Ms. Hargreaves asked if any
members were able to attend any ECHO function activities in the last
2 weeks.
Mr. Sixma stated that he was
able to attend the Reed Canal Park opening the previous weekend. He
stated that the giant Sloth archeological find that was found during
construction is going to be used in the educational exhibition. Most
of the County Council members attended along with most of the
personnel from the City of South Daytona.
The minutes of the last
meeting were reviewed for additions or corrections. A motion was
made to approve the minutes which was seconded and unanimously
approved.
The Chair then asked Ms. Hodge to provide her staff report.
Ms. Hodge stated that the
Spring To Spring Trail opening, associated with Lake Monroe, is to
be held on Saturday, May 13th. She said that John Harper, from
Leisure Services, will be giving the board a presentation on the
Trails program. Ms. Hodge stated that the quarterly report, which
will be covered later, will show the progress that has been made in
all of the various projects. In particular, the 2002, 2003, and some
2004 projects are nearing completion with most of them opening
before the end of the summer. For 2002 grants, we have the Atlantic
Center for the Arts. The Visitor Center there is all enclosed and
almost ready to open. Because the project was not completely funded,
a few areas are a little behind such as the Environmental Trail;
however, the signs are ready to be installed.
The Indian River Lagoon in
New Smyrna Beach received an ECHO Grant in 2003. Because it is
located next to the water on the beach, several design changes had
to be made that were not so major so they were able to be approved
in-house. Most of them were driven by constraints due to permitting
restrictions. This project should be completed in June or July as we
had them revisit some items previously deleted due to increased
construction costs and had them added back to the project since they
were requesting other items deleted. Chair Hargreaves asked if the
project was completed to where they are allowing public access to
which Ms. Hodge stated that she didn’t know if public access was
allowed at this time but it should be open shortly.
The Pioneer High School project (another 2003 project) is almost
complete with just a few details needing to be tidied up which
should be complete by July. The Volusia County Green Springs Park
project was held up by permits from the St. Johns River Water
Management District. DeBary Hall is finished with the exception of
the Groundskeeper House. The facility is open and there is a lot of
activity there. This is all of the 2002 and 2003 projects.
Continuing with 2004
projects, the Athens Theater project for 2004 was delayed but the
2004 and the 2005 projects are running concurrently as they overlap
a bit. Those projects should be completed this summer. Holly Land
Park has been completed and we are just wrapping up the final report
and budget. The Gamble Place project will be completed this month.
Mr. Matousek said that the
County Council extended some finish dates to March of 2007, yet some
of these projects are saying they will finish up before that. Ms.
Hodge explained that the reason for the March date is that 365 days
from the initial grant award. The completion schedule set by project
management is the one to which they have made a written or verbal
commitment; therefore, all projects will not take through March 2007
to complete.
Ms. Hodge continues. The
Deltona Dog Park and the Whipple Park projects are well under way
and should be completed shortly. BCC (Bethune Cookman College
Performing Arts Center) has changed primary contacts again. Ms.
Hodge said that BCC has said that they expect to finish up in July
and she has no reason to doubt that. Reed Canal Park has finished
and, as Mr. Sixma stated, he was at the opening of the facility. The
rest of the projects have a 2 year time frame for construction.
Chair Hargreaves asked if
anyone had any questions on the Quarterly report. There was none.
The Quarterly Report was accepted as is.
Ms. Hargreaves asked Ms.
Hodge if a large portion of the Grants awarded were not completed in
the 12 to 14 month time frame. Ms. Hodge responded by reminding the
group that this was changed to 2 years (in 2005). She additionally
stated that the 2004 hurricane season also negatively impacted the
construction and completion of the 2002, 2003, and 2004 projects.
Chair Hargreaves stated that the Board requested a workshop with the
County Council and have submitted, in writing, the questions and
concerns from the ECHO Board members to them for comment. She stated
that she felt sure the County Council would be considering the
workshop and possibly put it on their calendar in the future.
Mr. Matousek asked if when
this happens, will the participation be limited to just the ECHO
chair meeting with the County Council? Chair Hargreaves responded by
saying she hoped it would occur like it did once before with the
County Council and the entire ECHO board sitting in one of the
training rooms in a round table format discussing the program. Mrs.
Hodge stated that they are aware of the desired format.
Chair Hargreaves then
announced the guest, Mr. Harper from Leisure Services, who is here
at our request to tell us about the Trails program.
Mr. Harper started with a
Power Point presentation presented to the County Council
approximately two years ago. They had put this presentation together
for the budget session for the 2004 year. How they arrived at this
information was by holding a series of seven workshops throughout
the county during 1999. The workshops were highly publicized and
very well attended. During these workshops, they put out large maps
and had the attendees draw where they thought the trails should go.
