Grant application information

ECHO Advisory Committee

Absent Members
Jack Wiles - Excused

Visitors (signed in)
Lynne Plaskett, City of Edgewater
Darden Jenkins, Jackie Robinson Ball Park
Julie A. Rand, Lively Arts Center, Inc.
Tom Harowski, City of New Smyrna Beach
Jack Corder, City of Edgewater
Bill Roehrborn, Little Theatre of NSB, Inc.
Monso Tatum, Pioneer Arts Settlement
Jo Ellen Basile, Sierra/Turtle Patrol
Nancy Maddox, County of Volusia
Ludi Leliz, Orlando Sentinel
Tim Baylie, County of Volusia
Greg Bartholomew, City of South Daytona
Kelly Ferguson, Lively Arts Center
Mary Virginia, Museum of Arts & Sciences
Suzanne Kuehn, City of Daytona Beach
Steve Stewart, (Citizen)
Dottie Hughes, Little Theatre of NSB., Inc.
Kent Donahue, City of Port Orange
Jerry Langston, City of Daytona Beach
Marilyn Breeze, Pioneer Arts Settlement
John Harper, County of Volusia
Alexa Ross, Volusia/Flagler Environmental Action

Chair Libby called the February 26, 2003, ECHO Advisory Board meeting to order at 8:30 AM, welcomed the public and asked staff to take Roll Call of members.

Chair Libby recognized Charlene Weaver, Chief Financial Officer of Volusia County, and asked for an update on the ECHO revenue projections. Mrs. Weaver stated that the taxable valuation assumes a 6% growth in tax base for FY 2004, and 3.5% thereafter. The projected revenue assumed 96% collection of taxes due (based on historical data). Endangered/Recreational Lands Debt Service reduced the first year revenue only. The estimated property taxable value was used to run the numbers for the Volusia ECHO 20-year revenue projection of $99,228,894.00, a growth of $11 Million over the 20-year period.

Mrs. Weaver stated that the revenue projection numbers were done to give the ECHO Advisory Board a better understanding of how the amount of $3,900,200 was arrived at for grant funding distribution. She explained that the Property Appraiser does the accessing of properties and he establishes a market value for the properties and then properties that are exempt or have exemptions are removed from the market value, thus reducing the market value, and this gives the taxable value. The taxable value is used to determine how much revenue will be generated for ECHO. An analysis of the taxable base was done over the previous 20-year period to establish the revenue projections and averaged a little over 6% in growth in the tax base, however, 10 years of the 20-year period averaged 3.5% and the conservative estimate for revenue projections was done so as to allow the ECHO Advisory Board not to plan on revenue that would not appear.

Mrs. Weaver directed the ECHO Advisory Board to the revenue projection sheet and explained the jump from last year (FY 01/02) to this year (FY 02/03) in the amounts that were available for ECHO grant funding. She stated that the first column showed how much was collected in property taxes and that usually 96% of property taxes levied are collected, interest that was earned on the money and the amount paid out in TITF left the fund balance approximately $2.5 Million, that money was carried forward into this fiscal year (02-03) and the projected property tax collection of $3.6 Million and interest of $70,000 equals the total of $6.2 Million in revenues, take off grants that the board decided on of $2.1 Million (GY 02/03) and $3.9 Million estimates (GY 03 /04), take the TITF of $94,000 and reserves and that equals expenditures that will match the revenue of $6.2 Million. Property tax collected last year (01/02) of $2.5 Million and the grants that the board gave last year of $2.1 Million, gave approximately $400,000 that was added to the property tax of $3,600,000. This gives a total of $4 Million and that is how the board was able to give $3.9 Million this year (02/03), had there not been the fund balance of $400,000, the board would not have been able to give over the $3.6 Million, and probably less than that because money would have had to have been set aside for reserves. Mrs. Weaver stated that reserves are always set aside in the event something unexpected happens, such as, if the revenue doesn’t come in as high as projected or maybe the TITF takes a big jump like it did this year (02/03). Mrs. Weaver asked if the ECHO Advisory Board had any questions. They had none. (Staff note: a copy of the 20-year revenue projection analysis sheet is attached for the record.)

Chair Libby directed the meeting to the approval of the January 8, 2003, minutes and asked if there were any additions or corrections. There were none. Ms. Hagstrom made a Motion to approve the minutes. Ms. Hargreaves seconded the Motion. The January 8, 2003, minutes were unanimously approved.

Staff Report and Update on Eligibility and other Grant related issues - Mrs. Hodge stated that the process for the GY 2002 awardees was slower than anticipated and that she expected all the applicants (for GY 2002) to get an extension on their projects and suggested that the ECHO Advisory Committee, during their summer grant process review, consider going to 2-years because of the many construction issues related to the projects.

Regarding the GY 2003 ECHO projects, Mrs. Hodge stated that the County Council had received the grant applications and that she and the ECHO Chair had met with the new County Council members individually and went over the ECHO program and process. GY 2003 pledges were in the bank for applicants # 03-10 – Pioneer Arts Settlement, Inc., and # 03-12 – Little Theatre of New Smyrna Beach, Inc., and that the additional information for applicants # 03-03 - City of South Daytona, # 03-05 – City of Port Orange and # 03-07 – City of Deltona had been received, reviewed and approved.

