Grant application information

ECHO Advisory Committee

Prior to taking the Roll Call, Chair Hargreaves introduced two new people attending the meeting. Mr. Ken Russell was introduced as the newest Board member and was asked to tell us about himself. He stated that he was now retired and had spent many years in various US subsidiaries of Siemens Corporation and most recently was the General Consul for a Division in south Florida. He stated that he came to Volusia because he liked Volusia. He volunteered for several Boards but felt fortunate to be selected for this Board as this was his first choice.

Next, Sedrick Harris was introduced as the new ECHO Program Assistant. He stated that he previously was in the Environmental Petroleum Clean-up group, but is probably best known as the husband of Karen Harris who formerly held this position.

I. Call To Order, Roll Call, Introductory Remarks

Chair Hargreaves called the April 12, 2006 ECHO Advisory Committee meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. and welcomed the Advisory Committee members and the public. Chair Hargreaves asked staff to take the roll. A quorum was present with 8 members in attendance.

II. Old Business

Chair Hargreaves proceeded with old business and asked Mr. Matousek to tell what he did last Saturday. He stated that he went to the Grand Opening of the Lake Helen Equestrian Facility, in conjunction with the DeLand Museum of Art, which was clearly a community event. Mr. Graven stated that he had attended the opening of the Deltona Keysville dog park which was very successful with “…a lot of happy dogs.” Chair Hargreaves stated that we are now beginning to see successful completion of some of the projects funded by ECHO. She stated that other counties are looking at Volusia Counties ECHO activities as a roll model.
Chair Hargreaves asked Margaret Hodge to update the Board on any upcoming activities. Ms. Hodge said that not much was going on now but that several of the projects would be closed out in the next few months. In addition, the quarterly reports were coming in and she would have an update for the Board at the next meeting.

III. Staff Report

The Board referred to the charts showing the effect of the Countywide Master Trails System. Margaret Hodge referred to the 2 charts explaining how one chart, without the inclusion of the $2,000,000 allocation for the Trails, shows the distribution of monies in the ECHO categories while the second chart includes the monies spent on the Trails and how it changes the division of funds for the ECHO categories. The charts also show how the funds have been distributed by organization type.

Dennis Graven asked if there is any document showing where the Trails money has gone for construction or where it is going. Margaret Hodge responded by saying that the million dollars is no longer dealt with by her. It is placed in the ECHO fund where it does accrue interest; however, it is managed by Leisure Services. There is a Master Trails Plan that was developed with Countywide input and Jamie Seaman could probably better answer questions about the history.

Jamie Seaman said that there were multiple workshops held over a 2 ½ year period to determine where the Trails would go and what local trails they would hook up with. This plan was approved by the County Council in the 2000 to 2001 time frame.

Dennis Graven said that he listened to the last County Council meeting and there was some concern stated about some of the projects dragging on in timeframe. He thought that we would still need to track these projects over the 730-day time frame. Margaret Hodge said that the million dollars is similar to the Forever Program as it is set aside for land purchase or development as they become available. Ms. Hodge said that she could update the Board on what the Trails System has worked on and accomplished at a later meeting if this was desired.
Jack Wiles asked if the Council is being kept informed of what monies are being spent and what accomplishments are happening on the Trails System. He was concerned that taxpayer money may not be watched properly and that the ECHO board was tasked to watch over funds for projects such as the Trails System. He said there should be accountability and asked who has this accountability for monitoring these dollars since the Board does not.

Jamie Seaman said that the projects are looked at like any normal capital expenditure and are monitored and reviewed with the progress shown in the next annual budget cycle reporting of projects and their status. Jack Wiles then asked if the Leisure Services group had a specific line item for the Trails System monies and wanted to know if this was being monitored and being spent every year? Jamie Seaman said, “Yes”. Margaret Hodges then stated that the million dollars is placed into the ECHO account and does not transfer to the Leisure Services capital account. It stays in the ECHO account until the monies are ready to be spent. Jack Wiles then stated that many people are watching how the ECHO board is monitoring the various projects and that it would be helpful if Leisure Services gave a presentation to the ECHO Board and the Volusia taxpayers during a regular scheduled meeting on how these Trails projects are being monitored.

