Grant application information

I. Call To Order, Roll Call, Introductory Remarks
Chair Hargreaves called the January 10, 2007 ECHO Advisory Committee meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. and welcomed the Advisory Committee members and the public.
Chair Hargreaves asked the staff to take roll call. A quorum was present with 6 members in attendance at this time.

Ms. Hargreaves asked Ms. Hodge to tell the rest of the Board members of the resignations that occurred. Ms. Hodge announced that Mr. Wiles and Mr. Grigat had both tendered their resignation from the ECHO Board due to unavoidable conflict with their business activities. Ms Hargreaves requested that a letter be sent to both individuals thanking them for their tireless work during their tenure. Ms. Hodge stated that we generally send an acrylic plaque to which Ms. Hargreaves agreed and requested that this be accomplished for these individuals.

II. Approval – June 14, 2006 Minutes
Ms. Hargreaves asked that the Board members look at the minutes for the previous meeting to see if they should be accepted as written. After a brief pause, the minutes were approved as distributed.

III. Old Business – Board Member Activity
Ms. Hargreaves asked if the item on page 3 of the previous meeting's minutes, regarding adding a legal statement into the guide that Ms. Seaman had prepared, had indeed been incorporated into the Application Guide. Ms. Hodge replied saying that all items that had been discussed and agreed upon for inclusion had been incorporated into the Application Guide.

IV. Staff Report
Ms. Hodge responded to a question from Chair Hargreaves regarding the status of the existing grants as described in the ECHO Quarterly Report. Ms. Hodge described the type of information that is contained in the Quarterly Report including what the status of the Project is including the name of the individual associated with the grant that provided the updated information. Ms. Hodge continued by describing the end comment on each project grant as follows: If there is an "OK" after the initials, that means the individual has not changed the completion date for the project; however, if the words "per" are used instead of "OK," that means that the initialed individual has changed the completion date from the last report (typically extending the date). Ms. Hodge told the Board that two Grantees had not responded but only one of them was not in a construction mode – that being the 2006 Cultural Arts Center award.

Chair Hargreaves asked if their was any comments to which Mr. Matousek asked to be recognized. He asked if he was correct in reading that the 2003 Green Springs and DeBary Hall Grants contained the oldest non-completed projects? He noted that the Green Springs showed a completion date but he said he would be more comfortable if it showed a start date. Ms. Hodge responded by saying they really have started and have accomplished a lot as they have had various archeological finds, they have moved roads around, and they have done design work. She said that if the question concerns moving dirt around and actual construction, that should begin in the next few months. Ms. Hodge continued saying that she didn't believe the construction phase would be lengthy as it will be a passive type of park.

Chair Hargreaves asked Ms. Hodge about project 02-15, the Atlantic Center for the Arts. Chair Hargreaves continued by saying the grand opening would be occurring shortly and she knows that the event will be a black tie affair with large funding associated; however, she asked if there will be an opportunity for the ECHO Board to visit the facility at another time. Ms. Hodge asked if this is an event that the entire ECHO Board would like to attend, to which Chair Hargreaves responded saying that would be nice if they had a small event like a breakfast for the Board. A discussion ensued regarding the fact that public funds were used to construct the public facility so shouldn't there be an event that is free to the public to celebrate the completion of the project. Ms. Hargreaves said she fully understands the desire of a non-profit institution to use the opening as a fund raiser, but she did believe there should be an event scheduled for the public which could be as little as just an open house invitation to all.

Chair Hargreaves said that this facility does not lend itself to having individuals just show up and wander around as frequently, there are intricate events and study work going on. She recommended that this subject be put on the agenda for the next ECHO Board meeting for discussion. So noted by Ms. Hodge.

Mrs. Hagstrom said that she now remembered that she had attended the grand opening of the Sunflower Park in DeLand and that she was asked to speak to represent the board. They had the high school band there to perform for the attendees. They had food for the attendees and a wonderful time was had by all.

Mr. Sixma now remembered an opening he had attended which was the Shooting Range in Daytona Beach. He commented that it was quite interesting to see Council Chairman Bruno with a cap pistol pointed at Mr. Persis. The public was invited to that opening and Mr. Sixma commented that there was a "very nice" turnout for the event.

Chair Hargreaves asked about the estimated available funding for the 2007 grants. Ms. Hodge said that it had not changed since the email she had sent to the Board. She said the request for 2007 ECHO funds by all grantees is $5,798,736. There is an exceptional grant included, 07-02. There is $6,214,387 of funds available to the ECHO Board, which is after the Trails money, the Partnership Center, the reserve, and the CRA dollars have been removed. If everyone was funded at the level requested, there would still be $415,651 to roll over to next year. Ms. Hagstrom questioned whether this included the entire amount of the exceptional grant application or just the allowed portion. Ms. Hodge replied saying that normally, up to $600,000 of the exceptional grant would be awarded for the year; however, the ECHO Board could recommend to the County Council that the full amount be allocated towards this project since the funds are available.

