Grant application information

ECHO Advisory Committee

I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL, INTRODUCTORY REMARKS, APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Chair Hargreaves called the May 25, 2005 ECHO Advisory Committee meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. and welcomed the Advisory Committee members and the public.
Chair Hargreaves asked staff to take the roll. A quorum was present with 8 members in attendance.

II. OLD BUSINESS

Chair Hargreaves opened discussion to approval for the May 11, 2005 ECHO Advisory Committee meeting minutes, asking for changes or corrections. Hearing none, called for a motion for approval of the minutes.
Lorna Jean Hagstrom moved to approve the minutes as distributed.
Charles Matousek seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a unanimous vote.

Chair Hargreaves asked if anyone had any activities that they wanted to report within the last couple of weeks.
Charles Matousek gave an update regarding his membership on the West Volusia Tourism Authority Heritage Advisory Board. The last meeting was held last Friday, May 13, 2005. Mr. Matousek stated the Tourism Authority is looking to put together a comprehensive plan on ECHO Tourism, Agri-tourism, to put together a coordinated group of venues for tourism folks, to come visit, mainly which of course would fund throughout the county with ECHO funds. They talked about Agri-tourism. There was some discussion about preserving the strong Historic Districts North of DeLeon Springs. A presentation was given from a lady from the Trust and Public Land on how their process works on finding properties and finding someone else to purchase them.
Chair Hargreaves commented on the value of ECHO Tourism and how it can be a great value to our County.

III. STAFF REPORT

Margaret Hodge Most contents of the package were mailed out. Each member should have received the application guide and application forms for Not-For-Profit. In the agenda package today there are draft minutes from the 11th, 2005/2006 Goals, that need one change, and the City of Holly Hill’s request to reallocate funds. Other documents in the package are revisions to the current draft of the application and four pages of additional revisions.

At the direction of the Chair, Margaret Hodge was asked to discuss the BCC Project. The Project is on the County Council agenda for June 2, 2005 and on the consent agenda as number 25. She informed the Board Members that they can listen to that meeting over the Internet and BCC should have a representative present. According to the paper, the current Director that was relieved of his position. Ms. Hodge informed the Board she will be meeting with the Operations Manager of the Performing Arts Center tomorrow, May 26, 2005. Possible additional information will be provided at that time.

Chair Hargreaves Is it our goal at that time to see who may be managing this additional funding, the additional funding that’s been given?

Margaret Hodge That is correct and to see if there is any new vision for the Performing Arts Center, as an additional $150,000 was just approved for some major equipment. We want to make sure their mission is still the same and that they are going to follow the presence of the application as they provided it to you.

Chair Hargreaves If you find something different, how will you respond or what will be your responsibility be at that point?

Margaret Hodge I would have to bring that back for legal consultation.

Chair Hargreaves So would it be pulled from the consent agenda, or would it be noted?

Margaret Hodge We would have to work together, after I talk to them tomorrow. It depends on what is said. We don’t have anything to act on right now.

Chair Hargreaves Any questions?

Jack Wiles When it goes before County Council on the 2nd, hopefully they’ll have the information if they are going to approve it or decline it, based on what the findings are.

Margaret Hodge Yes, I’m hoping to get some real information tomorrow. I do have the additional information on the Holly Hill Program.

Chair Hargreaves moved the Holly Hill Program to Old Business, and then moved to go to Old Business and start out with Holly Hill.

Margaret Hodge introduced Stuart Buchanan from the City of Holly Hill. She further stated that two (2) grants were awarded to the City of Holly Hill. One was the 04/03 Holly Forest Park and the 04/02 partially funded Holly Land Park. Ms. Hodge also indicated that the County had received a request from the City to transfer the funding from Holly Forest Park to Holly Land Park grant 04/02, in the amount of $31,453. She requested that the members read the letter that is included in the package from Stuart Buchanan.

