Grant application information

ECHO Advisory Committee

Absent members
Linda Hargreaves, Vice Chair - excused
Janet Williams - excused

Visitors (signed in)
Lynne Plaskett, City of Edgewater Don Bostrom, Ormond Beach Historical Trust
Kelly Ferguson, Lively Arts Center Christopher Bell, Marine Discovery Center
Mary Virginia, Museum of Arts & Sciences Lize Kalashian, Marine Discovery Center
Michael Brothers, Museum of Arts & Sciences Cordella Nugent, Volusia County Finance
Jim Crenshaw, Lake Helen Historical Preservation Board

Chair Matousek called the April 30, 2003, ECHO Advisory Committee meeting to order at 3:00 PM, welcomed the advisory committee members and the public and asked staff to take Roll Call of members.

Chair Matousek directed the meeting to the approval of the April 9, 2003, minutes and asked if there were any additions or corrections. There was a correction to page 2, paragraph 3 from the bottom, adding Mr. Libby’s vote for Ms. Hargreaves as Vice Chair. Ms. Hagstrom made a Motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Wiles seconded the Motion. The April 9, 2003, minutes were unanimously approved, as amended.

Staff Report - Mrs. Hodge stated that the Elections Department would be mailing the financial disclosures to all of the committee members in May and the ECHO grant account was on the mark, approximately 92% of the property tax revenue had been collected, making the account $170,000 away from the projected revenue account goal.

IV. Old Business:

On behalf of the public and the ECHO Advisory Committee, Chair Matousek presented former Chair Libby with a plaque of appreciation for his outstanding service and dedication to the Volusia County ECHO Advisory Committee from May 30, 2001 – April 9, 2003.

V. New Business:

Chair Matousek reminded the ECHO Advisory Committee members how the tweaking of the grant application and process would be conducted and that at least one workshop would be held to obtain public input. He directed the committee to review and revise, as needed, the 2002/2003 Main Goals and Strategic Plan for GY 2004. The following is the document referenced and comments of the Committee on April 30, 2003.

2002/2003 MAIN GOALS AND STRATEGIC PLAN
VOLUSIA COUNTY ECHO ADVISORY COMMITTEE
GOAL SETTING AND STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSIONS
May 8 and June 12, 2002

The following goals were established at the Goal Setting Session of the ECHO Advisory Committee May 8, 2002:

1. Reduce the number of ineligible applications received by staff and reviewed by the ECHO Advisory Board.
2. Encourage greater unencumbered cash on hand as match.

• April 30, 2003 comments - The ECHO Advisory Committee agreed unanimously to strike #2 from the goals for 2003/2004.

3. Establish policies, procedures and criteria for 2003.

• April 30, 2003 comments - The ECHO Advisory Committee agreed unanimously that #3 should be changed to read:
  Revise and improve policies, procedures and criteria for 2004 where needed including the exceptional and unique categories.

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

• April 30, 2003 comments - The ECHO Advisory Committee agreed unanimously that #4 should read:
  Accept and review the third cycle of applications and recommend to the County Council projects for grant awards in 2004.

April 30, 2003 comments - The ECHO Advisory Committee added the following goals for 2004:

5. Examine the time line for 2004.
6. Strive to educate the public on the ECHO program.

• Seek input from the County Council on grant application policies and procedures.
• Seek input on the application policies and procedures from potential applicants.
• Hold a minimum of one ECHO Advisory meeting per month.
• April 30, 2003 comments - The ECHO Advisory Committee agreed unanimously to strike #3
• Refine the existing application and consider a "fill in the blank " application format.
• Develop a list of specific items that will not be funded by ECHO.
• April 30, 2003 comments - The ECHO Advisory Committee agreed unanimously to strike #5
  Develop a specific list of required backup to officially document match.
• April 30, 2003 comments - The ECHO Advisory Committee agreed unanimously to strike #6
  Provide that a portion of the match shall be new cash on hand.
• April 30, 2003 comments - The ECHO Advisory Committee agreed unanimously to strike #7
  Present the new application at a public meeting for final input.
• April 30, 2003 comments - The ECHO Advisory Committee agreed unanimously to have #8 read:
  - Present the 2004 application at a public meeting for final input.
  Present the revised application to the County Council for final approval.
• April 30, 2003 comments - The ECHO Advisory Committee agreed unanimously to have #9 read:
  - Present the 2004 application to the County Council for final approval.
  Continue the mandatory application workshop policy.
• April 30, 2003 comments - The ECHO Advisory Committee agreed unanimously to have #10 read:
  - Continue the mandatory application workshop policy and add mandatory grant review attendance to the 2004 ECHO grant application.
  Encourage Applicants to take advantage of the County staff’s Technical Review process.

April 30, 2003 - The ECHO Advisory Committee added the following strategic plan objective:

• Encourage grant applicants to meet with County staff to discuss any concerns or address any questions they may have regarding the grant application, the grant process, or the policies and procedures of the ECHO program.

April 30, 2003 - The ECHO Advisory Committee unanimously agreed that staff would update the following 2002/2003 timeline for their approval at the May 14, 2003 meeting.

The following recommended time-line of events was established at the June 12, 2002 ECHO Advisory Committee Strategic Planning Session.

• ECHO Inventory site map updated by County staff for Committee review.
• County Council agenda on the application policies and procedures.
• ECHO Board finalize and approve Goals and Strategic Plan 2003.

• Goals and Strategic Plan presented to the County Council.
• Application Workshop/presentation with County Council.
• Review of ECHO Inventory map by Committee.

• 2003 ECHO Application approved by the Board and prepared for the County Council approval.
• County Council agenda requesting approval of ECHO Application 2003.

• Establish grant application availability via press releases and on web page.
• Mandatory application workshop for applicants Wed., Sept. 18, 8:30 –12 noon.

• Mandatory grant application workshop, Sat., October 5, 8:30 – 12 noon.
• Technical Review deadline Friday, October 25, 4 p.m.

• Technical Review responses out by staff Friday, November 8.

• Grant application deadline Friday, December 6.
• County staff including Legal and Finance review applications for completeness and eligibility.

• County staff sends written notice to applicants with incomplete applications.
• 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.

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

• Recommendation is taken to County Council for final approval.

• Grant funds are made available for expenditure by the Grantee.

Chair Matousek directed the committee to the following document for discussion. (Note: the document contains the comments from the committee on April 30, 2003.

1. Exceptional Projects (Board) – Consider new models for the exceptional project. Should the exceptional project period be extended beyond a three year plan and reduce the annual payout to under $1million? How does this affect the Public Access requirement? The County Council has said that timely public access is important. Currently the Exceptional applicant can request up to $1 million for three consecutive years and the applicant must provide a 4:1 match. The ECHO Board policy currently is "pay as you go". Grant awards may not be used to pay back loans. Reimbursement is made to the grantee once the County has reviewed the backup documentation including a cancelled check. Documentation is compared to the budget provided in the application to verify ECHO funds are used for eligible items/services. The existing County ECHO Agreement states that the grant award is provided to the grantee after annual appropriation and approval by the County Council.

April 30, 2003 Comments - After much discussion, the ECHO Advisory Committee asked staff, including the Chief Financial Officer and Legal, to come back at the next meeting (May 14) with some models for them to review.

2. Multiphase Projects (Board) – Consider if it is beneficial to the program for a multiphase project to receive award for multiple years and compete only the first year for award. Currently if a project receives Multiphase status it receives one (1) additional point added to its final averaged score in the subsequent Grant Panel Review rankings following the initial year of award. Multiphase projects may receive (like single phase) up to $1.5 million over a five-year period. Would you require the match for all project phases to be available at the initial Grant Panel Review as is required in the Exceptional Grant category? Currently the grant is a "reimbursement" program where the grantee pays for products/services, provides documentation to the County with a request for reimbursement.

