Grant application information

ECHO Advisory Committee

Absent Members
Teri Ford Cobean - Excused
Janet Williams - Excused

Visitors (signed in)
Greg Bartholomew, City of South Daytona Kent Donahue, City of Port Orange
Dottie Hughes, Little Theatre of NSB Monso Tatum, Pioneer Arts Settlement
Bill Roehrborn, Little Theatre of NSB Marilyn Breeze, Pioneer Arts Settlement
Lynne Plaskett, City of Edgewater Mary Virginia, Museum of Arts & Sciences
John Buchanan, City of Deltona Nancy Maddox, Leisure Services, Volusia County
Julie Rand, Lively Arts Center Jerry Longston, City of Daytona Beach
Kelly Ferguson, Lively Arts Center Suzanne Kuehn, City of Daytona Beach

Chair Libby called the January 8, 2003, ECHO Advisory Board meeting to order at 3:00 PM, welcomed the public and asked staff to take Roll Call of members.

Chair Libby directed the meeting to the approval of the September 11, 2002, minutes and asked for additions or corrections. There were no corrections to be made. Mr. Davidson made a Motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Schleicher seconded the Motion. The September 11, 2002, minutes were unanimously approved.

2002 Grants Report: - Ms. Hodge stated that the agenda package contained the ECHO Advisory Board’s Annual Report 2002, with updates on some of the dates (for 2003). This revised report was submitted to the County Manager’s office. A list of current applications for this year (GY 2003) was also included in the agenda package. There are eleven (11) applicants. The City of Daytona and the County of Volusia sent in two applications each. Two (2) "Exceptional Category" projects were received, the Lively Arts Center, ($1 Million for three consecutive years) and the City of Daytona Beach, Main Street Pier project, ($800,000 for one year only).

Chair Libby explained that the decision before the board was to conduct a completeness and eligibility review of the 2003 ECHO grant applications and asked Mrs. Hodge to proceed with a grant by grant review from the Completeness and Eligibility document (item # 2).

Mrs. Hodge stated that the agenda package also contained documents labeled items #s 1, 2, and 3 as follows:

Item # 3 – "2003 ECHO Applications – Missing Documentation (Excel spreadsheet, see pages 17-18).

Item # 1 – "Staff Report – Inconsistency in the Grant Application" - (see pages 13-16).

Item # 2 – "Completeness Recommendations and Comments" - (see pages 21-22).

Chair Libby stated that before the panel began its review of the 2003 grant applications, there were two charges from the County Council (to the board): (1) To ensure that the ECHO grant applications were complete before moving them forward to the County Council, and (2) At the same time, be as flexible, accessible, and liberal as possible within the guidelines.

Chair Libby instructed the board to decide, in a vote, whether or not the issues at hand regarding the applications (Excel spreadsheet of the applications – item # 3) were in or out based on Mrs. Hodge’s presentation, the committee’s thinking and review and the applicant’s input.

Mrs. Hodge directed the board to document # 3 – and stated that there was some confusion in the GY 2003 Application regarding Tab 3. Tab 3.1 – a significant number of applicants had a problem with 3.1, the budget detail. The problems were in the contingency fees and putting the codes in. All of the applicants had a budget detail. The applicants didn’t put in everything requested by the application, but the ECHO staff recommended moving those forward as complete applications (regarding Tab 3.1 deficiency). Mrs. Hodge stated that the confusion in Tab 3.1 should not be a reason to make the applicants ineligible, because they did insert something in this section (3.1), but stated that it wasn’t coded the way staff would have liked to have seen. Mrs. Hodge stated that she had contacted all of the applicants ahead of time to ensure that they had a clear understanding of what had gone on in the completeness process. And stressed that the problems with Tab 3.1 needed to be resolved before moving into other deficiencies (see item # 1).

Mrs. Hodge stated that in Tab 7 the financial information needed clarification and that it was confusing for the grant applicants, since they were not financial people. She requested that the board read the last paragraph of item # 1 for a clearer understanding before going through the application recommendations. (Staff note: the following is the paragraph the board was requested to read).

Chair Libby stated that this would be an amendment to the application (to be corrected in the next grant cycle).

Mrs. Hodge stated that the Volusia County chief financial officer (Charlene Weaver) and accounting director (Doug Gross) felt that the critical documents for municipal and County grant applicants were the management letter and response to the management letter. Mrs. Hodge stated that the financial statement was nice, but wasn’t really necessary unless the management letter was missing, raising questions. Mrs. Hodge stated that she has asked that the applicants provide the management letter and response to the management letter if it was required (and noted that it wasn’ t always required), and the last financial audit. She asked the board to put document one (item # 1) aside as they would not be referring to it again during the meeting.

Mrs. Hodge proceeded with document #s 2, "Completeness Recommendations and Comments," and 3, "2003 ECHO Applications – Missing Documentation" and suggested that the board view them together. She stated that Tab 3.1 deficiencies were eliminated on review of document 3. She then directed the board to look at document # 2, "Completeness Recommendation and Comments," and stated that there were no other significant issues with 3.1.