They next had a technical planning workshop with all of the cities,
the county, and other people and organizations that would
potentially be involved with the Trails system. From that, a master
map evolved that they brought to the County Council in 1999 which
was approved 4 years later.
Leisure Services had another
workshop for parks and recreation personnel where these maps were
updated again. At this time, the plan showed a total of 107 miles of
public multi-use trails.
Mr. Harper pointed out the Spring to Spring Trail which has the
eventual goal to link Gemini Springs with DeLeon Springs. He then
pointed out the Central Regional Rail Trail which is a former
railroad bed that starts in Enterprise, goes to the Maytown area,
spurs north through Edgewater, down Park Avenue in Edgewater to
almost US 1, and south to Titusville.
The office of Greenways and
Trails is currently in negotiations to purchase the necessary land
and it is their hope that the purchase of this will go before the
cabinet in June. The criteria established for the projects are:
having an existing right-of-way, connection to a destination, funds
from other grants, and biggest “Bang for our buck.” The direction
they received from the County Council was to progress as fast as
they could. This is why they first look for projects where they
don’t have to buy the right-of-way which adds significant time
delays. The County Council approved the plan for $11.2 million. At
the time, they felt they could construct approximately 31 miles of
trails for that amount of money. Mr. Harper showed a list of
projects on a spreadsheet that was presented at that time. It
included the Spring to Spring Trail, the Central Rail Trail, and a
small portion of the Cross Volusia Trail.
Mr. Matousek asked how these
monies were going to be used; i.e., bonding, pay as you go, etc. Mr.
Harper stated that the County Council decided (in conjunction with
the County CFO) to borrow money as they need it and buy commercial
paper. He stated that the County Council gave direction on how to
fund it; gave approval for the direction of the project, and the
direction on how to go about it. They also told Public Works that
whenever a section of trail could be constructed in conjunction with
a road re-construction project, they were to do that. Leisure
Services has been working very closely with Public Works to this
end.
In Oct, 2004, they had
another countywide Trails workshop with all the cities involved.
They had numerous agencies at the workshop along with guest
speakers. They handed out maps during the workshop so each city
could draw in their own trails as they would like to see it. There
was a significant amount of trail added during this workshop. They
went back to council with the new map and they approved it. They
discussed their progress so far and the County Council said, “Good
job – keep going.”
Out of this grouping and
having potential projects placed on the map, the county was able to
acquire grants for 5 projects for almost $2 million; Lake Helen
obtained DOT grants; DeLand picked up a grant for $500,000; Daytona
Beach, Port Orange and Ponce Inlet each received grants. Mr. Harper
then stated, “…if your project is part of a master plan, you always
get extra points towards receiving a grant.”
He said the program is
moving well with a lot of cooperation between the Cities and the
State with Volusia County. They are also receiving a lot of good
feedback on the project. He was also very happy to be receiving a
significant amount of positive publicity from the local Daytona
Beach News Journal. He then showed a flow chart of what it takes to
accomplish one of these projects.
The methodology of
developing a project is to identify the project that you want to do,
develop the scope and how you want to build it, select the
consultant, and do a feasibility study (DOT calls it a P. D. & E.
study). He then showed an example of what is being proposed with a
trail heading south from French Avenue, through Blue Springs State
Park, through land owned by Florida Power, and terminating at the
light rail station to be located at the new Saxon extension. To
assist in traveling to the Light Rail Station, a trail is proposed
to parallel the Saxon Blvd. extension.
With the permit from the
state park, Florida Power Company buy-in, and FDOT building the rail
station, it is now determined that the project is feasible. Now we
go into the next step which is soils testing, surveying, and all the
nitty-gritty stuff you have to do. We will probably begin final
design in July because Leisure Services is getting some FDOT money
whose budget starts in July.
As you go through permitting, you bid the documents, you bid the
project, and then you construct. Usually, it takes longer to go from
inception to the start of construction than the construction job
itself takes. “All you need is a scrub jay or a gopher tortoise to
pop up and you’re delayed a year.” …or you have a specialty
construction company and they are backed up for a year and can’t get
to your project.
Since 2004, we have
completed the Spring to Spring Trail – phase I which was funded by
FDOT. FDOT also funded the trail alongside Atlantic Ave. in Ponce
Inlet which we helped Ponce Inlet write. We also worked with FDOT on
the bike path along A1A that starts at the Flagler county line and
goes south for about 3 miles. We constructed the DeBary trailhead
for which we received FDOT money and general fund dollars. Spring to
Spring phase II, which opens on May 13th, is now completed. . The
cost was $1.4 million with $550K from FDOT and $850K from ECHO
money. We also constructed the Lake Mary Trailhead project and,
because we were using our money to build the trail, the State also
helped fund the project.