Stuart Sixma wholeheartedly agreed with Jack Wiles and that is why he brought this subject up at the last meeting. He stated that there is a very nice master plan brochure on the Trails System that gives explanation to the project and is a “real eye opener.” Linda Hargreaves questioned if the money for the Trails System is only for County property and that any connections to the cities is the responsibility of the Cities. She asked if that was correct. Margaret Hodge said that this was not necessarily true. Some of the Master Trails go through Daytona Beach and is on their properties. The wide sidewalks in Ormond are also part of the Master Trails as they all have historical content. The East side is pretty much developed or close to being developed and what they are trying to do now is go cross county and down the West side. The trails do go through Federal, State and City lands as it comes down the west coast. Chair Hargreaves asked if the Trails System million dollars was also for use by the cities as the trail goes thru it or just for county properties? Ms. Hodge responded that she didn’t know the answer; however, she stated there is a priority system set up by the County Council as to which ones would be built first.

Charles Matousek said that there is a discussion of a passive sales tax that will replace the current 5-cent gas tax and that part of it would be for transportation. Is it possible that part of these monies would be used to fund the Trails System? Ms. Seaman responded that some of the current money could possibly be used to purchase land or right-of-ways for the system; however, the Trails system does not use the gas tax money for Trails projects. She said that it might be done, but it currently isn’t being done.

Stuart Sixma asked if the ½ cent sales tax comes in, will it necessarily be used in the same way that the 5 cent gas tax is. Jamie Seaman responded by saying that the monies could be used for any capital project. She has heard rumblings about this but there are no specific projects earmarked for these funds that could be put on the ballot. The question was asked if there was a plan regarding the use of these monies and questioned if some of the money would be used for off beach parking.

Chair Hargreaves asked if there were any other questions and when no one spoke up, she took up the subject of the Informal survey that was sent out to potential applicants. Margaret Hodge said she sent out an email asking for response from all subscribers on the ECHO email list, which includes potential Grant applicants as well as the Grantees. Ms. Hodge stated that she received only 2 responses. The question was also posed if they liked the Grant panel review. One individual responded that they would like to see the questions ahead of time. The other one said they would like Ms. Hodge to create their goals for them instead of them having to create their own goals. Since these were the only 2 responses, she believes everything is well. There were no other comments on this item.

Chair Hargreaves moved on to item 3 – Revised Budget Form. Ms. Hodge stated that she had sent out that section of the Guide by email to the Board; however, between then and now, she made some additional changes that show up in the copies that were handed out today. The changes are noted by the slash through those words that have been revised. Linda Hargreaves asked if the Budget detail chart was changed. Ms. Hodge responded that that particular page had not been changed and stated that she could go over this either now or when they go through the total book. With agreement by all, Chair Hargreaves said to wait until they go through the whole book.

IV. New Business

Election of Officers
Linda Hargreaves said, “…as our by-laws now direct, it is time to elect our new officers.” She asked Ms. Hodge to state, for the benefit of the new people, what officers we have to which she stated that we have a Chair and a Vice Chair. Chair Hargreaves asked Charles Matousek, since he had been an officer, to explain a little about what the duties include. He responded by saying there was much expected of the officers. Ms. Hodge was asked to describe the process and restrictions for holding office which she did explaining the maximum, 2 consecutive year term limit.

Chair Hargreaves said that she had previously been Vice Chair so she may not be eligible for re-election. Jamie Seaman and Margaret Hodge conferred and said that the charter says that an individual could not serve more than 2 consecutive years as either Chair or Vice Chair. Chair Hargreaves had a break in time between being the former Vice Chair and the current Chair.

Chair Hargreaves asked for nominations for Vice Chair. Mr. Matousek nominated the current Vice Chair Lorna Jean Hagstrom and Mr. Matulis seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations and Lorna Jean Hagstrom was declared elected by unanimous proclamation.

