Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Research Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves five research grants, tapping research fund nearly to projected balance
Summary
The Structural Pest Control Board voted July 26 to proceed with contracts for the five research proposals recommended by its advisory panel, a package that would substantially draw down the board’s research fund.
The Structural Pest Control Board voted on July 26 to proceed with contracts for the five research proposals the board’s research advisory panel recommended as top-ranked. The panel reviewed nine submissions and provided scores and requested budgets; the board motion to award the top five projects passed in open session.
Board staff (Sabina) summarized the advisory panel’s work and the scoring process, noting the panel recommended the top five proposals and that the board has discretion to choose fewer projects. Curtis Good, a board member and participant in the panel, moved to fund the top five projects; Mike Grant seconded the motion. After public comment and brief discussion the motion carried.
Staff reported a projected research fund balance of approximately $1,035,000 for June 30, 2018; the five recommended projects together would nearly deplete that projected balance. Staff also told the board the research stamp generates roughly $120,000 annually for the fund (based on approximately 60,000 stamp sales and $2 per stamp directed to research), so future revenue is expected but the fund would take years to rebuild at that rate.
A researcher in the audience, Che (UCR Entomology), raised concerns that a sixth proposal (a bed‑bug detection project) scored 81 and met the stated funding threshold but was not among the top five due to budget totals. The researcher asked whether budgets could be adjusted to allow additional awards; board members and staff replied that the advisory committee ranked proposals on subject-matter merits and that budgets were not used to alter the ranking at that stage. Staff said contract negotiations may produce cost adjustments and that the board could consider additional funding at a later meeting if contract results free up funds.
Board members discussed a desire to set a more predictable annual schedule for research solicitations and awards; staff said it intends to report back with a proposed calendar and process so the committee and board can plan for future cycles.
By direction of the board, staff will proceed to the Department of Consumer Affairs to begin contract and procurement steps for the approved projects. The board did not publish individual award amounts in the meeting packet; the committee’s summary table lists scores, requested funding, and proposed project terms.
