Grant application information

ECHO Advisory Committee

I. Call To Order, Roll Call, Introductory Remarks

Chair Hargreaves called the March 22, 2006 ECHO Advisory Committee meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. and welcomed the Advisory Committee members, the public and welcomed the new Advisory Committee Member Mr. Kenneth Russell.

Chair Hargreaves asked staff to take the roll. A quorum was present with six (6) out of nine (9) members in attendance. 

II. Old Business

Chair Hargreaves asked Margaret Hodge to discuss the actions of the County Council from the March 17, 2006 meeting.

Margaret Hodge explained that staff came to County Council on 17 March with the recommendations of the ECHO Advisory Committee.  County Council asked several questions of staff.  Staff responded with the ECHO Board’s Policies and Procedures, in mind.  The County Council ultimately made the decision to support the Cypress Pool project in Daytona Beach and the DeBary Art League, Gateway Center for the Arts project.  While trying to maintain the integrity of the process, Council withdrew several of the County projects with the exception of the two environmental projects, which were Lyonia Preserve and the Marine Science Center.  Ultimately, they took out the Historic Courthouse Plaza, that gave $500,000 for the Cypress Pool and Colby-Alderman Historical Park another $213,861, that would go to the Gateway Center for the Arts.  This was accomplished after the City of DeBary and the City of Daytona Beach withdrew the two (2) projects that were sitting above the DeBary Gateway Center.  Then Council recommended that $100,000 of ECHO Advisory Reserve go toward making the Gateway Center whole and then $186,139 came from the General Fund to give the Gateway Center for the Arts the $500,000, they requested.  The attachment titled, 2006 Funded ECHO Grant Applications, found in the green folder, states the results from the Council Meeting.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom questions, “What do we have left in reserves?”

Margaret Hodge states, “We have nothing left in reserves.  Not that you wouldn’t have something from interest earned. Right now, any interest earned goes to the 2006/2007 grant cycle”.

Chair Hargreaves asks the Committee Members if they have any questions on Ms. Hodge’s report.

Jack Wiles questions, “The general fund for projects, that is County funds and not ECHO funds?”

Margaret Hodge states that is correct.

Charles Matousek states his concern that part of the role of the ECHO Advisory Committee is to be a buffer, to take the politics out of the worrying about the money.  Mr. Matousek states that he is concerned that the more the County Council changes the recommendation of the ECHO Advisory Committee, the more the County Council is going to be subject to lobbying for money and applicants will have the perception of how well they do their grants really won’t matter as much or to lobby the County Council to award a substandard grant.  Mr. Matousek states that the final decision is by the County Council, but questioned if there is something the ECHO Advisory Committee can have some kind of discussion to do things different or change something to minimize the changes in recommendations made by the County Council in the future.

Stuart Sixma commented that he did not feel that the County Council violated the process of the ECHO Advisory Committee.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom stated that the problem was, in her opinion, the least deserving was the bottom grant, but the County Council wanted to be sure that that one was funded.  Ms. Hagstrom stated that she believes there should be further discussion, but she just wonders if the discussion should be between County Council and the ECHO Advisory Committee.  Ms. Hagstrom further stated that if the applications were judged on a popularity contest, we wouldn’t even bother to have a grant writing process, we would just take a vote.  Ms. Hagstrom commented that the information in the application is placed there so the applicants can demonstrate financial stability, responsibility that the funds were being spent the way they were supposed to be spent, and that this should be communicated to the County Council.

Charles Matousek further commented that the State doesn’t have a public hearing (The Cultural facility grant program does have a hearing and staff does not know which grant program Mr. Matousek was speaking about).  “The applicants write up their grants, send them in, the Board grades them and they get their score”. Mr. Matousek also mentioned that this is the first year where there was a substantially greater amount of money requested than was available.  He stated that there was almost $3 million dollars less than the funds requested.  “I think we all knew going into the process that there were some good grants that weren’t going to get funded”.  Mr. Matousek reminded the Committee that ECHO does have another $600,000 coming back in next year because the Lively Arts Center project is finalized.  Mr. Matousek conveyed that he just wants to protect the integrity of the process and to keep politics out of it.  Mr. Matousek stated that the County Council did ask the ECHO Advisory Committee to do that (referring back to taking the politics out of the process).

Lorna Jean Hagstrom stated the County Council had approved the ECHO process, “every single thing we have done” (referring to policies and procedures).

