,335.46 20,676.47 -25,011.93 -21.0% Net Income -103,995.00 0.00 -103,995.00 100.0% 4:46 PM Community Health Services, Inc. 06/12/25 Profit & Loss Budget vs. Actual Accrual Basis January through December 2024 Page 2 44 Dec 31, 24 ASSETS Current Assets Checking/Savings 1010 · Alpine Bank Checking 106,510.88 1041 · Alpine Bank CD 26,694.35 1042 · Alpine Bank CD II 80,213.36 1011 · Capital One 2,095.37 1048 · Timberline Savings 135,589.89 Cash Drawer 350.00 Total Checking/Savings 351,453.85 Accounts Receivable 1100 · Accounts Receivable Pitkin County Biometrics 150.00 CDPHE Dental 28,703.09 PitCo TB 2,325.52 PitCo Iz 4,617.64 Pitkin County Public Health 35.00 Dnt Prg Fees/PitCo Snr Svc Supp 100.00 Garfield Cty - Dental 6,426.64 Aspen Valley Hosp/Pre-Natal 3,750.00 Eagle Cty Prenatal 7,944.62 CDPHE-FP/TitleX 11,015.41 CDPHE - CPED 5,459.44 Eagle County Public Health - FP 20,500.00 Employer Vaccine Program 360.00 1100 · Accounts Receivable - Other 2,000.00 Total 1100 · Accounts Receivable 93,387.36 Total Accounts Receivable 93,387.36 Other Current Assets 1200 · Prepaid Exp/Insurance 6,481.08 12000 · Undeposited Funds 3,129.98 Total Other Current Assets 9,611.06 Total Current Assets 454,452.27 Fixed Assets 1450 · Office Furniture/Equipment 23,597.20 1550 · Accumulated Depreciation -16,676.79 Total Fixed Assets 6,920.41 Other Assets CNA Surety Unemployment Bond 914.00 1867 · Merrill Lynch Endowment Mgmt 420,442.30 Total Other Assets 421,356.30 TOTAL ASSETS 882,728.98 LIABILITIES & EQUITY Liabilities Current Liabilities Accounts Payable 2000 · Accounts Payable 23,101.49 Total Accounts Payable 23,101.49 Other Current Liabilities 2100 · Payroll Liabilities Accrued Payroll 26,695.87 Total 2100 · Payroll Liabilities 26,695.87 2170 · Copier Lease 6,300.19 4:52 PM Community Health Services, Inc. 06/12/25 Balance Sheet Accrual Basis As of December 31, 2024 Page 1 45 Dec 31, 24 Total Other Current Liabilities 32,996.06 Total Current Liabilities 56,097.55 Total Liabilities 56,097.55 Equity Fund Balance 930,626.43 Net Income -103,995.00 Total Equity 826,631.43 TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY 882,728.98 4:52 PM Community Health Services, Inc. 06/12/25 Balance Sheet Accrual Basis As of December 31, 2024 Page 2 46 MCFNS Priorities and Budget Plan - 2025 Summary of Priorities 1. Food Tote / 72-Hour Bags - Supports emergency food needs discreetly for families and individuals, especially in remote areas. - Currently in 5 clinics; scalable to 24 organizations. - High feasibility with an existing structure and strong clinic/library partnerships. - Annual cost: $207K–$225K scaled; up to $500K for full expansion. 2. Mobile Pantries / Mobile Market - Operated by Lift-Up, FBR, and Eagle Valley Community Foundation (EVCF). - Delivers fresh and perishable food to underserved and remote communities, reducing food deserts. - Requires volunteers, staff, reliable vehicles, and site approvals. - Medium to high community need but logistical challenges exist. - Staff cost: 1 additional staff needed ($40K–$45K/year), volunteers provide support at no cost. 3. Home-Delivered Meals for Older Adults - Provided by four main agencies with varying eligibility and reach across the region. - Serves primarily homebound seniors 60+ and caregivers, some programs allow under 60 with medical need. - Current total served: approx. 455 seniors region-wide, with some agencies having waitlists. - Services are year-round with varied delivery frequencies. - Target locations for expansion include Old Snowmass, Thomasville, Meredith, Redstone, and Redcliff. - Potential to increase service capacity by 20% over two years. Budget Plan Summary Priority Annual Cost Estimate Notes Food Tote / 72-Hour Bags $207,000 – $225,000 Covers scaling to 24 organizations; includes 47 food, logistics, and admin costs. Mobile Pantries / Market Staff: $40,000–$45,000 Volunteers unpaid; requires vehicle and site approval costs (not fully detailed). Pilot phase advised. Home-Delivered Meals $304,200 Based on current volume and 20% expansion; includes admin (12%) and meal delivery costs. Detailed Budget for Food Tote / 72-Hour Bags (This is a sample budget criteria) Category Cost Range Details Food and Supplies $120,000 – $140,000 Includes non-perishable food, packaging, and consumables for 24 partner organizations. Transportation & Logistics $30,000 – $40,000 Fuel, vehicle maintenance, storage, and distribution costs. Staffing $30,000 – $35,000 Part-time coordinator(s) managing orders, volunteer coordination, and delivery schedules. Volunteer Support $0 Volunteers contribute time; no direct salary cost. Administrative Costs (12%) $24,840 – $27,000 Includes program management, reporting, communications, and overhead. Marketing & Outreach $2,000 – $3,000 Bilingual materials, community engagement, and partnership building. Total Annual Budget Estimate: $207,000 – $225,000 Notes: - Program currently supports 5 clinics and plans to scale to 24 organizations gradually. - Admin cost at 12% is calculated on total direct costs. - Volunteer labor is a significant in-kind contribution and reduces staffing needs. - Transportation costs depend on geographic reach and delivery frequency; optimization opportunities exist. 48 Detailed Budget for Home-Delivered Meals Cost Breakdown (per year): - Grand River Meals on Wheels: $97,200 - Eagle County Program: $27,000 - Valley Meals and More: $169,200 - Pitkin County Senior Services: $10,800 Total: $304,200 (with 20% capacity increase factored) Notes: - Services are year-round with varied delivery frequencies and geographic reach. - Target locations for expansion: Old Snowmass, Thomasville, Meredith, Redstone, Redcliff. - Programs serve primarily homebound seniors 60+ and caregivers; some allow under 60 with medical need. 49 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John Barker, Strategy & Innovation Director Arielle Lyons, Grants Administrator THROUGH: Alissa Farrell, Administrative Services Director MEMO DATE: August 4, 2025 MEETING DATE: August 11, 2025 RE: Non-Profit Grants Policy & Programming _____________________________________________________________________ REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The city grants program is well functioning, trusted by those within the community it serves and continues to deliver substantial monetary support for area non-profits. However, with an intent of providing like or even better outcomes for Aspen and the larger community, staff request Council input around various process and policy changes to further leverage the financial resources within the grants program. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen non-profit competitive grant program utilizes 20 community volunteers to review applications and help distribute more than $2,000,000 annually across 110+ organizations servicing Aspen and Roaring Fork Valley residents. Currently, the annual application process opens in October and closes in early December. Applications are then reviewed by staff for eligibility, assessed by review committees for alignment to program criteria, and checked by the grants steering committee for approval prior to submission for city council for consideration in early spring. The city has operated a non-profit grants program in various forms since at least 1996, with cumulative awards to local organizations surpassing $31,000,000. In 2021, administration of non-profit grants was consolidated under the purview of the Strategy & Innovation Office (SIO). This change in administration coincided with t he assessment of the program by a third-party consultant, Point B(e) Strategies. This assessment provided a list of nine recommendations to bring the city grants program up to best practices, all of which have been implemented to varying extents. A copy of this orreportreport, along with the after-action report, is included as Attachments A and B to this memo. Highlights of changes to the program following this report include the creation of the grants steering 50 2 committee, formal review committees for each grant division, and the creation of a staff position primarily dedicated to non-profit grants administration. Prior to policy recommendations and key questions for council, an update for council on a few key areas is warranted: 1) Regional Grantors Collaborative (RGC) For the past several years, a group of grantmakers in the upper Roaring Fork Valley has been working together to identify ways to increase collective impact, reduce inefficiencies, and streamline the grant application process for local non-profits. This group currently consists of representatives from the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Aspen Community Foundation, and Aspen One. While the group’s current primary focus is in managing off -cycle grant requests, areas of potential future collaboration for the group include continued refinement of the off -cycle request process, alignment of grant cycle timelines, creation of a single application portal, and the establishment of grantmaking niches allowing each partner to focus deeply on creating positive impacts within a more defined space. 2) Administrative & Community Demand The combination of the formalization of the grants program in 2021, and the rapid increase in financial demand over the same timeframe, has dramatically increased the staff and community time required to operate the program. From the community, a total of 20 volunteers is currently needed to run the program. Five of our volunteers serve on the grants steering committee, and an additional five volunteers serve on the review committees for each of the three grant divisions. Recruitment, training, and retention of these volunteers have gotten more challenging over recent years. Several review committees now operate with fewer than the required number of vol unteers—requiring the steering committee to serve as backup reviewers. For city staff, the program requires a full-time grants administrator in the Strategy and Innovation Office, with significant support provided by the Strategy and Innovation Director and Senior Strategy Consultant. Meaningful time is also contributed by several members of the City Manager’s Office, Wheeler Opera House, Red Brick, and Recreation. Several recommendations presented in this memo are designed to reduce the operational demands of the grant program and increase its efficiency, which are factors to consider as program additions are evaluated. 3) Program Benchmarking Staff have recently undergone a benchmarking project to understand how the city’s grants compare to our regional and national partners. Among the 29 member municipalities of the Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST), 11 operate competitive non-profit municipal grant programs—Aspen, Avon, Basalt, Carbondale, Crested Butte, Durango, 51 3 Estes Park, Glenwood Springs, Snowmass Village, Telluride, and Vail. Aspen's annual grants budget of ~$2,000,000 often exceeds the combined total of the other te n (~$1,600,000), making its grant program more comparable to larger cities like Boulder and Fort Collins, each with grants budgets exceeding $2,000,000. Towns that do not administer non-profit grant programs in-house often rely on community foundations—such as the Yampa Valley Community Foundation in Steamboat Springs and Western Colorado Community Foundation in Ouray. Others participate in county- wide programs, as seen in Summit County municipalities: Dillon, Frisco, Silverthorne, and Breckenridge. Many peer programs also incorporate practices such as multi-year funding and equity-based scoring criteria into their programs. Nationally, similar patterns emerge - Park City, UT, Jackson, WY, Lake Tahoe, CA, and Taos, NM (comparable to Aspen in industry and scale) - all rely on community foundations to administer most of their non-profit grant funding. At the same time, regional approaches are also expanding. Boulder and Boulder County, Lafayette, and Longmont work collaboratively to administer a joint application , reducing administrative burden on the grantor as well as the grantee. DISCUSSION: The questions and policy recommendations below are intended to bring clarity, sustainability and increased positive community impact from the grants program. These considerations were provoked by three main sources of input: third party consultant recommendations conducted in 2020 and 2022; grantee survey responses received following each grant cycle; and grant committee volunteer feedback. This information is summarized in Attachment D which accompanies this memo. Recommendation 1: Move Administration of HHS to a Community Partner a. Overview: Explore the possibility of outsourcing the HHS grant division to a partner organization with expertise in the field. b. Desired Outcome: The objective of this change is to increase community impact by further collaborating instead of overlapping with our community partners, lighten the burden on non-profits by removing an application they have to complete, mitigate funding overlaps when non -profits apply for the same project funding to multiple funders, reduce administrative overhead at the city, and gain grant program clarity by narrowing the breadth of city granting. c. Discussion: For many years, the city partnered with Pitkin County and the Healthy Community Fund to administer city HHS grants. To gain more control of grant decisions, the city took over full control of its HHS granting prior to the establishment of the city’s current grants administration model. As the city’s regional partnerships with other grantmakers have strengthened, the downsides of administering our own program have 52 4 become clear. Partnering will allow the city to pool resources to maximize impact in areas of concern to council and the steering committee, while also achieving all the desirable outcomes listed above. d. Considerations: While council will always retain final approval over the dollar value to be allocated from the city, much of the finer points of grants administration and awards would be left to the community partner. Additionally, the city may also incur a nominal administrative fee for the management for these granting efforts. Recommendation 2: Provide Refined Focus for Community Non-Profit a. Overview: Identify a few key impact areas to be given partial or complete priority within the Community Non-Profit grant division. b. Desired Outcomes: Narrow the focus of the division to create narrower but deeper community impact while reducing the staff and volunteer workload currently needed to operate this area. c. Discussion: The community non-profit division currently operates with the guiding strategic focus of “The City of Aspen supports and enhances non- profit organizations which create and deliver high -impact community programming.” The breadth of the focus area has allowed this division to serve as a catch-all for all non-profits that do not clearly fit into the Arts & Culture or Health & Human Services Divisions. This has created challenges for reviewers, who are tasked with comparing a large variety of applications from media organizations, environmental groups, athletic clubs, literacy groups, early childhood centers, and more. Furthermore, as most non-profit organizations perceive alignment with this focus area, there is a prevailing expectation that the city will support their applications. This concern is not new, however as the number of applications in this division continues to grow, it is becoming more challenging each year to administer such a broad mandate. In fact, a memo to council from 2010 highlights the very same lack of focus challenge still faced today. d. Considerations: With any prioritization effort, there will be organizations who have been historically supported by the city that would be in line for reduced awards. Conversely, additional funding could be freed up and available for awardees that remain aligned with the Council’s areas of focus. Recommendation 3: Provide Some Preference for Aspen-based Organizations a. Overview: Direct the grants steering committee to implement policy changes that privilege Aspen based non-profits through methods such as higher maximum grant awards. b. Desired Outcome: Ensures that the largest grant awards flow to organizations based in Aspen while maintaining a robust valley-wide grant program. 53 5 c. Discussion: The grants steering committee is unanimously committed to maintaining the city’s commitment to a valley-wide grants program. However, upon review of the 2024 and 2025 grant awards, it is evident that organizations outside of Aspen are receiving some of the largest grants. In 2025, three of the top six grants were awarded to organizations outside of Aspen, including the top award of $93,500. The steering committee supports the creation of separate maximum-funding tiers based on location, which honors the valley-wide nature of our community while taking steps to ensure that the largest awards can stay in Aspen. d. Considerations: The organizations currently receiving the largest awards are doing so because they both ask for large sums and have been the highest rated by community reviewers. A change in this philosophy may result in the highest-scoring applications not receiving the largest awards. Recommendation 4: Multi-Year Funding a. Overview: Shift all grant funding awards from single year to two-year awards. b. Desired Outcome: Align with grantmaking best practices while reducing administrative burden and volunteer load needed. c. Discussion: While the city has experimented with multi-year grants previously, concerns about committing funding in future years – potentially limiting budget flexibility for new requests – have hindered large-scale implementation of such grants. By moving all grants to a two-year award, this risk is mitigated and allows the city to realize the benefits of multi-year awards, including security for grantees, and reduced administrative demand for both the city and program applicants. To be eligible for the second year of funding, grant recipients will need to complete an annual impact and outcome report and meet set performance and eligibility criteria. d. Considerations: A two-year funding cycle could mean a longer wait for support for organizations that did not apply or were not awarded funding during the biennial cycle. Question 1: Does Council wish to support an Arts & Culture capital grant program? a. Discussion: In 2022, council supported the establishment of a pilot grant, the Asset & Acquisition Assistance Grant, intended to support capital projects for Arts & Culture organizations that owned or had a long-term lease of a physical space in the Aspen Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Grants were for a maximum of $50,000 and intended to support minor capital projects. Six eligible applications were received and funded. The pilot grant was not continued due to a lack of application volume combined with the challenges of capital granting. b. Should Council choose to pursue another Arts & Culture capital grant program, the recommended structure would include similar geographic 54 6 restrictions as the pilot Asset & Acquisition Grant, limiting eligible capital improvements to those located within the Aspen UGB. Current best practice is to set a scalable maximum request amount, with funding levels tied to demonstrated match commitments rather than a cap. This approach is intended to address limitations identified in the previous capital grant offering, where a $50,000 cap combined with the UGB restriction resulted in only six organizations interested significantly reducing the program’s intended reach and impact. The process would be administered in two phases: Phase One would begin with a Request for Information (RFI), in which applicants submit a short project overview and initial funding request. Submissions would be reviewed first by the Strategy and Innovation Office for eligibility, then by the Assets department for feasibility, and finally by the Grants Steering Committee for strategic alignment. Phase Two would invite all projects endorsed by the Grants Steering Committee to prepare a full proposal, including detailed budgets, timelines, impact metrics, and long- term maintenance plans. These comprehensive proposals would then be presented to Council for final review and funding recommendations. Ideally, the two phases would be spaced approximately six months apart to allow Council to evaluate multiple capital requests at once and make strategic, comparative decisions. c. Considerations: Larger or more established organizations may be better positioned to respond to RFI and proposal requirements - potentially disadvantaging smaller or emerging organizations without similar resources. As seen in the previous capital grant program, eligibilit y limitations (geography, facility ownership, match requirements) may result in few qualifying applicants, leaving the program in the same place as the discontinued pilot. Prior to launch of a new capital grant, Council would need to set a total grant budget, thresholds for maximum award amounts and establish desired outcomes. Question 2: Does council wish to increase funding to support off-cycle grant requests and other community needs? a. Discussion: The regional grantmaker group, as discussed above, has created a system for collecting, assessing, and determining eligibility of grant requests that are received outside of the normal grant cycle. Currently, there is no dedicated funding source for these requests, even though some of them meet the eligibility criteria for awards. b. An additional use of these funds could be through a micro-grant emergency fund, which would allow council and the grants steering committee to quickly respond to emergent community needs as prioritized by council. A grant with a narrow focus like this could be activated and reviewed on a shorte r timeframe, and more flexibly, than the standard competitive grant cycle. 