Stuart Buchanan The Holly Forest Park project was funded in the amount of just over $31,000. When the application was prepared, we held public meetings with our Parks and Recreation Department, at the local community center and at City Council. Very little public input was received. When it came time to put out the bid and start construction, many of the local residents that lived in the neighborhood adjacent to the park, appeared at the city council and stated they did not want these improvements. Even though it was intended for the people that live there, they thought it would attract many people from outside the immediate area of the park. I can tell you, the Mayor of Holly Hill was very upset and he chastised the residents for not appearing a year and half ago. Subsequently, the Mayor and the City Council, informed staff, to not make the park improvements. I then contacted Ms. Hodge. We looked at the Holly Land Park, in which the original application was for just over $200,000. It was funded for $118,000. When you partially funded Holly Land Park, we never reduced the matching funds. We still put the same amount of money into it, which was $614,000. We greatly over-matched it. Talking with Margaret and my City Manager and Mayor, we decided to make a request to ask for those funds that are from the same grant year, be transferred to the Holly Land Park. I’ll be happy to answer any questions that you have. The project’s been put out to bid. We’ve awarded the contract, in fact that was done last night. The Notice to Proceed will be issued the first week in June.”

Lorna Jean Hagstrom Margaret, in the back of my mind, it seems like a similar situation like this has happened before, where funds that were not originally available, came available, and a project that was partially funded got those funds, is that not true?

Margaret Hodge Yes, BCC got additional funding last year. The money trickles down to the last applicant, unless it’s a year, or two or three and that award was never made. You don’t give it to someone who never received anything. We have not done that yet.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom So in other words, there’s a precedence for doing that now?

Margaret Hodge Yes.

Jack Wiles Just a comment, being that they were next on the list for funding, grant number 02, if we were to take the funds back and give it to the next person in line, which would be this particular fund anyway, I’m in favor of it. Nevertheless, I would like more discussion on this for future applicants, and not let this be a precedent setting situation. It may be that the same City doesn’t have the project next time, they just want to shift dollars around. I think that would be wrong and we need more discussion on that. In this particular case, it makes perfect sense to me.

Charles Matousek We have had situations in the past, it was the City of Daytona Beach Project, where the applicant did change the use of funds, to show significantly different views and we did not agree with that, therefore being overruled by the County Council. We lost that situation where we did not approve the change in the use of funds. I would applaud the City of Holly Hill for listening to the community and deciding not to build the park. I’ll make the motion that we grant this request to allow these monies in the amount of $31,453 to flow to the next grant in that cycle, which happens to be the Holly Land Park Grant.

Chair Hargreaves A motion has been made.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom seconded the motion.

The motion carried by a unanimous vote.

Jack Wiles would it be appropriate to discuss this a little more in detail now or at a more appropriate time?

Chair Hargreaves The precedent issue?

Jack Wiles My question would be, in the case of Holly Hill, if they did not have the project number 02 would they be prone to return those funds, or let’s say they only used partial funds. Are they going to bring funds back to us or are they going to find ways to use the funds. We had one at the last meeting. I think there are situations there, if they were not the next applicant on the list, what would have happened with those funds?

Chair Hargreaves I think it’s clear. If the project doesn’t happen, the funds come back to us.

Margaret Hodge Right, because Pioneer did come back.

Chair Hargreaves That’s just money that goes into the grant pot for the next grant cycle.

Margaret Hodge It didn’t make sense for them to ask to move the money to another project that they hadn’t even brought to you for review. So the Pioneer money did come back.

Jack Wiles We reallocated funds at the last meeting for BCC.

Margaret Hodge County Council actually authorized those funds.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom Are you talking about the Bethune Cookman…That project did go. It was inside the same project.

Jack Wiles But there was a line item shift. We did not approve monies to be spent initially, the way those funds were spent. I don’t want to see monies being moved around.

Chair Hargreaves I don’t think we granted them additional funding. We used that money for a different project inside that grant. Ms. Hargreaves stated that she was not disagreeing with Mr. Wiles. She was just trying to get clarification. Ms. Hargreaves asked Ms. Seaman if she had a comment.

Jamie Seaman Yes. I want to make a distinction here, because we have had a situation with Pioneer, where it was subsequent after two budget years, hence, they were not able to finish the project; where this was just a recent award in 04, where monies had not been spent yet. You may want to look at that perspective where monies have not been spent or distributed yet. Two years later and the money has not been spent, do you still want the monies to trickle down to the next budget year?