Chair Hargreaves reminded the Committee that what they felt was indicative of the previous Council is possibly not a valid statement of the current Council.  Chair Hargreaves went on to state that some dialogue might be appropriate in the near future, with the current Council.  Chair Hargreaves asked Ms. Seaman to comment.

Jamie Seaman stated that for the Council, this is the first time a lot of them have seen these projects, so they view them from a different perspective.  They were very community oriented this year.   They were cognizance that there were substantial grants from the County that were large grants that may have precluded the community-oriented grants.

Chair Hargreaves commented that a question presented by the County Council was why are some of the smaller Not-For-Profits not being better represented.  Ms. Hargreaves states that she believes the current Council members are coming from a different place than our previous members.  “It is important for us to have some sort of dialogue, so at some point we are on the same page”.

Jamie Seaman refers to the Resolution and pointed out the item on the agenda for discussion, special consideration for projects in redevelopment/low income areas.  Do they deserve special consideration?  The language is in the original resolution, but we have never been confronted with these projects in the past and to Council, the Cypress Pool was that type of project that we have never really focused on before, so it is something we should take a look at.

Jack Wiles commented that the process was not different for him.  He gave consideration for all those things.  Going back to some of the comments, it is a little concerning when you go through the process and it’s overturned.  Mr. Wiles stated, I don’t know if anyone was courted by anyone for monies, but if that is the case, it is concerning, simply because that is not the process we are trying to instill here.  Mr. Wiles further stated, we have quite a large panel of people reading these and coming up with average scores, collectively on their own.  We are spending a lot of time and energy.  I certainly hope and have faith that if anything is overturned, that Council has had a chance to spend as much time, as we have on these, and is not making quick decisions, because that would be unfortunate and a waste of our time.

Stuart Sixma stated one item he did hear reoccurring was the Council did not think the Committee reviewed the grants.  Mr. Sixma stated he assured them that the Committee did spend a lot of time on each and every grant.  Mr. Sixma informed the Committee that he did visit every site except Beck Ranch and that is because he was familiar with it already.

Charles Matousek stated he visits all the sites.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom concurred that she too visits all the sites.

Jamie Seaman informed the Committee that a copy of all the tapes from the Grant Panel Review Meeting were distributed to the County Council and each and every one of them listened to all of the deliberations.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom questioned, “But did they all read the grants?”

Chair Hargreaves stated from her observation of County Council at the March 17 meeting that their concern was mostly with visitation of the projects, where the sites were.  Council stated that perhaps our Committee was not familiar with the projects based on their interpretations of what we were saying.  Chair Hargreaves referred back to one of Mr. Matousek’s comments about public participation.  The Council felt as if we were swayed by a “slicker” presentation, by presenters who are more skilled in presentations, with an emphasis on verbal presentation.  However, Margaret Hodge did clarify that this is not on presentation, but applicants have the opportunity to clarify questions from our Committee.  Chair Hargreaves stated she believes that this issue arose because many of these Council members are new to the process.  She also reiterated that possibly an improved dialogue is appropriate.  Chair Hargreaves asked the Committee if anyone had further comments.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom agreed with Chair Hargreaves and went on to state, we make our preliminary scores without hearing anything.  The grant is the opportunity for the applicant to make their case.  Ms. Hagstrom suggested staff and the committee could look at scores (preliminary vs. final) to look for differences.  Ms. Hagstrom referred back to what the applicants said years ago about how difficult this grant is.  Then she stated we don’t hear that anymore.  She feels this is because applicants are getting more skilled at writing.

Bill Grigat, Jr. states that his initial response to the Council making changes on March 17 were dramatic.  Mr. Grigat, Jr. questions, if the Council did in fact read the 19 applications.  He felt it was a little disturbing.

Stuart Sixma commented again by stating, his observation was that the Council did not change their order.  They chose to pull some grants, which was their right to do so.

Chair Hargreaves commented that the County Council struggled a great deal with trying to maintain the integrity of the Committee, while also funding as many projects possible.  In addition, Ms. Seaman along with the Interim County Manager came up with many suggestions to maintain the integrity of the process.  Council felt that these projects (speaking of Cypress Pool and the Gateway Center for the Arts) needed to be funded.  Chair Hargreaves stated that the Council appeared to be frustrated with the fact that the Cypress Pool was ineligible last year because of their tardiness.  Questions were raised along those lines, questioning our policies and procedures.

Margaret Hodge reminded the Committee that the Daytona Beach Pool was not just a couple of hours tardy, but rather a couple of days, therefore making them ineligible for review.  On another note, looking at the list of 19 applications, Ms. Hodge stated that this was a significantly big year with a lot of Not-For-Profits.  Ms. Hodge pointed out, that all 19 projects scored over 70 and conveyed that if money was available, all 19 projects would have been funded.  So, according to the scores, all projects were eligible for funding.