Mrs. Hodge recommended that the board approve the following applications as complete since the applications didn’t have any issues – 03-01 City of New Smyrna Beach, 03-06 Lively Arts Center (excep.), 03-08 City of Edgewater, 03-09 City of Daytona Beach/Main Street Pier & Park project (excep.), 03-11 County of Volusia/Green Spring Park, 03-12 Little Theatre of New Smyrna Beach, and 03-13 County of Volusia/DeBary Hall historic site.

Mrs. Hodge stated there were two other applications that were complete, but had a couple of issues – 03-02, City of Daytona Beach/Jackie Robinson Ball Park and Museum – Tab 2.1 – the applicant included more information than was requested and Mrs. Hodge requested the board determine how much information, over the requested amount, was too much . Tab 3.2 - The applicant failed to include backup documentation for $15,000 that was discussed, but not documented in Tab 3.3 Mrs. Hodge stated that documentation for the $15,000 had been received and recommended that the board leave the $15,000 in the applicant’s grant request. (Staff note: The ECHO Advisory Committee concurred with leaving the $15,000 in the grant request, but no vote was taken.)

Ms. Hargreaves stated that the reason guidelines were set was so everyone would come to the playing table with a level playing field. She stated that if it said 2 pages, it meant 2 pages, not 2 ½ pages, not 3 pages, but 2 pages. She stated that she wanted to go on record as stating "should she be part of the ECHO process in the following years, that excessive information would not be acceptable. If the grant application asked for 2 pages, then it would have to contain 2, not 3, 4 or 5 pages, to be considered eligible." Ms. Hagstrom agreed with Ms. Hargreaves’s comments.

Mr. Schleicher stated that as the board evolves, a built in process that would penalize an applicant for too much information might be enough of an incentive to halt any trend for the applicants submitting too much information.

Mrs. Hodge stated that applicant 03-02, City of Daytona Beach/Jackie Robinson Ball Park & Museum, had failed to give a multiphase project budget detail and recommended that the application be changed from a multiphase to a single-phase project. Chair Libby asked Suzanne Kuehn, City of Daytona Beach ECHO Grants-in-aid contact, if she had any problems with changing the project status from multiphase to single-phase. Ms. Kuehn’s reply was "no."

 Chair Libby called for a Motion to change applicant 03-02, City of Daytona Beach/Jackie Robinson Ball Park & Museum, from a multiphase ECHO grant request to an ECHO grant single-phase project request. Mr. Davidson made the Motion. Ms. Hagstrom seconded the Motion. The Motion passed unanimously.

Mrs. Hodge stated that the second application that was complete, but had an issue was # 03-10, Pioneer Arts Settlement/High School Restoration, Tab 3.3 documentation of a $6,000 pledge was missing although discussed in the budget. The documentation has been received. The staff recommendation was to accept the $6,000 pledge.

Chair Libby called for a Motion to accept the $6,000 for the Pioneer Arts Settlement for "completeness." Mr. Davidson made the Motion. Ms. Hagstrom seconded the Motion. The Motion passed unanimously.

Mrs. Hodge stated that the ECHO staff had read the GY 2003 applications and had tried to be as flexible, consistent with judgement and fair as possible in the review for completeness of the GY 2003 applications and that the completeness report included reviews by the accounting director of the financial tabs and the deputy county attorney of the leases. Mrs. Hodge proceeded with applicant # 03-02 South Daytona/Reed Canal Park: Recommendation – Deficient, requires ECHO Board approval. Two items were missing from the application (3 (3) and 7 (2)). The 3.3 narrative states that Minutes from a City Commission meeting were inserted. Minutes were missing. Minutes have been received. Recommendation: Accept the grant match as stated in the application. Tab 7 (2) Financial Statement is missing. Management Letter had no major issues. Financial Statement has been received.

Mrs. Hodge stated that some statements had been made that if the applications were missing some things that they were out, but felt that there was some confusion in the application and gray areas (such as application duplication – the applicant may have information in one tab, but not the other) and that the ECHO Board needed to review what was missing and decide what to do regarding the missing information.

Ms. Hagstrom stated that she was concerned about a beginning trend of missing information in the grant applications that the board needed to review.

Mr. Schleicher stated that the ECHO Board needed to evaluate the missing information and if it wasn’t of any substantive value assist the applicants in correcting their minor deficiencies. " If the board doesn’t assist and make reasonable corrections, then a checklist could be put together and Margaret could do it all, the board would not be needed."

Mr. Davidson stated that if there was no way to cure deficiencies, there would have been no need to have had this meeting. Everything on the completeness list would have been gone, other than the four applicants that had a complete recommendation.

Mrs. Hodge stated that as the ECHO board reviews the applications they may want to consider whether or not to score the applications down for having missing information.

Chair Libby stated that he completely understood, "we are not perfect and the process will never be 100% perfect, but the board needed to bring to the grant program some methods to allow the applicants to be more professional in the grant process." He stated that he supported the suggestion of Mr. Schleicher on one hand and that he also agreed with Ms. Hargreaves and Ms. Hagstrom, that rules are there for a reason, but didn’t want to give mixed signals to the applicants that the ECHO Board and the ECHO staff are babysitters and can help, after the deadlines , with deficiencies in a grant application. "If, on the State level, there was missing documentation the grants were out." He expressed his expectations for future ECHO grant applicants, after technical review, to submit a "complete grant application."