Margaret Hodge There is an opportunity within, as you review the application, regarding the policies/funding policies.

Chair Hargreaves We will bring this topic up at a different time. Ms. Hargreaves asked staff to bring up for future business.

Margaret Hodge asked the Board to take careful review of everything today and asked the Board to not try and accomplish everything today just for her. She further noted that they have another month to review the application if the felt there are important issues to bring back individually and talk over in greater detail.

Jack Wiles asked the board if anyone will be out for the month of June. He stated he will be out from the 18th through the 25th. Ms. Hagstrom also stated she will be out during those times.

Chair Hargreaves advised the Board to continue on with old business, specifically the goals. “The goals are the responsibility of the advisory committee. Look at the goals and our strategic plan and see that we have accomplished that in order. Do I hear a motion to accept the goals, strategic plan and timeline before us?”

Lorna Jean Hagstrom made the motion.

Jack Wiles seconded the motion.

The motion carried by an unanimous vote.

Margaret Hodge informed the Board of a revision to the upcoming workshops on the 2005/2006 Goals, back side. The revisions are that the workshops for August 3rd and 5th should read as follows: Wednesday, August 3rd, east side of the county, south side of Auditorium from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Friday, August 5th, west side of the county, Training Rooms, Thomas C. Kelly County Administration Building.

Chair Hargreaves inquired if anyone had any comments regarding the workshops. Hearing none, Ms. Hargreaves proceeded with the comment, “historically, we had a workshop on a Saturday. Ms. Hodge, can you share with me why we do not have a workshop on a Saturday? Are they not well attended?”

Margaret Hodge They are not well attended. Most of the people who attend can come during their job or they are retired; we might have two people show up on a Saturday.

Chair Hargreaves voiced her concern for the smaller Not-For-Profit agencies that may wish to attend a Saturday workshop. She again directed the question/comment to Ms. Hodge, “So you’re telling me those people are working, and we are not omitting them from not being able to come?”

Margaret Hodge A survey was sent out in the past, to applicants, asking what days are preferred.

Chair Hargreaves Okay, fine. Any other comments or questions regarding the strategic plan, goals, timeline, etc? Motion on the floor to accept the strategic plan, goals, timeline, etc., made and seconded for the acceptance. Do I hear any additional discussion?

The motion accepted by unanimous vote.

ECHO Grant Application and Application Guide

Chair Hargreaves asked Ms. Hodge which of the two, the Grant Application or the Application Guide, would she like to start with. Ms. Hodge commented, “start with the Application Guide.” The Chair advised the Board to pull forward the application guide. A motion was requested to accept the application guide, with possible changes within the guide. Ms. Hargreaves asked Ms. Hagstrom, “May we take a vote inside a vote?” Ms. Hagstrom replied, “yes.” Ms. Hargreaves then stated we now have a major motion on the floor. That motion will be broken down on each element of the guide as we move through it.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom accepted the motion.

Jack Wiles seconded the motion.

The motion accepted by unanimous vote.

Chair Hargreaves asked Ms. Hodge if she could explain what the yellow highlights represented throughout the Application Guide.

Margaret Hodge The yellow highlights are to draw your attention to changes, but more specifically to represent the page numbering references.

Chair Hargreaves continued by advising the Board that the application guide will now be reviewed page by page.

Page Numbers Changes/No Changes
Cover Page No changes
Table of Contents No changes
1-guide No changes
2-guide No changes
3-guide No changes
4-guide No changes
5-guide Workshop Changes:
Wednesday, August 3, 2005
Auditorium – South Side – 1:00–5:00 p.m.