Charles Matousek stated he had another concern.  The two (2) projects in which the Committee scored to receive funding.  They are VC Courthouse Park Plaza for $500,000 and the other was a partial for Colby-Alderman Historical Park, $213,861.  Mr. Matousek stated, that is over $700,000 we recommended for funding that received zero and were not funded.  That was a significant change.  Mr. Matousek stated that he was a little perplexed that the County would single themselves out, their own departments, to not be funded and not say, let’s make them whole and replace it with general fund money.

Jamie Seaman clarified that there was money placed in reserves this year, from the voting machine issue.  Council discussed the fact that they were not going to have to deal with the issue and asked that the new County Manager bring back these issues.  In regards to the Courthouse, they looked at this project and realized that this was not going to be in the pipeline for this fiscal year and that they could come back next year.  As for the other projects, Colby-Alderman caused them some concern and they are going to look at their reserves to fund that project, but the other ones, they were not sure if they were in a position to begin construction for this period.  Ms. Seaman stated the Council knows these are important projects and they will look to reserves to fund these community projects.  Ms. Seaman stated that Council did not make a decision at this meeting, but discussed that the new County Manager bring this back for discussion.

Bill Grigat, Jr.  questioned, “In the future, are we going to consider County projects lesser than the other ones?”

Jamie Seaman stated, “No.” County Council is going to pay more attention to the County projects, which of their projects are competing with the other projects in the community.

Stuart Sixma stated he made an observation that brought him back to when Mr. T.K. Wetherell chose to run through a funding project, which was the Silver Beach project, that wasn’t a project, he reallocated money to other projects and this appears to be what the Council is doing.

Chair Hargreaves agreed with Mr. Sixma and asked the Committee if they had any other comments.

Jack Wiles directed the Committee’s attention to the chart 2002 – 2006 Cumulative Funding Totals – Distribution by Organization (Revised February 2006) – Draft, that County plus Municipal Government totals 54% and Not-For-Profit is 46%.  He stated that he found that to be a little interesting.

Chair Hargreaves reiterated that from discussion of the County Council, they are seeing the information differently than the members in the past and that having a dialogue is a good idea.

Jack Wiles stated, “They are one of the larger benefactors to the ECHO process, so I see why they would want to back off every once and awhile.”

Stuart Sixma stated he had one more comment.  He mentioned that he and Margaret Hodge had a conversation on email regarding the Trails money.  He feels that the monies should show up on one of the charts, because it is a part of the ECHO process.

Chair Hargreaves stated that she is not sure how this would or would not work and asked for Ms. Seaman to comment.

Jamie Seaman had no comment.

Jack Wiles stated he agrees with Mr. Sixma, that the money should show up on the charts.  Since it is money that the County has jurisdiction over and that has been allocated to them.  Even though it is not voted on, it is money that goes directly into the County.

Margaret Hodge explained that the Master Trail Plan is something that all the community bought into, all the cities.  A Master Trail Plan that was seen by the public, seen by the cities, so for it to fall into the County coffer, as far as these charts go, I think it would not represent everyone who is benefiting from the Master Trail Plan.  Ms. Hodge stated that she just wouldn’t want everyone to think the County is getting those dollars when this is a Master Trail Plan that the cities and everyone bought into, from a chart standpoint.  Ms. Hodge explained that the “Outdoor Recreation,” is going to have a huge number in it now.  If we are going to try to track how much is distributed to E, C, H and O and what you are making decisions on, based on your ECHO funds, it is marked inside the footnote of the chart that the $1,000,000 donated to Trails, is not included.  Ms. Hodge suggested that she could do an additional chart.

Chair Hargreaves stated, she doesn’t feel it is the chart, perhaps just a line item.

Jack Wiles conveyed again that he thinks it should be a part of the pie, because it is 20 – 25% of the dollars that are being allocated.  Mr. Wiles stated that he is not sure that the County does not have control of the dollars, because the County decides what to do with the money.  He stated that he municipalities have to vie for the money, from the County and he is not sure if the municipalities are getting the chance to do that.  He stated from talking to the different municipalities, he is not sure if we are making it clear to the different municipalities.

Margaret Hodge stated that the Master Trail Plan benefits all of the County, at least most of the County.  Staff has provided the MTP in the past and doesn’t mind providing it again.  In addition, Ms. Hodge stated that she does not mind putting this information in the chart.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom suggested two (2) charts, side by side, so Council would understand what that million dollars does to the pie.

