2004_0329_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Using the evaluation criteria included herein, the panelists will independently score each applicationbefore them and then discuss the meritslshortcomings of the application in an effort to reconcile any major discrepancies. A consensus on the score is not required. The assigned score will reflect the degree to which the applicant: clearly relates their proposed proj ect; demonstrates financial need; and, details a high benefit to cost value of the proposed activities. The highest scoring applications resulting from this second level of review will then be considered for award. In order to be successful in the panel evaluation, the narrative should include a detailed description of the planned activities, uses for the grant funds including details of each budget line item. For example, if personnel costs are included in the budget, please provide a break down of those costs. The narrative should also e�plain why the grant funds are needed and why the department has not been able to obtain funding for the planned activities on its own. A discussion of financial need should include an explanation of any Federal funding received for similar activities. Finally, the applicant's narrative should detail the benefits the department or community will realize as a result of the grant award. In addition to describing the cost effectiveness of the grant request, an applicant can demonstrate cost benefit by describing, a licable, how the grant award will (1) fit in with a regional approach, i.e., is consistent with current capabilities and requests of neighboring fire departments or otherwise benefits other fire departments in the region, (2) promote interoperability of equipment/technology with other fire departments and local, state and Federal first responders, and (3) allow the fire department to respond to all hazards. In addition to fire prevention/suppression, all hazards includes incidents involving seismic (earthquake), atmospheric (tornados, L