Friday, August 5, 2005
No changes
6-guide No changes to wording. Suggestion: Each application must come directly to a staff member to be stamped as eligible or ineligible.
7-guide Workshop changes – see above
8-guide No changes
9-guide No changes
10-guide No changes
11-guide Paragraph 1 wording change:
The ECHO Advisory Committee has final determination as to the completeness of an application and its acceptance for subsequent scoring.
12-guide No changes
13-guide Language added, under 1st Para:
Exceptional projects are projects that must encumber the grant and match at a 4:1 ratio annually over a maximum time period of four years (four project phases). Construction of each annual project phase must be completed within 730 days of the first day of the corresponding encumbrance period.
14-guide No changes
15-guide No changes
16-guide No changes
17-guide No changes
18-guide No changes
19-guide No changes
20-guide No changes
21-guide No changes
22-guide No changes
23-guide No changes
24-guide No changes
25-guide No changes
26-guide No changes
27-guide No changes
28-guide No changes
29-guide No changes
30-guide No changes
31-guide No changes
32-guide No changes
33-guide No changes
34-guide No changes
35-guide No changes
36-guide Changes to #7, bottom of page:
Not-For-Profit organizations operating on less than $100,000 annually, averaged over a three year period may use expenditures for Certified Audits or Reviews necessary for applying to ECHO for funding as either PSC-1 match or other match prior to application deadline, if performed within 18 months of the application deadline.
37-guide No changes
38-guide Beginning of last paragraph now reads:
Previously encumbered expended cash used for up to ½ of the cash match expenditures and encumbrances that occurred within 365 days, prior to, the deadline for this application may be used for up to ½ of the required cash match unless the project…
39-guide No changes
40-guide No changes
41-guide No changes
42-guide No changes
43-guide No changes
Appendices No changes
Appendix A-1 No changes
Appendix A-2 No changes
Appendix A-3 No changes
Appendix A-4 No changes
Appendix A-5 No changes
Appendix B-1 No changes
Appendix B-2 No changes

Lorna Jean Hagstrom amended the motion to accept the changes throughout the application guide.

Jack Wiles seconded the motion.

The motion accepted by unanimous vote.

Chair Hargreaves opened the floor and asked for a motion to accept the 2006 Grants-In-Aid Application, with the ability to amend a page or change as necessary.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom moved that we accept the application.

Jack Wiles seconded the motion.

The motion accepted by unanimous vote.

Chair Hargreaves continued by advising the Board that the application will now be reviewed page by page.

Page Numbers Changes/No Changes
Cover Page No changes
Page 1 (of 11 – 1) No changes
Page 2 (of 11 – 2) No changes
Page 3 “ No changes
Page 4 “ No changes
Page 5 “ No changes
Page 6 “ No changes
Page 7 “ No changes
Page 8 “ No changes
Page 9 “ Paragraph 1, item (b) change of wording:
(b) Use numerical data (do not use vague terms such as some, many, all) in your narrative and insert support data and contract agreements.
Page 10 “ No changes
Page 11 “ No changes