Stuart Sixma further stated, he just thinks it should be this way because the public sees the charts.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom further stated that having the charts available to the County Council is important because a member or two expressed some concern about Environmental Learning and that few of the projects were related to this area.  Ms. Hagstrom stated that she and the Chair went through all of the past year grants and recorded that only one Environmental project that came forward to ECHO was not funded, that was the Marine Science Center in 2001.

Charles Matousek stated that he would also like to see the accountability of the $1,000,000 for the trails.

Chair Hargreaves asked that clear instructions be given to staff in revising the chart to reflect the $1,000,000 in trails.  Chair Hargreaves asked Margaret Hodge if she was clear on what was being requested.

Margaret Hodge stated, yes.

Chair Hargreaves asked for any other comments from old business.  Hearing none Chair Hargreaves asked the Committee if they had any activities to report.

Stuart Sixma stated he tried to attend the Central Park ceremony, but was unable to.

III. Staff Report

Chair Hargreaves moved on to item three (3) on the agenda, Staff Report and asked Margaret Hodge to report.

Margaret Hodge stated she wanted to clarify what each member had in their green folder.  The following are shown in the folders:  the 2006 Funded ECHO Grant Applications (a listing of awarded projects), the most current version of the Regional Cultural Facilities Program from the state, and the guideline for their program.  Ms. Hodge pointed out that the state requires a 2:1 match if operating on a budget over $500,000 and a 1:1 match if the budget is under $500,000.  Ms. Hodge suggested that the Committee peruse the current ECHO application and compare with the current state application and see if they have any suggestions for change.

Chair Hargreaves directs the Committee to page 31 (scoring sheet) of the state’s program, as an example, to gather how the state scores their applicants.  Chair Hargreaves asked Margaret Hodge if she has any further information in regards to the Staff Report.

Margaret Hodge states no.

IV. New Business

a.      Goal Setting for 2006/2007 Grant Cycle

Chair Hargreaves directed the Committee to move onto New Business and the first item of discussion, Goal Setting for 2006/2007 grant cycle.  Chair Hargreaves asked the Committee to refer to the attachment titled, 2006/2007 Main Goals and Strategic Plan, to see if anyone has any thoughts on the goals.

Margaret Hodge stated she could give a brief overview of the goals for 2006/2007.  Ms. Hodge stated she basically went to the next year and plugged in similar dates.  Ms. Hodge advised the Committee that staff is in the process of completing the 5-year overview of the current ECHO projects (goal #2, page 1).  This brochure will be distributed throughout County buildings and to anyone that is interested.  Pictures, charts and information regarding projects will be placed into the brochure.

Chair Hargreaves asked Ms. Hodge, “Where does that printing budget come from?”

Margaret Hodge stated that printing does not come out of ECHO grant funds.  Ms. Hodge continued with stating she would like to move the Technical Completeness Review date up to September, from October (referring to a week ahead of last year) and the Mandatory Workshops to July, from August.  Ms. Hodge stated this would give her more time to spend on the Technical Completeness Reviews and return the feedback to the applicants.

Chair Hargreaves stated, after awards have been granted, we find there is a very long lag time.  We find that the applicants have to come back and make some changes, which are usually staff approved changes.  We still have less than 40% of applicants who have just begun or are at least in the early stages.  Ms. Hargreaves asked, are we asking them to too quickly bring information to us, so as a result it looks polished, but in truth it’s not.  She further stated, she appreciates Ms. Hodge’s need for time, but she was also seeing what we see as a result.  Chair Hargreaves refers to the Volusia County Historic Courthouse Park Plaza project as a project that the ECHO Committee recommended, but the County Council did not.  Chair Hargreaves stated she felt what the ECHO Committee was provided, compared to the comments from the County Council meeting, was a façade. 

Margaret Hodge stated from her recollection that there were differences of opinion with the County Council on the readiness of that project (referring to the Volusia County Historic Courthouse Park Plaza project).  Ms. Hodge stated to the Committee and also to the County Council that there was documentation within the application showing match funds available.  Ms. Hodge further stated that the Courthouse Park Plaza was as ready, if not more ready, than some of the other projects.

Chair Hargreaves stated that was her point.  Most of the applications are not ready and now Ms. Hodge wants to push the timeline (technical completeness review) up.