55 7 c. Consideration: Does the Council wish to include an additional appropriation to provide for, and also cap, the resources available annually to respond to these one-off requests? FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There are no expected, material, financial impacts to the city based on the four recommendations presented by the steering committee. While these decisions may affect the outcome of awards for individual non-profits, these decisions will not affect the overall grants program budget. Questions 1 and 2 for council are about adding new grant programs and will increase program expenditures. Funding for Question 1 will be from the Arts & Culture RETT and funding from Question 2 would be from the General Fund. ALTERNATIVES: One alternative to the recommendations and questions outlined in this memo is to increase the grant funding pool. While this would create additional resources to award, it does not address efficiency or effectiveness of the grants and is therefore not recommended as the first alternative. Rather, staff recommend consideration of the above changes to prioritize funding such that it can be leveraged to create the greatest impact for the community and in alignment with Council goals and objectives. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Point B(e) Strategies Report Attachment B – Point B(e) Strategies After-Action Report Attachment C – Grants Application Review Criteria Attachment D – Summarized Sources of Grant Process Recommendations 56 Grant Programs Evaluation Final Recommendations Submitted February 17, 2021 Prepared by Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 57 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 1 Table of Contents Introduction and Methodology ................................................................................................................ 2 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................... 3 #1 Shift the Timeline ............................................................................................................................... 4 #2 Redefine the Staffing Structure ......................................................................................................... 6 #3 Consolidate the Grant Programs ....................................................................................................... 7 #4 Create Partnership Opportunities ...................................................................................................... 8 #5 Redesign and Codify Review Committees ........................................................................................ 9 #6 Develop Strategic Priorities for the Funding .................................................................................. 12 #7 Develop a Scoring Criteria That Matches Funding Priorities ........................................................ 13 #8 Modify the Grant Applications ........................................................................................................ 14 #9 Develop a Communication Campaign ............................................................................................ 15 Implementation Outline ........................................................................................................................ 17 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 18 Additional Resources ............................................................................................................................ 18 Appendix A: City of Aspen Grantee Survey Summary ......................................................................... 19 Appendix B: Key Stakeholder Interview Summary .............................................................................. 27 58 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 2 Introduction and Methodology The City of Aspen (the City) partnered with Point b(e) Strategies, LLC (Point b(e)) to evaluate its grant programs. The City of Aspen grants approximately $1.5 million per year to organizations seeking to improve the quality of life for residents in the City of Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley. The City’s grant programs have been supporting nonprofits for decades. For example, since 2011, the City of Aspen has granted over $13 million to local organizations through its three grant programs: Health and Human Services (HHS), Community Non-Profit and Wheeler Opera House Arts grants. Collaboratively, the City and Point b(e) developed an evaluation of the grant programs with the following goals in mind: • Bring additional consistency across the City’s grant programs. • Streamline the grant programs. • Update the grant review approaches and processes, including governance and staffing. Additionally, Point b(e) and the City sought ways to increase transparency, equity and accountability throughout the grant programs, while remaining responsive to the needs of local organizations and the community. Point b(e) utilized a mixed-methods approach to evaluate the City’s grant programs and understand the unique needs of the community of Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley. Each method is described in detail below. Steering Committee. Point b(e) and the City created a Steering Committee to help guide the evaluation process. The Steering Committee was composed of 12 members, including City staff, members of the Citizen Grant Review Committee, nonprofit leaders, staff from other philanthropic institutions, and local members of the community. The role of the Steering Committee was to assess whether the goals and outcomes of the evaluation aligned with their expectations, weigh in on the development of the evaluation tools, and bring the perspectives of the community to the process. Document Review and Best Practice Research. Point b(e) reviewed grant-related documents from the City for all grant programs to understand the grantmaking processes. Additionally, Point b(e) researched best practices in grantmaking to inform recommendations. Citizen Grant Review Committee Observations. Point b(e) observed three meetings of the Citizen Grant Review Committee for the Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit grants. Similarly, staff observed two Citizen Grant Review Committee Meetings for the Pitkin County Healthy Community Fund, as it related to the Health and Human Services funding. These observations provided opportunities to understand the current process to evaluate applications and determine funding amounts. Grantee Survey. Point b(e) administered a survey to all current grantees of the City’s grant programs to gather thoughts and feedback about the grant application and evaluation processes. The survey was administered online via Survey Monkey to 99 individuals, with 59 (60%) respondents completing the survey. Results of the grantee survey were quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed. The results of the survey are provided in Appendix A. 59 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 3 Key Stakeholder Interviews. Point b(e) conducted nine key stakeholder interviews to gather in-depth information about the grant programs. Interviewees included members of the Citizen Grant Review Committee for Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit grants, members of the Citizen Grant Review Committee for Pitkin County’s Healthy Community Fund for the Health and Human Services grants, staff with the City of Aspen, and the City Manager. Additionally, Point b(e) administered an online survey to all of Aspen’s City Councilmembers. One Councilmember completed the electronic survey, and two Councilmembers opted for telephone interviews. All of the key stakeholder interviews and Councilmember surveys were qualitatively analyzed. The findings are presented in Appendix B. Grantee Focus Groups. Point b(e) facilitated three focus groups with a total of 12 current grantees of the City of Aspen. Focus group participants were recruited through the grantee survey, and survey respondents had the opportunity to self-select into a focus group. Focus group participants discussed ways to bring more transparency, accountability and equity to the City’s grantmaking. City of Aspen Recommendation Meetings. Upon drafting the initial recommendations for the grant programs, Point b(e) facilitated two meetings with City staff and the City Manager to understand their perspectives on the recommendations and how to best align them with the unique needs of the City of Aspen. Point b(e) used data, insights, feedback and research from all of the above data collection methods to formulate the recommendations presented in this report. Recommendations Throughout the data collection process, it was clear that there are a number of strengths in the City’s grantmaking. It is a unique and historical City tradition, which illustrates a consistency and commitment to ensure funds are available year after year. Through the grant programs, the City is making a statement that it values organizations serving the community of Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley. There are a number of dedicated and engaged community members who have volunteered significant time and energy to see that these programs bring important funds to organizations. Finally, the City’s grant programs enrich life in the mountains by supporting nonprofits. The data collection process also revealed numerous opportunities to improve the City’s grant programs. The recommendations presented below outline a process to transform the City’s grant programs into more equitable, efficient, transparent and accountable processes. The recommendations are a targeted synthesis of data gathered from the research in the community combined with best practices in philanthropy and grantmaking. Point b(e) proposes nine recommendations to transform the City’s grant programs. Each recommendation below outlines the current structure for context, followed by a detailed explanation of the recommendation, along with applicable justification based on the evaluation methods. These changes are significant and will require a concerted effort from City staff and community volunteers. However, Point b(e) believes that this community is more than capable of making these changes. At the end of the report is a recommended implementation outline that demonstrates the feasibility of these changes while maintaining the current award cycle that is vital to the success of the nonprofits that rely on this funding. 60 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 4 #1 Shift the Timeline The timeline of the grant process from Funding Announcement to Award is quite lengthy. Shifting some dates will streamline the process for the grant recipients, review committee and the City of Aspen. Current Structure ● The Funding Opportunity Announcement is released to grant recipients and the public in May and open until August 1st. ● The City’s volunteer grant reviewers (including the Citizen Grant Review Committee (CGRC) members for Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit grants and a City Council member for HHS grants) have about a month to review nearly 90 City cash requests, plus City in-kind requests. The reviewers make funding recommendations in September, before the final dollar amount available for awards in the upcoming year has been formally approved by City Council. In 2020, due to budget uncertainties associated with COVID impacts, the Committee had to assume a much smaller amount of available funding than in previous years for the Wheeler Arts grants and come up with a formula for escalating the awards should more funding become available. ● In October, as a part of its budgeting process, Council reviews and approves the final budget for grants and the recommended grant awards are presented. At this point, the funding recommendations are public; however, Council has the authority to adjust the committee’s recommendations after this time. ● Contracts are distributed for signatures in January or February. ● Funds are distributed to grantees in April. Figure 1 provides an overview of the current timeline. Figure 1. Grant Timeline. 61 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 5 Proposed Recommendations ● Shift the timeline for the grant application release from spring to fall, with funding award distribution remaining in April. ● Keep City Council approval of funding amounts for each category (Arts, Community Non-Profit and Health and Human Services (HHS)) during the budget process in November, which allows the CGRC to know the final funding amounts available to award. ● Close applications early in the new year, giving the reviewers six weeks to make funding recommendations. ● This shortens the grant process from an 11-month process to a six-month process. Figure 2 provides an overview of the proposed timeline based on recommendations. Figure 2. Proposed Grant Timeline. Justification ● While grantees appreciate consistency in this grant cycle, the summer is often their most active season for programming, which means this application is due at their busiest time of year. Shifting it to a fall release and a winter deadline will allow them to complete the application at a more convenient time either before the holiday season or during January. ● This past year, the CGRC did not know how much funding was available to award to grantees. This led to a far more complicated evaluation and allocation process that required the creation of an equation to increase funding amounts after initial recommendations were made. While recognizing that 2020 presented unique challenges and uncertain funding levels, for the CGRC to most effectively review applications and make decisions, it needs to know the amount of funding available before it makes its allocation recommendations. ● Based on research in philanthropy, the typical grant award process lasts approximately six months. ○ Pre-award phase (4 months) 62 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 6 ■ Funding Announcement is publicized. ■ Applications are typically due 30–60 days later. ■ Applications are reviewed over a 1- to 3-month period. ○ Award Phase (1–2 months) ■ Funding decisions are finalized. ■ Applicants receive awards. ● As was seen this past year with the COVID pandemic, a lot of factors can shift for a small organization in 11 months. Shortening the grant cycle will mean that organizations are better able to write and adhere to the applications they submit to the City. This will allow them to better report on the impact of programs and the use of funds in subsequent grant cycles. #2 Redefine the Staffing Structure Staffing the grant programs within the City has shifted between departments over the years. The grant programs are currently housed in the Wheeler, with less than one FTE of time allocated. In 2020, the Quality Office provided significant assistance and support to the Wheeler staff. Point b(e) recommends housing the grant programs in a permanent department and devoting the appropriate staff hours to the programs. This will allow the City to measure impact and gain accountability from fund recipients in an efficient manner that can ensure the grant programs best meet the community’s needs. Proposed Recommendation ● Reconsider placement of grant programs administration, taking into account the multi- disciplinary nature of the programs and the benefits of a more strategic approach to the programs. ● Increase staffing levels associated with the programs, so that staff can more effectively cover the associated needs. ● Revisit and reintegrate the necessary portions of grants management within the job descriptions of City staff. ● Introduce a grants management software to ease the operational burden on City staff, grantees and the review committee. Justification ● Administration of grant programs takes a significant number of staff hours. Typical administrative costs for grant programs range anywhere between 5–20% of the overall fund, with the median at 7%. Without this investment, staff have little time to assure the programs meet more than minimal standards, much less best practices in programs management. 63 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 7 #3 Consolidate the Grant Programs The current grant programs do not have one process, but two, one of which is very reliant on Pitkin County and the decisions of a single individual. Streamlining the process into one unified system will increase efficiency and consistency and help create a far more equitable distribution of funds through the empowerment and onboarding of a more diverse set of community volunteers. Current Structure ● All Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit applications are reviewed by one committee made up of four individuals from the community, one of whom is the chair of the Wheeler Opera House Board of Directors. These individuals have to review approximately 80 applications in two weeks. Subsequently, they interview a subset of applicants and then come together in consensus meetings to make their final recommendations. ● The Health and Human Services grant applications are currently tied to Pitkin County’s Healthy Community Fund grant application process. A member of Aspen’s City Council sits in on Pitkin County’s decision-making process and makes recommendations based on those meetings as well as their own review of the applications. This individual is responsible for making decisions for the City of Aspen’s HHS grants. Proposed Recommendation ● The process through which grants are awarded should be consolidated into one system that is applicable for all those that receive City funds, including Wheeler Arts, Community Non- Profit and HHS grants. This will separate the HHS grant process from the Pitkin County’s Healthy Community Fund process entirely. ● Separate the funding line for the health and human services-related Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) from the HHS grant funding line. This funding, while dedicated to HHS services, is not available for competitive grants. ● Establish a strategy- and policy-focused Grants Steering Committee (described in more detail below.) ● Expand opportunities for more community members to become involved in City grants review. Create separate review committees for each of the three grant programs (described in more detail below.) Justification ● The current system wherein the Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit grants are awarded by one Citizen Grant Review Committee puts an undue burden on Committee members. Because of the number of applications they need to review, it is challenging to spend appropriate time on each application to ensure an equitable and transparent process. ● Funding decisions should be made by individuals within the community who have specific content-area expertise and experience in order to adequately assess the applications. Peer and community-led review processes have been shown to increase equitable distribution of funds. 