Grant application information

ECHO Advisory Committee

I. Call To Order, Roll Call, Introductory Remarks, Approval of Minutes

Chair Hargreaves called the April 27, 2005 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 6 members in attendance.
Chair Hargreaves opened discussion to approval for the April 13 2005 ECHO Advisory Committee meeting minutes, asking for changes or corrections. Hearing none, called for a motion for approval of the minutes.
Lorna Jean Hagstrom moved to approve the minutes as distributed.
Charles Matousek seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
 

II. Old Business

Chair Hargreaves directed the Committee’s attention to the draft of the “Main Goals and Strategic Plan” distributed at the last Committee meeting and asked for comments.

Chair Hargreaves inquired of staff member, Margaret Hodge if there was currently a focus for the May 2005 County Council Workshop?

Margaret Hodge stated the workshop is on the schedule because the Committee held one last year but was not required and it should be determined by the Committee within the next few meetings if there are issues for which the Committee will need the Council’s direction. She further commented the goal setting is required by the Committee’s by-laws and is the reason they are going through the process.

Chair Hargreaves, following discussion by members of the Committee and legal counsel, recommended adding the words, “to be accomplished in the following order: next to the words “Strategic Plan” on the “2005/2006 MAIN GOALS AND STRATEGIC PLAN” document to which the Committee agreed.

Chair Hargreaves called for a motion to approve the “2005/2006 MAIN GOALS AND STRATEGIC PLAN” as amended.

Charles Matousek so moved.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom seconded the motion.

Chair Hargreaves called for discussion on the motion

Charles Matousek as a point of clarification, noted the deadline for final submission day for grant applications has been changed from a Friday to a Thursday so as to remove the issue of how late an application submission may have been when submitted after the weekend following the Friday deadline.

Chair Hargreaves asked for further discussion, hearing none, called for a vote.

The motion carried by a unanimous vote.

III. New Business

Chair Hargreaves requested Margaret Hodge review new business with the Committee.

Margaret Hodge explained there would be more to report after the grantee quarterly reports were submitted and a summary report generated which should be available before the end of May.

Chair Hargreaves directed the Committee’s attention to the review of the grant cycle process and the comments made by past applicants in the survey’s provided to the members at the last Committee meeting. Chair Hargreaves requested members to comment on their questions or concerns as they read the reviews and what changes to the application or grant process, should be discussed either at the current meeting or carried over to future meetings.

Summary of Concerns (Surveys and/or Committee Members):

1. Financial Topics
   1. Small Not-For-Profits – survey comments
      1. 1:1 Match requirement (Charles Matousek)
      2. Cost of Certified Financial Audit (Charles Matousek)
      3. Cost and the need for signage (Charles Matousek)
      4. 5-Year Budget requirement (Lorna Jean Hagstrom)
2. Administrative Topics
   1. Accessibility to past applications-survey comments (Lorna Jean Hagstrom)
   2. Exceptional project determination & ranking process (Charles Matousek)
      1. Ranking process
      2. Process used to determine exceptional status
      3. Effect of having to compete with historical projects
   3. Minimal acceptable score
      1. Raising the bar-minimal standards (Charles Matousek)
      2. Community impact vs. dollars spent (Charles Matousek)
      3. Minimal score of 70 (Stuart Sixma)
      4. Weighting of tab categories (Stuart Sixma)
      5. Failing a project (Stuart Sixma)
   4. Obligation to award all of the grant funds (Chair Hargreaves)
   5. Disposition of balance of funds if all funds are not awarded (Stuart Sixma)
   6. Standard deductions for failure to meet specific requirements-survey comments (Lorna Jean Hagstrom)
      1. Submission past deadline
      2. Incomplete application
   7. Mandatory attendance at Workshops by prior applicants-survey comments (Chair Hargreaves)
   8. Grant Review Panel score sheets-requirement for comments (Charles Matousek)
3. Project Topics
   1. Ways to promote projects with an “E” element to apply (Chair Hargreaves)

Chair Hargreaves directed the Committee’ attention to the handouts summarizing the funding of “E” element projects to date explaining that when only one ECHO element is considered, the percent is 6% vs. when more than one ECHO element is considered, the percent increases to 8% which indicates that an important aspect of the program is under funded. Chair Hargreaves asked the Committee what ideas they had on how to increase, if they think it is necessary, the number of projects with an “E” element coming to the program for a grant?

Stuart Sixma noted one of the key problems for “E” element projects is the 1:1 match requirement.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom noted all “E” element projects that have submitted an application have been funded.

Jamie Seaman noted the Committee could temporarily change the method of scoring to emphasize projects with an “E” aspect.

Margaret Hodge suggested the analysis be extended to include projects with a “H” element.

Chair Hargreaves inquired of the Committee, if they should explore the issue and called for a motion for further discussion of the topic.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom so moved.

Stuart Sixma seconded the motion.

Chair Hargreaves called for discussion on how the Committee should pursue the issue and hearing none, called for a vote.

The motion carried by a unanimous vote.

Chair Hargreaves directed staff to bring to the Committee suggestions on ways to proceed.

Margaret Hodge suggested the Committee determine which of the currently noted changes in revised the Application Guides are acceptable so that a updated revised version may be presented at the next meeting.

Chair Hargreaves called for a motion to approve the changes as submitted in the Grant Applications for 2006.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom so moved.

Charles Matousek seconded the motion.

Chair Hargreaves called for discussion.

Dennis Graven noted that some language on page 4, item 8, and page 6, 2nd paragraph needed clarification.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom noted that language relative to the policy regarding accepting late applications need further discussion. (pages 8 and 11-eligibility of late applications).

Page 26, 3.1 & Page 33, 3.2; MATCH

Meaning of UC: PSC. Meeting arranged between staff member, Margaret Hodge and Lorna Jean Hagstrom t develop draft language.

Page 29, 3.1

Add language describing the engineering element. Meeting will be arranged between staff member, Margaret Hodge and Dennis Graven to develop draft language.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom moved to amend the motion to approve the Application Guides with the exception of those items identified for future discussion.

Chair Hargreaves called for discussion, hearing none called for a vote.

The motion carried by a unanimous vote.

IV. Public Discussion

Chair Hargreaves called for other discussion, hearing none, she asked for public discussion.

Connie McMillian, City of Daytona Beach stated she writes many grants and has not encountered any other grant program that accepts applications submitted late. Ms. McMillian went on to explain the stated preference in the Application Guide for double sided pages has caused problems with all copies of the applications being submitted in a complete form.

Karen Turner, City of Deltona explained she had attended a workshop put on by the state’s Cultural Arts Council at which, samples of “good” and “bad” submissions and offered it as something to be considered by staff.

Margaret Hodge noted that because applications are so varied, she recommends coming to the office to review past grants and discuss them with staff.

V. Committee Business

Chair Hargreaves advised the Committee they would next meet on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 at 3:00pm in the County Council Chamber.

VI. Adjournment

Chair Hargreaves hearing no other business adjourned the meeting at 4:40p.m.