Ms. Hagstrom asked if there has been any definitive resolution regarding the Partnership Center Project to which Ms. Hodge replied that according to the newspaper account of last nights meeting, the project is a "go" again but she hasn't heard anything officially. Mr. Matousek said that he didn't know if it was a go or not as the Operating Committee has voted unanimously to disband it. The people who are meeting now to discuss it are not on the operating committee so it is somewhat of a bizarre situation. One of the hang-ups is that the State is requiring that the $1.8 million that has been approved from ECHO so far be moved into the DBCC account. He further stated that this is not the way we do things as we normally reimburse funds after they have been expended which is one of the obstacles that has to be overcome. Also, the additional $600,000 that will be available after October 1, 2007 has to be moved over as cash to a DBCC account by February 1st. This is in addition to the other issues that exist. Since the deadline is February 1st, we will know whether the project is a go or no-go. If the funds do come back to the County, what will happen to those funds? Ms. Hodge commented that this will be a County Council decision. It will go back to ECHO but there is a lot of options that the County Council could use the money for but it will be in the ECHO account for use in an ECHO project.

Mr. Matulis was welcomed when he entered the chambers at this time. Chair Hargreaves told Mr. Matulis where we were in the ECHO Board agenda. Ms. Hodge told Mr. Matulis how much money will be available for grants this year and how much money the grants equal if all are approved.

V. New Business
Chair Hargreaves said we will start with ECHO eligible applications. Ms. Hodge said that the list of applicants is the page with the gold highlighting. The reason for the gold highlights is that those applicants so marked are applicants that did not require any addendum packages to complete their application. Ms. Hodge said that all of the applications arrived on time and that, even though addendums were required by some of the applicants, overall the addendum information required was minimal. The most significant change was Ormond Beach where they accidentally submitted the draft figures instead of the final numbers we had previously seen.
Ms. Hargreaves asked about grant application 07-15 as the application stated that they are using a potential future grant from the State as match dollars. She asked Ms. Hodge if the State grant would be awarded on or before the February 28th Grant Review Panel meeting. Ms. Hodge said that she did not think so as those awards are typically announced in April. She continued by saying that the applicant had referenced the anticipated date in the timeline and that this type of future State grant had been accepted by the ECHO Board in the past. Ms. Hargreaves asked what would happen if the ECHO Board approved the grant but the State grant was not awarded. Ms. Hodge said that since this is their total match funds, they would lose the ECHO grant. She stated that it was up to the Grant Review Board on how they perceived this issue and how it weighed on their scoring. Ms. Hargreaves said that the reason for these questions is to ensure that the newer ECHO Board members know what history has occurred and how these issues were managed in the past.

Mr. Russell said that he appreciates the information since this is the first time that he will be reviewing and scoring the grant applications. He asked if the lack of funds by the before mentioned applicant on February 28th would be cause for disqualification. Ms. Hargreaves responded by saying that this was not the case. If the applicant's scoring was high enough for approval, the grant could be awarded by the County Council contingent upon the grantee receiving the matching State award. Mr. Matulis said that this could possibly impact the score for the applicant as this would speak to their readiness. Chair Hargreaves said that we have seen, what was perceived as an 18 month project has, at times, turned into a 3 or 4 year project. Ms. Hodge reminded the Board that many of the projects that were in process before or during the 2004 hurricane season were delayed due to lack of materials, insurance claim adjustments, and lack of available manpower. She said that with the 2005 and 2006 applicants, we can see that they are much closer to following the normal 2 year period for completing the construction.

Ms. Hargreaves asked if some of the projects that have multi-year funding have actually finished the work of an earlier grant but are still not open due to the additional work that is required in a later grant. Ms. Hodge said that this was correct. Ms. Hodge continued by saying this is one other reason that readiness is important as it will help determine how long a project will take before the facility is open and available to the public.

Mr. Matousek said that he wanted to bring up the subject regarding the amount of money available versus the amount of requested. He said that this is the first time in ECHO history that there is more money available than requested. He said that in the past, it was not necessary to give a failing score to an applicant whose project was not considered worthy of funding as a low score of (for example) 72 would place them low enough such that the funds would all be used up by the time this applicant was in line for funding. "That is not the case this year as we have more funds than grant requests," he said. Mr. Russell said that he too was concerned about this situation and that he too believes that they must grade each of the applicants without considering that there is enough funds to cover all of the applicants.

Ms. Hargreaves asked Ms. Hodge if she thought that any new Board members would be appointed prior to the February 28th meeting. Ms. Hodge said that she did not believe so which would leave us with 7 members voting with a high and a low discarded to make the average score.

