Grant application information

I. Call To Order, Roll Call, Introductory Remarks
Acting Chair Hagstrom called the June 14, 2006 ECHO Advisory Committee meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. and welcomed the Advisory Committee members and the public.
Chair Hagstrom asked staff to take roll call. A quorum was present with 5 members in attendance.

II. Old Business
Ms. Hagstrom asked if any members were able to attend any ECHO function activities in the last 2 weeks. When no one replied, Ms. Hagstrom mentioned that, although not a Board Member, Mr. Harris, with the ECHO staff, had attended the National Trails Day at Gemini Springs on June 3rd and said that the organizers of the Event were pleased with the turnout.
Ms. Hagstrom asked if anyone had any comments on the minutes from the May 24th meeting. Mr. Matousek said that the Gamble Place event listed as being on the 24th was actually on the 27th. There were no additional comments. Mr. Matousek then made the motion to approve the minutes which were seconded and unanimously approved.

III. Staff Report
Ms. Hagstrom said to move to the Staff Report and asked Ms. Hodge to brief the board on any activities during the past 2 weeks including any action taken by the County Council to set up a meeting with the ECHO Board regarding the comments made in a memo sent to them. Ms. Hodge replied that she had not heard from the County Council yet; however, that was understandable as they are extremely busy these days along with developing a working relationship with the new County Manager.

Ms. Hagstrom asked Ms. Hodge about a brochure that she was working on regarding ECHO. Ms. Hodge stated that she has budgeted for a 4 color brochure to celebrate the 5th anniversary of the ECHO Grant-in-Aid Program. This 16 page brochure, scheduled to be released in July, will have pictures of several of the completed ECHO funded projects and will contain many graphs showing the activities of the ECHO Program. She continued by saying that she hopes to show the Board a draft copy of the brochure at the next scheduled meeting of the Board on June 28th or, if the Application Guide is completed today, she would send a copy to the Board members for review and comment. Ms. Hodge continued saying there was going to be an initial printing of 5,000 copies for distribution at County facilities and Welcome Centers.

IV. New Business
Ms. Hodge stated that Draft 4 of the Application Guide had been sent to all Board members, present and excused, and requested comments regarding the changes. None was forthcoming which conferred the assumption that we are drawing near to agreement.

Ms. Hodge brought up the subject of linked projects which the County Environmental Management Organization had discussed with her. Ms. Hodge cited several historical examples that ECHO had encountered with one being the Boys Club. Another situation occurred with an applicant that brought forward a single project which encompassed two non-contiguous properties. When questioned at the time, Ms. Hodge explained that ECHO has determined that a single application can only be associated with a single facility location.

Ms. Hodge said that what has precipitated this discussion is that the Environmental Management Organization has a project they want to propose that encompasses using technology to link multiple Springs sites together, including the Lyonia Preserve and the Marine Science Center. This would enable them to project images from under water to multiple above ground monitoring facilities for the public.

Ms. Hodge continued by saying the ECHO Guidelines currently subscribes that these projects should be multiple separate applications; one to cover each of the locations where technology equipment will be located. She asked the Board if, in projects like this, they wanted multiple separate applications or do they want all the facilities incorporated into a single application? Ms. Hagstrom asked if they approved this, would it lead to complications for the ECHO Board in the future? Ms. Hodge said possibly – as currently, there is a minimum grant amount of $12,500 and it might prove difficult for some of the sites to meet that minimum. She also said that a multiple location project could conceivably have multiple applications with each of them requesting the maximum of $500,000. With a single application covering the entire project, it would be easier for the application to achieve the ECHO minimum and would limit the total project request to $500,000.

Ms. Hodge again asked the Board members if they wanted them all separate or grouped together under one project? Mr. Russell asked Ms. Hodge if she could direct the Board to the section of the Guide that does not allow for the grouping of multiple locations into one grant application. When questioned why Ms. Hodge wanted the multiple locations grouped, she stated that she is not suggesting that. She recalled from last year, when an applicant brought in multiple applications for a project that could have been grouped into one, a member of the Board questioned why they were separate and not grouped together. Ms. Hodge stated that she wanted to confront this issue before the applicants begin preparing their grant requests and to make certain that the Board’s desire on this issue is understood and agreed to by all. The subject of multiple Restrictive Covenants was raised and concerns were voiced about potentially having some pieces of the project on County land and some of them on State land.