We have begun construction
on the Lake Beresford Loop where we will be constructing 2 miles of
paved trail, a parallel equestrian trail, a parking lot, and
restrooms which will tie into the section of trail that goes from
there to French Ave and on to Blue Springs Park. They are connected
via a tunnel under the railroad tracks.
We’re doing some feasibility
studies on a section of trail in the Glenwood area. Initially, the
people who live there were not very happy with the idea but we have
been working with them and have incorporated some of their ideas to
where we believe, “…we now have them on our side.”
We anticipate the rail
corroder will be purchased this year so the next project will be
from Providence Blvd. down to Garfield Road which goes by Green
Springs, an ECHO project, and will serve as a trailhead for this.
The Rail Trail, which will go from Garfield to Route 415, is 4 ½
miles in length. We know that we have $800K from FDOT but we hope to
receive a little more from them on this.
We have a section of trail
that will parallel route 415 when that is widened. Initially, FDOT
wanted Volusia County to pay for this trail; however, we negotiated
with them and gave them some right-of-way and retention pond land so
now they are going to build the trail with their dollars with our
cost being the land donation from us.
Mr. Matousek asked what the
timeframes are for the Rail Trail Phase I and Phase II projects and
when do they plan to start construction? Mr. Harper said that it
does go to the (State) Cabinet in June and it will take a few months
there so we are at least a year away from starting any construction.
Mr. Harper presented a
document that showed where we are today on these projects. They have
spent $2,588,000 with $5,889,000 in reserve to pay for the 2
projects they will be building next year including design money and
other expenses. Ms. Hagstrom asked what the percentage of the
“trails money” has already been designated whether it has been spent
or not.
Mr. Harper stated that the
new Master Plan shows 307 miles of trails. Ms. Hagstrom asked what
percent of trails or how many miles of trails have currently been
completed to which Mr. Harper answered, “Seven.” Upon further
questioning, he stated that the goal was to build 31 miles of trails
with the $11 million. He then stated that since this isn’t enough
monies to accomplish what is desired, that is why they are applying
for all these other grants; State, DOT and Federal dollars working
every grant source they can. Ms. Hagstrom said that based upon those
numbers, the project seems overwhelming. Mr. Harper stated that the
County Council also felt that way initially.
Ms. Hodge stated that the
original Trails Plan was for only 117 miles. Mr. Harper then stated
that a lot of the miles of trails are within the Cities and they
will be funding those trails. He continued by saying that the idea
of our trails system is like our road system. The State and County
build the backbone of the roads and the cities connect to those
roads.
Chair Hargreaves asked what surface types are being used for the
trails to which Mr. Harper responded that they are multi-use trails
using asphalt. Ms. Hargreaves then asked if any trails would be
finished naturally. Mr. Harper responded that what she was
describing are hiking trails and there are some of those but they
are not part of the Trails Program. Ms. Hargreaves than asked if all
the trails would be parallel to roads. Mr. Harper stated that most
of them would; however, some of them, like the one about to open,
goes out through the woods.
Ms. Hargreaves asked if any
of the ECHO funds are being used to purchase land. Mr. Harper
responded, “…not yet.” She then asked if they could be used for this
and the answer was “Yes.”
Mr. Harper then said that
once the rail land is purchased, it can be opened immediately as a
hiking trail or a bike trail. The map referred to the trail from
DeBary Hall to Lake Monroe which is what will be opened on Saturday
(May 13th).
Chair Hargreaves and the rest of the Board thanked Mr. Harper for
the excellent and informative presentation.
Chair Hargreaves explained
how Ms. Hodge had taken the comments from the previous ECHO Board
meeting and had made the changes to the Application Guide which she
wants us to review before making them permanent. Ms. Hodge explained
that the changes, which were approved by the Board, no longer are in
blue but are incorporated into the Application. The items that still
have the blue marking are items that she wanted to make certain the
changes made were/are the changes desired.
Ms. Hargreaves started with
item 1 of the Applicant Eligibility Requirements. Ms. Hodge
commented that she knew that the Not-for-Profit had to have its
principle office in the State of Florida; however, she wasn’t sure
if the Board required an applicant to have a group or partner of the
organization located within Volusia County. Mr. Matousek said he
liked the original wording better. He then read the old wording
which stated, “…with its principal office located in the State of
Florida and a local group of the organization within Volusia
County.” Ms. Hargreaves agreed, along with the a other Board
members, so the original verbiage will be put back into the
document.