64 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 8 ● Standardizing the process for which all City grants are awarded allows for a more equitable process that will allow the City to better track its outcomes and ensure accountability to those whose tax dollars are funding these programs. ● Applicants will no longer have to be as concerned about applying for the “proper” grant program. With an integrated process, if someone applies for an inappropriate program, their application can be redirected to the correct program more easily prior to review. #4 Create Partnership Opportunities These grant programs have been funding organizations in the community for decades. Many of these organizations have received the same or similar funding year after year. The history and trust between the two have long been established. Formalizing this process into a multi-year partnership opportunity will further the long-established trust and increase accountability for the City. Point b(e) also recommends continuing to provide one-year grants for organizations that are new to the City’s grant programs or for organizations implementing new programs. Current Structure ● All grant applicants submit the same application to the City whether they are new or long- standing recipients, regardless of financial ask. ● Funding decisions are often made based on the funding given the year before. ● The total budget for the grant programs has largely remained stagnant over the past few years, despite an influx of applications from new organizations. ● There is no formal reporting process or requirement for grant recipients. Proposed Recommendation ● Create a new type of grant—a three-year partnership award. The funding would go toward general operating costs and would be contingent upon City budget renewal as well as partners completing a yearly status and outcomes report. ● Each year, rather than submit another application, partners would submit an evaluation report that would track their outcomes for the year and verify that the funds were spent as intended. ● Continue to evaluate applicants in subgroups distinguished by their grant program. ● Stagger the initial terms of the partnership grants, such that over time, the grant review committees are annually reviewing one third of the partnership applications. ● One-year grants would still be available, thus allowing new organizations the chance to apply and prove themselves eligible for partnerships in the future or accomplish shorter-term goals. 65 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 9 Justification ● The most significant emerging best practice in philanthropy is the creation of multi-year operating grants. ○ It fosters a feeling of partnership between funders and fund recipients. ○ It allows organizations more flexibility to adapt to participant and community needs. ○ It allows financial stability for organizations that often increases funding from other sources and frees staff time to focus on participants rather than cumbersome grant applications. ○ It allows funders to truly measure their work because it requires a yearly evaluation of results. ● Aspen has many grantees who have been receiving similar funding levels year after year. Introducing a three-year partnership grant will allow the City to formalize a longer-term partnership with these grantees. ● This process will also result in fewer applications year after year for the CGRCs to evaluate, thus allowing them more time to focus on new applications or applications where situations have changed (such as the onboarding of a new Executive Director). #5 Redesign and Codify Review Committees The integration of Health and Human Services Grants into the current Citizen Grant Review Committee is not feasible given the capacity and expertise of the individuals on the current committee. In order to ensure that the grant funds are distributed to the organizations that are best meeting community needs, applications should be reviewed by a broad range of individuals that interact with the services on a regular basis and/or have skill sets that are directly applicable to application review. This recommendation, therefore, focuses on strengthening and expanding participation in the review of City grants, building on the current volunteer reviewer. Further, reviewers currently operate without the guidance of a formal charter describing how they are appointed, how long their terms are, their roles and responsibilities and their expectations. To remedy this, Point b(e) recommends that the City formalize the roles of reviewers. Current Structure ● The current Citizen Grant Review Committee for Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit grants exists without a charter or a formal appointment process. There are no term limits or formal processes to govern members’ appointment or actions. ● During the 2020 review process, the Citizen Grant Review Committee was comprised of four individuals, some of whom have sat on the committee for decades.1 They are passionate, 1 We acknowledge the loss felt by the community with the passing of a dedicated and long-standing committee member this year. 66 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 10 dedicated, intelligent and well-respected individuals who were all selected by various processes and never formally appointed. ● The review of the HHS grants is currently the responsibility of one individual from City Council. As with the Citizen Grant Review Committee, there are no guidelines for when and how the reviewer for the HHS grants is selected nor for how long they should serve. Proposed Recommendations ● Reformulate review responsibilities into four separate bodies, each with its own purpose and funding dollars. o Citizen Grant Steering Committee—This body does not conduct reviews nor make funding recommendations but serves as the main strategic arm that liaises with the City on logistics, sets strategic priorities, and monitors the subcommittees below. Members of the City, including the City Manager, could potentially serve on this committee, but should not be the only members of it. o Arts Citizen Grant Review Committee—This subcommittee will review and make recommendations for awards for the Wheeler Arts grants. This group should be comprised of individuals who have a passion for and experience with the Arts in Aspen and the surrounding community. Individuals could include local artists, gallery owners, radio hosts, stage managers, patrons, Wheeler Board Chair, etc. o Community Non-Profit Citizen Grant Review Committee—This subcommittee will review and make recommendations for all awards for the Community Non-Profit grants. This group should be comprised of individuals who have a passion for and experience with the community nonprofit work in Aspen and the surrounding community. Individuals may work in schools, run youth mentoring programs, be high school students, work in outdoor/environmental programming, or run local community gardens or other nonprofits, etc. o Health and Human Services Citizen Grant Review Committee—This subcommittee will review and make recommendations for all the Health and Human Services grant funds. This group should largely be comprised of individuals who work in or have lived experience with Health and Human Services. Individuals could include local doctors, mental health service providers, school district representatives, individuals with disabilities, case managers or day-program operators. o Point b(e) recommends that one person from each subcommittee sit on the overarching Steering Committee to serve as liaison between the groups. 67 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 11 Figure 3. Structure of the Grant Steering Committee and Subcommittees ● Develop a charter for Committees that includes: purpose, term limits, recommended number of members, decision making processes, and other bylaws. ● These charters should be accompanied by job descriptions and desired skill sets of members. o All committees should include representation from the communities that the funding is designed to impact. This includes youth, BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) individuals, local artists, etc. o Other recommended skill sets include: financial, legal, nonprofit management, philanthropy, equity, subject matter expertise, etc. ● All Committee members should be term limited in their service, which should be outlined in the job description and charter. ● A targeted recruitment plan should be developed and circulated within the community in order to fill all open positions with a representative population. Justification ● A thorough review of a grant application can take up to six hours. A thorough review of an application is paramount to ensuring funds are distributed to those who will best impact the community. ● The current structure leads to overworked volunteers who are challenged to devote adequate time to ensuring an objective and equitable review process. Grant Steering Committee Arts Review Committee Health & Human Services Review Committee Community Non-Profit Review Committee 68 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 12 ● Representation from the communities that the funding is designed for allows the committees to truly understand the needs of the community and therefore award funding where it will have the greatest impact. ● Formalizing the committees with the addition of charters will allow for increased direction and a greater degree of alignment with and accountability to the City’s priorities. ● Term limits allow for a graceful transition on and off the committee. This will increase interest in serving if it is known that it is for a set amount of time. It also allows for the addition of new perspectives and the opportunity to adapt to changing community needs. #6 Develop Strategic Priorities for the Funding This grant funding is designed to positively impact the City of Aspen. In order to most effectively do that, the desired impacts need to be stated, clarified and evaluated. Current Structure ● There are currently strategic focus areas and funding priorities for the grant programs; however, they do not appear to be thoroughly understood by the grantees or aligned with the grant application. ● The general grant review criteria for the Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit programs are posted on the City website, but no matrix is available to help applicants understand what is needed to score well on criteria. ● The HHS grant application includes language on the City’s focus areas, but as with the other grant programs, no scoring matrix is available to help guide applicants in understanding expectations. ● The relative role of formal numeric scoring in overall considerations is not well communicated. Proposed Recommendations ● City staff should work with the newly created Steering Committee to create strategic priorities for each grant program. These grant priorities should be aligned with the City’s mission, priorities and desired outcomes. ● Priorities should be revisited on a regular basis along with the City of Aspen’s priorities. ● Priorities should be re-evaluated every three years. ● All grants should align with the strategic priorities. Justification ● Currently, neither the CGRC nor grantees understand what the City’s funding priorities are for the grant programs. Setting strategic priorities will allow the City to evaluate impact based on the priorities that City Council and the Steering Committee deem important for the community. 69 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 13 ● Strategic priorities allow fund recipients to understand where the community is focusing attention. This might allow them to better understand why they did or did not receive funding, or to share an aspect of their programming that is aligned with the City that they did not know was a priority. ● This is not designed to tell organizations how they should shape their programming, but rather allows them to understand what the City is prioritizing, and how those priorities are designed to strengthen the community as a whole. #7 Develop a Scoring Criteria That Matches Funding Priorities Point b(e) recommends developing an application scoring system that allows the CGRCs to evaluate applications against the established strategic priorities. This will allow the CGRCs to ensure funding is distributed to organizations and programs that are best aligned with the strategic priorities. Current Structure ● Two years ago, scoring criteria was introduced to the Citizen Grant Review Committee. Prior to that time, no numeric scores were used to guide decision-making. This year the CGRC calculated scores for individual applications, however, the scoring rarely factored into final decisions about funding amounts and was deemed relatively cumbersome by the CGRC members. ● No numeric scoring criteria exist for the HHS grant evaluations. Proposed Recommendations ● Scoring criteria needs to be created based on the strategic priorities set by the Steering Committee and the City. ● The criteria and the requirements to score at each level should be made public to all applicants with the Funding Opportunity Announcement. ● The criteria should be integrated into the review process by the CGRC through the use of a grant management system. ● Applicants' scores should be used as the primary basis for funding decisions. ○ If an application scores below a certain threshold, they should not receive any funding. ○ If an application scores above a certain threshold, they should receive funding. The amount they receive will not necessarily be their full ask but will be based on further criteria as elaborated below. ● Final funding amount should be based on total available budget, total dollar amount of approved applications, appropriateness of proposed budget, final score, and any other criteria the review committee deems relevant. These criteria should be finalized prior to the application review and published with the application. 70 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 14 Justification ● Establishing a criteria and matrix by which to assess alignment allows for the greatest amount of objectivity in a grant-making process. ● If an applicant is unhappy with their award, they can be given their score to understand why they were not funded. Because the score will not be the sole criteria that determines funding amounts notes should be taken about which other criteria precluded organizations from receiving their full ask. This also allows an opportunity to improve their application to receive funds in future years. ● Scoring criteria provides an opportunity for new organizations to have a pathway to increase funding if their work aligns with the City’s strategic priorities. However, if overall budget for the grant programs does not increase, this will decrease funding for other grantees. #8 Modify the Grant Applications Grant applications should give reviewers just enough information to make an informed funding decision without requiring them to wade through pages of irrelevant information. Due to the changes in prioritization and types of grants, the City’s grant applications will need to be streamlined and/or modified. Current Structure ● Potential Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit grantees submit one application to the City, while HHS applicants submit a city-specific addendum to the Pitkin County Healthy Community Fund application. This application process is the same for all funding amounts ranging from $2,000–$100,000 or for in-kind donations. ● The application for the Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit grant is eight pages long with extensive financial, board and salary information requests. While the City portion of the County application form is only two pages, it follows a much lengthier County application. ● Capital requests are made to the City on an ad hoc basis throughout the year, outside of the grant programs. If a capital request is made using the Community Non-Profit or Wheeler Arts grant application, it is usually denied because capital requests are not typically considered eligible for City grant programs funding. This places the city in a situation where capital requests are inconsistently considered on an ad-hoc basis without uniform evaluation criteria. Because of this, it may result in inconsistent decision making and may be perceived as biased. Proposed Recommendations ● Develop an application that is specific for grant requests under $10,000. Questions should be limited to those that are most important to assist the evaluators with scoring the application. Additionally, Point b(e) recommends requiring a much more limited financial request, such as requesting the organization’s 990 or Profit & Loss Statement and Balance 71 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 15 Sheet. Questions surrounding staff salaries & other funding sources should be greatly limited, if included at all. ● For requests of more than $10,000, a more robust application should be created. This will include all three-year partnership requests that total more than $10,000 over the three-year period. If the City feels questions around other funding sources, staffing structure, and organizational capacity are relevant in order to make funding decisions for these larger grants, they should be included in this application only. o Financial reporting should still be limited to documents that organizations already have rather than asking for a budget based on City’s line items. o Information requests should still be limited to information that assists with decision- making for the review committees. ● A system for capital requests needs to be established and shared with the community, which should articulate a time frame. A separate application that is relevant to capital requests needs to be created, and a selection of the reviewers needs to be devoted to reviewing these applications. Additionally, it should be noted that funding for capital requests continues to remain separate and outside of the funding for the Wheeler Arts, Community Non-Profit and HHS grant programs. Justification ● Overly cumbersome grant applications do not benefit anyone. They lead to more time spent completing applications for organizations that are often understaffed. Time spent filling out applications can be better utilized to strengthen programs or create more robust evaluation processes. Additionally, the longer the application is, the longer it takes for the volunteers to review. ● The majority of the current CGRC members expressed that they do not have the capacity to review the significant financial information in each application, leaving it unread, and therefore unused. ● “Right sizing” grant applications is becoming increasingly common among grantmaking institutions because it allows organizations that are getting significantly less funding from a source to devote less time to the application. This is particularly important for smaller organizations that are often staffed by one or two individuals and do not have grant writers on staff. ● Capital campaigns often include information such as blueprints, building plans and significant budgets. Because of this, it takes a specific skill set to evaluate their merit. As such, a specific committee comprised of volunteers from the community who have that skill set should review and pass recommendations on to the City Manager. If established, it would require an additional grant review subcommittee, with at least some subject matter experts added. #9 Develop a Communication Campaign The City of Aspen is on the cusp of making big changes to the way it distributes grant funds. This is an exciting new endeavor that will increase equity, transparency and efficiency. The final recommendation is to communicate this plan early, often and fully. 72 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 16 Current System ● Information is disseminated to grant recipients and the community in a variety of ways, with limited structure for how or who receives information directly related to the grant programs. o The basic grant eligibility requirements, overarching criteria, grant applications and award process and schedule are posted on the City of Aspen website at https://www.cityofaspen.com/383/Grants o Current grant recipients are emailed the fund announcement when made public. o City staff respond to emails and phone calls regarding the programs. o City Council meetings are open to the public, so anyone can attend the meeting where decisions are finalized. o Emails are sent to the grantees with their award amounts. As well, those who do not receive funding are contacted via email. Staff also respond to questions from individual organizations regarding the funding decisions. Proposed Recommendations ● Create a targeted campaign within the City and surrounding communities that communicates and announces the new, more equitable and transparent City grant process. ● This campaign should include the recruitment of volunteers for the Steering Committee and program-specific review committees. ● It should target potential grant recipients that have not received funding but may be eligible. ● It should communicate all changes to the grant application, timeline and review process. ● Lastly, it should include a process wherein decisions are shared quickly with those who do and do not receive their full dollar amount, such as took place in 2020 when emails were sent to all grantees early. This will ensure that complaints are handled efficiently, rather than over an extended period of time. The scoring results should be the backbone of the communication process. Justification ● The number one way to create transparency is to communicate. The City should communicate all shifts in opportunity, priorities and funding. ● Grant recipients are currently unaware of significant aspects of the grant programs that have been made public through memos or at City Council meetings. ● Point b(e) has proposed significant programmatic and process adjustments that will affect all grantees and the community as a whole. It is vital to the success of the program that these changes are communicated to all potential stakeholders early, often and accurately. 