April 30, 2003 Comments - After much discussion, the ECHO Advisory Committee asked staff to come back at the next meeting (May 14) with some models for them to review.

3. Unique Small Projects (Board) – At this time there is no Unique Small Project category. Applicants may request as little as $12,500 for grant award but no more than a maximum of $500,000 annually (total of $1.5 over five years) for non exceptional grants. Applicants must complete the same application as all other projects no matter the size of the project or organization and must compete against all other projects.

April 30, 2003 Comments – After much discussion, the ECHO Advisory Committee asked staff to come back at the next meeting (May 14) with some models for them to review.

4. Annual Certified Audit (Board) - The State Cultural Facilities Grant allows for applicants with less than a $150,000 operating budget to provide an Annual Review and applicants with a higher operating budget must complete an Annual Audit. Staff has requested that the Accounting Director review and make recommendations to the ECHO Board.

April 30, 2003 Comments – After much discussion, the ECHO Advisory Committee asked staff to incorporate TAB 7 into TAB 4 of the ECHO Grants-in-aid 2004 Application. For the record, the following is the additional document provided at this meeting for discussion.

__________________Beginning of Document_________________

DRAFT LANGUAGE / TAB 7 - April 30, 2003

Tab 7: AUDIT / REVIEW

NOT-FOR PROFIT, TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS INCORPORATED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

• If the organization’s actual revenues or expenditures/expenses was less than $50,000.00 in the last completed fiscal year and the grant request is not greater than $100,000.00, the organization must submit either an independent, certified financial audit or an independent , certified financial review for the organization’s last completed fiscal year. If the grant request is $100,000.00 or greater then the organization must submit an Independent Certified Financial Audit of the last completed fiscal year or if an audit is available from one of the two fiscal years prior to the grant application deadline then the organization may choose to submit the previously completed Certified Financial Audit with an independent certified Financial Review of the last completed Fiscal Year. All organizations shall submit Management Letter from audits or reviews.
  
• If the organization’s actual revenues or expenditures/expenses was $50,000 or greater in the last completed fiscal year the organization must submit an Independent Certified Financial Audit if one has not been completed within two fiscal years prior to the grant application deadline. If an audit is available from one of the two fiscal years prior to the grant application deadline then the organization may choose to submit the previously completed Certified Financial Audit with an independent certified Financial Review of the last completed Fiscal Year. All organizations shall submit Management Letter from audits or reviews.
  
• All organizations shall submit the most current Month End Financial Statement.

Staff comment: "Actual revenues or expenditures/expenses" do not include accrual accounts for construction etc. However, if the applicant is multiphase the first year the organization spends the accrued funds then the operating budget would include those expenditures and an audit would be required for future phases. If an organization’s revenues are higher than $50,000 but expenses are under $50,000 then the organization is not exempt from the Audit requirement and may not just provide a Review.

Staff comment: May the expenses of an audit or a review for an organization with less than a $50,000 operating budget be used for match?

Staff comment: Month End Financial Statements are not always available from all organizations. Small groups may not generate them and new groups may complete them quarterly. Would a month end bank statement be appropriate?

COUNTY OF VOLUSIA BUDGETED ORGANIZATIONS AND MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS

• Shall submit a Management Letter and Response Letter if a Response Letter was required.
• Shall submit an Opinion Letter from their Annual Financial Audit.

Staff comment: County Accounting Director believes these documents are sufficient but reserves the right to request additional information from any organization.

Staff comment: Consider moving this to Tab 4 and part of the scoring section. Should an applicant have a reduced score if they demonstrate poor financial practices?

____________________End of Document__________________

5. Match with Grants (staff) – Currently applicants may use the unencumbered portion of grants as match. The application only requires they provide verification of the amount and grant period. Staff asks the Board to consider requiring the applicant to provide additional updated verification of the remaining grant amount from the grantor.

