General News

Golf tournament funds to go to Great War Flying Museum

April 11, 2019   ·   0 Comments

Written By JOSHUA SANTOS

Ontario Aviation Historical Society: Great War Flying Museum was selected as the primary grant recipient for the 2019 Caledon Community Golf Tournament (CCCGT).

They will receive 75 per cent of the net funds raised from the upcoming 2019 tournament. The motion was moved by Ward 2 Regional Coun. Johanna Downey and Ward 1 Area Coun. Lynn Kiernan. 

The organization has requested $85,000 to build an extension on the Great War Flying Museum hanger at Brampton-Caledon airport, according to Town documents.

This followed questions from council on whether or not funds are best suited towards other projects from organizations.

Ward 3 and 4 Regional Coun. Jennifer Innis had some questions about the secondary grant application, and wondered how much money they usually give from the tournament. 

“I know there has been a request by some other groups, that they’re offering assistance to the golf tournament if they could get some of the funding, which I don’t know much the flying museum are going to be able to raffle together to provide that,” said Innis. “I’m wondering if there’s still enough funding going around to some of those other groups.”

Heather Haire, treasurer of the Town of Caledon said they gave Raising the Roof about $65,000 and it was 75 per cent of the net proceeds. She said how much they give depends on what they raise from the tournament in 2019.

Innis also wondered if they were changing the amounts for the secondary grant. Haire said they’re looking at $20,000, including the scholarship funds.

Ward 3 and 4 Area Coun. Nick deBoer said it has been done that way historically. He said if council as a committee wanted to allocate the full 25 per cent to another group, they can do it themselves there. There just wouldn’t be a secondary grant application process, next year.

Innis said if groups asked for $60,000, they shouldn’t have to give them more than what they’re asking for.

Downey said if they go on last year’s numbers, the 75 per cent would come in less than what they’re asking for. 

“It depends on how much is actually raised,” said Downey. “If we raise $100,000, they would get $75,000, leaving $25,000 for the secondary grant recipients. However, we didn’t raise $100,000 in net proceeds, so Raising the Roof got $68,000.”

Innis wanted to changed wording so it would say 75 per cent to a maximum of $60,000. Anything beyond that would go to the secondary program.

“Their request here is $85,000, to the 75 percent,” said DeBoer. “We might not reach that goal based on some of our years. But I think it would also be prudent to suggest that we be to the maximum of their request.”

Ward 2 Area Coun. Christina Early wondered if they always did a 75 and 25 per cents split or if they thought about distributing the funds to three different organizations.

“I look at the Meaghan Zaremba music room for $30,000, which could really accomplish quite a great deal,” said Early.

deBoer said they can look at the process each year when they started out. This is their starting point for the 2019 tournament. They can stay with the program of picking a primary and then a secondary, but as a committee they can decided to go a different route.

“It’s a lot of money and there’s a lot of little projects on the plate that we can really accomplish, and I think there can be some real significant wins with those smaller projects,” said Early.

Innis wondered if the society obtained $65,000, which falls of their $85,000 goal, had the ability to raise the funds to complete the work within the year.

“In the past, it’s only been secondary grant recipients that have until December 1 to submit receipts for reimbursement,” said Haire. “What we have done for the primary grant recipients, is we’ve tailored a grant application, according to what their grant application said.

“If it’s going to take them two years to construct a building, we would give them two years to construct the building.”

Innis then wondered if they have a timeline, questioning if they haven’t done the building yet and they had $65,000 sitting that could’ve been used in the community, in that time.

“What we do is, we come up with a custom payment,” said Haire. “We would give them 25 per cent upfront, and then if they don’t follow the timelines, we could amend the agreement or would could ask for the money back if they haven’t completed the project or have no intention to complete the project.”

If that were the case, Haire explained the money would go back to the golf committee and be distributed in a different way. 

Haire said the timeline depends on the type of project they have and how long it would take them to do it. She said they can have it done on a tight timeline, so they can free up the money quicker, but they generally tailor it to what they’ve asked for in their grant application.

Innis argued that they don’t want to give them too long of a timeline, because then they wouldn’t see what they worked for during their time on council.

“We had a record year last year and it was $100,000,” said Innis. “Every year we get better, staff are great and very helpful, but if they can’t raise that $20,000 that’s necessary; every year it takes them to raise money, it’s actually going to cost them more money to do it.”

Fuwing Wong, general manager of finance and infrastructure services for the Town of Caledon said they had timelines for the secondary grant applicant, which was Dec. 1.

“It was a hard timeline,” said Wong. “Any secondary grant recipient that did not finish their project by December 1, we would let them know they lost the grant or they got what they got up to that point, and the rest of the grant was no longer available to them.”

Wong said they were told that, that hard deadline should not be there and that they should give the applicant some leeway to finish their project.

“What I’m hearing from this point forward, if we want to give primary grant recipients a hard deadline, we can do that,” said Wong. “Based on the application, as Ms. Haire mentioned, if they say their intention is to have it done within two years, we can give them two and a half years, let’s say, as a hard deadline.” 

Innis said if they have update next year, and the recipient hasn’t moved forward, then they can take those hard deadline steps.

“I think that information should be conveyed to them, that it’s something this committee looks for,” said Innis, adding that $20,000 is a lot for a group that size in the community to raise. She doesn’t know if they will, in fact, be able to the shortfall of funds.

“Maybe the pressure of having a substantial amount, that they have, they can use it as a leverage to help get other community donors involved to complete the project,” said Innis. “I’m almost tempted to give them a year deadline, to say yes or no within a year, if they’re actually going to use the money.”

Haire said in 2018 they recommended bringing forward a primary grant agreement, where timelines, payment plans and consequences are outlined, giving the Town more authority if the project does not go as scheduled.

“It is part of the grant agreement, that they are to provide us with a status update,” said Haire. “I believe the project is ongoing with Raising the Roof. That one, we’ll probably not at the point where they would provide us with a status update.”

Haire said, because of the December 1 deadline, they don’t have any grants lingering at this moment in time.

Innis and Ward 1 area Coun. Lynn Kiernan said they would not want to approve an application if it couldn’t meet the deadline. 

The application period began in December of last year with a submission deadline on Feb. 3.  

There were five other primary applicants who contended for primary funding. The Victory House Association of Dufferin Caledon requested $60,000 for a new roof and other renovations for a temporary house for women who need assistance, Meaghan Zaremba Music Room asked for $30,000 for the purchase of music equipment to provide music lesson as therapy to young adults with physical, mental and emotion challenges, National Wildlife Centre sked for $75,000 to fund the building of a wildlife hospital in Caledon, Peel Children’s Aid Foundation (PCA) asked for $75,000 to fully furnish and complete a new 13,000 square foot community hub and Caledon Agricultural Society wanted $75,000 to replace an existing office trailer with new three season structure on the agricultural grounds.

Each applicant was required to be a non-profit organization located in Caledon and/or provide services for Caledon residents, have a capital project in nature benefitting the community, provide a detail scope of the project and a plan to recognize the grant and Town.



         

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusmail


Readers Comments (0)


You must be logged in to post a comment.