Chair Hargreaves proceeded to open the floor for nominations for Chair. Mr. Matousek nominated the current Chair, Linda Hargreaves and the nomination was seconded. There were no other nominations and a voice vote was unanimous.

Review of 2007 GRANTS-IN-AID Application Guide
Chair Hargreaves said that we will go over the draft Not-for-Profit Application Guide page by page and, if desired, discuss the changes suggested. A suggestion was made that the word challenge should be changed to criteria in paragraph 3 of the introduction (Page 1, Guide). Agreed by all!

Margaret Hodge stated that the last bulleted statement of the Volusia ECHO Program Goals (Page 2, Guide) was outside the program goals listed in the adopting resolution, but had been presented to the public during the initial ECHO presentations prior to adoption of the Resolution. The Board felt that this goal could remain as written (Page2, Guide).

Chair Hargreaves discussed the ECHO Application Program Requirements, (item 8), “Drawings and maps,” stating that several members had voiced their opinion that they would feel better if they had a site plan of the proposed project.
Ms. Hargreaves asked if anyone wanted to add anything to the Program requirements. Dennis Graven replied that he would like to see a requirement for a scaled drawing/plan so the relative size and locations could more easily be determined.

Ms. Hodge brought up the change suggested in item 1 in the Applicant Eligibility Requirements (Page 3, Guide). Discussions ensued concerning whether this would affect any organizations. Ms. Seaman stated that there is the “Trust for Public Lands” based out of Tallahassee. They have representatives throughout the state but no offices or local groups in Volusia County. They do, however, typically partner up with a local organization and work together with them. Chair Hargreaves said that she felt the project should have some kind of grounding in this county to which Ms. Hodge suggested that this could be part of the members scoring consideration.
Mr. Wiles asked, “…didn’t the original charter state that it had to be a Corporation based in Volusia County.” Ms. Hodge responded “…Yes, however, this was expanded to where an organization can be headquartered anywhere within the State of Florida “…if it had a local organization in the County.” Jamie Seaman explained that even if the Trust for Public Lands partnered with a local organization, the local organization would still be the Grantee. The question was asked if it was possible to have co-applicants to which Ms. Hodge responded that “partners” would be okay but one of the organizations had to take the lead for proper communications and responsibility. She stated that the applicant is always the owner or the Lessee of the property.

Regarding the Application Timetable, Mr. Wiles asked if by changing the dates, would this help diminish the number of addendums received from the applicants? Ms. Hodge responded, “Yes, this should help as there will be more time to review them for completeness…;” however, some of the applicants last year totally ignored her comments on the completeness review and had to send in addendums to correct bad information on their application. Chair Hargreaves felt that early reviews caused additional budget addendums. Ms. Hodge stated that only errors in calculation caused an addendum and additional funding would be brought forward during the presentation of the proposed project to the Board and would not be an addendum.
It was noted that the Workshop times listed on the timetable (Page 5, Guide) did not match those in the Review Calendar (Page 7, Guide).
Application Review Process (Page 8, Guide)

Mr. Graven questioned the addition of new language in the application review section of the Guide where an applicant who received questions prior to the grant review might be considered to have an unfair advantage over an applicant that had no questions to prepare but was asked questions during the grant review meeting. Mr. Matousek and Mr. Russell added that much of the knowledge gained at the presentations were from questions that were asked during the presentation. This was especially true for follow-up questions that came about as a result of the answers to the original questions. Mr. Grigat said that he didn’t see anything wrong with providing questions before the panel review as long as the applicants were told that, even if questions were asked in advance, there may or may not be additional questions that could come up during the panel presentation.

This issue and the proposed new language from County Staff resulted from some County Council members expressing concern that the Panel might have been influenced by the quality of the presenter as some applicants have professional grant writers to present the grant to the Panel.

Ms. Seaman stated that maybe this needs to be reworded to say that questions may be submitted to the applicants; however, this will not restrict the board members from the questions that may come up that they wish to ask.