Ms. Hargreaves moved onto the grading and ranking process. Ms. Hodge said that she had made up the Grant review panel procedures which are the same procedures that have been used for the past five years. The members will take the 15 applications with them and, should they have any questions, they should email or call her directly and not copy all of the other members. If they find an error in the application that she did not find, please call her with the information. If an error is caught that Ms. Hodge feels should be brought up to all the Board members, she will email all to inform them of the error. She continued saying that on the score sheet, there is a preliminary review column where the score should be placed for each section of each application. She stated that this is where you put any questions or comments that you have for the applicant. You are to date all of these sheets February 28th and then sign them.

Continuing, on February 28th, you will initially convene as the ECHO Board to cover any necessary business and possibly review the procedures to be used when you later convene as the ECHO Grant Review Panel. You will then need to evaluate the application from DBCC as to whether the grant application for the SE Museum of Photography meets the requirements for being an exceptional grant based upon the definition listed in point number three of the document being discussed. There has to be a super majority of the members agree to be considered as an exceptional grant. The super majority is based upon the number of members present and not the number possible if all positions were filled and all members were present. Mr. Russell asked if the qualifying definition was included in the documentation to which Ms. Hodge answered yes. She continued by saying that for this particular applicant, you will have 2 different arguments by the applicant; one for the exceptional grant and one for the normal grant. After determining whether they qualify for an exceptional grant, you will continue to rank them along with everyone else as they must receive either first or second ranking to maintain the exceptional status. If they rank below that, they revert to being an application for a standard grant application.

Mr. Russell said that he assumed that this top ranking was placed into the procedures with the thought that there would always be more funds requested by the applicants then was available from the ECHO fund. Ms. Hodge agreed. He then went on by asking that since there is more money available then funds requested, wouldn't it make sense that if the applicant scored high enough to be eligible for a standard grant, why shouldn't this be uplifted to the exceptional grant request. Ms. Hargreaves said that this method of ranking requirements was felt necessary by the Review panel for that circumstance where multiple applicants request exceptional status when the available funds was less than requested. She said that is possible if we choose to make an exception to this policy. Ms. Hodge stated that the current disposition of funds for an exceptional grant was $600,000 for the first year and up to $600,000 for up to three additional years. Ms. Hargreaves asked Ms. Hodge if there was any additional items that needed to be covered.

Ms. Hodge said that the applicants would be questioned by the panel in the order of their grant number. The Panel can ask the applicants questions they might have regarding their application that may provide additional information for them to consider. She additional reminded the Board that the Board had previously stated that they need to focus on what is in the application and not consider what they had heard or read in the newspaper. Ms. Hargreaves said that this was correct and that they are not to be lobbied for this event by the applicant. The goal is to rank the applicant based upon what they have in their written document. She said that the lobbying may not always be from the applicant but may come from their "cheerleaders." In any case, should lobbying occur, the Board member should ask the person to desist in that activity and to call Ms. Hodge to inform her of the action. Ms. Hargreaves asks that each of the Panel members write as much as possible on what they are thinking to assist future grantees who are trying to understand what the Panel members want. She then asked Ms. Hodge if there was anything additional that she desired adding to what was stated. There was none.

Ms. Hargreaves asked that when the applicants come up to answer questions that the questions be limited to what pertains specifically to the grant. Ms. Hodge stated that she feels the questions asked of the applicants reinforce the knowledge level of the applicant insuring that the project, if awarded, will successfully be completed. It was stated that if the applicant needs a little additional time to answer the question, the Chair can grant the applicant a small break to confer on a proper response.

Ms. Hodge said that Sedrick will do the roll-call and will rotate that such that a different person will begin the scoring review with each applicant. After all of the applicants have finished, the Panel will take a short break so the applicant ranking can be calculating for presentation back to the Panel. All applicants with a score of 70 or higher will be eligible to receive funding. Ms. Hodge continued saying that the dollar amount requested by the applicant is the dollar amount that must be placed beside their name in the ranking sheet. Current ECHO Guidelines do not allow for an award to be approved for a lesser amount than requested unless insufficient funds remain at the point of the applications ranked level. She said there is a section at the bottom of section 7 regarding tied scores. When the presentation is made to the County Council, the Chairperson accompanies Ms. Hodge to the Council chamber.

Ms. Hodge told the Board members that in their prepared score book, they have a copy of the Not for Profit Application Guide but not one for the Government guide. She said that the only difference is the financial documentation that is in Tab 4. Finance has said that all of the necessary financial documents are present, either in the application or in the addendum package, if finance needed additional documentation to complete their review. She said that if anyone did desire the Government Application Guide, they should contact Sedrick who will provide them with one.

Mr. Matulis asked if we would have lunch brought in so the time spent for lunch will be minimized. Ms. Hodge said that they would be sent a sample menu to choose what they wanted which would be brought to the Chamber kitchen.
Chair Hargreaves said that it was now time for public participation and asked if there were any comments by the visitor. When there was none, Ms. Hodge discussed the logistics of picking up the applicants manuals. The meeting was adjourned at 3:52 PM.