73 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 17 Implementation Outline 74 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 18 Conclusion If implemented, these nine recommendations will strengthen the City of Aspen’s grant programs. They will increase transparency, efficiency and accountability, and help ensure the equitable distribution of funds to organizations that are best serving the community. They are not minor tweaks, but large changes that will require staff and volunteer time and energy in order to accomplish. Yet, they are extremely feasible to enact over the next year. The City of Aspen is filled with intelligent individuals who are extremely passionate about their community. Point b(e) has no doubt that the City staff will be able to effectively work with the community to foster real change for the City’s grant programs and therefore the community as a whole. There are alternative options to the recommendations offered, such as outsourcing management of the entire grant program or the creation of administrative only reviews. However, Point b(e) feels that in strengthening and empowering community members to take a more focused scope, the grant programs will best be able to meet the needs of the City of Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley. This approach will work best when implemented in its entirety and by combining a more targeted prioritization of fund dollars with a review process to match. Additional Resources DirectRFP®. “7 RFP Scoring Guidelines You Need to Improve Transparency and Buy-In.” DirectRFP®, 4 June 2019, directrfp.com/rfp-scoring-guidelines-to-improve/. DirectRFP®. “Write RFP Questions The Right Way & Get Better Responses.” DirectRFP®, 4 June 2019, directrfp.com/write-rfp-questions-the-right-way-and-get-better-responses/. Edwards, Sandy. “The Benefits of Multiyear Grantmaking: A Funder’s Perspective.” Philanthropy News Digest (PND), 31 Jan. 2013, https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/commentary-and- opinion/benefits-of-multiyear-grantmaking Gibson, Cynthia M. “Deciding Together: Shifting Power and Resources Through Participatory Grantmaking.” IssueLab, IssueLab, 2 Oct. 2018, participatorygrantmaking.issuelab.org/resource/deciding-together-shifting-power-and- resources-through-participatory-grantmaking.html. National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. “Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best. Benchmarks to Assess and Enhance Grantmaker Impact” 8 March, 2019, https://bjn9t2lhlni2dhd5hvym7llj-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/10/paib-fulldoc_lowres.pdf 75 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 19 Appendix A: City of Aspen Grantee Survey Summary Point b(e) administered a survey to all current grantees of the City of Aspen’s grant programs. The survey was administered online via Survey Monkey to 99 individuals, with 59 (60%) respondents completing the survey. The results of the survey are presented below. Type of Funding Applied for This Year Respondents were asked to identify the type of funding they applied for—Wheeler Arts, Community Non-Profit or Health and Human Services. Figure 1. Type of Funding Number of Years Received Funding From the City of Aspen Respondents were also asked to indicate the number of years they have received funding from the City of Aspen. 20% 59% 20% Type of Funding % HHS % Community Non-Profit % Wheerler Arts 76 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 20 Figure 2. Number of Years Received Funding Strengths of the City’s Grant Programs Respondents were asked to describe the strengths of the City’s grantmaking programs. Responses fell into several themes: • The funding supports organizations that help the community in a variety of ways and illustrates the City’s commitment to the community (n=26). • The application process—The online form is easy, the process is clear, the grant guidelines are straight forward, there are fewer redundant questions this year (n=18). o HHS grantees appreciate that the application is connected to the Pitkin County application, as it reduces duplication (n=5). • The supportive team is responsive to questions and provides good communication throughout the process (n=14). • The funding is consistent and reliable (n=12). Grant Application Process Respondents were asked to provide feedback about the grant application process by rating a series of statements on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree. Figure 3 displays the results. 39% 11% 27% 23% Number of Years Received Funding 0-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-19 Years 20+ Years 77 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 21 Figure 3. Feedback About Grant Application Opportunities for Improvement • Reduce the number of questions on the application, modify the way financial data is requested, consider a new online platform for the application, provide an abbreviated application for smaller grants. • Allow opportunities on the application for grantees to elaborate on their impact, show the extent of services provided, or share a client story. • Consider a multi-year grant cycle, rather than annual applications. Grant Evaluation Process Respondents were asked to provide feedback about the grant evaluation process by rating a series of statements on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree. Figure 4 illustrates the feedback by grantees. 80% 93% 91% 91% 86% 78% 76% 76% 78% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% The City’s funding priorities were clearly communicated. The eligibility criteria to apply for grants was clearly communicated. The City’s grantmaking staff was responsive to questions during the application process. The City’s grantmaking staff was helpful during the application process. The grant application process was clear. The online grant application was easy to use. The amount of information required on the grant application was reasonable. Based on the information asked in the grant application, I believe the City has a good understanding of my organization’s programs. Based on the information asked in the grant application, I believe the City has a good understanding of my organization’s goals. Feedback About Grant Application % Agree or Strongly Agree 78 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 22 Figure 4. Feedback About the Grant Evaluation Process Respondents were also asked to rate how the City’s grant application compares with other grant applications their organizations submit, on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = It is more time consuming than most applications to 5 = It is less time consuming than most applications. Figure 5. City’s Application Compared With Other Grant Applications 64% 46% 63% 61% 46% 46% 45% 75% 67% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% I understand the criteria used to evaluate my application. I understand the criteria used to determine my draft funding amount. I believe all applicants are treated equally in the grant evaluation process. I believe all applicants are treated fairly in the determination of draft funding amounts. The City is transparent with its process for evaluating the applicants. The City is transparent with its process for selecting grantees. The City is transparent with its process for determining draft funding amounts for grantees. The City’s grantmaking staff is responsive to questions about the evaluation process. The City’s grantmaking staff is responsive to questions about draft funding amounts. Feedback About the Grant Evaluation Process % Agree or Strongly Agree 31% 36% 34% City's Application Compared with Other Grant Applications Selected 4 or 5 (It is less time consuming than most applications) Selected 1 or 2 (It is more time consuming than most applications) Selected 3 (Neutral) 79 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 23 Opportunities for Improvement Respondents were asked to provide feedback about how the City can improve its grant evaluation process. Responses fell into the following themes: • Increase transparency in how award amounts are determined. • Increase clarity about how committees make decisions and the criteria that are used. • Consider a 'Zero Budget' exercise where applications are evaluated regardless of the previous year's awards or historical trends. • Provide a rubric about how applicants are scored. • Provide a pathway for organizations to increase the amount of funding, particularly for organizations that receive low amounts. • Provide clarity in the role of City Council in the funding decisions. Timing of the Grant Application Process Respondents were asked to provide feedback about the timing of the grant application process by rating a series of statements on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Not At All Satisfied and 5 = Very Satisfied. Results are displayed in Figure 6 below. Figure 6. Feedback About the Timing of the Grant Application Process Respondents were also asked to rate the length of time it takes to receive awarded funds compared with other funders. Responses were on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = It takes longer than most funders to 5 = It is faster than most funders. Figure 7 presents respondents’ feedback. 81% 69% 86% 78% 81% 75% 0%20%40%60%80%100% The date the grant opens. The date the grant is due. The length of time the grant remains open. The length of time to announce awards. The length of time to finalize contracts. The length of time to receive funds. Feedback About Timing % Satisfied or Very Satisfied 80 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 24 Figure 7. Time to Receive Funds Compared With Other Grants Opportunities for Improvement Respondents were asked to provide recommendations for how the City can improve the timing of the grant process. • Consider changing the timing to not coincide with summer programming. • Reduce the time it takes from application to receiving funds. 29% 27% 44% Time to Receive Funds Compared with Other Grants Selected 4 or 5 (It is faster than most funders) Selected 1 or 2 (It takes longer than most funders) Selected 3 (Neutral) 81 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 25 Overall Satisfaction With the Grant Programs and Impact of the Grant Programs Respondents were asked to rate how satisfied they are with the City’s grantmaking process overall on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Not At All Satisfied and 5 = Very Satisfied. Figure 8 presents the results. Figure 8. Satisfaction With the City’s Grant Programs Respondents were asked to provide feedback about the impact of the City’s grantmaking on their organization, the community, and their field. They rated a series of statements on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = No Impact and 5 = Significant Positive Impact. Results are presented in Figure 9. Figure 9. Feedback About the Impact of the City’s Grantmaking on Organization, the Community, and the Field 79% 72% 71% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Application process Evaluation process Award process Feedback on City's Grant Process Overall % Satisfied or Very Satisfied 88% 92% 76% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Impact on my organization. Impact on my community. Impact on my field. Feedback on Impact of City's Grantmaking % Positive Impact 82 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 26 Opportunities for Improvement Respondents were provided a final opportunity to provide feedback about how the City’s grantmaking programs can be improved. Results fell into the following themes: • Increase communication about the evaluation process. • Clarify criteria to determine funding. • Consider a multi-year grant cycle. • Decrease the overall time frame. • Identify a pathway for smaller grantees to increase their funding. • Provide a rubric for how applicants are scored. • Streamline the requested financials. 83 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 27 Appendix B: Key Stakeholder Interview Summary Point b(e) conducted nine key stakeholder interviews to gather in-depth information about the grant programs. Interviewees included members of the Citizen Grant Review Committee for Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit grants, members of the Citizen Grant Review Committee for Pitkin County’s Healthy Community Fund for the Health and Human Services grants, staff with the City of Aspen and the City Manager. Additionally, Point b(e) administered an online survey to all of Aspen’s City Councilmembers. One Councilmember completed the electronic survey and two Councilmembers opted for telephone interviews. All of the key stakeholder interviews and Councilmember surveys were qualitatively analyzed, and respondents from both data collection methods are referred to as interviewees. The findings are presented below. Overall Strengths and Impact of the City of Aspen’s Grant Programs Interviewees highlighted several strengths of the City’s grant programs. Feedback focused on the unique, historical impact the City has on arts, culture, nonprofits and health and human services programs. There is a level of consistency and a commitment of the City to ensure funds are there year after year. The grant programs are important to the economic, public health and social fabric of the community. It is a statement that the City values organizations within a small community and it funds a wide array of organizations within the valley. The grant programs enrich life in the mountains through the support of nonprofits. Finally, organizations can use the funding from the City as leverage for more donations. Interviewees did address concerns about the challenge of understanding the overall impact of the City’s grant programs. For one interviewee, the role and importance of the City’s grant programs has not been clearly defined or set. Another interviewee commented that it is unclear what the long-term goals of the programs are and how they are aligned with the community plan. Recommendations Interviewees highlighted the following recommendations: • Revisit the purpose of the grant programs and clearly define the goals of the grant programs, aligned with metrics and objectives; create a funding program that can tell a story about why it’s important the City donate and how much it should contribute; answer the question about the effect the grant programs have on the community; provide better structure and clarity about what the City is hoping to achieve with this funding. • Increase funding when necessary to accommodate for increases in cost-of-living and additional grant applicants. This can include an increase in the RETT funding. • Change the order in how funding is approved and allocated. Community Non-Profit and Wheeler Arts Grants Citizen Grants Review Committee Interviewees highlighted the knowledge and experience of the current Citizen Grants Review Committee. Members are active in the community, attend events, and the committee has representation from Wheeler Opera House, which is important to interviewees. Interviewees are 84 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 28 appreciative of the engaged and intelligent members who are currently on the review committee and recognize that the members respect the community and the nonprofits. Recommendations Interviewees highlighted the following recommendations: • Provide more structure around the make-up of the review committee. For example, interviewees highlighted that members should be appointed by City Council, and members should cover a broad range of skill sets and areas of expertise, including business, entrepreneurship, health, arts, culture, etc. There could also be youth/younger populations on the committee. Additionally, there could be sub-committees to review the different grants to align with specific members’ expertise. While it’s great to have historical knowledge on the committee, interviewees noted that it would be appropriate to have term limits for members. • Develop a charter for the review committee. The structure could be more formalized, with a chair, vice chair, etc. There should be rules on how members are selected/appointed, how they are trained, and the criteria used to make decisions. There should also be structures in place for the City’s role with the review committee, such as the amount of oversight or management that should be provided. Health and Human Services The City of Aspen’s Health and Human Services (HHS) grant funding process is different than the Community Non-Profit and Wheeler Arts Grants process. The City’s grant application is attached to the end of the Pitkin County Healthy Communities Fund Health grant application. Several interviewees were appreciative of the integration of the application process and noted that the City of Aspen enjoys several benefits from that integration. Pitkin County provides more oversight and accountability with those funded through the County funding, and the City of Aspen gets to benefit from that oversight. Interviewees expressed that the City and County have worked as great partners over the years, and by having the City and County coordinate funding, there is more continuity in the grant programs. Recommendations Interviewees highlighted the following recommendations: • Increase communication about funded organizations between the City and County programs. • Provide more representation from the City of Aspen on the Pitkin County Citizen Grant Review Committee. Currently, only one City Councilperson sits on the review committee, and that Councilperson is terming off this summer. There should be more individuals with a wider range of expertise making decisions about the City’s HHS grant funds. Transparency Interviewees were asked to describe the extent to which there is transparency in the grants process. A few interviewees noted that the process has transparency because funding amounts are made public during the City Council meeting in which they are discussed. Individuals have access to who 85 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 29 was funded and the amount they received. However, many interviewees noted that the process to make those decisions, specifically why organizations are funded a specific amount, lacks transparency. Recommendations Interviewees highlighted the following recommendations: • Develop more rigorous scoring criteria. Interviewees expressed a desire to have solid evaluation criteria with accompanying data in order to respond to applicant questions. Once a scoring matrix is in place and used, the results can be disclosed to applicants so they can improve the next time. • Provide information about scoring criteria and funding limits at the time the application is released. Interviewees noted it would be helpful if applicants were aware of total funding available, applicable funding limits, and evaluation criteria when they received the application. It would be ideal for applicants to see at the time of award a data-driven process that illustrates how they scored and the rationale for the amount of funding received. Role of City Council Interviewees were asked to discuss the role of City Council. Interviewees agreed that City Council has final decision-making powers on grants that are funded and that they make their decisions based on the recommendations of the Citizen Grant Review Committees, both for Community Non-Profit and Wheeler Art grants, as well as for HHS grants. Recommendations Interviewees highlighted the following recommendations: • City Council needs to establish the goals and objectives of the grant programs and revisit these regularly. • City Council needs to allocate the amount of total funding for the grants, and many interviewees indicated it is time to assess increases in the amount of funding that is allocated overall. • Communication and clarity should be increased. There is a gap between the decisions of the Citizen Grants Review Committee and City Council. While City Council has the final say in grant decisions, they don’t have a full picture of the evaluation criteria and the process to determine funding amounts. Administration Interviewees were asked to discuss questions related to the administration of the grant programs, such as whether they should continue to be managed in-house by City staff and whether the staffing structure is effective and efficient. Several interviewees indicated it is important the grant funds continue to be managed by the City, as opposed to a third party. According to one interviewee, because the funding comes from taxpayer dollars, it provides more accountability to have it managed by the City, and the funding should not go to an outside group. A few interviewees 86 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 30 mentioned the possibility of having an organization such as Aspen Community Foundation manage the funds. Regarding staffing of the grant programs, several interviewees expressed that there needs to be better infrastructure to support the programs and more staff time devoted to the programs. Interviewees expressed that it has been passed around to staff and departments, which has caused a lack of consistency within the City. Recommendations Interviewees highlighted the following recommendations: • Develop better infrastructure and staffing system within the City to manage the grants. While many interviewees indicated the current department is a logical home for the programs, they agreed there needs to be more staff time allocated to managing the programs. • Adopt a grants management software program. Pitkin County recently adopted a new program to manage grant applications and tracking. A few interviewees highlighted the need to adopt a program that can better manage grants—from application, to contracting, to tracking progress. Additional Recommendations Interviewees were asked to provide any additional thoughts on improvements to the grant programs. The following recommendations emerged: • Adjust the timeline of the grant programs. The process from the time the application is made available to when the grantees receive funding is too lengthy. • Streamline the application itself, specifically the financial information. Potentially develop a short form and a long form depending on the size of the ask. Include more questions on the application that ask about how the funds will be used and how funds were used in the past. Include questions about the salaries of organizational leadership and questions around the number of people served and those under the age of 18. Also, include questions that illicit more information on an organization’s impact. • Develop a two-year grant cycle. 