Joseph Yarbrough, City Manager of South Daytona, addressed the ECHO Board. Mr. Yarbrough challenged the ECHO Board to keep in mind that the ECHO grant process was only in its second year and still evolving and this was the first year that the City of South Daytona had submitted an ECHO grant request and that he hoped the ECHO Board would be sensitive and not penalize the citizens of the community in the area because of a clerical error that had no impact on the value and virtues of the project that were included in the grant application.

Chair Libby directed the ECHO Board to the second issue with the South Daytona/Reed Canal Park Project – 7 (2) Financial Statement was missing. The management letter had no major issues and the financial statement had been received.

Mrs. Hodge asked for confirmation from the ECHO Board that ECHO grant application # 03-03 – South Daytona/Reed Canal Park Project was eligible. Chair Libby replied "yes," with the understanding that the applicant would supply the required number of copies of the information that was required.

Mrs. Hodge proceeded with ECHO GY 2003 application # 03-04 – Bethune Cookman College (BCC)/Performing Arts Center – and stated that the staff recommendation was an "Incomplete Application" because there was a number of significant items missing. A total of seven items were missing from the application (1.6, 2.1 (2), (4), (6), 3..3, 4.1 (3), part of 7 (3). Several items were out of order or placed in the wrong tab section. The Annual Corporate Report was missing (1.6). Initial Incorporation papers were provided. 2.1 (2) expenditures were not found in this tab, but could be determined by review of 3.1. 2.1 (4) protection of infrastructure and (6) public access, were not found in Tab 2 and were not described elsewhere. More than $50,000 of ECHO funded items were ineligible items (3.1). There was enough match items to exchange for the ECHO requested items. No match document (grant) was found in (3.3) but was discussed in Tab 3. Financial Statement was missing five (5) pages (7 (3)).

Mrs. Hodge stated that she spoke with the applicant’s contact, Mr. Dean Montgomery, Chief Financial Officer, before the holidays. He was considering whether or not to withdraw the application and that she thought a representative from Bethune Cookman College was in the audience and wanted to address this application.

Chair Libby asked for the representative from Bethune Cookman College to come to the lectern and asked Mrs. Hodge if the applicant underwent a technical review. Mrs. Hodge’s response was "no." Chair Libby asked what the applicant’s wishes were, whether he wanted to withdraw the application or get a ruling from the ECHO Board that the grant application was incomplete.

Mr. Dean Montgomery, Chief Financial Officer, ECHO grant contact for Bethune Cookman College/ Performing Arts Center Project, (application # 03-04), requested that the application be withdrawn from GY 2003, with the understanding that they would be reapplying in GY 2004.

Mrs. Hodge proceeded with ECHO grant application # 03-05 – Port Orange/Gamble Access Project – She stated that the grant application was deficient and required ECHO Board approval. Mrs. Hodge stated that the staff recommendation needed to be followed carefully because it looked like a lot of deficiencies but could be whittled down. Four items were missing from the application (2.1 (6), 2.2 (3), 7 (1)-2 documents. Two of the items were to discuss time of public access, Tabs 2.1 (6) for single-phase and 2.2 (3) for multiphase. General public access information was available in Tab 4 of the application "With the Completion of the proposed Phase 1 (this application) access and storm water improvements, the City of Port Orange will open the Gamble property to the public for the first time since 1998. Staff Recommendation: Change the multiphase status to single phase status. Tab 7, section (1) is missing 2 of 2 documents (Management Letter and Response Letter). Both documents have been received. Mrs. Hodge stated that the accounting director found nothing of concern in the Financial Statement, but really needed to review the management and response letters.

Chair Libby asked that the representative for the City of Port Orange come to the lectern. Kent Donahue, Public Information Officer & Grants Coordinator, identified himself. Chair Libby asked the applicant if he was okay with staff’s recommendation. Mr. Donahue replied "yes."

Chair Libby asked for a Motion to accept the first set of deficiencies for the Port Orange/Gamble Access Project which was to accept the single phase rather than the multiphase status with the concomitant (accompanying) tab items. Mr. Davidson made the Motion. Mr. Wiles seconded the Motion. The Motion passed unanimously.

Chair Libby asked for a Motion to accept the second set of deficiencies for the Port Orange/Gamble Access Project which was to accept the management letter and response letter as having been received. Mr. Davidson made the Motion. Mr. Wiles seconded the Motion. The Motion passed unanimously.

Mrs. Hodge proceeded with ECHO grant application # 03-07 – Deltona/Soccer Complex. She stated that the grant application was deficient and required ECHO Board approval. Three items were missing from the grant application 5 (2), 7 (1) – 1 of 2 documents, 7 (3)). Measurable goals were not stated in 5 (2) but there were many statements within the narrative that could translate into goals. Tab 7 (1) Response Letter was not included. The County’s Accounting Director stated that the Management Letter showed nothing significant. Tab 7, the Financial Statement was not provided. The applicant did provide some budget documentation but it was not a financial statement. The Response Letter has been received. The Budget document subject to a board interpretation of an "Internally Prepared Financial Statement." The applicant has not been given "Clean Hands" approval but has requested it from the County Manager’s Office. Last year the ECHO Board moved forward with the application process allowing for Clean Hands issues to be resolved prior to County Council award.