The next item discussed is
item #8, Drawings & Maps on the Application & Project Eligibility
page. Mr. Graven suggested the sentence in question be changed to
read, “The drawings must be to scale and the scale must be listed on
the bar graph.” Agreed by all!
The next item for discussion
was Item 1, Application Review, on the page titled Application
Review Process. Ms. Hodge explained why the phrase “in writing” was
inserted to explain to the applicants what is to be expected during
their presentations to the board. Jamie Seaman stated that many
options were discussed during the last meeting and this addition
would be to have the applicant submit their questions in writing to
Ms. Hodge. Ms. Hodge would answer them and would send copies of the
questions and responses to the board members (on a batch basis). Ms.
Hargreaves questioned why all ECHO Board members should be copied on
the correspondence and Ms. Hodge said that she thought that this
would allow all of the Board members to be on the same page
regarding questions and their responses. Ms. Hagstrom asked what
constitutes “in writing,” to which Ms. Hodge responded email,
letter, etc.
Mr. Graven questioned
whether this should be in the Application Guide at all as it is
policy. Ms. Hodge said that much of what is in this Application
Guide is about policy and it is there to expand on the clarity of
what is required and expected of them. Mr. Russell questioned the
wording as it implies that Ms. Hodge alone will be reading and
responding to all applicant questions. He suggested adding wording
that might say something like, “…with appropriate consultation….”
Ms. Seaman commented that she didn’t think that was the type of
question that this was referring to. She felt is related more to
requirements and procedural issues. Ms. Hodge stated that if it was
something that was the least bit unclear, she goes back to the
applicant and questions them about the meaning. Having done this for
5 years now, many of the questions are the same as from the previous
years and can be answered quickly. Ms. Hagstrom asked if her replies
would go to all the applicants. Ms. Hodge stated that she would
rather not do that but it is up to the Board members to decide. Ms.
Seaman stated that the applicants will know that other applicants
may be submitting questions and receiving answers. Because it is
public information, they are free to come to us and ask to see any
and all questions and responses to all the applicants.
Ms. Hodge stated that what
she would like to do is to group the questions from the Board and
her responses to send to the Board instead of sending each and every
question individually. Ms. Hagstrom asked is there a cutoff time for
these questions to which Ms. Hodge replied that they have been
asking questions up to the day before the applications were due. If
a question came up very close to the due time, Ms. Hodge suggested
that she send the applicant an email telling them to be prepared to
respond to the question during their presentation.
Chair Hargreaves said to
move on to the Applicant responsibilities from item #2, Grant Review
Panel Meeting from the Application Review Process. Ms. Hagstrom said
that she realized there was much discussion on this topic during the
last Board meeting; however, she believes that the applicants are
responsible for having the people who are knowledgeable about the
grant request be in attendance during this meeting. She further
believes that stopping and taking a break could be highly disruptive
for the process. Mr. Sixma said that he felt that it was a direct
result of a request of the County Council that we have this process
to assist the applicants. It was stated that maybe people who have
to consult others by phone be able to come back into the process
without being penalized.
Ms. Hodge said that the
purpose of this was to assist those who are not use to standing in
front of a group of people and explaining a project and this would
give them a chance to grow in the process. Last year, a couple of
the grantees had a lot of stress on them and they were being given
some questions even while they were trying to find answers to former
questions. Mr. Wiles had suggested in the last meeting that maybe
this would be a way to relieve the pressure from those that have not
had the experience of making a formal presentation of a project to a
group of people. Last year, there were only two groups that had
problems with the pressure of presenting their project.
Ms. Hagstrom said that she
and Ms. Hargreaves compared the score sheets from last year before
and after the presentations. The scores given from the reading of
the documents before the presentations and those given after the
presentations varied a negligible amount which tends to show that
the quality of presentation had very little to do with the overall
score given to each applicant. Ms. Hagstrom continued by saying that
for the organizations applying for a grant, we are like a training
ground for them since, when they go to the State for a grant, they
are not going to let them take a break to find answers to questions.
Ms. Hodge said that she
remembers the Board saying that it is more important to have
complete information about a project then it is to save a little
time. By giving them more time, they can give some real information
instead of just responding with an, “…I don’t know.” Ms. Hagstrom
responded by saying that the reason there has been so many questions
posed to the applicants was because their grants were written with a
lot of needed information left out. She continued saying that the
County Council also had problems in understanding a few of the grant
requests because of this lack of desired details. Ms. Hagstrom went
on to say that she believes that more emphasis needs to be placed on
the quality and completeness of the application to minimize the
extensive and time consuming process of questioning the applicants.
Chair Hargreaves said that these suggestions are all correct;
however, the purpose of allowing the applicants a short period of
break time to answer the Boards questions is because the County
Council felt this would be the correct procedure to implement.
