Grant application information

ECHO Advisory Committee

I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL, INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Chair Hargreaves called the January 11, 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 all nine (9) members in attendance.

II. OLD BUSINESS

Chair Hargreaves opened discussion by asking the Board Members if they wished to discuss any activities they attended since the last Advisory Committee Meeting on May 25, 2005.
Charles Matousek stated he attended the groundbreaking ceremony at Sunflower Park in DeLand and at DeBary Hall.

III. STAFF REPORT

a. Update of Existing Grants and Review of Grant History & Charts of Funding Distribution

Margaret Hodge mentioned that the Lively Arts Center’s Grand Opening is on January 27, 2006. She then began to discuss the contents of the agenda packet (see attached), with the exception of item 2 – Approval – July 23, 2004 Minutes. This item was placed on the agenda in error. The first item of discussion was an update to the existing grants. Ms. Hodge directed the Advisory Committee to view the ECHO List of Grants and Reallocation History printout.
Chair Hargreaves stated she appreciates that staff has created this list of existing grants because, “the more we can see pictures, it just helps us get a little bit better perspective.”
Margaret Hodge ended by clarifying that she has “crib notes” on this printout, for herself, but she does have more detail on where things shifted and why, to back up changes made to the tracking sheets.
Ms. Hodge then direct the Board to review the Grants Awards and Reimbursements to Date spreadsheet. She explained that the Reimbursement to Date column reflects exactly what has been paid to date, to each grantee. The red Enc/Con column reflects Encumbrance or Construction extensions that will be coming up in March of this year. It is NA if the grant has been paid in full and, the job is done. Some of the projects that reflect NA, the job is done but they have not asked for all of their money, so CC is placed next to the NA, indicating that construction is complete. Hodge further explained that the 2003 projects would be completed soon and all of the 2004, for the most part, are going to need construction extensions. The 2004 grants are going into their third year of construction, so, those construction extensions will go to County Council for approval.
Chair Hargreaves asked Ms. Hodge, “When we are looking at things that are taking so long, for an example, looking at Atlantic Center for the Arts, how are our recipients responding to the fact that labor’s gone up, materials going up and therefore their budgets are all out the window in many cases. What do you see happening?”
Margaret Hodge stated that the grantees are dealing with it, for the most part by raising more funds or tweaking the design that saves them money. The County agreed to small changes. Anything greater than 10%, Montye Beamer, the Director of Growth and Resource Management, generally sends back to the ECHO Board. Hodge reminded the Board that the Atlantic Center for the Arts, was the first grantee to not get to the full grant amount and they also didn’t get to readjust their project, based on a reduced grant award.
Charles Matousek stated he has some specific questions on some of the older grants. (Mr. Matousek is referring to the Quarterly Report distributed by staff to all Committee Member and the County Council – copy attached). “The Atlantic Center for the Arts, I’m looking at the 3rd Quarter Status Report, it is stated that they are were scheduled to complete in November 2005. You’re telling us now that they are going to complete in February ’06?”

Margaret Hodge “Yes, it is so close that they are going to ask for a construction extension, because I take it all to County Council all at one time. If I can pull it from that agenda item, I will. But, they are thinking March, I believe.”
Charles Matousek “As you know, I’ve had a couple, and maybe others have as well, inquiries from County Council Members regarding shifting construction completion dates, because we are getting into the fifth grant year and that project (Atlantic Center for the Arts) in particular, is getting to be five (5) years old in another few months and some of the grant awards, recipients of 2003 are also getting kind of aged and I would feel more comfortable if you would give us an update. I’m okay with ’02 and that project (referring to The Atlantic Center for the Arts) and in ’03, the City of New Smryna Beach, the Indian River Lagoon is still not completed.
Margaret Hodge stated that the delay for the New Smyrna project was strictly due to issues with St. John’s River Water Management and that the 2003 projects are going to get finished within the next three to four months.
Charles Matousek “So that would be New Smyrna Beach, Indian River Lagoon Project. The City of Deltona, Dewey Boster, was project complete, but the grant is non-compliant. What is that?
Margaret Hodge “Unfortunately, this meeting is held before those new reports are due. We will be receiving the new reports (4th quarter reports) by January 15th and I will be sending something to you by the end of the month.
Charles Matousek questioned the delays on the Volusia County Green Spring Park.
Margaret Hodge requested the Project Coordinator address these concerns.
Susanne Inman (Volusia County Leisure Services, our Green Springs Park project) “If you recall, and for some of the new members this is an update, we had a road, an entrance road alignment problem. When they did some more studies, they found out it was impacting the archeological site, and so we went back to the owners of the original property and we went with County Council and we were able to purchase a new piece of property. A little bit to the West of the original entrance road, to make a new entrance road. Well, of course once we got this new piece of property, it triggered a whole new set of reviews by the Water Management District and a lot of Wetland reviews. We are working through that right now and expecting to come to fruition quite soon and we understand that it has taken quite a long time, but we were in that position”.
Margaret Hodge explained that the County felt that delays are not caused by grantees and that it is the process of construction, contractors or permits.
Charles Matousek stated he had no other questions.
Chair Hargreaves asked if anyone else have any questions or comments.
No one had additional questions.

