Grant application information

ECHO Advisory Committee

Absent Members

Janet Williams

Visitors (signed in)

Julie Rand, Lively Arts Center
Michael Brothers, Museum of Arts & Sciences
Christopher Bell, Marine Discovery Center
Holli Vanater, Gillespie Museum
Brent Moore, Central Florida Sports Commission
Robert McCray, PTF 3 Restoration Boy Scout Troop 544 PT Boat

I. Call To Order, Introductory Remarks, Roll Call

Chair Matousek called the May 28, 2003, ECHO Advisory Committee meeting to order at 3:03 PM, welcomed the advisory committee members and the public and asked staff to take Roll Call of members. Mr. Matousek, reminded the committee members of the importance of their being in attendance at all of the ECHO Advisory Board meetings.

Chair Matousek directed the meeting to the approval of the May 14, 2003, minutes and asked if there were any additions or corrections. Mr. Libby made a Motion to approve the minutes May 14, 2003, Mr. Wiles seconded the Motion. Mr. Matousek stated that he had a change on page two of the minutes, changing the date from June 12, 2002 to May 14, 2003. The May 14, 2003 minutes were unanimously approved with the change.

Mr. Libby stated that he would like to revisit the motion that was made at the May 14, 2003 meeting regarding the super majority issue.

Mr. Gummey stated that in order to reconsider a motion, it must be brought to the floor by a member of the winning party at the meeting directly following the meeting of action.

Staff Report - Mrs. Hodge stated that the 2002-2003 Grant awardees have all of their quarterly reports in and are on target.

Mr. Matousek asked if in general projects are being started.

Ms. Hodge stated that the awardees from 2002 are started and that the African American Museum and the Lighthouse Lens Project are almost complete and the Museum of Arts & Sciences will be starting construction shortly.

Mr. Matousek stated that he would entertain a motion to revisit the motion regarding the exceptional project status that was voted on last week.

Mr. Libby made a motion, to reconsider the motion, as written in the last bold paragraph on page 6 of the minutes. Mr. Woods seconded the motion.

Mr. Libby stated that he voted for the original motion so that he could revisit it when more of the board members were present. Board members discussed the different options that were in the original motion. Mr. Smith stated that his original intent with his amendment to the motion was that he felt that 1 million is too large an amount in proportion to the funds available. Ms. Hargreaves stated that she felt the board needed to have some vision, there may be a project out there that is deserving of 1 million per year for three years, but there will need to be some caveats put on that large of an award.

Roll call vote – Mr. Libby – yes, Mr. Smith – no, Ms. Hagstrom – no, Mr. Wiles – no, Mr. Woods – no, Ms. Cobean – no, Ms. Hargreaves – yes, Mr. Matousek – yes. Motion failed 5-3.

Ms. Hodge asked the committee members to get out the short questionnaire from their packets. Ms. Hodge stated that the questions were fuzzy policy issues that staff has and would like the board to clear up.

Ms. Hagstrom stated that she had a change to the Guide on page 7 "encouraged" should be changed to "required".

Ms. Hagstrom asked why they were reviewing applicants that don’t fall under the "clean hands" policy. The board members stated that they would like to stick to the clean hands policy, and not review any applicants that don’t meet that criteria.

Mr. Matousek stated that he would meet with Ms. Hodge to discuss this issue and take it to Council.

PAGE 5, APP GUIDE / Partial funding policy

Ms. Hagstrom made a motion stating that if partial award is given, allow applicant to revisit scope and budget to fit award. Mr. Libby seconded the motion. Motion carried.

PAGE 7, APP GUIDE / Funding Policy / Exceptional grant loan

Consensus of Board Members – Moot point – No change

PAGE 8, APP GUIDE / Post project completion reports

5. Submission of an Annual Financial Audit by an Independent CPA and an annual project report for three years following the end of the grant fund period that shall include a narrative explaining how the project has met the measurable goals identified in the application (Tabs 2, 4 and 5) in a format and in a time-frame directed by the Department Staff question:

Mr. Libby made a motion to take item 5 from page 8 and apply the criteria item 3 of page 34. Mr. Wiles seconded.

Discussion: The general consensus was that requiring an Annual Financial Audit in addition to an annual project report was excessive.

Roll Call – Mr. Libby – yes, Mr. Smith – yes, Ms. Hagstrom – no, Mr. Wiles – yes, Mr. Woods – yes, Ms. Cobean – yes, Ms. Hargreaves – no, Mr. Matousek – no.

Motion passed.

When the project is located on part of an assessed tract of land and the grant request is at least $50,000, the value of the project site must be demonstrated by an appraisal by a certified Member of the Institute of Appraisers. If the grant request is less than $50,000 the applicant may use the current appraisal from the Volusia County Property Appraiser.

When the project is utilizing 100% of the parcel the value of the project site may be demonstrated by the current appraisal from the County of Volusia Property Appraiser.

Acquisition Projects requesting funding by ECHO must have an MAI appraisal. If the grant amount is less than the actual purchase price the balance may be used as match and any portion of the proposed improvement may be used as match. (i.e. Land costs $600,000; Grant request is $500,000; Match is $100,000 unencumbered cash for balance of land purchase, $150,000. unencumbered cash for improvements and $250,000 in-kind services for improvements.)

Staff question: Does the board want acquisition projects to be only acquisition and not include improvements to the property when the grant and match must be encumbered within 12 months of award? Would the board consider a longer term of encumbrance for these type projects?

Mr. Wiles pointed out that there was a contradiction on page 23 number 6 in the application regarding the MAI appraisal.

Mr. Libby stated that acquisitions should not have to include improvements to the property.

The board was in agreement to these suggestions.

Staff question: May the expense of or portion of the expense of an audit or a review be used for match? Cash match?

Staff question: Month End Financial Statements are not always available from all organizations. Small groups may not generate them and new groups may complete them quarterly. Would a month end bank statement be appropriate?

Staff question: Should an applicant receive a reduced score if they demonstrate poor financial practices?

Consensus - add "all organizations will submit management letter".

Ms. Hodge asked the board if the expense of an audit could be used for match.

The consensus was that the cost of an audit could be used for match, not cash match.

Add another section including the requirement of the month end financial statement or quarterly end financial.

Staff stated that a percentage left in the bank for reimbursement should be talked about.

Staff question: Would the Board consider the restoration of a historical boat permanently placed in a public location an eligible project? Would the board fund the construction of a structure that housed historical data and veterans remains a project?

The consensus of the board was that they should apply.

• Application Content
  Take question mark at end of 2008 on page 9
  Page 6 – change year to 2004
  Less duplication between guide and application

• Application Guide Content

• Public Workshop Format

Mr. Matousek stated that the rest of the Application and Guide would be discussed at the next meeting.

Chair Matousek opened the floor for public participation. There was no additional public participation.

June 11, 2003
June 25, 2003 Workshop

Mr. Smith stated that he would not be in attendance at the 7/23 meeting.

Mr. Wiles stated that he would not be in attendance at the 6/25 meeting.

Chair Matousek asked if there were any additional comments from anyone else or from members of the Committee. There was none. The Chair adjourned the meeting.