Mrs. Hodge stated that staff had been instructed to allow the applicant the ability to proceed through the grant process and if the issue of the "Clean Hands" policy had not been resolved by the time of scoring, and if the applicant was awarded grant funds, the County Council would have to resolve the issue.

Chair Libby called for the applicant representative. John Buchanan, Park and Rec reation Director, introduced himself and explained that the "Clean hands" policy went back a few years and was a contested issue with the County of Volusia regarding fire hydrant availability charges. He explained that Tab 5 was regarding the construction of a soccer complex, a non-existing project and that the impacts were meant to be considered goals. He stated that he didn’t think he needed to submit sub-goals,

Mr. Gummey stated, "there was no right answer when to apply this ("Clean Hands" policy) and that he had been through this at the County Council level in a hundred areas and that is whether you apply "Clean Hands " at the time of application or at the time of award. If you delay until the time of award, you miss one of the aspects of the program and that is to get the people (applicants) to comply before they apply. Not everybody gets an award, but if everybody who applies has "Clean Hands" when they apply then you have accomplished a part of the goal of the Clean Hands program."

Chair Libby stated that the ECHO Board agreed with Mr. Gummey’s comments, but the City of DeLand had set the precedence in GY 2002 when the City was allowed to move forward in the grant process even though they owed the County money. Mr. Gummey stated that the City of DeLand’s Clean Hands exemption from GY 2002 was approved by the County Council and was a one-time exception.

Mrs. Hodge stated that at this point she had been directed by Montye Beamer, Growth & Resource Management Director, to move forward with the Deltona/Soccer Complex (# 03-07) if the Clean Hands policy was the only issue, with the understanding that if the issue doesn’t get resolved between the City of Deltona and the County of Volusia she may have to deem them ineligible as late as on the day of the Grant Panel Review scoring of grant applicants (February 26, 2003).

Chair Libby agreed with Mrs Hodge and requested a reading, as soon as possible, from the County Council on when to enforce the Clean Hands policy. He stated that the ECHO Grant Application may need an amendment to reflect the enforcement guidelines for Clean Hands. He then asked Mr. Gummey if this could be facilitated.

Mr. Gummey responded that the ECHO Board was so down the road already in the grant process for 2003 and didn’t recommend that the board take this single issue to the County Council, but suggested that it be taken in the form of the grant initiatives in next year’s process (GY 2004).

Chair Libby stated (for clarification purposes) "the fact is that the issue of Clean Hands hasn’t been resolved between the applicant (City of Deltona) and the County of Volusia." Mr. Gummey stated that he agreed with Chair Libby’s comments.

Mr. Matousek commented that he had spoken out on the Clean Hands policy from day one and didn’t know whether or not this was something that the City of Deltona owed and that he had some real concerns about it. He stated that he didn’t think it was the board’s position to decide whose right or whose wrong, since this is a disputed item between the City of Deltona and the County.

Mr. Gummey stated, "number one, dispute means "I don’t want to pay it." The point is that the amount is owed to the person making the grant, so why would a person that is giving away money, give it to someone who owes them something?"

Chair Libby asked for clarification on whether or not it had been determined that the City of Deltona owed the County of Volusia money.

Mr. Gummey stated, "the person giving the money award has determined that the money is owed."

Mr. Matousek questioned, "if this kind of policy could end up in court, if it isn’t going to get settled?"

Mr. Gummey replied, "so what!"

Mrs. Hodge stated that the County Council was making the ultimate decision on the City of Deltona’s issue of Clean Hands and stated that she was instructed to move the grant application (# 03-07) forward.

Chair Libby stated that he agreed with Mr. Gummey, the ECHO Board shouldn’t ask the County Council about the Clean Hands policy out of context, but would like to see the County Council give the ECHO Board direction on how to implement the policy.

Mr. Gummey stated that in other contexts, (one being the Purchasing’s bid process), the County Council had been very strict in the enforcement of the Clean Hands policy.

Mr. Davidson referred to the GY 2003 ECHO Grants-in-aid Application (page 3) and stated that the grant application states that "All situations must be resolved prior to the Grant Panel Review or the applicant will be ineligible." And that the issue of the City of Deltona’s Clean Hands policy wasn’t an issue for the day’s meeting.

Chair Libby called for a vote on the Motion (restated), "to move forward on the Clean Hands issue and relaxing it to allow for Deltona/Soccer Complex deficiencies to be satisfied and for the grant to be eligible. The Motion had been previously made by Mr. Schleicher and seconded by Mr. Davidson. The Motion passed unanimously.

Chair Libby asked if there were any additional comments from Mrs. Hodge. Mrs. Hodge stated that she had no additional comments on the completeness report.

Mr. Matousek asked for clarification on the Exceptional Project category’s 3-consecutive year distribution of grant funds policy. Mrs. Hodge stated (the Exceptional Project category information is located on page 14 of the GY 2003 ECHO Grants-in-aid Application), "an applicant may request up to $1,000,000 per year for three consecutive years."

