Grant application information

ECHO Advisory Committee

Absent Members
Teri Ford Cobean - Excused

Visitors (signed in)
Lynne Plaskett, City of Edgewater
Kelly Ferguson, Lively Arts Center
Mary Virginia, Museum of Arts & Sciences
Kent Donahue, City of Port Orange

Chair Libby called the April 9, 2003, ECHO Advisory Committee meeting to order at 3:00 PM, welcomed the returning and new (Don Smith and Judson Woods) advisory committee members and the public and asked staff to take Roll Call of members.

Chair Libby directed the meeting to the approval of the February, 26, 2003, minutes and asked if there were any additions or corrections. There were none. Ms. Hagstrom made a Motion to approve the minutes. Ms. Williams seconded the Motion. The February 26, 2003, minutes were unanimously approved.

Staff Report and Update on County Council Meeting, March 27, 2003 - Mrs. Hodge stated that the County Council had made changes to the ECHO Advisory Committee ’s recommendations and had not approved the Lively Arts Center as an exceptional project and the Lively Arts Center was awarded $500,000 as a one year project. The Main Street Pier project (City of Daytona Beach) was approved for the full funding of $500,000. The Pioneer Arts Settlements had been awarded $151,709.

Chair Libby asked for a Motion to send a letter of gratitude (and thanks) to two of the founding ECHO Advisory Committee Members, Marc Davidson and Roy Schleicher. The Motion, second and vote was a unanimous consent of the ECHO Advisory Committee. (Staff note: staff is to compose letters suitable for framing for ECHO Advisory Committee member’s signatures.)

Chair Libby asked Mr. Gummey to clarify the policies regarding the election of officers. Mr. Gummey stated that By-Laws stated in mandatory language that the Chair and Vice-Chair shall be elected by a majority vote of the members present at the first regular meeting after April 1, of each year.

Mrs. Hodge stated that the Chair and Vice-Chair had served for two (2) consecutive years and wouldn’t be eligible to serve in that capacity again in year 2003. Chair Libby clarified that Ms. Williams couldn’t serve another term as Vice-Chair again and he couldn’t serve another term as Chair.

Mr. Gummey stated under Robert’s Rules "the appropriate procedure for the election would be for people to be nominated, no seconds would be required for nominations and a roll call vote would be taken where you vote for the person that you desire to be elected and of course if there are more than two candidates there would or could potentially be a problem if there isn’t a majority vote for a nominee."

Chair Libby opened the floor up for nominations for Chair. Mr. Wiles nominated Ms. Williams for Chair. Ms. Williams respectively declined. Ms. Williams nominated Teri Ford Cobean. Chair Libby nominated Mr. Matousek. Chair Libby asked if there was any more nominations for Chair, hearing none, he closed the nominations and asked for a roll call vote: Mr. Matousek – voted for Mr. Matousek, Mr. Smith – voted for Mr. Matousek, Ms. Hagstrom – voted for Mr. Matousek, Mr. Wiles – voted for Ms. Cobean, Ms. Williams – voted for Ms. Cobean, Chair Libby – voted for Mr. Matousek. 5-2 vote for Mr. Matousek as Chair. (note: Ms. Hargreaves was late and didn’t vote in the Chair and Vice Chair election.)

2002 Grants – Status Report - Chair Matousek proceeded with the meeting and asked Mrs. Hodge for an update on the 2002 grant applicants. Mrs. Hodge stated that all of the 2002 grant applicants had filed for and received extensions on their project construction and they had promised to have the required funds encumbered by May 1, 2003, which is the mandatory encumbrance date. The African American Museum and the Ponce Inlet Lighthouse Lens projects are expected to be completed by early July 2003. The Athens Theater has a twelve-month extension, Museum of Arts & Sciences project’s expected completion date is the fall of 2003. The two County projects (Rendon and Lake Monroe Parks) each have a twelve-month extension. Mrs. Hodge stated most of the delays were contractor related causing the whole construction schedule to change. Rain also created a need for St. John’s Water Management to reissue permits and the new manatee regulations, in some instances, had to be considered. Mrs. Hodge reiterated that most of the projects would have a 2-year construction cycle, but that the applicants had assured her that the funds would be encumbered during the first 12 months.