Concerned that all of the Panel members see the questions and the corresponding answers, the suggestion was made that all questions be submitted through Ms. Hodge with her forwarding the answers to all of the Panel members.

Chair Hargreaves asked if, as a committee, did they want to submit questions prior to the applicants’ presentations at the Grant review. A member expressed concern about the perception that the Board already knows how they are going to rank a project. Several members agreed it would be a concern.

Regarding the experience of the presenter influencing the Panels decision, the County Council’s concern was understood; however, the Panel can take this variable into account. The concern was reiterated that the applicants could look upon some groups receiving questions ahead of time to be an advantage for them in preparing for the Panel. Mr. Russell was also concerned that if an applicant was sent questions in advance and, during the ensuing discussions, an additional and much more difficult question was asked, the applicant could think that this question too should have been asked in advance to let them better prepare.

Mr. Grigat believes it is the Panels job to acquire the most information about the proposed projects to make better educated decisions as some of the applicants will try to come up with an answer whether it is correct or not. Ms. Hodge stated that there have been previous discussions about allowing the applicant to step back for a period of time to enable them to come up with the answer for the question and then return to continue their presentation later in the day.

It was stated that when an organization is passionate about their project and are coming to the county for significant funds, they should have the answers to the questions concerning their project. Chair Hargreaves suggested that, with Ms. Hodge’s experience with the ECHO panels, she might be able to come up with some common questions (along with submissions from each of the Board members) that could be presented to the applicants during the mandatory workshops. Ms. Hodge stated that, when she reviews the applicants’ submission, she informs them of the questions that are asked by the Panel and the type of information the Panel members are looking for if the information is not in the application. She also tells them that the lack of completeness of the answer can lead to additional questions. Ms. Hargreaves asked Ms. Hodge, “…if you do that, why don’t they have the answers?” Ms. Hodge said that she suggests that this is the type of information the Panel is looking for but cannot make the applicant do anything. Chair Hargreaves suggested a stronger approach telling them to be prepared to provide specific information on certain topics of interest.

Ms. Hodge stated that 17 of the 19 applicants for last years presentations had the answers. Only 2 were lacking the knowledge to answer the questions during the presentation.

The question was asked as to how many County Council members were concerned about the experience of the presenters influencing the scores. Ms. Seaman said “…2 or 3 of the members.”

Mr. Wiles suggested that if a presenter needs assistance in answering a question, allow them to make a cell call to get the answer. He feels that would be a better solution than any of the other suggestions.

Ms. Hodge asked if Mr. Wiles was more interested in having the information than in scoring them for their ability to quickly answer the questions to which he responded, “Yes.”

Mr. Matousek said that we are talking about the exception rather than the rule. Any change we make is going to open us up to criticism so I’m in favor of leaving things like they are.

It was suggested that this question to be discussed at a workshop session with the County Council.

A statement was made saying that what appears to be the only answer is to let people pause a couple of times, if necessary, to obtain the answers and then come back to the Panel.

Mr. Russell said that we should let the applicants know that if they can’t answer all aspects of the application, they should have someone standing by that they can contact in a timely manner to answer the questions.

Mr. Wiles stated that if he was writing a grant for a half-million dollars, he would be sure to be available at the time panel questions may arise. It was resolved that the page needs to be reworked.

Item 4 of the Administrative & Report Requirements (Page 9, Guide)
This section has to do with change of scope of the project and the timeliness of the reports. Ms. Hodge said that many times these reports are late in arriving. The Chair asked Ms. Hodge, “…what happens if they don’t submit it in a timely manner?” Ms. Hodge responded that if they are not timely or if they do non-pre-approved construction work, they can lose the grant. Ms. Hargreaves said that maybe somewhere in the document, this can be referenced. Ms. Hodge noted that the policy is within the Guide.

Application Submission and Mailing Format (Page 13, Guide)
A question was posed as to why we only require so few copies now which elicited the question, “Don’t the County Council members each get their own copy?” Ms. Hodge stated that only 2 copies go to the County Council – one to the East side and one to the West side. Ms. Hodge informed the Board that the State Cultural Board requires 15 copies of applications for their use.