ECHO Scoring Process – Mrs. Hodge stated that the agenda package contained a copy of the GY 2003 Volusia ECHO Project Evaluation Sheet and requested that (1) the ECHO Board use black ink or # 2 pencil when completing the form. (2) if the score is reduced significantly, to make comments on why the score was lowered.

Chair Libby reiterated that the ECHO Board needed to make comments on why they score an applicant down so as to assist in the task of striving for consistency on scoring practices for all of the ECHO Board.

ECHO Scoring Policy Discussion – Ms. Hagstrom requested a rotation when voting on the scoring of the grant applications whenever they meet as the Grant Review Panel so the same member would not always go first. Mrs. Hodge stated that the situation with the EXCEL scoring spreadsheet had been corrected and that this request could be accomplished.

Ms. Hargreaves asked for some guidelines to be set on what ECHO grant applicants would be allowed to do during their grant review presentations.

Mrs. Hodge responded to Ms. Hargreaves request by referring the ECHO Board to page 7 of the ECHO GY 2003 Grants-in-aid Application, 3rd paragraph – At the Application Review Panel Meeting : Applicants are encouraged to attend. Applicants will be notified in writing of the time, date, and location of the meeting. This information also will be available on the ECHO web page http://volusiaforever-echo.com. Applicants may respond to questions from the Review Panel and provide updated project information if requested by the panel. This shall not be a formal presentation.

Ms. Hagstrom stated that she wanted to get the information from the grant application.

Mr. Schleicher stated that he agreed with Ms. Hagstrom, 99% of the information needed to come from the grant application.

Chair Libby asked if the board had any more comments, there was none. He then opened the floor to public discussion.

Greg Bartholomew, City of South Daytona – stated that he thought everyone should be allowed to speak or no one should be allowed to. He requested that the ECHO Board review how to handle grant application deficiencies during the next application process (GY 2004).

Bill Roehrborn, Little Theatre of New Smyrna Beach – stated that he agreed with most of the ECHO Board members. "The purpose of the grant application is to present the project, not turn it into a one minute or five minute dog and pony show with PowerPoint presentations, costume actors and tumblers, would not be necessary." Mr. Roehrborn then proceeded to comment on the previous board completeness discussion. He stated, "there were eleven (11) applicants, four (4) of those eleven (11) applicants, (or over 36%), had no trouble with the application, that is a significant number. They understood it. If we accept that (Tab) 3.1 was poorly written, I don’t personally agree with that, assume that it was, then nine (9) of the eleven (11) had no trouble with the application, that is 80%. I have heard comments like, we are only human, well how about the 80% that got it right, they are human. I have heard comments that we don’t want to throw out a good project. If it is a good project, do the same as I heard this group tell Bethune Coookman, please come back next year. The deadlines we were told in the mandatory meeting, this application must be complete. Single syllables, four (4) letters, must be complete, if it is not, it will be rejected. We come here, those of us who worked hard and I think everybody worked hard, some obviously harder than others. I’m reminded of the little book, "I Learned Everything I Need To Know For Life In The 3rd Grade," and that was neatness and completeness count. I would wish that everyone would be held to the same standard, to say, well they are only human and allow them to bring deficient information in late isn’t right. It doesn’t feel good to get this kind of treatment. If it is deficient or incomplete ask them to come back next year. We are fighting for money for our organizations. About 60% , those of us who did a good job, who presented it to you in a complete fashion have a better chance of being funded and those that didn’t make it this year will come back next year, hopefully having done their home work. Because if this is the way they treat asking for the money, the most important part, how are they going to administer it? Where is the accountability, if they can’t get it right on the application, you are going to award them ½ million to one million dollars or any other amount? If you give them money, make them accountable. If you set in a mandatory meeting and are told that you must be accountable from the beginning, then enforce your own rules."

Chair Libby stated (to Mr. Roehrborn), "had he had access to the documents that the ECHO Board had, then he would realize that there is only one application that was deemed incomplete. The deficiencies classification suggested (to me, anyway)) the information was there, perhaps not in the right place, perhaps not in the traditional form, like a time line." Mr. Roehrborn interjected that a financial statement not included is more than a deficiency. It was incomplete. It wasn’t somewhere else. Chair Libby stated, " that was correct. It was accepted. One example that was pointed out by staff."

Lynne Plaskette, City of Edgewater – regarding the presentation during the Grant Panel Review – stated that she preferred that no presentations be allowed. If the ECHO Board had questions of the applicant that they could refer those questions to Margaret and let her clarify those questions for the board.

Chair Libby stated that there might still be clarification that the ECHO Board would need from the applicant. (Staff note: Chair Libby reserved the right for the ECHO Board to continue to question the applicants if they needed to during the Grant Review Process.)

Mrs. Hodge stated that the ECHO Board’s questions to the applicants should be direct and pertinent to what is in the grant application, not leading. Questions that require a simple "yes" or "no" answer for a response.

Mrs. Hodge requested that the board review the "Exceptional Project Category" on page 14 of the ECHO Grants-in-aid 2003 Application.