First Issue - Mr. Libby stated that the County Council had charged the ECHO Advisory Committee with the responsibility of tweaking the maximum amount and the number of years that would define the exceptional grant program. He stated that the County Council had suggested they thought the $1 Million per year for 3 years on the projected income for the next 10-15 years of the program might be too much for a single project. Second Issue – Mr. Libby stated that several members of the County Council had discussed with him the multi-year program. He stated, "right now we have only single-year projects ( Mrs. Hodge clarified that there had been multi-phase projects that had fallen out because of various reasons) and when we have multi-year projects, the current guidelines require the applicant to come back each year of the multi-year period and ask for re-authorization, and the board gives extra point(s) to come back, some colleagues and municipalities have looked at multi year projects and questioned whether or not the board would consider the multi-year project funding commitment the first (1st) year. The multi-phase would still not exceed $500,000 annually and would not exceed $1.5 Million over a three-year period. This would allow bonding with additional partners and would bring to the table great options and very low interest rates because of their ability to work with the State’s and community’s funds."

Chair Matousek stated that the County Council had said that the grant application was complex and lengthy for the smaller grant organizations and improvements and changes in the program needed to be considered by the board and given back to the County Council for feedback.

Ms. Hagstrom suggested that the committee do a list of changes the way they did during last year’s grant application review (2002).

Chair Matousek asked the committee to go through the grant application and make a list of changes that they would like to discuss during its annual review of the grant application guidelines and process.

Mr. Libby asked if sub-committees were needed?

Mr. Gummey stated, "to do a little wrinkle on what Gary said (see page 1, page 3, this document), Volusia Forever has entered into what will probably be a bridge loan agreement where they have borrowed money for a couple of specific projects, with the thought that they would become a critical mass of loans, to a point, where long-term general obligation bond issues could be done. When you talk about multi-year grants, if they are not multi-phase projects, but a one year project, then the applicants will be looking for money to come from the County’s ECHO grants-in-aid program for a period of years and then the grantee would be able to go and borrow against the grant agreement. I think it would be much more efficient for the County to borrow the money and fund the project on a lump sum basis because right now we are paying approximately 2% on money we have borrowed for Forever. With our ability to issue a general obligation bond, this would make a much more efficient means to borrow for the grantees."

Mr. Libby agreed. Chair Matousek stated that this could definitely be added to the review list.

Chair Matousek stated that he would prefer full committee meeting reviews verses sub-committees and asked the ECHO Advisory Committee to review the grant application and submit their comments/suggestions for future discussion. Mrs. Hodge requested that the committee members submit their comments to her and she would distribute them to the entire committee.

Chair Matousek stated that there were areas of concern that needed to be addressed (1) incomplete application from an eligibility standpoint (2) scoring by bell curve possible (3) ask staff to email the grant community asking for input on the grant application and process.

Mr. Gummey clarified, at the request of Mr. Libby that the requirement for legal documentation was not the minimum that one would have to have. "It may be the minimum amount that is prudent to have. It’s a judgement call. We could certainly look at what we are requiring, but we have in some instances required an MAI Appraisal, maybe you could get by with using the tax role in every instance, but do you feel that they are giving you accurate information? "

Mr. Libby stated, " that the question was on the mini grant program whether or not we were asking smaller organizations to come up too high on the bar." Chair Matousek agreed that one of the main topics of concern voiced by the County Council was mini grants and the resources of smaller organizations.

Mr. Libby asked Chair Matousek to have the legal department and staff review the grant application to ensure that the minimum amount of information was required for a good faith contract between the County and the County’ s partners. Mr. Libby stated, " because in a follow-up discussion with the members of the County Council they were concerned about the legal documentation that the grant applicant had to provide, and the board felt the (current) legal documentation was absolutely basic to the grant process." (Note: no Motion was taken on this request and staff was asked to establish the absolute minimum legal requirements needed for the grant application.)