Mr. Matousek said that the
Board had previously discussed having the applicant take their
needed break and for the Board to continue on with the next
applicant. He said that he is definitely against that procedure and
feels it would be best for all to take a break for the short period
necessary and then continue with the same applicant. To do otherwise
would be, “…much too confusing.” Mr. Matousek then read from the
Application Guide the sentence that states, “The Grant Review Panel
and the applicant will determine the amount of time required for the
break.” He does not feel that the applicant should have any say as
to whether they receive a break or in the length of time of the
break other than requesting a finite amount of time for them to
gather the desired information. Ms. Hodge responded by asking if it
would be correct to just strike the words “… and the applicant…”
from this sentence and change the beginning of the sentence to read,
“The Chair of the Grant Review Panel…” to which Mr. Matousek and the
other Board members agreed. A concern was expressed that an
applicant, who knew a part of their application was weak, could ask
for a 2 minute break and, shortly thereafter, ask for another 2
minute break, and on and on. Ms. Hargreaves said that this would be
controlled by the Chair to prevent this from happening.
Mr. Matousek said that the
way the sentence now reads, it is the applicant that requests the
break but it is the Grant Review Panel, and specifically the
Chairperson, who can grant or not grant the request. Ms. Seaman
asked if the word “required” should be changed to “allowed” to which
all agreed. Ms. Seaman then asked if when an applicant requests a
break that it would automatically be allowed? Multiple people said,
“No.” Ms. Seaman and Mr. Matousek then said that the wording should
be changed to something like, “The Chair of the Grant Review Panel
may grant the request and if granted then the Chair will determine
the length of the break time.”
Ms. Hodge read the sentence
to be changed in the Guide to, “Chair of the Grant Review Panel may
grant their request and shall determine the amount of time allowed.”
Chair Hargreaves said the next item to discuss is the Application
Evaluation and Scoring section of the Evaluation Procedures. Ms.
Hodge mentioned she did place another sheet in their folders that
Mr. Graven had supplied which is a sample form in digital format
that could assist in the scoring process. Ms. Hodge said that she
didn’t want to immediately endorse using this until such time that
she and Mr. Harris had a chance to work with it and send it back and
forth multiple times through multiple email addresses. If the
process does work out, Ms. Hodge said that it will not be required;
however, it would be available for all Board members to use if
desired.
Regarding the proposed
change to this section, Ms. Hodge told the Board her reason for
suggesting this change was to make the applicant more aware of what
they are being scored on and the weight given to each category. Ms.
Seaman stated that the County Council had indicated that it would be
helpful if the applicants knew how they were being graded and this
would give them feedback on where their weaknesses were on how to
improve them.
Ms. Hargreaves wanted to go
over the specific word changes proposed so Ms. Hodge said that the
addition of the phrase “…completeness and clarity of the
information…” would emphasis to the applicants what they are being
graded on. Ms. Hargreaves then asked about the 2nd item of that
sentence questioning the phrases “required backup documents” and
“other supporting backup documents.” Ms. Hodge explained the
reasoning for the verbiage in that there is required backup
documentation specifically stated in the application and that the
supporting backup documents are documents that are optional but will
help clarify the project requirements and goals. Mr. Matousek
suggested combining the two requests of that sentence into a single
phrase mentioning both the required backup documents and the
supporting documentation. Ms. Hodge explained that by leaving it the
way it is would emphasize they must furnish the required
documentation while the supporting backup documentation is the
material that will strengthen their grant request.
Ms. Hagstrom said maybe we
should state that we look at three major points in the application:
its completeness, the clarity, and the strength of the project as
presented. The suggestion was then made as to whether the words
“other supporting documentation” be changed to “supporting data.”
Mr. Russell feels that this could better be expressed by just saying
“supporting information.” He then requested confirmation that the
documents listed as required are mandatory while those listed as
supporting are optional. Ms. Hodge and Ms. Hargreaves confirmed his
statement was correct. Ms. Hodge went on to say that this doesn’t
mean letters. She went on to say that there are 4 tabs that are
scored and much of that is required; however, there is room to
adjust the score based upon supplemental information that is
presented in the application. Ms. Hodge continued by saying there
are many documents that are part of Tab 6 and, many times, the
applicant will reference a document they placed in tab 6 in one of
the tabs that has required information.
Ms. Hagstrom said that if
she didn’t know that backup meant they had to submit the materials
and supporting material is not required, maybe others don’t realize
this either. Maybe we should say required backup documents and
optional supporting documents. Ms. Hodge said that the sentence will
now read “…the completeness, clarity and strength of the
application, required backup documents, and other supporting data
and information as supplied by the applicant.” She then said that
she thought that what you really wanted was a significant amount of
information about the project which would be supplied in the
supporting documents.