Funding Amounts / Policy / Caps & Restrictions (Page 15, Guide)
Chair Hargreaves said that some County Council members have questioned the use of ECHO funds that does not increase public use. Ms. Hodge said that there is one ECHO project that has requested $1.5 million over a 5 year period and there is nothing written that will prevent them from asking for another $1.5 million for another 5 year period. This project is still not open to the public. When the County Council asked if they could come back for another 1.5 million for another 5 year project, Ms. Hodge said that there is nothing currently restricting this. The concern is that a “super project” like this might not be finished.

The original intent was that the 5 year project would complete the action and if another 5 year project was granted, it would be to expand the existing facility in some way. Dialogue between Ms. Hodge and Ms. Hargreaves further explaining the way funds over the initial $1.5 million could be appropriated. A total cap does exist for any project of 6 million dollars over the 20 year period of the ECHO project.
Chair Hargreaves said that there are 2 questions: the first being - how do we address the $6 million cap and make it more clear, and the second is - how do we address the $1.5 million project.

Mr. Matousek said he didn’t want to make a change in this section as it could be too restrictive. The projects should be judged on their worth rather than using a restriction. Ms. Hodge said that there is concern since some of these multi-year projects are not yet open to the public.

Mr. Matousek mentioned that this $1.5 million project told us they would be back for more funds next year to finish up the project so how do you stop them before the project is complete (as this will stop all timely work)? Jamie Seaman mentioned that last year, this same group said that this year would be the last year they would ask for funds as this would complete the project; …and here they are again saying they are going to be asking for more money to finish the project.

Mr. Sixma agreed with Mr. Matousek – the project we’re talking about couldn’t foresee the problems that came up and that we need to stay flexible.

Ms Hargreaves said that one thing we have decided is to recommend to the County Council that we have some flexibility regarding the various projects. The Council is questioning whether there is some way to monitor these projects so they don’t continue to take funds from other potential needy projects. Ms. Hodge said that the Council is concerned that some of the same projects are getting funding every year while other worthy projects are not being funded.

Mr. Russell said that there are several people who are new to the ECHO board and they will be looking at these projects with fresh eyes.

Chair Hargreaves asked if the Board members felt comfortable with a project receiving $1.5 million in a 5 year period and then them coming back for another $1.5 million for the next 5 years. She said that we have to be careful if we are setting a precedent in (continual funding of a project) considering additional monies for the same “footprint” over a period greater than 5 years.

It was noted that we have granted many extensions should something happen. Ms. Hodge said that this language is not about extensions but about the length of time to complete the project. Ms. Hargreaves said she would like an opportunity to do some time/space consideration and used an example of the same team winning year after year. Do we want to tell them that they still might be the best after a period of time but we’re going to give the opportunity to someone new? She said that the public might get weary of the continual funding of a project and the County Council members must be firmly aware of this.

Mr. Wiles said that when a project keeps coming back for more, when they have missed their timeframe, it is “concerning” and this should probably be weighed in the scoring. He said that when a project says “…with this money…,” they will be able to be at a certain point in the project. They shouldn’t be able to come back for more until they have reached that point even if it is the following year.

Ms. Hargreaves said that it is a requirement that either they have or have not completed the project to the point they said they would be at with these funds which is highly subjective. It was stated that this is why the County Council is concerned.

The subject of project revisions was mentioned and that some projects encounter major revisions during the course of the project. Ms. Hodge said that these requested changes must be approved by her and Montye Beamer so these changes are being watched and the monies are being expended on the project. It wouldn’t be fair to the applicant to be 95% complete on the project; and them going through preparing the 15 copies of the next grant request only to be told that they weren’t eligible for this years funding.

Mr. Wiles referred to how banks had 90 day notes and you had to pay it off before you cold get another 90 day note. He said that we seem to be saying that we extend the due date on that 90 day note and then give them another 90 day note. Ms. Hodge responded by citing multiple examples of how several projects with multiple grants actually finished the second grant before the first. Contractors had advised them that it would be financially advantageous for them to approach the project in a particular way.