Mr. Grigat said that he would not have any trouble with a single project having multiple sets of Restrictive Covenants as long as the applicant understood what they would have to do.
Ms. Hodge voiced the opinion that this may not always work and, for example, she brought up the situation of the Anthropological Society and their desire to restore the Sugar Mills in the area. The Sugar Mills are not on the same piece of land, nor are they on contiguous pieces of land. In addition, each Sugar Mill will probably need a different type of restoration to rebuild it to a near original state. Mr. Matousek said that in the original example proposed by the Environmental Management Group, there is integration between all of the locations.

Ms. Hagstrom asked Ms. Hodge if she wanted to wait to discuss this until Legal Council was available in case there is a legal consideration that isn’t being discovered within this group. Ms. Hodge asked if the Board members were that close to voting on this issue to which Ms. Hagstrom, in consult with the other Board members, replied, “Yes.” A vote was held off until Ms. Seaman would arrive in the Council Chambers.

Ms. Hagstrom asked to take up the next subject dealing with leasing of ECHO Grant facilities to ‘For Profit’ organizations. This question had been raised and Ms. Hodge and Ms. Seaman had discussed it because of the Main Street Pier and the fact that it is owned by the City of Daytona Beach but leased to a ‘For Profit’ company. It was mentioned by Mr. Matousek that an application had previously been submitted from the City of Daytona Beach for the Pier. Ms. Hodge said that it is best not to look at this as specific to the Pier, but instead to look at it from a generalized point of view regarding future applicants. Ms. Hodge added that Ms. Seaman has the legal statement prepared which will be included in the Application Guide.

Ms. Hagstrom requested the Board move onto the Application Guide. Ms. Hodge said the first item, on page 13, deals with scoring procedures. She asked the Board if they wanted to pass on this item for now and return to it or cover it at this time. Ms. Hagstrom commented that she thought this item had been covered in a previous meeting. Ms. Hodge responded by asking if they want to keep the words in this section as they are, including the word “clarity,” or did they want to add additional bullets covering specific concerns of each of the Board members? She continued by saying that in a previous meeting, the Board members had said they would send in a list of particulars that each member was desirous in seeing from the Applicants.

After a brief discussion amongst the Board members, Ms. Hodge summed up the comments saying that this would probably be too much information at this point in the Application; however, the submitted bullet points by the Board members would be passed out at the ECHO Workshops and this information not specifically required in the application would best be placed in Tab 6 as supplemental information. Ms. Hagstrom informally polled the Board members regarding leaving this section as is and all members agreed.

Ms. Hodge asked for all to turn to page 29 where the subject at issue is the verbiage regarding the number and types of drawings the Board members want with each application. After a brief moment, while the Board members re-read the section, they all agreed that the wording sufficiently defined what they desire from the applicants. Mr. Russell interjected that he apologized for missing the previous Board meeting, but he was questioning the red change information on page 27 that was passed over. Ms. Hodge said it was a revision of formatting and words for clarity only and not a change of meaning. Mr. Russell commented that he was perfectly satisfied with the current paragraphs but was raising the issue to ensure that all items in the Application Guide were properly addressed.

Ms. Hodge said the next change for discussion was on page 37. She commented that the reason the subject of surveys was added to this section was to alert the Applicants that surveys are a necessary part of these projects and that surveys, along with the other items in that paragraph, are categorized as soft money. This, of course, means they can be used as match funds but cannot be claimed for ECHO funds. All members of the Board agreed with the added language.

Still on the same page, Ms. Hodge reported that a grantee had asked her if ECHO funds would pay for termite control. With the exception of a restoration of a historical project where termite damage may have occurred, she expressed her questioning why and where termite control would fit into a project that is part of the ECHO grant. Mr. Graven said that with any building construction project, it is a requirement to have termite control administered before receiving a Certificate of Occupancy. This process means they will treat the ground where the slab will be placed and, after construction, they will return and treat the perimeter of the building.

Ms. Hodge asked if the Board thought this was a soft cost or is it something ECHO should pay for. Mr. Grigat asked if this was now considered a match cost to which Ms. Hodge replied, “Yes.” Ms. Hagstrom asked if Ms. Hodge was questioning this just for historical restoration or for anyone. Ms. Hodge replied that her question at this time concerned all projects and asked if the item of termite control be administered in a differential manner for historical restoration projects than the other project categories. Mr. Matousek responded by saying that this type of work goes along with other site construction activities such as sewage and drainage.

