Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Project Closeouts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews FY26 Q2 closeouts, debates ROI tools and lessons learned
Summary
The committee reviewed 18 projects that completed performance closeout in Oct.–Dec. 2025, discussed grant lifecycle and fiscal closeout procedures, and examined limitations of the current ROI template that uses jobs and wages as inputs.
The Program Performance and Evaluation Committee reviewed FY26 Q2 project closeouts and discussed how the state evaluates return on investment for GO Virginia grants. Staff reported that 18 projects completed performance closeout for the quarter covering October through December 2025 and walked the committee through the grant life cycle, fiscal closeout requirements and the newer performance closeout narrative developed in 2022.
Sarah, a DHCD staff member, described the two‑step closeout process: a fiscal closeout to account for expenditures (required within 30 days after a grant’s close) and a performance closeout narrative that captures outcomes, lessons learned and sustainability plans. She said GO Virginia grants are reimbursement‑based — applicants submit invoices and proof of payment and then receive reimbursement — and that any residual fund balance at project close returns to the original source (regional per‑capita fund or competitive fund).
Committee members emphasized capturing ‘‘lessons learned’’ in closeouts so future applicants can adapt. "What would we have done differently or what advice would you give to someone pursuing a similar initiative would be a great addition to this report," John Peterson said.
Staff also outlined the program’s ROI template, which Sarah characterized as "very crude": it uses two inputs (jobs created and wages) and estimates fiscal return to the Commonwealth at three‑ and five‑year intervals. She cautioned the template is a fiscal return calculator — not a full economic impact model — and is used as one of several evaluation inputs; a positive ROI in that three‑ or five‑year window is not an eligibility requirement. Members discussed whether dollar thresholds should trigger third‑party ROI analysis and noted dollar amount alone may not capture project risk or importance across different regions.
Staff reported summary statistics for closed projects from internal analysis: average award about "545" and median about "430" (units not specified in the packet). Members asked staff to demonstrate a break‑even analysis tool at a future meeting and to ensure performance narratives and ROI tools together give the board usable evidence about long‑term impact.
The committee closed the meeting and scheduled the next meeting for March 24 (in person).