87 Prepared by Point b(e) Strategies June 2022 After-Action Review 88 Contents Introduction and Methodology ........................................................................................................ 1 Strengths ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 4 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 11 Appendices ................................................................................................................................... 12 Appendix A: Grantee Feedback ............................................................................................. 13 Appendix B: Volunteer Review Committee Feedback ........................................................... 22 89 © 2022 Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 1 Introduction and Methodology The City of Aspen (the City) engaged Point b(e) Strategies to evaluate its grant programs in 2020. This evaluation resulted in a set of nine recommendations to bring additional transparency, equity and accountability to the grant process. The City implemen ted many of these recommendations over the following grant cycle with many slated to be implemented further in the upcoming grant cycle. In May 2022, the City partnered with Point b(e) Strategies in to develop an After-Action Review. The goal of this review was to evaluate its progress to date and think about further ways in to improve the process. Point b(e) Strategies utilized a mixed -methods approach to evaluate the City’s grant programs, building upon the knowledge gained in the first phase of the work regarding the unique needs of the community of Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley. Each method is described in detail below. Point b(e) Strategies is confident the sample size of both interviews and surveys for Volunteer Review Committee members and Grantees provided valid data and feedback. Point b(e) used data, insights, feedback and research from all of the above data collection methods to formulate the recommendations presented in this report. Introduction & Methodology Point b(e) Strategies reviewed grant-related documents from the City for all grant programs to understand changes made to the grantmaking processes. Additionally, Point b(e) Strategies researched best practices surrounding in-kind donations in order to make further recommendations for that particular grant program. Document Review & Best Practice Research Point b(e) Strategies worked with staff at the city through a series of meetings to further understand their desired goals for this process. Additionally, city staff were able to assess whether the goals and outcomes of the evaluation aligned with their expectations and weigh in on the development of evaluation tools. Steering Committee Point b(e) Strategies administered a survey to all current grantees of the City’s grant programs to gather thoughts and feedback about the grant process including the application, trainings offered and perspectives on funding. The survey was administered online via Survey Monkey with 38 (43%) respondents completing the survey, resulting in a 12% margin of error. A 43% response rate is slightly above average for online surveys. Results of the grantee survey were quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed. See Appendix A for the survey results. Grantee Survey Point b(e) Strategies administered a survey to all Volunteer Review Committee members to gather feedback about their overall experience including training, review process, and role. The survey was administered online via Survey Monkey with 6 (40%) respondents completing the survey. A 40% response rate is slightly above average for online surveys. See Appendix B for the survey results. Volunteer Review Committee Survey Point b(e) Strategies conducted 13 key informant interviews to further inform the information gathered through the two surveys. Point b(e) Strategies conducted 6 interviews with grantees and 7 with members of the Volunteer Review Committee. Point b(e) Strategies was able to interview grantees and committee members from all three grant programs. All interviews were analyzed. The results of the interviews were combined with the results from the surveys. They can be found in Appendices A and B. Key Informant Interviews 90 © 2022 Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 2 Strengths Throughout the data collection process, the strengths of the City’s grantmaking that were outlined two years ago were again repeated. The City’s grantmaking is a unique historical tradition that illustrates consistency and commitment to the community to ensure that funds are available year after year for the valuable work that non-profits do throughout the valley. Additionally, there are a significant number of dedicated and engaged community members who demonstrate this through their time and energy. In addition to the above strengths, the data demonstrated that the city has implemented a significant number of changes based on the findings from the previous evaluation of the grant program. These changes have resulted in a demonstrated increase in transparency, equity, and clarity for the grant program. A brief outline of the nine proposed recommendations and implemented changes is outlined below. 1. Shift the Timeline. The City shifted the timeline of the grant process to better suit the needs of the community. Previously grant applications were due in the summer, at the busiest time of the year for the majority of grantees. Shifting the timeline to a fall release and Ja nuary due date allowed grantees to focus on their programming in the summer. Additionally, the city was able to shorten the entirety of the grant funding cycle. These two changes reflected that the City is willing to better address the needs of the grantee community and the community they serves. 2. Redefine Staffing Structure . In 2020, the staffing structure for the Grants Program was largely housed in the Wheeler with additional support from the quality office. The lack of full - time staff dedicated to the program led to a lack of efficiency and clarity. In the current evaluation, both grantees and committee members shared that city staff managed the process with clarity and efficiency. This allowed grantees to better understand what was needed of them through trainings and direct communication with city staff. Additionally, Committee members appreciated the clear process that was guided by very adept city staff. Strengths Shift the Timeline Redefine Staffing Structure Consolidate the Grants Program Create Partnership Opportunities Redesign and Codify Committees Develop Strategic Priorities for the Funding Develop Scoring Criteria that Matches Funding Priorities Modify the Grant Applications Develop a Communications Campaign 91 © 2022 Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 3 3. Consolidate the Grants Program. Previously the grant program operated in two different processes: one for HHS grants and another for all other grant programs. The City’s decision to streamline all grants into one unified system increased efficiency and consistency. 4. Create Partnership Opportunities. In 2020, Point b(e) Strategies recommended that the City create multi-year partnerships with grantees. The City has established partnerships with HHS grantees but has yet to expand this opportunity to the other Grant Programs. The multi-year opportunities have proven quite successful for the HHS grantees that have been able to take advantage. 5. Redesign and Codify Committees. One of the most significant shifts for the Grant Program in the previous two years was to the Citizen Grant Review Commit tee. Previously, the Committee operated without a charter, bylaws, or governing ideology which led to a great deal of subjectivity in the review process. Committees were reorganized, given bylaws and strategic areas on which to focus. Current Committee mem bers felt that the process was straightforward, organized and transparent. This is a marked improvement from what committee members reported in the previous evaluation. 6. Develop Strategic Priorities for the Funding. The City has worked to define, refine a nd articulate their strategic priorities funding over the past two year. The result is that grantees and review committee members are extremely clear on what values they are reaching for in their applications and scoring processes. Sharing the priorities with grantees allowed them to more fully understand how their applications were being evaluated. 7. Develop Scoring Criteria That Matches Funding Priorities . In addition to clearly articulating the strategic priorities for the Grant Program, the City created s coring matrix that gave committee members a clear direction to score applications. This scoring matrix eliminates much of the subjectivity that was previously present in the scoring process. In addition, the scoring matrix directly asks about alignment with the strategic priorities of the City. 8. Modify the Grant Applications. The City’s grant application was quite lengthy with many grantees articulating that it was particularly difficult and time consuming to fill out. In 2021 the City reduced the application and included two different applications for grantees asking for differing amounts that required less information. This was a great step forward in reducing the burden on smaller grantees in particular. 9. Develop a Communications Campaign. Due to the vast number of recommendations in the previous Grant Program evaluation, Po int b(e) Strategies recommended a communications campaign to share all changes with grantees. The City accomplished much of this through trainings offered to grantees during the grant cycle. The City’s efforts over the previous two years have dramatically improved the Grant Progra m. The most noted improvement has been to the transparency of the process. The initial evaluation revealed that while grantees were thankful for funding, they had very little insight into how the process worked, why they received the funding they did or how their applications were being evaluated. This is no longer the case. In addition, the Review Committee, largely made decisions subjectively. The work the city has done to outline priorities and create metrics for the Committees to use has made the process far more equitable. 92 © 2022 Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 4 Recommendations As articulated above, the City has made marked improvements to the Grant Program over the previous two years. The remainder of this report will focus on a set of recommendations that will further refine and improve the process. Recommendations are grouped into three categories: equity, transparency, and clarity. Equity The City’s Grant Program was historically one of entitlement. Grantees felt that they were entitled to funding because they had received it in the past. There was therefore a clear equity challenge that existed between historical or legacy grantees and newer grantees. This was largely perpetuated by the process through which applicants were reviewed by longstanding committee members who had their own personal biases about organizations they favored. During this After-Action Review, Point b(e) Strategies found very little of that entitlement. Yet, inequity remains in the City’s Grant Program, as it does in most grant programs. Point b(e) Strategies has outlined four recommendations that could create a more equitable Grant Program. Current State. The City currently utilizes a somewhat tiered approach for grantees including two different applications with a less rigorous scoring matrix for funding requests under a certain dollar amount. Committee members then review and score all applications together. Committee members shared that they had a challenging time reviewing a funding request from a large organization against a smaller organization. The capacity of smaller organizations to write an excellent grant application in comparison to a larger one was clearly lacking. The figure below demonstrates the current process for both small and large grants. Recommendations 1. Tiered Approach Equity 1.Tiered Approach 2.Application 3.Define Community 4.Funding Decisions Transparency 5.Funding Decision Feedback Loops 6.In-Kind Requests Clarity 7. Scoring Process 8.Grantee Trainings 93 © 2022 Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 5 Proposed Recommendation and Justification. Point b(e) Strategies recommends that the process be further separated for differing tiers of funding, not just through a separate application and matrix. The figure below demonstrates what that process could be and is elaborated upon below. • Determine what tiers are most applicable for each type of grant based on funding request. There is a great deal of difference between a request for $2,000 and one for $35,000 in terms of what the grantee can do with that funding and what the City should expect in return for that amount of funding. As such they should be scored and awarded appropriately. − Less than $10,000 − $10,000 - $40,000 − More than $40,000 • From the total amount available for each type of grant, determine an amount that is available for each tier. This should be told to grantees before applications are released if possible. • Further streamline applications so that there is a much shorter application made for the smaller funding tiers (including new grantees) and a more robust application for larger requests. • Offer different trainings on application materials based on each tier. • Align scoring matrices with applications for each tier of request. − “Clarity” as an evaluation strategy needs to be further clarified for small versus large grantees as it largely reads as how well was this application written, which provides an advantage to better resourced grantees. • Offer guidance to Committee members around order of application review that begins with smaller grantees and finishes with larger requests. The discussions of each of these grantees should also be separate. • Apply different funding formulas for each tier based on amount of funding available. This could be a funding formula that awards a higher percentage of amount requested to smaller requests if scored at a certain number versus larger requests. By further separating these grant applications the City will be able to more equitably distribute their resources across grantees. If smaller requests are weighed only against other small requests, they have a more level playing field for expectations and evaluation from the Revie w Committee. Grantee Training Review & Discussion Time Funding Formula Tier 1 Total Funding Available Application Matrix Grantee Training Review & Discussion Time Funding Formula Tier 2 Total Funding Available Application Matrix Grantee Training Review & Discussion Time Funding Formula Tier 3 Total Funding Available Application Matrix 94 © 2022 Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 6 Current State. In the previous year, the City reduced the amount of information needed in the grant application, particularly for smaller grant requests from previous grantees. However, the application is still quite lengthy. 53% of grantees reported that this applicatio n was more time consuming as compared with other applications. By comparison, in the first phase of this work, only 36% of grantees, felt that it was more time consuming. The figures are illustrated below and illustrated further in Appendix A. Additionally, members of the Review Committee reported that they did not use all of the information from the grant application for their decision making. The financial requirements were highlighted by both groups as an area that felt cumbersome and confusing. Proposed Recommendation and Justification. Point b(e) Strategies recommends that when applications are tiered, as per recommendation 1, they are also shortened to include only the essential information for decision making. A question should only be included i f it helps either the City or the Review Committee make a decision on scoring or funding eligibility. Some specific areas of improvement are listed below. • Financial Document requests should be simplified. While this is particularly relevant for the smaller requests, there is room to reduce the financial documentation throughout the application. Grantees reported the financial requirements to be one of the most confusing portions of the application that took the most time for them to discern what is needed or create a document that they did not have readily available. If the City is able to determine eligibility using a standard financial form, they should make only that request. This could be a 990, balance sheet, Board approved budget, or another standard non-profit financial document. • The application should directly relate to the strategic priority areas and therefore the scoring matrix. It should be very clear to a Committee member when they are reviewing an application, what portion of the Matrix this information is relevant for. • Grantees also requested a space for additional information. Point b(e) Strategies recommends that The City add optional questions for grantees to provide context to quantitative numbers or data requested. In addition, grantees requested the ability to attach any ready-made materials that demonstrate their work , particularly for the Arts & Culture grants. The ability to provide additional materials should only be done if 11% 53% 37% 31%36%34% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% % Less time consuming % More time consuming % Selected 3 (Neutral) City's Application Compared with Other Grant Applications AAR 2022 Phase 1 2021 2. Application 95 © 2022 Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 7 applications of different request sizes are evaluated separately, as per recommendation 1, as it does put larger organizations at an advantage. • Lastly, portions of the applications for the three different programs should be different. Arts & Culture organizations track participant data in a significantly differen t and less in- depth way than do Health and Human Services organizations. The City should therefore ask about numbers served and demographic information in different ways for these differing programs. Current State. The City of Aspen Grant Program Philosophy is clear and well-articulated as: The City of Aspen’s Grant Program supports non -profit organizations that promote a mentally and physically healthy community; provide protection for our natural environment; and create opportunities for connections for all community members, through partnerships, ease of access, stewardship, arts and cultural enrichment, and innovation. The only portion of this philosophy that is unclear is who is defined by “community members”. Committee members shared that they did not understand the geographic reach or definition of community and therefore were unable to properly evaluate this. The community of grantees has largely been those with historical relationships with the City. This has changed since the initial evaluation in 2020 but there are still improvements that can be made. Proposed Recommendation and Justification. The City needs to further define what they mean by community, both in geographic reach and desired grantees. Based on that determination, the City will need to answer further questions about how community is accessed, defined and represented. • Does the City intend to serve the entire Roaring Fork Valley with its Grant Program? If so, how is it representing the diversity across the valley in lived experience, demographics and need? • The Review Committees should be representative of the population of individuals that their Program is intending to serve. This should include beneficiary representation. • If the City hopes to reach the full population who live and work in the valley, then they need to expand access through the ability to manage a process in alternative languages. This would include application, training, outreach staff support, and evaluation processes in alternative languages. Current State. The City currently uses a funding formula to determine the amounts of funding each grantee should receive. This is a great step towards creating a more equitable distribution of funding. Proposed Recommendation and Justification. In addition to what the City has already done or has already been recommended in this report regarding tiering funding decisions, Point b(e) Strategies recommends the following. 