When Ms. Hodge again brought up the question if historical restoration should be treated differently from other projects, Ms. Hagstrom spoke up and said that a historical restoration with termite issues has to treat the facility (1) to rid the structure of termites and (2) to apply termite control to prevent the re-infestation of the facility. Mr. Graven said that termite control is essentially a structural element of the project. Ms. Hodge again asked the question – should the monies spent for termite control to facilitate historical restoration be all match, all ECHO, or a 50 / 50 split. After a brief pause for conference, multiple Board members remarked that it should be available for 100% ECHO funding to which all agreed.

Ms. Hodge said that there had been previous discussion regarding interior vs. exterior sprinkler systems. She said that this subject was rephrased in the Application Guide to provide a better explanation of what ECHO will and will not fund.

Ms. Hodge said that the subject of off-beach parking had been previously discussed but was not totally resolved. She continued by saying that the ECHO resolution lists off-beach parking as one of the goals of the ECHO program.

The next item to be discussed is on page 41. Ms. Hodge said that the language in this section was developed in a meeting she had with Ms. Seaman. Ms. Seaman had not yet arrived so Ms. Hodge excused herself to contact Ms. Seaman. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Hodge returned and told the Board members that the Legal Staff would be unable to attend the meeting today due to an unforeseen situation having occurred. Ms. Hagstrom, along with the rest of the Board members and Ms. Hodge, stated they would persevere onward. The item on page 41 was verbally approved by all.

Ms. Hagstrom said that the next item, on page 44, was to change the minimum unencumbered cash on hand from 50 percent to 25 percent. This was understood and agreed by all.
The next change in the Guide, Tab 3.3 on page 45, concerned projects that were only a phase of a larger project. This verbiage would allow an applicant to present their long term plans for the total project in Tab 6. The Board members confirmed that the statement, as presented, concurs with their desired revision asked for during the previous meeting.

Moving on to Tab 4.1, the Board members agreed that the added statement satisfies a concern previously voiced regarding the applicants ability to operate and maintain the project after construction is completed. Multiple Board members agreed that the applicants business plan, if any, should be in Tab 4 (as stated) instead of in Tab 6 where it was formerly placed.
Ms. Hodge said the next item, located on page 46, was added to ensure the applicants make a statement regarding their organizations fiscal status no matter what that might be. It was agreed to by the Board members without discussion.

Ms. Hodge stated that the information added, on page 47 – Tab 5, is to provide as much information as possible to the applicants regarding this most highly scored tab. This information directly supports the language agreed upon in the Evaluation Procedures on page 13 of this guide. Ms. Hagstrom asked why it was necessary to add this information when it is already detailed in the Evaluation Procedures. A brief discussion amongst Ms. Hagstrom, Mr. Matousek, the rest of the Board members, and Ms. Hodge resulted in a consensus by the Board that it was unnecessary to repeat this information; therefore, the sentence beginning with, “The Grant Review Panel…,” through to the end of the paragraph, should be removed.

Referencing the proposed change on page 48, Ms. Hodge explained the reason for this question was that during last years presentation to the County Council, they had asked if the Board considered the impact of the proposed projects on poorer neighborhoods that need to be improved. At the time, the Board questioned Ms. Hodge on what the guidelines are in the ECHO Charter? Ms. Hodge responded that, based upon her reading of the resolution, there is a desire to fund cultural projects located within redevelopment areas which she assumed was to improve the economy of the downtown community. Ms. Hodge said she didn’t know if this meant that greater consideration and additional score should be given to those projects located in a residential community in these areas; however, it does discuss “underserved public.” Mr. Matousek asked if this was one of the goals of the resolution to which Ms. Hodge confirmed his statement. Under these circumstances, the Board members will have to decide whether they will add any additional score to a proposal based upon the socioeconomic location of the proposed project.