Chair Hargreaves said that
the Evaluation Criteria as listed in the Application Guide is all
required information and that there will be an addition to this for
the supplemental information provided. Ms. Seaman said that this
will add to the evaluation criteria such that on the last field
(Project Impact), the comments are typically made that there is
insufficient clarity and information for what is desired. With this
additional information for feedback for the applicants, they will
have a better idea why they maybe only received a 25 on the Project
Impact criteria instead of a 60. Ms. Hodge said that when she does
the completeness reviews with the documents, this is the type of
comments that she mentions; i.e., something is missing, the numbers
in tab 4 do not match the numbers in tab 6, complete, incomplete,
something is not clear, etc.
Mr. Matousek said that he
would rather have the comments section listed in the form and not
the clarity as the form says this at the top. Ms. Hodge mentioned
that she feels that listing the 3 sections on the form will be a
continual reminder on what the Board is looking for from the
applications. Ms. Seaman commented that feedback on the application
is essential for the applicants if we want them to understand our
scoring process and how they can improve their ability to acquire
grants in the future. She equated the application process to that of
a student in a college who would want to know why their paper was
marked down and what they could do in the future to improve the
grade (score).
Mr. Matousek stated that he
doesn’t just evaluate the applications on completeness, clarity and
backup. He has at least a dozen more items that weigh upon his
scoring decision. Ms. Seaman said that this is the information that
we need to have to let the applicants know what they are going to be
scored on. Ms. Hodge asked Mr. Matousek if the supporting (optional)
documents didn’t provide the information that he was looking for; to
which Mr. Matousek replied, “Not necessarily.”
Mr. Russell said that it is
important for the application to be as communicative as possible and
he believes that when the applicants see the words that describe
what they will be scored on, they will be more likely to include
this information. He said that he is inclined to keeping the words
in the document, especially for those people who are not use to
filling out these types of documents. Ms. Hargreaves agreed and said
that she would like to keep these and add additional key words.
Personally, she looks at the proposed budget submitted with the
application to see if the reality of undertaking a project of the
proposed magnitude is understood. For an example, she cited looking
at multi-year budgets and not seeing any increase in personnel costs
which just doesn’t happen. If nothing else, taxes go up which
increases their personnel costs. Ms. Hagstrom said that a lot of the
mistakes are because of a faulty business plan. Ms. Hargreaves said
that many of them don’t have a quality business plan and that is the
problem as many of them don’t have any “substance” to it.
Mr. Graven said that there
is nothing relating to constructability, engineering economies, or
architectural standards. He went on to say that if we added all of
these items that would give us all the information we want, the
application would become very unwieldy. After a brief discussion on
this, Mr. Graven asked if it would benefit all if they each sent in
a list of bulleted items that are “near and dear to us?” Ms. Seaman
and others agreed saying to send them to Ms. Hodge. When questioning
whether they should go into the application, Ms. Hodge said that
this information would probably go better in the workshops. Ms.
Seaman then said that many applicants are working with more than
just this Board and that if she were one of the applicants, she
would definitely want to know what items each panelist looks for in
an application so I could be sure to include that information. It
may not be on the score sheet but maybe there is another way to
include this information.
Chair Hargreaves moved on to
the paragraph titled Restrictions. The paragraph in discussion
relates to a project not being awarded a new grant award until all
construction has been completed on the previous grant. Ms. Hodge
said that the verbiage was put here because there is concern that
some of the projects are way behind in their projected completion
date and some of the Board members were finding it difficult to
consider giving a new award to an applicant that had not completed
the work on their previous grant. Ms. Seaman further explained the
concern that a grantee could be awarded a new grant before they
finished the work on their previous grant award. In those cases, the
grantee would have to finish at least one of the grant projects
before they could come back requesting another grant.
Mr. Matousek said that
applicants are given extensions for a valid reason. Many times, the
reason is something beyond their control; i.e., hurricane damage,
can’t get a contractor, etc. Because of this, he feels this
paragraph is too restrictive. If we do grant an extension for a
project and it is a multi-phase project, he sees nothing wrong by
awarding them another grant before they have finished the first one.
Ms. Hargreaves asked Mr. Matousek if he just wanted to get rid of
the entire paragraph to which he replied, “Yes.” Ms. Hargreaves went
on to say that if she were a new board member, she would definitely
want to know if an applicant has a previous grant and how they
managed the execution of that grant; i.e., were contract extensions
granted for good reasons or did there appear to be less than
satisfactory implementation of the previous project. This would make
a difference when I was deciding their score relative to the other
applicants. Mr. Matousek asked would she score this applicant down
to which she replied, “Yes!” It is for this reason the history of
the applicant is necessary when weighing the scoring of the new
application.