Margaret Hodge stated, “I’m talking about a week, they’re talking about two years.”  Ms. Hodge stated that when talking about the readiness of a project, that a week or two weeks does not a difference and that it is the December deadline that makes a difference.

Chair Hargreaves expressed her concern that “we” just finished grant applications and now “we’re” already starting to say to people, get started writing on your grant, because you are going to have to submit it very shortly.

Margaret Hodge stated, “Well, that’s the truth.  Everything with the State is the same  …if you want mandatory workshops and everything in between…You can’t do a completeness review a month in advance and expect the applicants to turn around and get everything ready either”. 

Chair Hargreaves stated that she was just asking that question because now the Board now has history to look at.  “I think we all agree, many of the things we see they are not ready.  Ultimately, they appear to be ready, but ultimately, they are not ready”.

Margaret Hodge stated that a lot of the applicants come to the ECHO process without Contractors and that some of the smaller projects would not be able to move forward with a Contractor, if they don’t get an ECHO grant.  Hodge reminded the Board that the policy is that what is done for one type applicant is generally done for all.  “You’ve said that all may come forward in whatever preparedness they are in, as long as they show the match and show some design”.  Ms. Hodge suggested that the applicants could provide construction drawings, as a method of showing they are better prepared.  Hodge stated she believes this (not requiring final construction drawings) is why the construction process period was changed from one year to two years.  Hodge also mentioned that the construction process is sometimes straining the organizations, but most of the time the strain comes from a lengthy permitting standpoint.

Charles Matousek voiced some concern with the Technical Completeness Review being held in September and the Committee not reviewing the grants until February.  Mr. Matousek stated, this is a five (5) month delay and he feels the grants will be five months stale.  However, he further stated that as long as the applicants understand the process of the Technical Completeness Review and have the opportunity to update information in their application, prior to the December deadline, he is in agreement with the date change.

Margaret Hodge stated that the Technical Completeness Review is designed to assist the applicants, should they not be on the right track.

Charles Matousek questioned how many of the 19 applicants submitted their applications for the Technical Review?

Margaret Hodge stated she didn’t recall the exact number, but she believes 10 or 12.  Ms. Hodge stated a lot of the completeness reviews were from County projects and that some applicants submitted a partial review.  Ms. Hodge stated, she does the best she can with the partials.

Chair Hargreaves asks, during the Technical Completeness Review time frame, how might staff give applicants better instruction as it relates to budgets, to make the formatting and information clearer.  This question was asked because inconsistencies were noted.

Margaret Hodge stated she felt she was following procedure.  Ms. Hodge also stated that she can take a further look at the formatting process.  Ms. Hodge reminded the Committee that this is a competition and she is not supposed to be telling the applicants the quality of their budget.  The applicant is responsible to have an Architect and/or Engineer on board to review the budget.

Jamie Seaman questions Chair Hargreaves if she is speaking on the lines of what the form looks like, such as a blank spreadsheet?

Chair Hargreaves stated, yes.  Chair Hargreaves stated she felt a blank spreadsheet for comparison would help the applicants.  Also, staff should tell the applicants that the budget should be done this way, because the Committee likes it this way…

Margaret Hodge stated she does do that.  Ms. Hodge stated that she did not see this inconsistency, because of variables.  The variables are in the project’s design.

Chair Hargreaves reiterated again, she understands what Ms. Hodge is saying, her concern is with the budget presentation and inconsistencies with the projects.  If all applicants prepare their budget the same way, there will be less opportunity for making mistakes.

Charles Matousek stated that from the philosophy of the State, he would like to see staff bend over backwards to provide everything possible to applicants.  Mr. Matousek brings up the fact that we now have a five (5) year Library of grants, a history of grants and staff should use the Library to provide examples to applicants.

Margaret Hodge stated that she felt she accomplished this task during the Technical Review and the Final Review.  Ms. Hodge stated, “You, as a Committee, directed staff to tell the applicants this is not an evaluation and we are not going to tell you what to do”.  Ms. Hodge also stated that if something is missing from an application, she does identify that and notifies the applicant.

Charles Matousek stated to Ms. Hodge that his comments were in response to her comments of the process being competitive and not wanting to give the applicants too much information.  Mr. Matousek then stated, “Maybe that is not exactly what you meant”.

Margaret Hodge stated that she does not tell the applicants what should be their business, which is what is missing in a budget (or should be in a budget), with the exception of codes, contractor’s fees, etc. (required by the grant).

Charles Matousek continued by saying not only can staff bend over backwards by helping applicants, as a Committee, the Board can also help applicants with written feedback by providing guidelines (in the ranking form).