April 30, 2003 Comments – After much discussion, the ECHO Advisory Committee agreed to add "Grant history of grant match required for grant application" and ask staff to fine-tune #5.

6. MAI Appraisal (Board) – This is required in the current application to provide a verifiable value to property used for match. There is no MAI requirement for properties that are requesting funds for acquisition.

April 30, 2003 Comments - After much discussion, the ECHO Advisory Committee agreed that an MAI would not be required for projects under $50,000 and added an MAI requirement for the acquisition of property.

7. Length and complexity of Application (Board) – The current application mirrors the State Cultural Facilities grant. Several applicants have used the ECHO grant to apply for additional funds from the State with success. Staff is looking at a new format that would separate the instructions from the application questions. The actual application is 6 single-sided pages of questions.

April 30, 2003 – No additional comments were made by the ECHO Advisory Board.

8. Grading grants (Board) – score below 70 to not be funded. No application has received less than 70 in the past two years for their averaged score. Four applications have been determined ineligible due to lack of completeness.

April 30, 2003 Comments – The decision to require the grant applicants to participate in a mandatory completeness review was continued to the meeting of May 14, 2003.

9. Public Comment April 9, 2003 – Lynne Plaskett, City of Edgewater provided three applications for the Board to review as they consider changes to the ECHO Application (enclosed in this mailing), Mary Virginia, Museum of Arts and Sciences, stated she thought mini grants need to have their own criteria as it appears the Board values the "countywide impact" of the large projects, and Kelly Ferguson, Lively Arts Center feels there should be a section for the Total Project Budget so the Board understands the size of the project.
   
10. Reserve fund (Board) – The Board currently asks the County Chief Financial Officer to provide the final amount available for grant award each year. The first year a 10% reserve was held. In the second grant year less than 4% was held ($100,000). Reserves, if property tax is paid as expected, roll over to the next year grant and a new reserve is determined. An estimated 86% of all property taxes are collected by the end of March each year when the Grant Panel Review meets to score projects and grant awards. The average property tax collected annually is 96% but this is not a guaranteed percentage. Additionally the ECHO fund pays TITF annually, which varies each year. TITF Grant year 2002 $51,775. and 2003 $94,480. The CFO would be available to discuss this further with the Board at the Board’s request.

April 30, 2003 - items 9 & 10 were continued to the meeting of May 14, 2003.

____________________End of Document__________________

Public Participation:

Chair Matousek opened the floor for public participation.

Don Bostrom, Ormond Beach Historical Trust - extended an invitation to the committee to attend a two-hour historical tour of Ormond Beach. He voiced concern on the audit requirements and stated that the requirements shot his organization between the eyes because they didn’t have the money to pay for a $6,000 audit. He suggested allowing a financial review to suffice. He asked the ECHO Advisory Committee to consider instead of setting the ECHO grant requirement for an audit on the budget, set it on the amount of the request. This would allow his organization the ability to compete in the ECHO grants-in-aid program.

Michael Brothers, Museum of Arts & Sciences - voiced concern on the 1-year issue of project completion and stated the fact was that the project was turning into a multi-phase project because it was so difficult to complete such a large project in 12 months.

Mrs. Hodge agreed that most of the projects would have a 2-year construction cycle, but stated staff supported the applicants encumbering their funds during the first 12 months. Mr. Brothers agreed the encumbrance period was not a problem.

Lynne Plaskette, City of Edgewater – stated that the reason she gave out copies of the sample grant applications (April 9. 2003 meeting) was for formatting purposes and praised Mrs. Hodge for the assistance she provided during the GY 2003 process.

Ms. Hagstrom informed Chair Matousek that she would be unable to attend the May 14, 2003, due to a prior commitment.

VII. Meeting Dates:

May 14, 2003

VIII. Adjournment: 5:30 PM

Chair Matousek asked if there were any additional comments from anyone else or from members of the Committee. There was none. The Chair adjourned the meeting.