Ms. Hodge asked if Ms.
Hargreaves wanted this historical report when the grading was to be
assigned (day of ranking) or at the beginning when she provides them
the applications for their review. It was agreed that this report
would be given with the applications even though grantees might be
requesting an extension that March (after the ranking day). The
grantees request for an extension might be received after this
report is provided in January to the ECHO Board. Ms. Hargreaves said
that the quarterly reports show the progress being made on each
grantee so this could be used to judge how they have been doing on
fulfilling the past grants and that Ms. Hodge also would have some
good idea as to who is likely to request an extension.
Ms. Seaman asked if this might be one of those bullet items that Mr.
Graven spoke of that effects his scoring of the applicants; i.e.,
the success or progress with previous grants. Ms. Hargreaves replied
in the affirmative. It was agreed that the entire paragraph would be
deleted from this application. Ms. Hodge said she could insert the
requirement for listing the success of any previous grants on the
sheet.
Chair Hargreaves said the
next item is in TAB 1, item 1.1 (10). The statement added was made
just for clarification. It was agreed to leave this item in place.
Chair Hargreaves said the
next item she wanted to take up was bullet #4 in TAB 1.1 14(A) This
item has been discussed before. She asked if what they are asking
for in this section is a portion of the entire project, or what is
the cost of the entire project? Ms. Hodge said that this is why we
ask for the match and overmatch numbers here. Ms. Hagstrom said that
she wants to see the total cost to determine just how much impact
our potential grant can have over the whole project. Ms. Seaman said
that what she thinks Ms. Hagstrom wants is the total cost of the
entire project. She then wants to see what the cost of the ECHO
grant project is.
Ms. Hodge said that what we
are asking for is the exact amount of money they want and the exact
amount of match they have. …and now we are asking them for a very
subjective number where when queried, they might say that we have a
dream that some day…. Ms. Hagstrom said that was OK. She’s not
interested on how they plan to fund it; she’s not interested in any
match as all she wants to know is where this ECHO grant might
someday fit in the scheme of the long term objectives. It was
decided to leave the statement about match and overmatch in as is. A
discussion ensued regarding this information being here in Tab 1 and
also in Tab 3.1.
Chair Hargreaves asked if there were any comments about the proposed
changes in the 2006 Grants-In-Aid Not-for-Profit Application Guide.
No questions from the Board so it was approved as amended.
Chair Hargreaves said to
move on to the next item which is 1.2 (Project Team). The changes as
written were approved.
Chair Hargreaves said to
move on to 1.3 2) relating to the applicant’s management policy. Ms.
Hodge said that the applicants always struggle with this section.
Ms. Hargreaves said that we are not getting the information here
that we want. Ms. Hodge said that this is how the state grant
application is written and we have never changed it. Ms. Hargreaves
said that what we are looking for is the environmental and other
policies that are above what is required by the law. She went on to
say that what we’re looking for is to make sure the construction
company is following all of the labor laws. Ms. Hodge said that most
Not-for-Profits will not have this type of information in writing
from their construction company nor will they have a statement like
a city or the county does saying that 10% of the construction
materials must be recycled materials. Ms. Hargreaves said that since
the applicants have a hard time responding to this and Ms. Hodge has
a difficult time explaining this to them, is it important enough for
us to clarify? Ms. Seaman said we could word it as: “Please provide
any physical or construction qualities or philosophies that you
have.” If they have one, they will put it down and if they don’t,
they won’t understand it and won’t put anything there. After a brief
discussion, it was decided to delete the whole item out of the
Guide.
Chair Hargreaves said the
next item is 1.5 (2). Ms. Hodge said that this is language that she
put in here to better describe the requirements for land use for
ECHO projects that Ms. Seaman needs to look at. Ms. Hargreaves asked
Ms. Seaman if she wanted some time to look this over and take it up
during the next meeting. Ms. Seaman said that she would look it
over; however, the Restrictive Covenants that the Not-for-Profits
sign takes care of this concern. She will look it over and comment
during the next meeting.
Chair Hargreaves asked the
Board members if they had any questions or concerns on item 1.6,
Restrictive Covenants. The items were all approved as amended.
The next item for discussion
is item 1.8 – Form – Professional Certification and Resume. Mr.
Matousek said that he assumed that the architect/engineer/contractor
was already certifying the application and the information contained
therein. Ms. Hodge and Ms. Hagstrom both said that you can’t assume
anything like that. Item 1 was agreed as now stated. The changes to
items 2 & 3 were approved without discussion.