Chair Hargreaves reminded the Committee that some members did write very sparingly and they need to make the effort to improve and give the applicants feedback.

Margaret Hodge reminded the Committee that she is available for comments and asked the Committee if they could pose some questions prior to the day of ranking.  This may assist staff in assisting the applicants, in readiness of presentation.

Jamie Seaman asked if the 2006/2007 goals have been approved.

Chair Hargreaves commented, “Not yet”.

Jack Wiles questioned if those that have actually gone through the Technical Review process have actually scored higher?

Margaret Hodge stated she has not evaluated from a scoring standpoint, but the addendum packages are smaller and/or limited.

Jack Wiles stated that by moving the Technical Completeness Review date up may eliminate some addendums.  Mr. Wiles also stated that if this is the only issue on moving with the goals, he would be in favor of moving the date.

Chair Hargreaves moves on to the timeline of the goals and strategic plan, in regards to the Workshop in May.  Chair Hargreaves stated she feels the May Workshop between County Council and the ECHO Advisory Committee should remain.

Charles Matousek stated he felt the Workshop in the past, as Chairman, was very useful.  It is a time for information exchange.  Our Committee has the opportunity to tell them, this is what is going on and why.

Chair Hargreaves asked if there are any other comments, suggestions or changes to the 2006/2007 Main Goals and Strategic Plan?

Lorna Jean Hagstrom moved to approve the goals and strategic plan as stated.

Stuart Sixma seconded the motion.

b.      Discussion of changes for the 2006/2007 grant cycle

Charles Matousek asked to re-question and bring up for possible discussion, is it necessary to meet as a Grant Review Panel and have the public questioning section with the applicant?  Mr. Matousek feels discussion about this is necessary and he wants to hear from the public.

Chair Hargreaves asked Ms. Hodge to place on the agenda for discussion at future meetings.    Ms. Hargreaves asked staff if there was any further discussion as it relates to the goals of the 2006/2007 grant cycle?

Margaret Hodge indicated there was nothing more to discuss.

Chair Hargreaves directs the Committee to topics brought up by individual members of the County Council meeting on March 17, 2006.  Chair Hargreaves states that the comments reflect our application process and the application itself.

Margaret Hodge stated that the items listed on the agenda where issues in which the County Council brought forth at the March 17 meeting.

Charles Matousek commented on the first bullet, special consideration for projects in redevelopment/low income area.  He states that the Committee should be able to address this issue in Tab 5 (Project Impact), from the application.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom suggests that the Committee follow the similar format as the State, average all the scores and add points if organization has received prior funding or if the project is in a certified low income area, and automatically distribute points to the organization.

Chair Hargreaves states that a number of places can be looked at throughout the application.  Chair Hargreaves states this is an important issue and one to take a look at because it was an issue brought forth by County Council.  On the flip side, not just that it targets a specific group of people, but how is the grant itself prepared?  Chair Hargreaves stated that there does tend to be two sides of this issue and something the Committee will struggle with to obtain a solution(s) for County Council.  Ms. Hargreaves stated the remainder of the conversation of the grant being in a redevelopment/low income area was that the person making the application may not be as grant savvy as others, and as a result may not be as competitive.

Jack Wiles commented on the City of Daytona Beach and the Cypress Pool, stating “That’s a Municipality”.

Chair Hargreaves stated there was some disconnect in the statement, but she is simply sending the statement that was made in order to understand the context.  Ms. Hargreaves stated that she believes the comment was not focused on the group, but rather on the grant.  Ms. Hargreaves stated that one of the grants the County Council awarded had been scored low because of missing information or incorrect information… and that was part of their comment.

Jack Wiles stated that could be a planning issue, not a preparedness issue and that it could certainly have an impact on the score.

Chair Hargreaves agreed and stated that she would like to have a site plan, or at least a sketched site plan, something to see, when trying to place a building in a specific place.

Margaret Hodge commented that a change did occur from last year and that was multi-phase projects.    Multi-phase is required if they are coming forth to buy only empty land.  Ms. Hodge suggested that the Committee go back to saying, you must show multi-phase.  Ms. Hodge stated that some confusion among applicants comes from current phases getting confused with future commitments.  Future phases are visions, not commitments.

Chair Hargreaves directs the Committee to the topic of caps on projects.  Ms. Hargreaves mentions the discussion Ms. Seaman was having with Council and asks Ms. Seaman to elaborate.