Scoring Procedures - Mrs. Hodge gave the following instructions (memo – 2003 ECHO Application and Scoring Procedures that was emailed to the ECHO Advisory Committee) for the GY 2003 review and scoring -

2003 APPLICATIONS: Twelve eligible applications to be scored during the GY 2003 grant review process. (Staff note: Bethune-Cookman College (App. 03-04) was withdrawn at the request of the applicant on January 8, 2003.)

STAFF CHECKLIST: A "Volusia ECHO Application Checklist" was included behind the score sheet for each applicant’s score book. The Checklist included staff comments on application sections not discussed during the January 8 "eligibility" meeting as well as the Boards January 8 decisions on deficient sections. Staff comments are not on issues that would cause ineligibility but may be important to your evaluation of the project. The comments are meant to assist your review by providing facts that may not be easily observed in the application. The comments are not meant to influence the panels review. Some comments are clarification by the applicant at the request of staff. The County staff contacted the applicant solely to clarify statements provided in the final application. All applicants have reviewed the staff comments and agree they are appropriate.

ADDENDUM PACKAGES: On January 8, 2003 the ECHO Advisory Board agreed to move applications 03-03, 03-05 and 03-07 forward through the grant review process although the applications were found to be deficient. All applicants have complied by providing the required information as requested by the Board before 4 p.m., January 17, 2003. The addendum material was provided in a 9" x 12" yellow envelope marked "ADDENDUM" and inserted at the end of the application. During the January 8 meeting, the ECHO Board agreed that each Grant Review Panel member would decide if they would score the application down for the initial deficiencies noted on January 8.

SCORE SHEETS AND SCORE COMMENTS: ECHO Board members agreed to demonstrate on the score sheets the reasons for scores especially when the score was reduced. County staff requests the Board add all appropriate comments to the score sheets (you may use the back of the page, checkmark the box on the front page) in order to help applicants improve future applications. Please use a black ink pen or a #2 pencil on the score sheets so that the sheets copy clearly. In the Score Book you will find extra copies of the score sheets in the front inside sleeve. All final score sheets must have your initial, final scores and the date on them before you turn them in following the Grant Review, Wed., February 26, 2003.

GRANT REVIEW, WED, FEB 26, 2003 / 8 AM: Sign-In 8:00 – 8:25 a.m. Meeting convenes at 8:30 a.m. The Chair will begin the review by asking the ECHO Board to vote whether the two exceptional applications will move forward as exceptional or be changed to the maximum grant request amount of $500,000 for one year. After this is determined each application is reviewed in numerical order. The Chair will call the first application for review by the Board, allow staff time to go over comments, conduct Board review and applicant response, then call for final scoring. The scoring sequence by the panel members will rotate with each application so that members do not continually voice their scores in the same sequence. The Board agreed they would only question the applicant in order to clarify the application content and would not accept additional presentations. The Board approved staff assisting in monitoring the applicant response period. The Board agreed that a 3-minute response period should be maintained but recognized the importance of all Board members receiving answers to their individual questions regarding an application.

Mr. Gummey stated that any conflict of interest needed to be declared before the grant application was considered. Chair Libby added that the policy stated that if there was a conflict of interest by any ECHO Advisory Committee member, the member would be asked to exit the chambers until the scoring was done and would not participate before, during or after the scoring vote.

Chair Libby clarified for the public that the scoring for the grant review process would be conducted by a rotational Grant Review Panel member roll call vote, the high and low scores would be thrown out and an average of the remaining scores would be done to determine the recommended priority list for County Council approval (on March 27, 2003).

Grant Review – Determination of Exceptional Projects – Mrs. Hodge stated that the first "Exceptional" project was the Lively Arts Center, requesting $1,000,000.00 for the next three consecutive years, for new construction. Mr. Davidson asked for the criteria for an exceptional project. Mrs. Hodge stated that the definition for an "Exceptional Project" meant a project (see definition of "project," page 11 GY 2003 ECHO Grants-in-aid Application) of paramount and crucial county-wide importance and which provides for receipt of services by significantly large numbers of people in all areas of the County as demonstrated and determined by absolute ¾ majority of the ECHO Committee (7 of 9) and the County Council (6 of 7) and that the project must rank in the # 1 or # 2 rating in order to maintain the "Exceptional Project" category.

Chair Libby called for a Roll Call vote on whether or not to leave # 03-06 - Lively Arts Center project, as an "Exceptional Project." Roll Call vote as follows: Teri Ford Cobean, yes – Mr. Davidson, yes – Ms. Hagstrom, yes – Ms. Hargreaves, yes – Mr. Matousek, no – Mr. Schleicher, yes – Ms. Williams, yes, and Mr. Libby, yes. The Lively Arts Center project was left as an exceptional project by a 7-1 vote.

Chair Libby called for a Roll Call vote on whether or not to leave # 03-09 – Main Street Pier/Park Museum project, as an "Exceptional Project." 
Roll Call vote as follows: 
Teri Ford Cobean, no
Mr. Davidson, no
Ms. Hagstrom, no
Ms. Hargreaves, no
Mr Matousek, no
Mr. Schleicher, no
Ms. Williams, no
and Mr. Libby, yes.
The Main Street Pier/Park Museum (City of Daytona Beach) project was moved from the "Exceptional Project" category to the "$500,000.00 Maximum Project" category project by a 7-1 vote.