Feedback will be available on request. The current Request for Applications indicates that new applicants will be prioritized above grantees already receiving MN LFPA funds.
Additional text from the question asked: The scoring criteria in the application are worded in a way that suggests only the sourcing from new suppliers will be rewarded with points. On the food recipient side, there is not wording to indicate a reward for reaching new or different groups of underserved people.
Answer:
Within the outcomes section of the application and rubric, points are given to projects that source food from socially disadvantaged farmers and emerging farmers. Points are also given for the establishment of new sources of food or food products. There are no specific points within the outcomes section or associated scoring given to projects that expand distribution to new underserved communities. However, points elsewhere are given to projects that demonstrate opportunities to build sustainable relationships within communities. Points are also awarded to projects that have clear definition of where the work will happen and can demonstrate alignment between those producing food and those receiving it, as well projects that share power, including through models for food distribution outside of the traditional emergency food/hunger relief distribution structures.
If you have feedback that you’d like to share about the current Request for Applications, including the application questions and/or scoring rubric, you are welcome to share that with us. Stakeholder comments can be emailed to LFPAgrant@MDA.state.mn.us. We are limited in how we can engage with that feedback while the current grant process is open, but feedback will be considered in the development of future MN LFPA RFAs and/or program plans.
Additional text from the question asked: The scoring criteria in the application are worded in a way that suggests only the sourcing from new suppliers will be rewarded with points. On the food recipient side, there is not wording to indicate a reward for reaching new or different groups of underserved people.
Answer:
Within the outcomes section of the application and rubric, points are given to projects that source food from socially disadvantaged farmers and emerging farmers. Points are also given for the establishment of new sources of food or food products. There are no specific points within the outcomes section or associated scoring given to projects that expand distribution to new underserved communities. However, points elsewhere are given to projects that demonstrate opportunities to build sustainable relationships within communities. Points are also awarded to projects that have clear definition of where the work will happen and can demonstrate alignment between those producing food and those receiving it, as well projects that share power, including through models for food distribution outside of the traditional emergency food/hunger relief distribution structures.
If you have feedback that you’d like to share about the current Request for Applications, including the application questions and/or scoring rubric, you are welcome to share that with us. Stakeholder comments can be emailed to LFPAgrant@MDA.state.mn.us. We are limited in how we can engage with that feedback while the current grant process is open, but feedback will be considered in the development of future MN LFPA RFAs and/or program plans.
Feedback will be available on request. The current Request for Applications indicates that new applicants will be prioritized above grantees already receiving MN LFPA funds.
Additional text from the question asked: The scoring criteria in the application are worded in a way that suggests only the sourcing from new suppliers will be rewarded with points. On the food recipient side, there is not wording to indicate a reward for reaching new or different groups of underserved people.
Answer:
Within the outcomes section of the application and rubric, points are given to projects that source food from socially disadvantaged farmers and emerging farmers. Points are also given for the establishment of new sources of food or food products. There are no specific points within the outcomes section or associated scoring given to projects that expand distribution to new underserved communities. However, points elsewhere are given to projects that demonstrate opportunities to build sustainable relationships within communities. Points are also awarded to projects that have clear definition of where the work will happen and can demonstrate alignment between those producing food and those receiving it, as well projects that share power, including through models for food distribution outside of the traditional emergency food/hunger relief distribution structures.
If you have feedback that you’d like to share about the current Request for Applications, including the application questions and/or scoring rubric, you are welcome to share that with us. Stakeholder comments can be emailed to LFPAgrant@MDA.state.mn.us. We are limited in how we can engage with that feedback while the current grant process is open, but feedback will be considered in the development of future MN LFPA RFAs and/or program plans.
As part of the city of Minneapolis’ AgVIC investigation, over 80 soil samples were collected from under the Roof Depot building and analyzed for arsenic. Of the samples analyzed, seven exceeded the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s arsenic Soil Reference Value (SRV) of 9 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). The seven samples exceeding the arsenic SRV are scattered around the site and have concentrations ranging from 15.5 to 174 mg/kg. Additional samples collected below these seven samples did not exceed the SRV. Soil with arsenic concentrations exceeding the SRV are limited to the top four feet of soil.
As part of the city of Minneapolis’ AgVIC investigation, over 80 soil samples were collected from under the Roof Depot building and analyzed for arsenic. Of the samples analyzed, seven exceeded the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s arsenic Soil Reference Value (SRV) of 9 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). The seven samples exceeding the arsenic SRV are scattered around the site and have concentrations ranging from 15.5 to 174 mg/kg. Additional samples collected below these seven samples did not exceed the SRV. Soil with arsenic concentrations exceeding the SRV are limited to the top four feet of soil.