Chair Hargreaves stated that Mr. Russell has just joined us and how does he know what the Grantee/applicant has done prior to this? The application has no history section. Mr. Russell agreed with the philosophy of putting prior performance as a consideration of score. If there is a good reason for non-completion of a project, that should allow us to consider if their work is meritorious and considerate of additional funding at the current time. Ms. Hodge said that something could be put into the Grant process that would explain if the project applicant had a prior grant and if so, the state of completion and the “why” for any unanswered questions. Chair Hargreaves stated she would like to see this become part of the Grant package putting the onus of completion on the potential Grantee. Ms. Hodge mentioned that this information could be put into tab 2 so it could be used for scoring. Multiple members agreed with this.

Restriction Section (Page 15, Guide) - no comments.

Instructions for Completing the Application (Page 16, Guide)
Mr. Matousek stated he likes to see letters of support which are now not allowed. Ms. Hodge said there is a difference between the “use letter” and the letter just stating this is a nice project. Ms. Seaman restated it as general support vs. specific support from a user group. Mr. Wiles said that we should keep the package simple.

1.1 Application Form (Page 17, Guide)
Mr. Matousek questioned where it says (in section13A of Form 1.1, Application Form) to insert the “…total project cost.” Ms. Hodge said that the match + overmatch + ECHO funds will equal chart on 3.1. Any estimate of TOTAL cost is just an estimate. The portion of the project that these funds will be used for goes here. Ms. Hodge asked if the statement, as proposed, is explanatory for what they are asking for. Several members said the proposed wording is confusing. Ms. Hodge said she would make some recommendations.

1.2 Project Team (Page 19, Guide) – no comments.

1.3 (3) Management Prospectus & Policy Statement (Page 19, Guide)
Chair Hargreaves asked Ms. Seaman to elaborate on this point of Management agreements if this would affect projects such as the Pier in Daytona Beach. “Yes, this would effect the funding of the Pier in Daytona Beach.” Mr. Sixma said that Daytona Beach owns the pier but the application would be submitted by the management company that runs the operation. This was disputed and Ms. Hodge said that the only group that could come forward on this is the land owner - which is the city. Mr. Sixma said he would NOT want any ECHO funds going for a project that has a profit incentive attached to it. Ms. Seaman gave an example of what public property managed by a for-profit company can do to activities. The Kennedy Space Center is owned by the Federal Government; however, the space center facilities are leased to a for-profit company. When she was growing up, she used to go out for the launches all the time. Now, to see a launch, you either have to be on one of their purchased bus tours or purchase a launch pass. No longer do US Senators or Congressmen have launch passes to hand out.
Multiple Board members agreed with Mr. Sixma by not supporting the use of ECHO funds that will benefit for-profit companies. Mr. Wiles said he could see this used a lot on depressed areas where cities could ask for funds to buy land where they put a small park, and later, a large building of a for-profit company.

Ms. Hargreaves asked what happens if we fund someone who is a not-for-profit and later, they change the facility funded by ECHO to a for-profit operation? Do we have any recourse? Ms. Hodge said that recourse is stated very clearly. Ms. Hargreaves asked what the consensus of the committee was and they all agreed with the original concept as stated.

1.5.(3) Unrestricted Ownership (Page 20, Guide)
Ms. Hodge questioned the $250K value on property because of increased property values. Ms. Seaman stated that this is from a State Statute.

1.6 Restrictive Covenants (Page 21, Guide)
Restrictive covenants language is for not-for-profits and cities. For State or County owned land, this does not apply. Ms. Seaman said that if State or Federal lands are improved by a county or city and the State or Federal agency want to divest themselves of this land, they must first offer it to the government agency that funded the improvements.
The rest of this document will be completed during the next session.

It was agreed that the next meeting would be held on May 10th. In the interim, Ms. Hodge asked the board members to send her what they have regarding workshop suggestions which she needs to address within the next week.

V. The meeting was adjourned by Chair Hargreaves at 5:00 p.m.