Open discussion regarding Caps on Projects…

Jamie Seaman stated that she could not recall the conversations over the past five (5) years, but does remember the decision of $1.5 million over five (5) years.  Ms. Seaman stated she does not know if a decision was made if this was renewable or not.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom states that her recollection was that the Committee said no.

Jamie Seaman states that the language does not specify one way or the other.  Ms. Seaman stated this issue needs to be discussed in greater detail, because ECHO is at its five (5) year period and how to treat the projects that are at the five (5) year cap, could be considered.

Chair Hargreaves directs the Committee to page 14 of the Not-For-Profit Application Guide.  Ms. Hargreaves stated that even though she felt the Committee made the decision on the cap on projects, it was clear from page 14 that this was not accomplished and this issue needs to be brought forth at a later meeting.  Ms. Hargreaves moves onto the next topic of discussion, which is “Member visiting project sites”.

Open discussion…Committee Members, Jamie Seaman and Margaret Hodge discussed the issue of members visiting project sites of applicants that are applying for an ECHO grant.  The majority of the members stated they visited all the projects sites, some having the issue of not being able to call prior to visiting and not be able to discuss the project with the applicants.  It was stated that the issue of talking to the applicants about the project is not prohibited.  It was a decision made collectively by the board to not talk to applicants.  Members stated that this decision was made based on the fact if the Committee talked to one applicant, they would have to talk to all applicants, to maintain a sense of fairness.  Members stated that site visits are necessary to see what is there, what is needed and to gain a perspective of the bigger picture.  Ms. Seaman stated that nothing legally prohibits members from talking to the applicants, but rather it is a policy created by the Committee to not do so.  Ms. Hodge stated that she should probably do site visits, then, if the Committee Members have questions regarding the projects, she might be able to provide an answer.  Ms. Seaman suggested to the members to create a record via email with questions to staff, in regards to the subject of the site.

Chair Hargreaves asked the Committee if further discussion was needed now regarding site visits or bring up at a later time.  The Committee decided to bring the subject up at a later time.  Moving onto the next topic, Panel Review Process ranking day – procedures, Ms. Hargreaves opened for discussion.

Open discussion…Committee Members, Jamie Seaman and Margaret Hodge

Staff brought forth this topic because of comments made by the County Council.  The primary focus of discussion is how can the Grant Review Panel (ranking day) be improved?  Ms. Seaman questioned the possibility of having a set of questions available to the applicants prior to the ranking day and advised the Committee to place such questions in writing to Ms. Hodge for distribution.  Chair Hargreaves reminded the Committee that a majority of the grants are completed through a collaborative effort and all parties are not necessarily available the day of ranking.  Ms. Hagstrom asked for clarification regarding questioning.  She wanted to know if having questions developed prior to the ranking day preclude the Committee from asking questions that were generated during each discussion?  Unanimously the Committee and staff stated no.  Mr. Grigat questioned, is the ranking day process too demanding?  He suggested having two (2) days, rather than one.  Ms. Hagstrom stated that she judges on information available in the grant.  Does the project have an impact on the Community and not if the presenter is smooth or glib when answering questions.  Ms. Hodge stated that she did do a preliminary evaluation of scores and the presentation of a project does not shift the final scores tremendously.  The instance where presentation plays a role is if the applicant is near the bottom of the preliminary ranking.  Ms. Hagstrom stated that maybe the County Council did not understand the process that the Committee follows.  Ms. Hargreaves stated that the Council was unclear on the Committee’s process and Ms. Hodge did explain that to them at the meeting.

Chair Hargreaves asked Ms. Hodge to place the procedures for the panel review process on the agenda for future discussion.  Ms. Hargreaves moves forward to the General sections each member would like to have considered for discussion.  Ms. Hargreaves asks the Committee for feedback.

Charles Matousek stated he is not prepared to have a discussion at this time.

Margaret Hodge asked Chair Hargreaves if she would like staff to look at the budget spreadsheet and bring back examples.

Chair Hargreaves answered yes.  Ms. Hargreaves further stated that she would like the Committee to look at Tab 5 Project Impact & Need.  Ms. Hargreaves feels Tab 5 is still too general.  Ms. Hargreaves stated that the applicant needs to be aware that the Committee is looking for quantifiable numbers.  The expectation of the project is critical.

Stuart Sixma agrees with Ms. Hargreaves.  He states that this section is worth 60 points and more detailed insertions are appropriate.

Margaret Hodge states she will make sure the applicants have a list of what needs to be done initially, so there is not time delay with project (date reports, etc.).