b. Estimated Available Funding for 2006

Margaret Hodge directed the Board to the black notebook, for review of funding. She explained that the Rollover amount has to be approved by County Council on next Thursday (January 19, 2006). It is on the consent agenda and the expected funding amount for 2006 is $3,594,213.00
Charles Matousek asked Hodge to explain where the rollover funds came from.
Margaret Hodge explained that it mainly came from earned interest.
Charles Matousek asked for clarification for the TITF and asked if it was commonly called CRA’s (Community Redevelopment Agency); money that goes back into the taxing district and doesn’t go into the general fund.
Margaret Hodge agreed with his comment.
Chair Hargreaves asked if there were any other questions regarding funding available for this year.
No one had additional questions.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
a. ECHO Eligible Applications
Margaret Hodge directed the Board to the second sheet in the black book, Addendum Information. She explained the County felt that everyone is eligible and there were no major missing documents (2). There were errors in calculations. Hodge further explained how to read the spreadsheet and details regarding the grantees.
Hodge made one correction on 06-13, Sands Theater, 3.3 was added under Tab 3. She explained that she was trying to get clarification and it had been provided but too late to be included in the 06-13 addendum package. She will mail this to the Board Members in the next week or two.
Lorna Jean Hagstrom asked if all grants were on time.
Margaret Hodge stated all projects were on time with no major documentation missing.
Charles Matousek “Ms. Chairman, I would suggest that we go through all of these individually, but frankly it looks like they were all eligible, minimal amounts of missing documents, I don’t know that we need to go through them all”.
Chair Hargreaves requested the members to look through the information provided and if they had a question they would have Margaret Hodge go over the item in more detail at this time. “The information is obviously well provided and with the timeliness and completeness, that’s an excellent note on the applicants part”.
Margaret Hodge then explained to the members what was in their black scoring book. She explained the score sheet had not changed. Following the score sheet is the Final Review by staff, with staff comments. She stated that some comments by staff are to clarify items in the application after she spoke with the applicant. Some comments are relative to items provided in the addendum package. Last in the black book are the ECHO (blank) Applications and Guides for 2006.
Chair Hargreaves “Are there any questions on how this book is set up and how to use it? Margaret, while we’re looking at 06-01 and the evaluation sheet, do you want to talk about scoring? I know that’s the review process, but in terms of scoring, we have this one, we sign and we date it, with the date of our meeting, not the date we sign it.
Margaret Hodge explained that where the form says “review score”, is where members insert their preliminary score and members are not held to that score. On the day of ranking, members may want to ask questions of the applicant that changes that original review score. She explained that members must put the final score in the outside column the day of ranking and are not to circle the review score. On February 22, members will enter in final scores and tally at the bottom.
Chair Hargreaves reminded members to sign and date the score sheet.
Margaret Hodge I think the other thing you wanted to talk about was “comments.”
Chair Hargreaves “That is correct. One of the things we discussed last time, and if you’ll remember one of the things that we always do after every grant awarding process, is we get feedback from the applicants. One of the things that we consistently heard was that, they wanted us to give them more information in the actual scoring process. Please give them more information. Not only why you scored them low, but also help them understand what they did correctly. That’s not only valuable to them, it may also be valuable to them the next time they do it and it may also be valuable to anyone else that has an opportunity to look at that grant. And those are still here available in the Library, for any other applicant to come look at and see what others have done well. As a review panel we should really be as complete as we can possibly be. If you have a chance, will have a chance I hope that prior to starting to read these (applications) you’ll go back over what the committee did last year. I found that very, very helpful myself. At the end of the grant period when those score sheets were provided back to us, I found reviewing others comments to be very helpful, and it allowed me to see how other members see it, as well as, to see how I can improve the responses and information that I was giving to the applicants. I think we owe them (the applicants) that. So, if we can be as diligent as we can, don’t be wordy, just give good information. I think that will be very helpful.”
Dennis Graven “With that said, and I’ve traded a couple of emails with Margaret about this: I think that we could set this (scoring form) up in a digital format. We could actually go in and insert our comments and not have to do everything in long hand. It would be a lot less cumbersome. Personally, I think it would be a little more professional. I just wish maybe we would consider that. You would not have to do it, but you would have the opportunity to have the digital format at your disposal.”