Chair Libby (for the record) read to the board the following paragraph (page 14 of the ECHO Grants-in-aid Application):

EXCEPTIONAL PROJECTS – Exceptional Project Scoring: The Grant Review Panel will review all applications at the same time and will determine if a project meets the Exceptional Project criteria by an absolute ¾ majority vote prior to the final scoring process. This initial determination does not rank the project. The project is scored in the sequence it was received by the County with the other applications and must rank in the top two projects in order to maintain Exceptional Project status. If the Grant Review Panel does not determine that the project meets the Exceptional Project criteria or the project does not rank in the top two projects, the grant request amount automatically will be reduced to the maximum amount available for non Exceptional projects and the match will return to the standard 1:1 match.

Mrs. Hodge stated that the first thing the board would do when they met as the Grant Review Panel on February 26, 2003, would be to determine if the two exceptional project applicants, (# 03-06) The Lively Arts Center and (# 03-09) City of Daytona Beach/Main Street Pier/Park, met the exceptional project criteria. Mrs. Hodge advised the board that the exceptional project applicants had to complete separate sections of the application, "Maximum & Exceptional Project" money amount requests. "They will tell you how they are going to spend the money differently if they get one award verses the other. This section should have all the answers that you are looking for to determine if it meets the exceptional project category. But, most importantly the board needs to look at the front of the grant application where it defines an exceptional project. The definition section will give you the definition for an exceptional project. It is still subjective, but does have some words, "county-wide importance" and all those wonderful things that you have to determine if these two applications meet "a standard (exceptional project criteria)."

Mr. Wiles asked for clarification on the 3-5 year rule as it applies to the Exceptional Project Category.

Chair Libby stated that once an applicant received an exceptional grant ward, which meant that the funds would be distributed over three (3) consecutive grant years, that the applicant could not apply for ECHO Grants-in-aid funding ever again for that project.

Mrs. Hodge clarified for the (deficient) grant applicants that she would be sending an email with a request for copies, how to package the copies and the deadline for receiving the copies: (1) twenty (20) copies and one (1) original of each of the missing document(s) (2) place documents in yellow envelope and mark it appropriately (3) due to the ECHO staff on or before Friday, January 17, 2003, 4:00 PM.

Mrs. Hodge informed the ECHO Board that they would receive the missing grant application information in a yellow sealed envelope so they could see the added information to assist in making their decisions.

There was no additional public participation.

January 22, 2003 – meeting canceled

February 12, 2003 – meeting canceled

February 26, 2003 – meeting as the Grant Review Panel (beginning 8:00 AM)

Pursuant to Volusia County Council Resolution 2000-156, the Volusia ECHO Program funds are to be used solely to finance acquisition, restoration, construction and improvement of environmental/ecological, cultural, historical/heritage and outdoor recreation facilities for public use. Additionally, and in accordance with Resolution 2000-156, the Volusia ECHO program seeks to enhance the quality of life of Volusia County’s residents by working to achieve the following goals over a broad geographic base:

Provide environmental/ecological, cultural, historical/heritage and outdoor recreational opportunities.

Preserve significant archaeological or historic resources; and develop, enhance and promote heritage tourism opportunities, experiences, and resources.

Foster public memory and community identity by promoting and providing access to destinations and experiences associated with past events, peoples and places in the County of Volusia.

Provide high quality, user oriented outdoor recreational opportunities including but not limited to access to the Atlantic Ocean Beach through the establishment of oceanfront parks and off-beach parking.

Improve the quality of life for Volusia’s citizens by providing access to the cultural arts, increase culturally based tourism and encourage redevelopment and revitalization of downtown and urban areas through the provision of cultural arts facilities.

Stimulate investment in local projects by regional, state and national public and private sources through provision of local matching funds for grants.

25 eligible applications were received for review

7 grants were awarded for a total amount of $2,126,378.

The following goals were established at the Goal Setting Session of the ECHO Advisory Committee May 8, 2002 and approved by the County Council October 3, 2002:

Reduce the number of ineligible applications received by staff and reviewed by the ECHO Advisory Board. To be determined in January 2003.

Encourage greater unencumbered cash on hand as match. Fifty percent of 1:1 match must be unencumbered cash and is included in 2003 application.

Establish policies, procedures and criteria for 2003. Completed.

Accept and review the second cycle of applications and recommend to the County Council projects for grant awards in 2003. In process.

- Seek input from the County Council on grant application policies and procedures. Completed.

Seek input on the application policies and procedures from potential applicants. Completed.

Hold a minimum of one ECHO Advisory meeting per month. Met January – September 2002 approximately 2 times per month, next meeting is January 8, 2003.

Refine the existing application and consider a "fill in the blank" application format. 2003 application is reformatted and more user friendly but is not a "fill in the blank " document.

Develop a list of specific items that will not be funded by ECHO. Completed and inserted in the 2003 application.

Develop a specific list of required backup to officially document match. Completed and inserted in the 2003 application.

Present the new application at a public meeting for final input. Completed September 2002.

Present the revised application to the County Council for final approval. Completed October 3, 2002.