Chair Hargreaves asks the Committee if there is anything else to discuss as it relates to Tab 5 Project Impact & Need?

Jamie Seaman states she would like to give an objective opinion on Tab 5.  Ms. Seaman stated that she is one who reads the grants and looks at the scores, raw and average.  Tab 5 weighing on 60 points, an applicant who received 30 points compared to an applicant who receives 45 points has no idea, unless there are notes, what the difference is.  Ms. Seaman stressed that the comments made by the Committee members were helpful to the applicants, but some need to be more specific.

Jack Wiles states that Ms. Seaman made a valid point, but when there are 19 different applications, there has to be a difference to have a ranking.

Jamie Seaman stated that if the Committee could sub-categorize the sections in the future, rather than a lump sum total at the end, this could possibly be clearer to the applicants.

Chair Hargreaves suggested that staff look at another grant for other solutions.

Margaret Hodge wanted to inform the Committee that she did receive a call from a professional grant writer that complimented the grant by saying it was comprehensive and wonderful.

Chair Hargreaves stated to the Committee that a number of topics need to be addressed at a later time.  Ms. Hargreaves asked the Committee to review the application guides and email Ms. Hodge with suggestions and/or ideas.

Margaret Hodge stated if she has the information, she can provide language to review.

Chair Hargreaves asked for any other questions or discussions.  Hearing none Ms. Hargreaves moved onto public participation.

V. Public Participation

Chair Hargreaves addressed the public and asked if anyone had anything to say.  Ms. Hargreaves asked the individuals that may come forward a couple of questions.  Do they prefer this to be a blind event?  Would you prefer to have questions prior to your arrival?  Open for suggestions about application…

Wayne Atherholt, Executive Director of the Museum of Arts and Sciences.  Mr. Atherholt stated that he felt nothing needed to be changed.  This was his first time going through the ECHO process, but has grant writing experience from the Tampa/St. Petersburg area.  He thought the day of ranking went very well.  Mr. Atherholt stated that having the questions in advance may be helpful, but one should prepare for any type of question someone may have.  “Being here and being forced to know your material inside and out, helps you really understand your project.”  Mr. Atherholt stated he was surprised that the County had so many grants coming before the County Board for funding.  He felt this was a little odd.  He stated he expected museums, lighthouses, the Atlantic Center, the Lively Arts Center, those type of institutions, not governments going after government money, with multiple submissions by governments.

Jamie Seaman affirmed to Mr. Atherholt and the public that the projects are at different sites, as opposed to one property.

Margaret Hodge stated that when she talks about the ECHO program, she talks about it from a project standpoint, not who is getting the funding, but how fabulous is the project.  Ms. Hodge stated, that is really what ECHO is, it’s about projects and not about who is getting the funds, as long as the Community gets a fabulous project.  With the exception of, I do want them to be good stewards with the dollars.

Wayne Atherholt stated his overall impression is that the ECHO Board did a wonderful job, the process is terrific and Ms. Hodge was fabulous.  He saw nothing wrong with the process.

Jessi Smith, Director of the Pioneer Settlement for the Creative Arts in Barberville, primarily came out to thank the Committee and staff.  Ms. Smith stated that the Grant Review Panel day is very valuable.  It is important to come forward and have the opportunity to answer questions.  Ms. Smith stated it would be a benefit to have questions first,  and that she simply appreciated staff providing the technical review and final review.  Ms. Smith asked if she did not have specific questions today, could she come back to future meetings.

Chair Hargreaves stated always.  Public Participation is always on the agenda.

Jessi Smith thanked the Committee again.

Marjie Richard, Associate Planner from the Town of Ponce Inlet.  Ms. Richard stated she is attending the meeting for learning purposes and that the Town of Ponce Inlet may apply for an ECHO grant in the future.  Ms. Richard also stated that she would love the opportunity to have questions beforehand.  Ms. Richard asked for clarification on the funding for acquisition.  She stated she was told that ECHO does not fund acquisition, but saw in the application that ECHO does fund for acquisition.

The Board collectively stated yes ECHO does fund acquisition.

Marjie Richard thanked the Committee again.

Sandra Wilson, DeBary Art League.  Ms. Wilson thanked Margaret Hodge for her assistance, via email and via phone.  Ms. Wilson stated that the representatives from DeBary Art League were nervous on the day of questioning and may not have been prepared for the questions.  However, she believes the DeBary Art League has a wonderful project for the Community and she believes the Committee will be very pleased.

VI. Adjournment

Chair Hargreaves hearing no other business adjourned the meeting at 4:53 p.m.