3. Define Community 4. Funding Decisions 96 © 2022 Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 8 • The City should remove all historical protections for previous grantees. This would allow everyone an even playing field from which their application will be evaluated. • The City should (where possible) allow for multi-year funding opportunities. Due to the nature of City funding, this might not be possible for all Program areas or request amounts and should be examined appropriately to ensure that the City is able to fulfill multi-year grant requests and new requests. When directly asked whether they would be interested in multi-year grant funds, 97% of grantees reported a desire for that opportunity. Transparency The City’s Grant Program is largely a transparent process. There are a few areas where transparency could be improved to ensure that grantees, committee members, and the community at large have a firm grasp on how the Grant Program is distributin g these valuable tax dollars. Current State. The City has made marked improvements increasing transparency across the Grant Program. Grantees largely reported that the process from application to award was transparent. Review Committee members also reflected that the process designed by the City was transparent. The one area where this was markedly different was in final funding amount s. Proposed Recommendation and Justification. In order to further increase transparency, Point b(e) Strategies recommends the creation of feedback loops for both the Review Committee and Grantees. • In the final meeting with the Review Committee, City staff should report out to Committee members how their matrix scores were used to make final funding decisions. How was the formula applied? Was there a change in the amount of funding available? How did that effect funding decisions? This would allow Committee members to really see the impact of their work and feel more connected to the overall process. • Grantees do not need the same level of information as does the Review Committee but should be told why they received their funding amount including their final score and how it resulted in them receiving x number of dollars. This would allow grantees to understand how they can improve, year after year. It would also prevent anyone from being able to object to their decision due to the appearance of favoritism. Current State. The City grants in-kind request such as event space, services, and tax exemptions to organizations through the same process by which it offers its cash grants. These In-kind requests are extremely valuable to the grantees that take advantage of them – but there are few that do so. Proposed Recommendation and Justification. Point b(e) Strategies recommends that the In- Kind process be formalized and clarified so that al l grantees know what is available to apply for and how they might engage in that process. Some detailed suggestions are offered below. 5. Funding Decision Feedback Loops 6. In-Kind Requests 97 © 2022 Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 9 • The In-Kind application should be a separate addendum to the grant application. It should live at the end of the application and be optional for all grantees. • The addendum should include a list of offerings available from the City. This list of offerings and the amount of each should be predetermined by the City based on what is feasible for them to offer. In-Kind amounts should then be allocated based on the scores from the Committee using an alternative decision framework. • The City should determine a set of eligibility criteria for In -Kind requests. Are In-Kind requests available to all grantees regardless of organizatio n size? Are organizations limited in number of events/usage or the cash value of In-Kind requests they may apply for? Any eligibility requirements should be designed to be determined based on information already received from grantees in their application. Clarity The City has created a number of processes that have dramatically improved the Grant Program. Point b(e) Strategies has two recommendations to further clarify what those processes are and how they relate to those who are utilizing them. Current State. The City did a great job putting together a clear, robust scoring process that reflects the strategic focus areas for the City. This has dramatically improved the review process for Review Committee members, creating far more clarity and eliminating much of the subjectivity that existed in the previous review process. Proposed Recommendation and Justification. There are just three areas where the process could be further improved in order to ensure a clear process for all Committee members. • Each committee would benefit from further defining and discussing the criteria in the scoring matrix mean. Impact for the HHS grant program means something different than it does for the Arts & Culture Grant Program. It would also be extremely valuable for them to ensure that they are operationalizing these terms in the way that the City Council intends of them. • Simplify guidance for how to score within the matrices to help Committee Members when reviewing applications. Committee Members shared that the 1-10 score was difficult since the guidance given was for a range of two numbers with the same detailed guidance. Rather than rewrite guidance to include an explanation for each number, the language can be simplified acros s the board. • Clarify committee timeline and expectations between meetings. Committee Members reported some confusion around what they were supposed to do between meetings. A few reported that they scored applications at different times than their counterp arts which led to some confusion. Additional recommendation on clarifying the timeline for Committee Members is included in the next recommendation. • Point b(e) Strategies recommends that the Grant Review Process follow the cadence below based on Committee member feedback. This should be outlined to committee members when they are pursuing the opportunity to be a committee member so they understand the reach of their impact and the commitment they are making to the 7. Scoring Process 98 © 2022 Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 10 process. Additionally, committee members expressed a desire for meetings to be held in person if safe. − Introductions and Expectations. At this meeting, committee members will get to know one another and understand what is expected of them throughout the process. In between meetings: Committee members should review all materials including strategic priories, matrix, sample application − Values and Priorities. This meeting will focus on discussing what the strategic priorities of the City are, what the values as defined in the scoring matrix are, and gaining clarity on any definitions that remain unclear to them. City staff should be present to ensure that the voice of the City Council is clear in what they mean by each of the above as well. In between meetings: All applications should be scored − Discussion of Scores. The committee will be able to share their thoughts on applications and why they scored applications the way they did. Point b(e) Strategies recommends that scores only be changed if glaring information about the application is presented. Personal biases should not influence individual scores. In between meetings: City Staff apply funding formulas − Presentation of Results. City staff should report out how scores were used and provide a list of grantees and amounts awarded. This meeting is not a place where Committee members can influence or change decisions but learn how their voices were used to determine funding amounts. Current State. The City currently offers training to grantees to share changes to the grant program and process for applying. Grantees found the training helpful but offered that some information was not relevant to them or they would appreciate differing information than what was offered. Proposed Recommendation. Based on grantee feedback Point b(e) Strategies recommends that three sessions are offered to Grantees. 1. Information Session. This session could be attended by any grantee and should focus on the overall process for applying for a City grant. Rather than focus on changes made to the process, it should give an overview of the whole process so new and old gran tees all know what the process will be for them. 2. Training Session for Grant Requests for smallest tier(s). This session could be attended by those who are applying for a smaller grant request. The training session should focus largely on assisting grantees to understand what is required of the small grants application. Ideally, a significant amount of time would be dedicated to the Financial Requirements as this seems to be the area of the most confusions for grantees. The audience for this will largely be Executive Directors, board members, volunteers or interns who are less familiar with writing grants and will therefore need more guidance on what the City is looking for in an application. 3. Training Session for Larger Grant Requests . This session could be attended by larger grantees and focus on the same information as the small grant request training session but designed with larger organizations in mind. Since the audience will largely be grant writers or those who have been through the process before, t he training should match that. 8. Grantee Trainings 99 © 2022 Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 11 Conclusion The City of Aspen is on a great path towards modernizing its Grant Program. Over the past two years, it has taken great steps to shape its Grant Program into an equitable, transparent and clear process. If implemented, these recommendations will further strengthen the program. Some of them are large changes, that will take a great number of resources, others are smaller fixes. The chart below outlines each of the proposed recommendations an d their potential degree of impact. All of them are extremely feasible to enact in this next grant cycle. The City of Aspen staff who will need to implement much of this have already demonstrated their ability to enact change – particularly hard change tha t better serves their community. Recommendation Category Impact Parties Involved Stakeholders Impacted Lift Create Tiers Equity High City Staff Grantees, Committee Low Funding Available Equity Low City Council & City Staff Grantees Low Application Equity High City Staff Grantees, Committee Low Grantee Training Equity Medium City Staff Grantees Low Matrix Equity High City Staff Grantees, Committee Medium Review & Discussion Time Equity Medium Committee Grantees, Committee Low Funding Formula Equity High City Staff Grantees Medium Financial Documentation Equity High City Staff Grantees, Committee Low Questions relate to Strategic Priority Areas and Matrix Equity High City Staff Grantees, Committee Low Optional Additional Information Equity Low City Staff Grantees, Committee Low Different Application for Different Grant Programs Equity High City Staff Grantees, Committee Medium Determine Geographic Reach Equity High City Council & City Staff Grantees High Committee Representative of Community Equity High City Staff & Committee Committee, Grantees High Alternative Languages Equity High City Staff Grantees, Committee High Remove Historical Protections Equity High City Staff Grantees Low Multi-year Funding Opportunities Equity High City Staff Grantees, Committee Medium Feedback Loops for Committee TransparencyLow City Staff & Committee Committee Low Funding Decision Clarity for Grantees TransparencyLow City Staff Grantees Low Separate In-Kind Requests in Application TransparencyMedium City Staff Grantees Low In-kind Offerings Available TransparencyHigh City Staff Grantees Medium Eligibility Criteria for In-Kind Requests TransparencyMedium City Staff Grantees Medium Committee Discussions of Criteria Clarity High City Staff & Committee Committee, Grantees Low Guidance Simplification Clarity Low City Staff Committee, Grantees Medium Committee Timeline and Expectations Clarity Medium City Staff Committee, Grantees Low Separate Trainings Clarity Medium City Staff Grantees Low Grantee Trainings Tiered Approach Application Define Community Funding Decisions In-Kind Requests Scoring Process Funding Decisions Feedback Loops Conclusion 100 © 2022 Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 12 Appendices Appendix A: Grantee Feedback Appendix B: Volunteer Review Committee Feedback Appendices 101 © 2022 Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 13 Appendix A: Grantee Feedback Summary Point b(e) Strategies administered a survey to all current grantees of the City of Aspen’s grant programs. The survey was fielded online via Survey Monkey to 89 individuals, with 38 respondents completing the survey (43%). Additionally, Point b(e) Strategies conducted interviews with six grantees. The results of the survey and interviews are presented below. Survey Findings Grant Application Training. The City wanted feedback on its Grant Application Training provided to grantees. Respondents were asked how helpful the grant application training was at providing relevant information. Figure 1 illustrates that the majority of respondents found the training to be helpful for providing information on strategic priorities, criteria used for review, criteria for determining funding amounts, and information needed for the application. Figure 1. How Helpful the Training Was at Providing Information Respondents were also asked how the City can improve the training. Several respondents provided suggestions. • Have staff/people available who can answer questions. • Simplify the training, with a suggestion on providing bullet points on exact expectations and needs. • Create separate trainings by new applicants and returning/past applicants • Categorize the training by the type – Health & Human Services Grants, Arts & Culture Grants, Community Nonprofit Grants • More training on the financial section of the applicatio n Grant Application Process. The City of Aspen sought feedback on its grant application process. Respondents were asked to provide feedback about the grant application process by rating a series of statements on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Strongly Disagr ee and 5 = Strongly Agree. Findings from the After-Action Review 2022 (AAR 2022) evaluation are compared with findings from the Phase 1 evaluation conducted in 2021 in Figure 2 below. 76% 73% 67% 76% 18% 15% 12% 18% 6% 12% 21% 6% Strategic priorities of the grant program Criteria used to review applications Criteria used to determine funding amounts Information needed for the grant application Selected 4 or 5 (Helpful)Selected 3 (Neutral)Selected 1 or 2 (Not at all helpful) 102 © 2022 Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 14 Figure 2. Feedback on Grant Application Survey data was disaggregated by grant type to look for variances in feedback. Arts & Culture grantees were less likely to agree that the City’s staff was helpful, the grant application was clear, and the amount of information required on the grant application was reasona ble. Respondents were also asked how the City of Aspen’s grant application compared to other grant applications. Figure 3 below illustrates the findings from 2022 compared to findings from 2021. Figure 3. City’s Application Compared with Other Grant Appli cations 11% 53% 37% 31% 36%34% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% % Less time consuming % More time consuming % Selected 3 (Neutral) AAR 2022 Phase 1 2021 84% 82% 71% 82% 76% 76% 76% 91% 86% 76% 76% 78% The City’s grantmaking staff was helpful during the application process. The grant application process was clear. The amount of information required on the grant application was reasonable. The grant application aligned with the Overall Program Philosophy and Strategic Focus Areas. The grant application aligned with criteria used to make funding decisions. Based on the information asked in the grant application, I believe the City has a good … Based on the information asked in the grant application, I believe the City has a good … % Agree or Strongly Agree (AAR 2022)% Agree or Strongly Agree (Phase 1 2021) 103 © 2022 Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 15 When looking at the above data by grant type, 75% Arts & Culture grantees stated the City’s application was more time consuming than other grant applications compared to 48% of Community Nonprofit grantees and 20% of Health & Human Service grante es. Respondents were asked to provide feedback on the application timeline by rating a series of statements on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Not at all satisfied and 5 = Extremely satisfied. Figure 4 below illustrates the findings. Figure 4. Feedback on Application Timeline Below is additional feedback from respondents on the grant application process. • The grant application is lengthy and could be shortened, especially for smaller organizations and those who are applying for the first time as they must fill out the long form even if they are requesting a smaller amount of funding. • There should be the option to provide supplemental materials that tell the impact of the organization, like videos, testimonials, and images. • Streamline the financial information requested. • Have the application allow for more free form answers, as well as opportunity to add additional information to certain metrics. • Add a question on the organization’s long-term/strategic plan. • Streamline the questions based on type of grant – Health & Human Services, Arts & Culture, Community Nonprofit – to ensure relevancy to the organization’s work. • The grant application deadline is difficult as the end of year is challenging for organizations with closing the year and holidays. • Ensure grant reviewers understand what they are reviewing in grant applications. Grant Evaluation Process. Respondents were asked feedback on the City’s grant evaluation process by rating a series of statements on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree. Figure 5 below illustrates the findings, along with findings from Phase 1 evaluation from 2021. 