Continue the mandatory application workshop policy. Completed October 5 and 9, 2002.

Encourage Applicants to take advantage of the County staff’s Technical Review process. Completed. Staff promoted via Internet and during the mandatory workshops.

June 2002

ECHO Inventory site map updated by County staff for Committee review.

County Council agenda on the application policies and procedures.

ECHO Board finalizes and approves Goals and Strategic Plan 2003.

July 2002

Goals and Strategic Plan presented to the County Council. Actual – October 3, 2002

Application Workshop/presentation with County Council.

Review of ECHO Inventory map by Committee.

August 2002

2003 ECHO Application approved by the Board and prepared for the County Council approval. Actual September due to addition of Exceptional Grant Category by Council.

County Council agenda requesting approval of ECHO Application 2003. Actual October 3, 2002.

September 2002

Establish grant application availability via press releases and on web page.

Mandatory application workshop for applicants Wed., Sept. 18, 8:30 –12 noon. Actual October 9, 2002.

October 2002

Mandatory grant application workshop, Sat., October 5, 8:30 – 12 noon.

Technical Review deadline Friday, October 25, 4 p.m.

November 2002

Technical Review responses out by staff Friday, November 8.

December 2002

Grant application deadline Friday, December 6.

County staff reviews applications for completeness and eligibility.

January 2003

County staff sends written notice to applicants with incomplete applications.

Board reviews scoring policies and procedures January 8, 2003.

Board determines final eligibility list Wed., January 22, 3 p.m.

Board receives all eligible applications for review Wed., January 22.

Written notice from staff to ineligible applicants by Fri., January 24.

February 2003

Grant Panel Review Wed., February 26, 8 a.m. – 5 p.m.

March 2003

Recommendation is taken to County Council for final approval.

April 2003

Grant funds are made available for expenditure by the Grantee.

Ms. Hodge stated that the agenda package also contained Inconsistency in the Grant Application, item # 1, Completeness Recommendations and Comments, item # 2, and 2003 ECHO Applications – Missing Documentation, item # 3.

1) Tab 3, Budget Detail and Matching Fund Statement (NEW) requirements for 2003 (scored section) – 9 of 13 applications failed to include one or more of the following: Contractor’s Fee, General Requirement costs, ECHO sign costs, Contingency fees and/or failed to insert the match codes. The ECHO Coordinator has spoken with each applicant and is confident that all applicants are aware of the restrictions on the Grant and Match expenditures.

Recommendation: Staff reviewed the narrative in the 2003 application and believes it may be confusing. Staff recommends that applications missing any of these items remain eligible.

Reason for Recommendation: The language in the application is found in three locations (page 20, 24 and 25) and is not consistent in all locations. In addition, the sample chart of the Budget Detail does not demonstrate the Contractor’s Fee or Contingency Fee requirement.

TAB 3: BUDGET DETAIL / MATCH FUNDS (Up To 15 Points – no page limit)

When applicable, use the following definitions as you create your budget narratives and charts. You may use other definitions if they are more appropriate to your project type. The Budget Detail must include General Conditions/Requirements, Contractor’s Fee, and Contingency funds as separate line items. ECHO will not pay for General Conditions/Requirements but they may be used as match. ECHO will not pay for Contingency Funds and they may not be used as match. ECHO will pay for 50% of the Contractor’s Fee and the balance may be used for match. The applicant shall not include General Conditions/Requirements, Contractor’s Fees or Contingency funds within any other budget line item and must clearly demonstrate them in the Budget. If these items are not budgeted for Match or ECHO then the applicant shall explain how these items are being paid for within section 3.2 Matching Funds Statement.

(1) The Grant (ECHO and Match) Proposal Budget (Expense/Income) is to be detailed here. You may use a format which best represents a detail of the revenues and expenses associated with the project phase described in TAB 2: Scope of Work; Project Narrative. The budget detail should be a break down of each line item using the budget definitions (pages 20 -23) where applicable. Always round to the nearest dollar. List the source and total fair market value for contributions by the source category as shown in the example (page 25). The detail of in-kind contributions would "line up" best on the income side of the budget. To better identify the source of the funds of the "match’ for the budgeted item, the applicant must enter a code after each item marked in the budget for this phase. The codes are: UC (Unencumbered cash on hand), PSC (previously spent cash), IP (irrevocable pledges), PPI (previously provided in-kind service), FI (future in-kind service). Note that the sums of these coded categories should equal the sums on the Match Summary Chart. (2) Applicants who request "multiphase" status on the application form must include a budget detail of each phase of the entire multiphase project. Budgets for additional phases do not require the detail needed in the budget for the phase of this application. (3) APPLICANTS REQUESTING EXCEPTIONAL PROJECT status must create two budget details to demonstrate the difference between receiving the maximum grant amount of $500,000 for one year with a 1:1 match and receiving an Exceptional grant award for up to three consecutive years with a 4:1 match.

The format of your Budget Detail may vary from the example below but generally should follow this format and must clearly demonstrate what specific items the ECHO funds will be used for and what the match funds will be or have been used for.