Ms. Hodge said that nothing in the Application Guide Document needs to be changed; however, she wanted to remind the Board members that one or two of the County Council Members are concerned about emerging neighborhoods. She continued that the ECHO Board members can determine, on their own, if they will individually or collectively desire to modify applicant scoring based upon the impact of potential economic development in an area. Mr. Matousek said that he felt the information provided in Tabs 1 and 6 would effectively cover the level of importance and impact upon the proposed community. Ms. Hagstrom agreed and did not feel that any additional language was necessary to clarify the desires of the County Council. Ms. Hodge asked if the desire of the Board was to leave this section as it is, to which they collectively agreed.

Ms. Hagstrom asked if all agreed to strike the proposed change on page 49 which related to the previously discussed subject. All the Board members concurred.
Ms. Hodge noted that they had finished discussing all if the proposed changes to the Application Guide. She said that, if desired, the Board could approve this as the official 2006-2007 ECHO Grant-in-Aid Application Guide. Ms. Hagstrom asked if there was a section of the Application Guide they needed to return to for completion. Ms. Hodge said that the issue was on definitions which they had cleared up earlier. Ms. Hagstrom said that she saw no reason to not vote on approval of the Guide and that the Board had done their job.
Mr. Matousek made a motion that the ECHO Board approve the 2006-2007 ECHO Application Guide as is. Mr. Graven seconded the motion. The vote was taken and the Guide was unanimously approved.

Ms. Hagstrom asked if they had some unfinished business in the beginning section of the Application Guide to which Ms. Hodge said that they could discuss further changes to the Guide; however, since the Application Guide was unanimously approved, there would have to be a motion to amend the Guide if any changes were proposed.
Discussion ensued about the Restriction section which addresses the ability to have multiple locations on the same grant if they are intrinsically associated. Ms. Hodge said that the process has been that each location had to be on a separate grant application and we don’t allow applicants to group multiple sites together to reach the minimum project value of $12,500. As an example, she stated that, hypothetically, a complex with 3 adjacent properties could apply for a full $1.5 million dollars using 3 separate grant applications.

Mr. Russell referred back to a comment Mr. Matousek had made earlier saying we need to look at this type of application as a single project, even though it may have interconnects to multiple locations. He continued saying that, conceivably, if multiple applications were submitted for an interlinked project, one or more of the applicants could score low potentially leaving out a key component of the project. Mr. Russell said that his interpretation of this section would mandate that a single project should be brought forward as a single application. There was general agreement amongst all of the Board members; therefore, Ms. Hodge said that she would notify the Environmental Group to submit the project in question with a single application.
Ms. Hodge said that she would let the Board members know if the Legal Department had any problems with this interpretation of the Board. Mr. Graven asked the question that if a site submitted an application for a kiosk, would that site be barred from submitting any other application for that year even though the kiosk could be just a small part of the planned project. Ms. Hodge and several of the Board members said, “Yes.” Mr. Russell said that this troubled him. He said that Ms. Hodge had stated that the Marine Science Center was one of the locations that could have one of these kiosks and would that prevent them from applying for a major project that was totally unrelated? Ms. Hodge said yes, but this should not be a concern as the Center could, if desired, submit the kiosk in the same application as their major project. She continued by saying that all of these sites are fully aware of the one application per site per year rule and they would coordinate any potential grant activity within the site.

Mr. Matousek asked Ms. Hodge if the Environmental multi-location application (including the Marine Science Center) was submitted and the Marine Science Center tried to submit a separate project, would she inform them that they could not submit this additional application? Ms. Hodge again said, “Yes;” however, she said that if something like this happened, the Environmental group could leave the Marine Science Center off of the current years application since their plans are to phase in multiple additional locations in the future. Ms. Hodge again stated that the organizations involved in preparing the application within an entity, know about all potential future activities within that entity so she did not believe this would happen.
Since all was agree upon, Ms. Hagstrom said that it was time to move onto the public participation portion of the session and asked if there were any questions or comments from the visitors in the Chamber. There was no response from the visitors so Ms. Hagstrom said that the next scheduled ECHO Board meeting of June 28th will be cancelled. She then asked Ms. Hodge if the next scheduled meeting of the Board would be in January to wit Ms. Hodge said, “Hopefully”
Before adjourning, Ms. Hagstrom said that the ECHO staff had asked her to ask all of the Board members to discard any items in the green folders that they no longer desired.

At 4:12 p.m., Ms. Hagstrom said that since there is no other business to be conducted, the meeting stands adjourned.