Lorna Jean Hagstrom “For someone that is non-technologically exposed, can you please tell me what you are talking about”?
Dennis Graven “You could set this up in like a Word file and then you just go in and it has a space”.
Margaret Hodge suggested that the Board discuss this during their summer review.
Chair Hargreaves concurred.
Dennis Graven asked if he could play around with the idea and work with Margaret?
Chair Hargreaves asked if anyone was in opposition to the request and everyone agreed that Mr. Graven could move forward with this option.
Chair Hargreaves then moved to the grading and ranking items.
b. Grading and ranking process
Margaret Hodge directed the Board to the green file folder. She suggested the Board insert them into the black score book. She stated nothing changed from last year. She stated that the only thing removed had to do with exceptional projects because there are no exceptional projects in 2006. She asked if all members ranked projects in 2005 and were not familiar with the process.
Chair Hargreaves reminded the Board that Mr. Grigat did not attend the previous ranking meeting.
Margaret Hodge stated that if Mr. Grigat had questions she would be happy to provide additional details.
Chair Hargreaves explained the process. “We ask the applicant to come forward and we ask them questions, they are not allowed to present new information, it is basically an opportunity for clarification. If there is something you made a note on, that you didn’t understand or see as conflicting, whatever, it gives you the chance to ask the applicant something that clarifies it and that may assist them in bettering their score. So it is an opportunity, they may not present visual aids, they may not distribute additional information, unless it is something specific that has been asked for by Margaret, and that’s very seldom. We’re trying to get away from that. So it’s really just an opportunity for clarification time. It’s a short opportunity and each of us make any changes, should we need them on our scoring sheet and then we are selected at random to start, so the same person doesn’t start divulging their scores, it goes randomly and then everyone submits their score. It is recorded electronically and we draw out the high and the low and that gives us the average score for that grant application. I would like to draw your attention to the bottom of that page, page 1 of 2, paragraph 6, the second paragraph, just reminding you of what happens if there is a tie. What happens to the last grant and what our options are. For example, if the last applicant is not fully funded, and if the applicant refuses the offer of partial funding, then the Panel may continue to offer the funds to eligible applicants in the order listed or the funds may be rolled over to the next grant cycle. This decision is determined by a majority vote of the Grant Review Panel members. And, then whatever our recommendation might be, that of course is passed on with our recommendation (to the County Council). Remind yourselves we are not decision makers here. We are an Advisory Committee to give advice to the County Council. Just a reminder of how those later funds might be used. It talks about tied applicants, because those have obviously come up in the past. We are trying to address issues as they come forward. We have also identified in paragraph 6, that applicants who score 69.999 or lower are not eligible. We discussed quality of grants. At this time, we have all agreed that it is our perception of the quality and scoring will be based on what our responses are”.
She then asked if there was anything else to discuss.
Margaret Hodge “The only thing I wanted to remind you about, and I don’t have a copy of the resolution right in front of me, but when you’re determining funding, the Resolution states that it is based on the quality of the project. It doesn’t have to be (and I gave you those charts), it doesn’t have to be a 25 percent to E, 25 percent to C, etc. Over time, it seems to have balanced itself out, similarly with the type of applicants. But the main thing in the Resolution is, distribution to the E C H O categories appropriately, is the way it is stated”.
Chair Hargreaves “I think the Resolution also states, if I recall, it states that it should have County wide impact. Staff Completeness Review Sheets, we’ve done. Panel Score-Sheet books, preliminary score, comments and final ranking, we’ve done”.
Margaret Hodge stated the Board needed to officially accept the full application list.
Lorna Jean Hagstrom moved to approve the application list as distributed.
Charles Matousek seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a unanimous vote.

IV. Public Participation

Chair Hargreaves addressed the public and asked if anyone had anything to say. No one responded.
She reminded the public to be here the next time we get together and asked Ms. Hodge about requirement to be at the ranking meeting.
Margaret Hodge responded yes. “Be here and don’t…just know what your number is and, don’t expect your number to not come up early. Sometimes these members get through an application quickly. If you’re number 12, don’t think noon. It is a good experience to go through and listen to the previous applicants and the questions posed. With some applicants it helps them respond later when they are asked a similar question or certainly even if those people not applying this year want to come, they are welcome. It is a good experience, so they can see how that process works on the ranking day”.

V. ADJOURNMENT

Chair Hargreaves hearing no other business adjourned the meeting at 3:55p.m.