Example of a typical Budget Detail: The following example shows a method of structuring your Budget Detail for a building. Outdoor Recreation parks or trails may use other appropriate descriptions for the project construction budget. Be sure to include the categories "General Requirements and Contractor Fee" when applicable and do not absorb these categories within other categories. Contingency fees will not be grant funded and may not be used as match and shall not be included in any line item of your budget. If your Total Project Cost is $150,000 and you are requesting $75,000 your budget detail could look like this:

Match ECHO Totals

Expense Total ($75,000) ($75,000) ($150,000)

Income /Cash and In-Kind

3.2 MATCHING FUNDS STATEMENT (Up to 1 single side page limit including Match Summary Chart)

(1) Compose a statement that addresses the availability of matching funds. The Match shown must be at least 1:1 or one applicant dollar of value to every Volusia ECHO cash dollar requested. Exceptional grant applicants must demonstrate a 4:1 match. Of this match, at least 50% must be unencumbered cash. (Example: if the match is $1,000, at least $500 must be unencumbered cash. The remaining 50% or $500 may be cash already expended specifically for this project within five years of this application, in-kind services/products, irrevocable pledges or real property value. Matching funds must be specifically related to the project for which these grant funds are being requested. If your Budget Detail does not include Contractor ’s Fees and General Conditions/Requirements you must explain in this section why they are not in the Budget Detail. (2) Include a MATCH SUMMARY CHART. Insert at the end of the Matching Funds Statement a Match Summary Chart that summarizes your matching funds. This chart should be completed after the Budget Detail but inserted in the Matching Funds Statement section. EXCEPTIONAL PROJECTS shall provide two Summary Charts demonstrating the difference between receiving a $500,000 grant award for one year and receiving the full Exceptional amount requested. The chart includes Unencumbered Cash on Hand (UC), Previously Spent Cash (PSC), Irrevocable Pledges (IP), and Documented In-Kind Contributions both previously provided (PPI) and those provided in the future (FI).

Daytona Beach / Jackie Robinson Ballpark: Recommendation - Complete. 2.1 The applicant inserted 3 pages of narrative, maximum pages allowed is 2. In 3.1 the Multiphase Budget Detail is missing. Recommendation: Change the Multiphase project status to Single Phase. 3.2 Backup documentation for $15,000 was discussed but not documented in 3.3. Documentation has been received. Recommendation: Accept the $15,000 match amount as stated in the application.

South Daytona / Reed Canal Park: Recommendation – Deficient, requires ECHO Board approval. Two items are missing from the application (3(3) and 7(2)). The 3.3 narrative states that Minutes from a City Commission meeting are inserted. Minutes are missing. Minutes have been received. Recommendation: Accept the grant match as stated in the application. 7(2) Financial Statement is missing. Management Letter had no major issues. Financial Statement received.

BCC / Performing Arts: Incomplete. Seven items are missing from the application (1.6, 2.1(2)(4)(6), 3.3, 4.1(3), part of 7(3)). Several items are out of order or placed in the wrong tab section. The Annual Corporate Report is missing (1.6). Initial Incorporation papers were provided. 2.1(2) expenditures are not found here but could be determined by review of 3.1. 2.1 (4) protection of infrastructure and (6) public access, are not found in Tab 2 and are not described elsewhere. More than 50,000 dollars of ECHO funded items are ineligible items (3.1). There are enough match items to exchange for the ECHO requested items. No match document (grant) was found in (3.3) but was discussed in Tab 3. Financial Statement is missing 5 pages (7(3)). Applicant is gathering documents and assured County staff all are available.

Port Orange / Gamble Access: Deficient, requires ECHO Board approval. Four items are missing from this application (2.1(6), 2.2(3), 7(1)-2 docs). Two items are to discuss Time of public access, Tabs 2.1(6) for single-phase and 2.2 (3) for multiphase. General public access information is available in Tab 4 of the application "With the Completion of the proposed Phase 1 (this application) access and storm water improvements, the City will open the Gamble property to the public for the first time since 1998". Recommendation: Change the Multiphase status to Single Phase status. Tab 7, section (1) is missing 2 of 2 documents (Management Letter and Response Letter). Both documents received.

Deltona / Soccer Complex: Deficient, requires ECHO Board approval. Three items are missing from this application (5(2), 7(1) – 1 of 2 docs, 7(3)). Measurable Goals are not stated in 5 (2) but there are many statements within the narrative that could translate into goals. Tab 7(1) Response Letter is not included. The County Accounting Director stated that the Management Letter showed nothing significant. Tab 7, the Financial Statement is not provided. The applicant did provide some budget documentation but this is not a financial statement. The Response Letter has been received. The Budget document might meet a broad interpretation of an "Internally Prepared Financial Statement". This applicant has not been given "Clean Hands" approval but has requested it from the County Manager’s Office. Last year the ECHO Board moved forward with the application process allowing for Clean Hands issues to be resolved prior to County Council award. Staff has requested management to resolve this issue prior to the ECHO Board Grant Panel Review.

Pioneer Art Settlement / High School Restoration: Complete. Tab 3.3 documentation of a $6,000 pledge is missing although discussed in the Budget. The document has been received. Recommendation: Accept the $6,000 pledge.