NEW
FILE
BEGINS
oc # ) YO

B&B INFORMATION & IMAGE MANAGEMENT
300 Pewee Oeoaue’s BouULevarD
UrPecr MARLEORS, MARYLAND 23772 * UBA * (301) 2ae-p1 35

 

 
 

RMP ROCHESTER

 

RM 000 25

-

JULY /AUGUST 1974 REVIEW

Reference is made in this application to the modest amount ($361,437)
requested and awarded in the May 1 application.

This application requests support of 42 projects in the amount of $1,319,724.
The 42 projects are divided into three funding levels and when added to the
$361,437 awarded, would produce the following effects.

First level funding would approximate present annualized amount.
Second level funding would approximate 140% of present annualized amount.
Third level funding would exceed 140% of present annualized amount.

Proposals were submitted to and responses received from six CHP agencies.
Review responses ran the gamut from approval, thru approval with advice
and/or stipulations, to disapproval. In general, they seemed to reflect
meaningful exchange between the respective agencies.

A note of particular interest is that the city of Rochester has recently

adopted city review of all incoming grants and has recognized RRMP as its _
review agent for RMP grants. ,

E0/7/15/74
JULY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Critique:

('

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

t . i . .
. ee ee eee oe toe ee. ro meeps team eee acta mae enteneense eee
' . *
a a ee OR en nee ee tae nee ae ae cnt ee Seenegeuntene tee te eee ete oe
a
. ‘x -
TTT een ne ences cin uy cane et nemate tenn oe ee sen tem Anteee mettre | sotce seen eemen fo Ft eae ete ee eee ee one oe eee oe sinters eaten rn aecmnee Sim ame on omen ennes! cae aoe. Wrematein sot ate men oem aera :
LEY TIC - -neyttog «= - goztag--- ¥ 69T#L6Z mo  SIVLOL NOTOSU or eee ee ee ee € -"  SLNSNOaHDD
L@z°ggo  4ez4ag zeEtoT SrBtly ce te cee canes vena = GOTAASG ONY NYA SH3__E%0
Sz¥*0E Steg — 0008sz oo +, AGMLS Waa 34v9 WIYd Iweny T0092 _
OTZ°E0e  seztzez Toy'ey et etyez 4AVIS HVOOUd — 0009_

wes ees NOLTLVYOOTTY oe ASINOIAY wn semen LSANDSY oem s LSINOIY “ee wet rseen se Tome ne teas ene ee ne me mee . ee TT Sameer ermrern oe ON 7 Sum seerenons eeceammemanae tee = ame
ONTANNA WLOL ‘ AIAYIGNI _ LO38IG /  .. . SWLIL LN3NOdHOD _aWOD Ni

. oo

"UEDNAOD $L/90 7 eee eee en ee cee
NOI9SY AG SLNINOEWOD
-OTOSMd-HSO ~~ me _ 98 J SGNAS GaLs3nDay a as ” TST AVN ~

 

. .

 
 

I

 

 

 

RM 00025 __ .
~ ROCHESTER
MAY/JUNE J974 REVIEW | , .
Request: $361,437
|
Committce Recommendation: $361,437
Overall assessment .by individual reviewers: Superior
?

 

Critique: The reviewers were very impressed with this application which
requests continued support for staff and two on-going projects. (Iwo year
funding is requested for one project.) The display of goals, activities,
priorities and funding was especially noted as reflecting a well-ordered
program based on identified areas of need. The staff, Regional Advisory.

Group and review process appear outstanding.

The CHP(b) is supportive., .

In recommending approval as requested of this application, the Committee
expressed anticipation at. seeing the new proposals in the July application.

JULY /AUGUST REVIEW

Estimated request as of May 1974: $1,080,000
. \ £0/5/27/74 ~

NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL - June 13-14, 1974

Council concurred with Committee recommendation

DRMP_ FUNDING DECISION ~ $361,437

E£0/7/2/74

cerns Te ee cenenne ee e