Mrs. Hodge stated that even though smaller increments of grant funding would be given out, the mini grants must still be protected because of the numbers that would be awarded. Mrs. Hodge reiterated that the committee hadn’t defined a mini grant, hadn’t separated it into its own category, and that it was still part of the (existing) grant process.

Mr. Gummey questioned the reason for mini grants, unless they would be used as match for a whole lot of money. He stated, "the ECHO program was a capital program" and questioned what kind of capital projects could be funded in the mini grant category.

Mr. Libby stated that in some mini grant programs the applicant doesn’t have to provide an audit if the request is under $50,000. Maybe the committee could agree not to require an MAI Appraisal and use the County’s tax role instead.

Chair Matousek stated that this item could be discussed in the board’s workshops and the grant application itself needed to be made less complex and then perhaps a different standard wouldn’ t be required for mini grants.

Mr. Libby opposed separating mini grant money out of the grant funds and stated that the project should be judged on the merit of the project and not in comparison to other projects.

Mrs. Hodge stated that originally some of the State Cultural grants allowed a budget review versus an audit for an applicant organization, with less than $150,000 operating budget and that she had re-issued the question to the Finance Department regarding the audit requirement. Currently the Finance Department feels strongly that an audit is needed because of the size of the dollars given out.

Ms. Hargreaves stated that the mini grant concept needed to be looked at, and this could possibly eliminate the need for a separate mini grant category.

Chair Matousek asked for public input.

Mary Virginia, Museum of Arts & Sciences – stated that the mini grant issue was hindered by the requirement of having to have a County-wide impact and was limited to certain areas and would not have the same influence as the Museum of Arts & Sciences. She suggested that this area needed to be looked at and asked the board to consider the possibility of the mini grant having, at least, its own category in the grant application without having to have a County-wide influence.

Lynne Plaskette, City of Edgewater – had gathered 3 different grant applications for the ECHO Advisory Committee’s review: (1) Ponce de Leon Inlet and Port Authority (2) Florida Communities Trust, Florida Forever Program (3) Florida Inland navigation District Waterways Assistance Program. She stated that the applications were straight forward and all included projects of "bricks and mortar." They were provided with the hope that the ECHO grant application and grant process for applicants, board members and county staff, could be simplified in the future. Mrs. Plaskette stated, "unless you have been through the process before, 37 pages of information to make one application is overwhelming."

Kelly Ferguson, Lively Arts Center – suggested adding a category that would show a simplified budget listing where the other project funding would come from and how everything fits together in the grant application when the total project budget exceeds the match in the amount requested from ECHO.

Ms. Hargreaves asked for clarification on what the board was allowed to respond to regarding inquiries from the media and the press (print, video and audio). After much discussion, Mr. Libby moved on a Motion for the new year that the ECHO Advisory Committee ask the Chair and staff (point person) to be responsible for responding to press and media inquiries. The Motion was seconded by Ms. Hargreaves. Chair Matousek asked for discussion. Ms. Williams questioned how far the board was suppose to expanded their responses for requests for information (telephone, public). Chair Matousek stated that since the board was a public board they would need a legal clarification on what they could and could not respond to. Mr. Gummey stated (1) ECHO Advisory Board members can’t make decisions outside a duly constituted meeting of the committee (2) frankly, often what the media is asking you to do is to make a decision or articulate your decision before or after the fact and nothing good can come of that. Chair Matousek called for a vote on the Motion. The Motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Hagstrom asked for clarification on when the financial disclosures were to be submitted. Mr. Gummey stated that the committee members had 30 days from the beginning of their terms to file the financial disclosure forms.

Chair Matousek reminded the ECHO Advisory Committee members to come back at the next meeting with any and all suggestions for tweaking the grant application and process.

Mr. Wiles informed Chair Matousek that he would be unable to attend the April 23, 2003, due to a prior commitment.

There was no additional public participation.

April 23, 2003
May 14, 2003