Chair Hargreaves said the
next item is Tab 2, Scope of Work. On item 2.2, Mr. Matousek said
that he liked giving the applicants some actions to consider in
describing the facility and construction sequence. Mr. Graven asked
if we were asking for a construction schedule. Ms. Hodge said that
most of the projects are not at that stage of development that a
true construction schedule has been made. Mr. Graven said he agrees
with this and one of the problems with time frames for completion of
these projects is that some of the applicant’s description of the
construction sequence isn’t even at a conceptual level. If we ask
for a construction schedule, they will have to spend time and energy
constructing one. With this requirement, they would have to do some
preliminary design work which would result in more realistic budget
numbers. However, this would create a lot of extra work for the
applicant.
Ms. Hodge said that this would improve the applications as
previously, we only asked for a description which was very loose in
definition. For example, we would have to count the number of
bathrooms and would have to ask many questions during the review
process. Mr. Graven continued by saying he would feel much better if
the applicant had taken the time to figure out how much time it
would take to design the project, how long it would take to permit
the project, and how long it would take to build the project. Ms.
Hagstrom asked if creating a time line chart is what we were
wanting.
Ms. Seaman compared what we
were discussing to the flow chart the Mr. Harper from Leisure
Services had that showed the amount of time estimated for each phase
of a project and that the construction phase was usually only about
10% of the time for the complete project. Mr. Russell said one of
the points mentioned was to include a general reference to time. Mr.
Russell then asked for confirmation from the rest of the Board in
his thought that much of what we are doing is to help the applicants
better understand the process that will take place during all phases
of the project. This will help tell the Board that the applicants
know what they will be doing. He said maybe we should include a
request for a “General Project Timetable” and maybe we could use the
flow chart that Mr. Harper presented as an example.
Ms. Hodge gave a
hypothetical situation of a project for a trail where they didn’t
specify the number of feet in the proposed trail; however, they did
provide a non-scaled, non-dimensioned map of where the trail would
go. When they reduce the length of the trail, they can claim that
this is not a change of scope since they didn’t specify the linear
length of the trail. When they come in with a budget revision, Ms.
Hodge has to go back to the map, the description of the project, and
sometimes to the discussions held during the Board presentations to
figure out if this is a change of scope. She continued by saying
that with the new section 1.8, the person signing this document has
to review this section which, in the past, they may have just signed
without looking it.
Ms. Hagstrom said that she
likes the idea of a time line because she wants to know that when
something is proposed, the applicant didn’t just pull a number out
of the air and that they really did investigate the time/cost impact
of the project. Mr. Graven agreed saying it would be nice to have
something to correlate the proposed budget to. Ms. Hagstrom
continued by saying she didn’t think it would be putting an extra
burden on the applicants as they have to know this to be able to
develop a realistic budget. Mr. Graven asked Ms. Hodge if it would
be beneficial if he sent her a sample of a project time line chart
to which she responded, “Yes.” She continued by saying it would be
especially helpful if he could send one for a park project and one
for a facility construction project. Mr. Graven said he would send
one that is a generic project schedule and also a project schedule
for a park project. Item 1 of 2.2 will stay as proposed.
Mr. Matousek said that on
item 2.2 (3), he would like to see the last part of that item from
“…unless prior approval…” stricken from the text as he doesn’t feel
they should have the option of presenting their own format. After a
brief discussion, all concurred.
Chair Hargreaves said to
move on to item 2.3 of Tab 2 which is the Scope of Future and/or
Concurrent Phases. Discussions ensued regarding the beginning with
the words “…applicants are strongly encouraged….” Ms. Seaman said
that she would like to make this required of all applicants as this
information is important in evaluating the projects. There was
discussion of this placing too much burden on the applicants;
however, the Board does not want detailed project cost projections
but just an overview of the big picture regarding the project. All
agreed and this information will be required of all applicants.
Ms. Hodge asked if there is
a maximum number of years that we are wanting the applicants to
describe; i.e., 5 years, etc. It was felt that the applicant would
describe the timeframe as they envisioned the project through to
completion. Ms. Hargreaves noted that in the first paragraph of 2.3,
it states that “…the Committee prefers projects that will be
completed within 3 years.” She said that we need to reconsider this
3 year statement.
Ms. Hargreaves concluded the
Board meeting stating that it was now time to open the meeting to
the public and she asked if anyone wanted to speak. After a lengthy
pause when no-one in the chamber spoke, she said to let the record
show that there were no comments from those attending the meeting.
Ms. Hargreaves said that the
next scheduled meeting is on May 24th. Mr. Russell said that he has
to travel that week and will be unable to attend.
