Small Grants Committee finalizes recommended awards after daylong deliberations

The Sedona Small Grants Evaluation Committee concluded a second day of deliberations on June 6, 2024, producing a set of recommended awards that prioritize human services and food security while trimming some arts requests to stay within the program’s budget.

The committee, chaired by Stephanie Giesbrecht, worked from an allocation framework the panel confirmed early in the meeting — roughly 40% to arts, 40% to human services and 20% held as discretionary — then iteratively adjusted individual awards to preserve funding for high-priority, high-impact programs. The panel repeatedly emphasized direct local benefit as a deciding factor: organizations that demonstrably served Sedona residents and delivered measurable outcomes received higher priority.

Committee members spent much of the day re-sorting applicants (arts, social services, other), probing program metrics, and calling applicants by phone to clarify details. In a live call with a Verde Valley School representative, the committee pressed for how much produce and how many students would benefit in Sedona; the applicant reported that roughly 40 Sedona students would be directly served and that some produce is donated to Manzanita and other local food distributors. Ben Lee, the applicant on the call, said the farm “donates Manzanita food” and explained that modest program income also comes from donation-based community events and market sales.

The panel flagged several capacity and compliance concerns as it assigned awards. Chair Stephanie Giesbrecht proposed an approach for a previously audited organization that failed a city audit: “We could give them an award and not say anything about giving them an audit and then audit them,” she said during deliberations, arguing the committee could attach post-award documentation or receipt requirements rather than disqualifying a program outright. That proposal shaped the committee’s votes on any applicant with unresolved bookkeeping or outcome-tracking problems.

Other contested items included new or pilot events (a wildlife/reptile expo and a hummingbird festival) where members were comfortable providing seed or scaled funding but wanted follow-ups on dates, venues and partner commitments before increasing awards. For one small workforce-training applicant, Steps to Recovery, several members said the written proposal lacked sufficient operational detail and measurable outcomes; the committee preferred either clearer documentation or a smaller, targeted award for specific deliverables rather than funding broad staff-salary requests.

On public-safety training, members prioritized Verde Valley Search & Rescue’s specialty training (canine and rope rescue), noting components were scalable and that canine training was a clear, fundable priority. Food-security providers (Manzanita/Community Food Bank and other local distributors) received consistently high support in the committee’s final mix because of direct, measurable benefit to Sedona households.

The committee finished by balancing the spreadsheet of provisional awards, recording short written justifications for each recommendation (community impact, scalability, metrics available) and identifying a handful of applicants for follow-up documentation or conditional awards. The panel did not make a final city appropriation; its role is to submit the recommended awards and written justifications to city staff for inclusion in the city’s grant-administration process and any further budget review.

The committee’s recommendations will be forwarded to the city for administrative processing and any required council-level approvals. Several awards were conditional on the committee receiving clarifying documents (e.g., audited receipts, clearer local impact metrics) or on applicants demonstrating date/venue confirmations for festival proposals. The committee adjourned after recording its final recommendations and instructions for staff follow-up.