81% 83% 69% 75% 14% 14% 14% 11% 6% 3% 17% 14% The date the grant opens. The length of time the grant remains open. The length of time between the application deadline and announcement of awards. The length of time between the award announcement and fund receipt. % Selected 4 or 5 (Satisfied)% Selected 3 (Neutral)% Selected 1 or 2 (Not at all satisfied) 104 © 2022 Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 16 Figure 5. Feedback on Grant Evaluation Process Grant Award Amounts. The City sought to collect feedback on the amount of funding. Respondents were asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = No Impact and 5 = Significant Positive Impact, if the full amount of their grant request was awarded, how much of an impact this additional funding would have on their operations, stability, and community served. Figure 6 illustrated the findings. Figure 6. Impact of Additional Funding on Organization Similarly, respondents were given two statements and asked which reflects what their organization would like most regarding the number of organizations awarded and amount funded. Figure 7 below illustrates the findings. Figure 7. Organization Preference for Funding Structure 60% 61% 72% 69% 61% 63% 61% 46% 46% 45% I believe all applicants were treated equally in the grant evaluation process. I believe all applicants were treated fairly in the determination of funding amounts. The City is transparent with its process for evaluating the applicants. The City is transparent with its process for selecting grantees. The City is transparent with its process for determining funding amounts for grantees. % Agree or Strongly Agree (AAR 2022)% Agree or Strongly Agree (Phase 1 2021) 88% 70% 88% Impact on your organization’s operations. Impact on your organization’s stability. Impact on your community served. % Selected 4 or 5 (Positive Impact) 39% 19% 39% The City to fund more grantees, with fewer receiving the full amount they requested, even if that means my organization may not receive its full amount requested. The City to fund fewer grantees, with more receiving the full amount the requested, even if that means my organization may not receive funding. Unsure 105 © 2022 Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 17 Grant Reporting. In order to better demonstrate the community benefits of its grant program, the City is considering more formal outcome reporting requirements for larger grant awards. Respondents were asked what level of award their organization feels is appropriate to t rigger increased reporting requirements. Figure 8 illustrates the percentage of respondents selecting the award amount. The majority of respondents selecting “other” stated various amounts above $30,000. Figure 8. Level of Award Appropriate to Trigger Increased Reporting Multi-Year Funding. Respondents were asked about the impact of or interested in multi -year funding. Only three respondents received multi -year funding from the City. Respondents that received multi-year funding were asked about the impact on different areas by rating on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree. All respondents agreed or strongly agreed that multi-year funding had an impact on their organization’s financial stability and communities served. Two of the three respondents strongly agreed that multi -year funding had an impact on their organization’s staff capacity, and one respondent was neutral. Arts & Culture and Community Nonprofit Grant respondents that do not receive multi -year funding were asked their organization’s level of interest in multi -year funding on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Not at all interested and 5 = Extremely interested. Nearly all (97%) were interested (selected 4 or 5). Respondents were then asked what areas their org anization was interested in for multi-year funding. Figure 9 below illustrates the findings. Figure 9. Areas for Multi-Year Funding 5% 27% 46% 22% All grant awards Awards above $10,000 Awards above $25,000 Other 85% 55% 9% General Operating Program Other 106 © 2022 Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 18 In-Kind Donations. Three respondents received in-kind awards from the City and provided feedback. Those receiving in -kind awards were asked their feedback on the City’s in -kind process by rating a series of statements on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree. Figure 10 illustrates the findings. Figure 10. Feedback on In-Kind Process Respondents were also asked how satisfied they were with the process for in -kind requests by rating a series of areas on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = No t at all satisfied and 5 = Extremely satisfied. Figure 11 below illustrates the findings. Figure 11. Satisfaction with In -Kind Process All respondents indicated that in-kind receipt has a positive impact on their organization. Respondents were also asked how strongly they oppose or support alternatives to the City’s in - kind award process. Two of the three respondents were in support of replacing in-kind awards with cash awards, allowing grantees to pay for services from the City or any other local provider and shifting the in-kind grant application from a cash-value request to serve/event request (e.g. 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 Application process for in-kind donations Selection process for in-kind donations Receiving in-kind donations in the form of waivers/waived fees Accessing/using waivers Selected 5 (Extremely Satisfied)Selected 4 Selected 3 Selected 2 Selected 1 (Not at all satisfied) 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% I believe all in-kind applicants are treated equally in the evaluation process. I believe the City asks the right questions to understand our in-kind requests. The City is transparent with its process for evaluating in-kind donations. The City is transparent with its process for selecting in-kind donations. Number of Respondents Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree 107 © 2022 Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 19 Host a one-night event at the Wheeler Opera House). One respondent opposed the two alternatives to in-kind awards, sharing feedback that alternatives are difficult with unique in -kind structures with the City. Overall Feedback on the City’s Grant Program. Several respondents shared additional feedback about the City’s Grant Program. • Respondents commended the City’s efforts to improve the program and the changes made in the past year. • Respondents shared that it is difficult for their organization to report on demographic data of those served as they do not collect this information, especially for arts grantees. • Respondents mentioned the need to streamline the financial section of the grant application. Survey Respondent Demographics. Figure 12 and 13. Type of Funding and Type of Grant Figure 14. Amount of Request Health and Human Services Grant, 13% Community Nonprofit Grant, 55% Arts & Culture Grant, 32% Type of Grant Cash funding only, 89% Cash funding and in-kind, 11% Type of Funding $10,000 or less, 58% $10,001 - 25,000, 26% More than $25,000, 16% Amount of Request 108 © 2022 Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 20 Grantee Interview Findings Strengths. Grantee interviewees were asked what is working well in the City’s grant program. Interviewees mentioned that the responsive staff when they had questions on the grant application, along with the ease of use and understanding of what needed to be completed for the grant application. Interviewees also mentioned the commitment from the community to support nonprofits and those served by providing this grant program overall and the additional funding provided by the passing of 2A. Transparency. Grantee interviewees were asked if they believed the City is transparent in its grant making process. The majority of Interviewees generally stated that the City is transparent, although, several interviewees shared areas where they were confused or lacked clarity. Interviewees shared feedback about confusion on how award amounts were determined as they received an odd amount and how increased funding (as a result of the passing of 2A) was distributed. Similarly, interviewees shared they would like more communication and transparency on the new process for allocating funding, how organizational information is weighted (specifically the length of existence and financial information), and the process and work of the review committees. Lastly, one grantee suggested the City share easily accessible list of organizations funded by the City. Fair and Equitable Grantmaking Process. Grantee interviewees were asked how fair was their organization treated in the grantmaking process. Interviewees shared that based on the little information about other grantees, they feel they were treated fairly. Interviewees also shared feedback that they are trusting the City and City Council members to be fair and put bias aside. However, Interviewees concerns about the increasing number of organi zations in the community and the City’s criteria for new organizations. Funding Structure. Grantee interviewees were asked to reflect on findings from the Grantee Survey on the City’s structure of funding more Interviewees with fewer receiving their full amount requested versus funding fewer Interviewees with more receiving the full amount requested. All interviewees were in strong favor or leaned toward the City continuing to fund more Interviewees as they stated that the funding from the City is impactful for smaller organizations, and it is difficult to receive funding otherwise. Interviewees also shared that fairness would be questioned if one mission or organization was chosen over the other. Although interviewees would like the City to continue funding more Interviewees, they stated the City should ensure grants are awarded because the organization has proof of performance or capacity to account for the funding. Improvements for Grant Application Process . Interviewees were asked how the City can further improve its grant application process. Interviewees shared that the financial section of the grant application is confusing and difficult to complete. Additional feedback includes that they would like the opportunity to provide context to quantitative data and financ ial numbers, as well as would like more clarity and support on writing narrative on connecting the City’s strategic priorities with the work of their organization. Interviewees also shared positive feedback on the improvements to the grant application process from previous years, the new grant application timeline, and inclusion of narrative sections to tell the impact and story of their organizations. 109 © 2022 Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 21 In-Kind Process. One interviewee provided additional information about the in-kind process. The interviewee shared that the system for in -kind requests has improved since previous years, and the application was streamlined (within the cash application). The interviewee also stated that streamlining in-kind requests with the cash application was helpful as th eir work is all connected. The interviewee was indifferent toward in -kind awards being presented in cash or event based. The interviewee shared that the support provided by the Wheeler Opera House to ensure their organization was aware of the change to i n-kind requests (to cash amount) was helpful. However, the interviewee shared that the quote amount the Wheeler Opera House initially gave their organization to put into the grant application increased once they needed to use the service and the organization had to fund the difference. Additional Feedback. Interviewees shared additional feedback about the City and the grant program. Feedback included: • More opportunities for grantees to connect with those on Volunteer Review Committees through site visits to see the impact of the City’s funding. • The City to consider how to increase funding for Community Nonprofit Grants as funding for these grantees have decreased. • Provide two grant application trainings – one for sharing criteria and needs for the grant application and one for simply sharing changes. • Appreciation for the City’s recognition of the importance and impact nonprofits within the Valley have on Aspen. 110 © 2022 Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 22 Appendix B: Volunteer Review Committee Feedback The City of Aspen sought feedback from Volunteer Review Committee members. Six committee members participated in the survey (40% response rate). Additionally, Point b(e) Strategies conducted interviews with seven Volunteer Review Committee members. Below are findings from the survey and interviews. Survey Findings Overall Committee Feedback. Survey respondents were asked to provide feedback about the committee as a whole by rating a series of statements on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree. Figure 1 below illustrates these findings. Figure 1. Committee Feedback One survey respondent noted that committee membe rs were thoughtful and took other’s opinions into consideration. Survey respondents were also asked to provide feedback on their experience serving on the committee by rating a series of statements on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree. Figure 2 below illustrates these findings. Figure 2. Committee Member Experience 67% 33% 100% 67% 83% 33% 50% 33% 17% 17% Committee members reflected the needs and priorities of the Aspen community in discussions. Committee members guided funding to where it will have the greatest depth of impact to the population… Committee members valued the knowledge and perspectives of fellow committee members. Committee members maintained objectivity. Committee members were transparent in their decision- making and scoring. % Agree or Strongly Agree % Neutral % Disagree or Strongly Disagree 83% 67% 100% 100% City staff made me feel like an integral part of the grant- making process. I feel my voice was heard in the decision-making process. I enjoy being on the Committee. I feel City staff offered the right level of guidance & support during the decision-making process. % Agree or Strongly Agree 111 © 2022 Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 23 Survey respondents provided feedback on the amount of time for a series of activities by rating statements on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = Strongly Disa gree and 5 = Strongly Agree. Figure 3 Illustrates the findings. Figure 3. Feedback on the Amount of Time for Activities Survey respondents were asked to what extent they made a contribution to the decision-making process and to their community by rating on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Not at all and 5 = A great extent. Figure 4 below illustrates these findings. Figure 4. Extent Members Felt Like They Made a Contribution Committee Training and Onboarding. Survey respondents were asked to provide feedback on how well the committee member training provided by the City prepared them for reviewing applications and using the scoring matrix. Figure 5 illustrates the findings. Figure 5. How Well Committee Training Prepared Members Survey respondents were asked to what extent they understand relevant key components of the grant program by rating on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Not at all and 5 = A great extent. Figure 6 below illustrates these findings. 83% 67% 50% The amount of time to review applications was reasonable. The amount of time for meetings was reasonable. The amount of time for onboarding/introductions was reasonable. % Agree or Strongly Agree 67% 83% 17% 17% 17%Contribution to the decision-making process. Contribution to my community. % Selected 4 or 5 (To an extent)% Selected 3 (Neutral)% Selected 1 or 2 (Not at all) 83% 50%33% 17% 17% Reviewing applications objectively Using the scoring matrix % Selected 4 or 5 (Extremely or Very Well)% Selected 3 (Neutral)% Selected 1 or 2 (Not at all) 112 © 2022 Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 24 Figure 6. Committee Members’ Understanding of Grant Program Survey respondents suggested more time to meet in-person, and to get to know fellow committee members more. Review Process. Survey respondents were asked to provide feedback on the scoring matrix by rating a series of statements on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree. Figure 7 Illustrates the findings. Figure 7. Feedback on Scoring Matrix Survey respondents also shared feedback on the challenge with using two scoring matrices, as well as the need for a scoring matrix for in -kind requests. One respondent also shared that the scoring matrix can better alight with the grant application questions. Survey respondents were asked to provide feedback on the review process itself by rating a series of statements on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree. Figure 8 below illustrates the findings. 67% 83% 50% 33% 17% 50% The City’s overall grant program philosophy My committee’s strategic focus/priority Scoring matrix used to evaluate applications. % Selected 4 or 5 (An extent or great extent)% Selected 3 (Neutral) 67% 33% 33% 33% 33% 67% 33% 50% 33% 17% The scoring matrix aligned with the strategic priorities of the grant program. The scoring matrix aligned with the grant application. The use of two scoring matrixes was helpful to ensure that all organizations were treated equitably and fairly. The scoring matrix was helpful in guiding our decision making. % Agree or Strongly Agree % Neutral % Disagree or Strongly Disagree 113 © 2022 Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 25 Figure 8. Feedback on Review Process Survey respondents were also asked how the City Council’s decision to increase the Arts & Culture budget from $400,000 to $600,000 affect the way they felt about their role in the grantmaking process. Majority of survey respondents stated this did not affect how they felt about their role. One survey respondent stated that it was disappointing that the volunteers were not consulted about the increase as it was spread across the grantees. Additional Feedback. Additional feedback from survey respondents included: • More opportunities for in -person meetings and interactions between committee members, as well as scheduling further in advance to ensure everyone can attend. • Provide more information about the City’s grantin g criteria, including defining “community nonprofit,” and impact, as well as include geographic information. • A recommendation for further streamlining the grant application to ensure applicants provide key information. • Negative feedback on the scoring matrix and formula to decide funding amounts. • A suggestion to allow for committee members to discuss among themselves to share relevant information about organizations. Suggestion to recruit members from the Latino community, as well as possibly those who identify as men. Volunteer Review Committee Interview Findings What Members Liked Best. Committee member interviewees were asked what they liked best about their experience. Interviewees shared that they liked learning more about nonprofits and issues within the community, as well as helping the community by being involved in how money is spent. A couple interviewees shared that they liked how organized the process was. Meaningful Contribution to Process. Committee member interviewees were asked if they felt like they made a meaningful contribution to the grantmaking process. Several members shared that they hoped they made a meaningful contribution to process but were hesitant or not confident, with one interviewee stating that there was no feedback from the City about how it felt 100% 67% 60% 83% 80% 33% 20% 17% 20% 20% Conversations with other committee members were helpful in making my final decisions. The review process was objective. Funds were distributed equitably and fairly. The review process was transparent. Funds were distributed in alignment with the strategic priorities. % Agree or Strongly Agree % Neutral % Disagree or Strongly Disagree 114 © 2022 Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 26 about their decisions. Although unsure, interviewees stated they liked being a part of the process. However, one interviewee shared they didn’t feel like they made a meaningful contribution and provided feedback about the City Coun cil’s role once recommendations are made. Guiding Funding to Greatest Depth of Impact. Committee member interviewees were asked to reflect on the survey finding that only one -third of survey respondents felt that committee members guided funding to where it will have the greatest depth of impact. Similar to feedback on making a meaningful contribution, interviewees shared that they are unaware of how much funding grantees actually received and the final decisions. Interviewees also stated that there was no clear understanding of “impact”, and they were encouraged to not focus on need as they were reviewing. However, a couple interviewees felt like they had an impact or understood their role within the larger decision-making process that would have an impact, with one interviewee stating that they believe committee members had varying levels of expectations for their contribution. Equitable Grantmaking Process . Committee member interviewees were asked if there were areas of the grantmaking process that can be more equitable. Several interviewees mentioned the difference in grant applications that were written by larger organizations with possibly grantwriters versus those by smaller organizations, and how this does not reflect impact. Similarly, interviewees shared concerns about how larger grant applications and smaller grant applications with the same score are allocated the same percentage of their funding request, with one interviewee stating that a better application with a larger budget does not n ecessarily mean they should receive the larger amount. Several interviewees also shared confusion on scoring and weights for applications serving Aspen specifically compared to those serving the Valley, and the possible inequities in how the review committee prioritized Aspen over organizations serving the whole Valley. One interviewee also stated that the committee should increase its diversity and have more members of the LatinX community, as well as questioned if the application was available in additional languages. Feedback on the Scoring Matrix . Committee member interviewees were asked about their experience using the scoring matrix. Interviewees experience with the scoring matrix varied as several interviewees stated it was straightforward and clea r, while others shared their dislike or indifference for the scoring matrix. Interviewees also shared that some buckets or terms lacked clarity and definitions that made it difficult to review, especially “feasibility” and “community.” A couple interviewe es also shared feedback that the two matrices for larger grants and smaller grants was challenging. Additional Feedback on Overall Experience . Committee member interviewees also shared additional feedback about the committee overall. The following are add itional themes that emerged: • City staff did a good job of ensuring members focused on the applications during discussions rather than their personal experience with the organization. • Concerns and negative sentiments towards feeling like they are a part of the process when City Council are final decision makers and may change award amounts. 