IV. NEW BUSINESS

A. By-laws
Charles Matousek brought up the discussion of the Section 5 By-laws. Mr. Matousek motioned to amend Section 5 of the By-Laws, by deleting the word (unexcused), from unexcused absences, so it just reads three absences. If you have three (3) absences, period, you should be removed from the committee.
Lorna Jean Hagstrom seconded the motion.
Jack Wiles not in favor, stated, one could come down with an illness, hospitalization, out of town due to an emergency.
Judson Woods was not in favor of changing it at all. Mr. Woods stated that one may have a valid situation, but he/she shouldn’t lose their place on the ECHO Board.
Charles Matousek further clarified his motion by stating, one would have to have three (3) absences in a one year period, starting from the appointment year.
Chair Hargreaves The majority is opposed, the motion dies.
B. Funding Protocol
Chair Hargreaves opened with discussion of funding policies from page 14-guide.
Margaret Hodge If you want to discuss funding policies for this year, you need to do it now or have another meeting next month. Funding policies are in this guide (14-guide of the application guide).
Chair Hargreaves after directing the board to read page 14-guide, she asked Mr. Wiles if this addressed his concern. I’m not sure if his (Wiles) issue affects this issue. If we are looking at future issues, then that we can take up.
Jack Wiles No. We can continue to address these issues one-by-one.
Jamie Seaman We need to develop some type of protocol, so the applicants are well aware in advance, that material changes to their project elements my impact the funding for failure to start a project, in a timely manner or their ability to start it.
Jack Wiles If it wasn’t Holly Hill that had the project, let’s say South Daytona that had the project, and on the end that got partially funded, what would happen with the funds from Holly Hill? They would have to come back to us, and then go to the one that was only partially funded, provided it was the same year. Had it been a project we approved two years ago, does it go to the one that was on the end two years ago? That’s the real central issue, I believe.
Jamie Seaman I don’t know if we should answer that today or rather Margaret and I can put together some ideas to look at. I’m not even sure if it is necessary for this grant application
Chair Hargreaves I think that is what Mr. Wiles is saying, but I’ll let you (Wiles) speak to your issue.
Jack Wiles I would like for you to bring back some recommendations, how best to handle it and what’s fair. I guess my main concern is rather than applauding someone for saying we didn’t spend all the money, but I’m going to use it somewhere else. I mean, that’s the right thing to do, and we expect them to do that. If they start shifting monies around without us, obviously that will be found out when they bring in their information, but needs to happen because those funds were allocated for a specific purpose. They should be returned and then the next person in line is who we give funds to; or it goes back into the pot.
Charles Matousek I would like to see, in the funding policy, in written form, the issue of what we just dealt with, which is where an applicant completely changes the project number, as it says, “I want to take this money from this project, over to a county’s second project.” That’s not what we dealt with Bethune, but what we dealt with, with the City of Holly Hill. I’d like to see that dealt with within the funding policy.
Margaret Hodge I think, also, with the Bethune project, you saw something very unusual, in that project, was not budgeted correctly and so there was extra money. Those funds, if you were looking at a strong budget, would have probably gone to the last applicant, rather than this applicant.” Ms. Hodge then requested permission from the Board to insert something brief in Section 3.1, where the applicant has to explain how they got their budget.
Chair Hargreaves I’m going to go back to the idea having too many words. Do you think someone else will say, “Where did you get the budget?” Is that going to make a difference?
Jack Wiles Can I make a motion or comment and maybe we’ll get a motion on it. Rather than have another meeting just to discuss that (funding policy), is there anyway that we all could approve that they (staff) draft it and give it to you, and you make the final decision, Chairman?”
Lorna Jean Hagstrom or she (staff) could either email it, mail it and we can sign off on it.
Chair Hargreaves We have a meeting scheduled if we have to do a workshop with County Council. Since we haven’t made any subsequent changes, there is no need for a workshop.
Charles Matousek I think we should have a scheduled workshop with the County Council because we have made some changes.
Margaret Hodge I include a list of the changes in the Council agenda item. Therefore, the County Council will be clear on what they are approving.
Jamie Seaman Prior to the County Council meeting, Margaret and I can email something out to you all. You can provide us with your comments and we can include that in the agenda package to the Council, stating that this is an additional issue the Board wanted to address. This is the proposed language and the written comments from the Board.
Chair Hargreaves I agree, but then they are going to ask us what did we agree on?
Jack Wiles Rather than comments, we just say yes or no, whatever changes, then there’s either a vote yes, 3-7, 7-3 or whatever.
Jamie Seaman Then we can express to the Council, that there was a consensus.
Chair Hargreaves asked if everyone was acceptable of the discussion. All members stated yes.
Lorna Jean Hagstrom questioned having a workshop in July.
Margaret Hodge Well, I said we could possibly do it if we could make the Training Rooms available. It’s my understanding the applicants prefer to attend the workshop as soon as they can, after the approval of the application, so they have a lot of time between the workshop and the final deadline.
Lorna Jean Hagstrom Is it possible that the workshop move up to July?
Margaret Hodge Yes.
Chair Hargreaves Are there any other comments from the Board? No comments heard. The next scheduled meeting will be January 11, 2006.

IV. Public Participation

Lynne Plaskett from the City of Edgewater welcomed Chair Hargreaves to the board and requested to get a copy of the town hall comments that were mentioned throughout meeting.
Chair Hargreaves stated she doesn’t have a problem getting a copy to Ms. Plaskett.

V. ADJOURNMENT

Chair Hargreaves hearing no other business adjourned the meeting at 4:50 p.m.