115 © 2022 Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 27 Committee member interviewees shared feedback on additional ways to improve their experience and the review process. Themes included: • More time for discussion among committee members. • More opportunities to hold meetings in -person to interact and get to know each other. • Streamline the application further as there were duplicative questions and some applicants copy and pasted responses throughout. • Share final award amounts with committee members. 116 1 | Page In Effect: September 2024-August 2025 2025 Grants Application Review Criteria Applications will be reviewed by grants review committee members on each of the below criteria. An aggregate score will be calculated for each application and funding outcomes will be based on scoring results. Criteria 1: Community Impact Weighting: 30% Definition: To what extent will the proposal make a meaningful and durable positive impact in the lives of those it serves? To what extent will the proposal benefit the broader community beyond those directly served? If applicable, based on submitted Impact & Outcome Reports, does the applicant have a history of successful outcomes for the community? Criteria 2: Alignment Weighting: 20% Definition: To what extent is the proposal clearly and closely aligned with the applicable strategic focus area and overall program philosophy? Criteria 3: Feasibility Weighting: 20% Definition: How well does the application establish that the proposal is viable and sustainable? To what extent does the application demonstrate that sufficient organizational capacity exists to ensure funds are used as proposed? Criteria 4: Impact and Outcome Report Weighting: 20% Definition: For organizations who have previously received a grant from the City of Aspen, 20% of their overall score will be based on an assessment of the organization’s performance with previously granted funds. For new organizations, this criterion is not a part of their assessment. 117 2 | Page In Effect: September 2024-August 2025 Criteria 5: Innovation Weighting: 10% Definition: To what extent does the proposal creatively address persistent or systemic issues, or fill a need, in the community? How well does the proposal provide an effective and compelling rationale for funding? *Organizational financial information will be reviewed for areas of concern. Organizations with areas of concern may receive reduced or no funding. * _____________________________________________________________________________________ Grant Program Philosophy: The City of Aspen’s Grant Program supports non-profit organizations that promote a mentally and physically healthy community; provide protection for our natural environment; and create opportunities for connections for all community members; through partnerships, ease of access, stewardship, arts and cultural enrichment and innovation. Strategic Focus Areas: Health and Human Services (HHS) Strategic Focus: The City of Aspen strives to be a healthy and resilient community by supporting a comprehensive system of accessible mental and physical health care, human services, and community resources. Arts & Culture Strategic Focus: The City of Aspen supports artistically excellent non-profit organizations which contribute to the cultural vibrancy of our community. Community Programs Strategic Focus: The City of Aspen supports and enhances non-profit organizations which create and deliver high impact community programming. 118 Attachment D: Summarized Sources of Grant Process Recommendations 1. Consultant Recommendations a. The third-party consultant, Point B(e) Strategies, which was hired in 2020 and again in 2022 to review the city’s grant program, identified nine key areas of focus. These were: Of these nine recommendations, items 3, 4, and 6 are identified as needing iterative updates to respond to new pressures on the program. Opportunities to consolidate the program, build regional partnerships, and add further focus and clarity to the program will be discussed with council later in this memo. 2. 2025 Grantee Survey a. The city conducts a grant applicant survey after awards are distributed each grant cycle. This year, the survey was sent to all grant applicants (n~100) and received 44 responses. This annual survey is critical for staff and the steering committee to better understand the needs of program applicants and identify areas for continuous improvement. Some highlights from this year’s survey include: i. 82% of respondents applied for grants of $25,000 or less. ii. Areas of primary service 1. 61% of organizations provide service throughout the valley. 2. 18% focus on the upper valley. 3. 14% focus on the mid-valley. 4. 7% largely serve down valley residents. iii. Outcome vs Expectations 1. 50% of applicants received roughly what they expected. 2. 39% received less funding than expected. 3. 7% received more. 4. 5% of respondents did not receive an award. iv. Program Trust 1. Public trust in the program remains extremely high, with 87% of respondents answering the following question positively. “While acknowledging your grant award may differ from what you had hoped, to what extent do you believe your grant application was treated fairly and consistently…” 119 Attachment D: Summarized Sources of Grant Process Recommendations v. Select General Feedback Quotes 1. "The multi-year (2-year) grant program was so helpful for us in planning ahead and in saving time on filling out grant applications. We were sad to see that it didn't continue as part of the grant awards this year when that was part of the application." 2. "Writing a grant to the city is a bit nerve wracking. For a small organization it carries a lot of weight. Donors will ask if you've received one and it becomes a "stamp of approval" for some of them. I am pleased to have received grants from the city for the last 6 years. Any simplification that is possible making it less time consuming to write it would be very helpful. " 3. "Honestly, you even asking is a big indicator that you're doing things right. We have felt and continue to feel that C. of Aspen is an excellent partner and resource as we expand services. " 3. Volunteer Feedback a. In addition to the annual survey sent to program applicants, staff also sends a survey out to program volunteers to assess their experience with the program. Key takeaways from this group are: i. Pride in giving back to the community. ii. Difficulty assessing the various types of organizations in the community non-profit division. iii. High workload of reviewing over 50 applications during a short window. 120 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Alissa Farrell, Administrative Services Director THROUGH: Kate Johnson, City Attorney MEMO DATE: August 4, 2025 MEETING DATE: August 11, 2025 RE: City Manager Selection Process _____________________________________________________________________ Council Request: Staff requests clarity from Council regarding the next steps in the City Manager selection process. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: The position of city manager became vacant as of February 28, 2025, with interim city manager Pete Strecker currently fulfilling the responsibilities. The position was advertised internally with an application deadline of July 31, 2025. The posting specified a hiring salary range of $247,500 to $302,500 per year and an overall salary range of $220,000 to $320,000, allowing for alignment with the city's established pay plan. The Human Resources department has received an application from Pete Strecker for the position of City Manager. Consistent with Section 6.2 of the City of Aspen Charter, the job description describes the city manager's duties. Please refer to Attachment A for the city manager job description. DISCUSSION: City Manager Selection Process: The following are internal hiring process options for consideration. I. Interview Panel Composition Options: Since Mr. Strecker was the only individual to apply, City Council may choose to interview him on their own and proceed with their hiring process. 121 2 Alternatively, Council may consider creating an interview panel. This panel may include Council in addition to adding impartial staff members, such as a member from the attorney’s office and/or a senior staff member with human resources experience. Additionally, Council may consider forming a community panel or involving a few key community stakeholders in the interview panel with Council. Other options or alternatives may certainly be considered as part of their decision- making process. II. Request for Input Process: Before the interviews proceed, Council may consider requesting department managers to compile feedback from their teams to inform the development of interview questions or to support council discussions regarding expectations for the next city manager. Examples of questions may include, but are not limited to: “What skills or attributes would you like to see in our next city manager?” “What does great city management look like to you?” III. Community Meet and Greet Options: Council may decide to either host a community meet and greet with the city manager finalist or proceed with a condensed interview panel and process. However, this is typically completed when there are multiple candidates. The options outlined above constitute a menu of options for Council to evaluate and decide upon based on their preferences in the selection process. Council may, at their discretion, evaluate and incorporate new or additional options into the selection process as deemed appropriate. Alternatively, as noted above, Council may also elect to forgo any additional processes and interview the sole candidate. City Manager Hiring: Once a finalist is selected, during contract negotiations, it is important to note Section 6.1 of the City Charter, “the manager shall be appointed without regard to any consideration other than his (their) fitness, competency, training, and experience as a manager. At the time of his (their) appointment, he (they) need not be a resident of the 122 3 City or State but during tenure of office he (they) shall reside within the City except at the discretion of the council.” Furthermore, under the Colorado executive session statute, the city is required to make public the finalist under consideration at least 14 days prior to appointing or employing the finalist to fill the city manager position. No offer of employment can be made before this public notice. First-Year Performance Goals: Another option for consideration upon the successful selection of a candidate is the establishment of mutually agreed-upon goals, which allows the city manager and the Council to set clear expectations for success from the beginning of employment. These goals clarify what Council may expect the city manager to accomplish within the first year and assist in prioritizing workload to efficiently and effectively deliver results. This process would also provide clarity around expectations and anticipated outcomes for the annual performance evaluation process. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The total compensation package is likely within current appropriations, pending total compensation negotiations and the final contract value. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: There are no significant environmental impacts in the selection of a city manager. ALTERNATIVES: City Council may opt to move in a new direction for the recruitment and selection of the city manager. 123 4 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – City Manager job description Job Title: City Manager Department: City Manager Classification: Exempt Position Summary: This position is responsible for providing leadership and overall management to ensure effective and efficient supervision of the city's ope rations and services. The role operates under the policy direction of the City Council in accordance with municipal law. Duties include providing complex administrative support to the City Council. Supervision Exercised and Received: Position is appointed by and receives direction from Aspen City Council. The City Manager leads the city with executive responsibility and directs the organization’s operations through collaboration with executive management, providing strategic guidance to ensure effective city management. Exercises direct supervision over executive level leaders (agency directors) and staff. Essential Job Functions: City Administration:  Serves as the Chief Administrative Officer, executing City Council priorities and directing the enforcement of city laws and ordinances. Advises City Council on agenda items, issues, programs, and, as requested, other matters.  Attends Council meetings, directs the development of City Council meeting agendas, and provides support during City Council meetings.  Directs the development of the City’s annual operating and capital budgets for approval by the City Council. Oversees the implementation of the adopted budget and advises City Council on the City’s financial conditions.  Participates in professional and community organizations on behalf of the City. May facilitate communication and collaboration with the City Council, government officials, community stakeholders, business leaders, and the public.  Plans and evaluates executive management staff performance and provides coaching and mentorship for professional growth and development. 124 5  Provides complex policy support, oversees executive-level managers, and ensures operational excellence across departments. This role involves leading the City team to foster a high-performance and service-oriented culture rooted in the City’s values and mission. In collaboration with the City’s executive management team, hire, develop, and retain staff through recruitment and selection practices, total compensation policies and procedures, culture, and organizational development initiatives that support the City’s mission and values.  Represents the City to the press and other media as necessary.  Signs documents on behalf of the City as provided for in City code, policy, as authorized by City Council, or as necessary.  Collaborates with elected officials to develop effective solutions to community challenges.  Provides complex policy support to the Council; directs the work of executive - level managers and reviews overall operational performance; and exercises budgetary and contractual control for the city. Core Competencies: Displays the following key competencies in the overall job performance to include knowledge, skills, and abilities:  Service: Provides service with excellence, humility, integrity, and respect in daily work, builds trust by listening, treats people with respect, acknowledges opportunities for improvement, and follows through with commitments.  Partnership: Actively fosters strong, supportive internal and external relationships to achieve a common goal and maximize impact together.  Stewardship: Balances social, environmental, and financial responsibilities, evaluating the impact of decision-making on a thriving future for all.  Innovation: Develops technical expertise to pursue new ideas and creative outcomes grounded in Aspen’s unique culture, opportunities, and challenges.  Communication: Knowledge of effective and appropriate communication. Ability to use knowledge effectively in various contexts may require oral, written, visual, and non-verbal communication.  Interpersonal: Works to develop strength in interpersonal skills. Has the ability to work well with diverse groups of people, both inside and outside the organization.  Technology: Demonstrates technological skills sufficient for the nature and level of the position. Demonstrates a willingness to learn new technologies and transition job duties accordingly to support technological advances and innovation.  Team Building: Works to build and maintain high-performing teams, including appreciating differences and reinforcing a sense of belonging. 125 6  Accountability & Trust: Follows through on commitments, takes responsibility for outcomes, and values relationships.  Strategic Thinking: Works to bring a strategic focus to daily work, anticipates problems, and considers solutions.  Business Acumen: Demonstrates understanding of business processes, objectives, and goals. Other duties as assigned. Minimum Requirements: Education: Bachelor’s Degree from an accredited college or university with major coursework in public administration, business administration, finance or related field. Experience: Seven years of progressively responsible government experience, including five years of executive or senior management experience are required. Technical Knowledge: Must be proficient with Microsoft Word, Excel, and Email. Licenses & Certifications: Must possess a valid Colorado Driver’s License or be able to obtain one within 30 days of start date. Must obtain within six (6) months from the date of hire ICS 100 and 200. Desirable Qualifications:  Master’s degree in public administration or business administration is preferred.  Municipal government experience.  Public sector emergency management experience preferred.  Experience working in resort communities. NOTE: This position requires a Criminal Background Check upon hire. Employment is contingent upon successful completion of a Criminal Background Check. NOTE: Any combination of experience and education that would likely provide the required abilities, knowledge and skills as determined by the City of Aspen may be substituted for the requirements above. Position Type and Work Hours: Regular full time, 40-hour work week, Monday through Friday, hours may vary with workload. Evenings/Weekends: Occasionally will be required depending on department needs and special projects. Work Environment:  Indoors: Office environment. 126 7  Outdoors/Off-Site: Meetings, trainings, and site visits at a variety of city facilities and areas. Essential Physical Requirements:  Balancing: Maintaining equilibrium.  Bending: Bending or position oneself to move an object from one level to another.  Climbing: Ascending or descending stationary objects.  Carrying: Transporting or moving up to 10 lbs. equipment, etc., unassisted.  Eye/Hand/Foot Coordination: Performing work through using two or more body parts or other devices.  Gripping/Grasping: Ability to apply pressure with fingers and palm.  Handling: Seizing, holding, grasping, through use of hands, fingers, or other means.  Hearing: Perceiving and comprehending the nature and direction of sounds.  Lifting: Moving objects weighing no more than 10/ 20/50 pounds from one level to another  Reaching: Extending the hands and arms or other device in any direction. 127