$21 M Available in Ohio Third Frontier Program

Fuel Cell, Photovoltaic and Advanced Energy

The first round of FY 2011 funding Requests for Proposals (RFP) hit the streets in late July, 2010.  $21 M in funding is available for grants related to Fuel Cell, Photovoltaic and Advanced Energy Projects.  All three of these “industry cluster” programs have proved very popular in the past with a large number of past applicants for funding.  Each program will make available $ 7 M each and give grant awards up to $ 1 M.  Each applicant must provide at least a 1:1 match for their funding requests.  Those intending to request funding must submit a Letter of Intent to apply for a grant by September 10, 2010 and the actual RFP proposals are due on October 7, 2010. 

Please contact David Robinson, Principal of the Montrose Group, LLC, 614 738 2109 or email at if you need any assistance with submitting a Third Frontier grant request.  Mr. Robinson has successfully development applications and advocated for over $ 100 M in local, state and federal government funding. 

Montrose’s Top 10 Grant Writing Tips

Quality Proposals Require A Disciplined Approach

Based upon the experience of successfully developing and advocating for customers who gained $100 M from local, state and government programs, the Montrose Group, LLC has developed a Top 10 List for Grant Writing Tips.

1.      Follow the grant process- RFP or competitive government programs will spell out in detail the timeline and grant award requirements.  No one wins funding without following the rules and timelines.  Begging after the fact won’t make up for a missed deadline.

2.      Points win NOT ideas- Winners don’t get lost in their own great ideas.  Winners figure out ways to maximize their point values of the application not proclaiming they have just found the cure for cancer.  Winners focus on the details of the application or the mandates of a government program to best position their chances for success.

3.      Always remember problem addressing- While it is a requirement to focus on the details of the application or program mandates, it is also important to remember the goal the funder of the program is trying to address. 

4.      Back up statements- Quality grants always contain not just statements of who supporters their request but often includes actual letters from partners and co-funders of the project in question.  In essence, quality funding requests back up their statements with proof of support and the existence of a true public-private partnership.

5.      Illustrate experience- No one once to give money to groups or people that lack the basic experience to develop the project they are proposing.  Quality funding requests are made by experienced leaders who are not hesitant to illustrate that leadership through their funding requests.

6.      Illustrate resources- Money is attracted to money.  While it may not be fair, government is not always interested in being the first money in the door.  Chances of success in gaining government funding increase if the applicant can prove an ability to raise other funds to match the request into government.

7.      ID competitors- Quality requests for funding recognize that their proposal is shaped by the other players competing for funding.  No doubt the government funder will not just review the quality of the request but have to consider how the request is different or better than others.  It is always easier to be different than a competitor than better. 

8.      Review past winners- Most government grant programs and their past funding requests are public records.  Don’t be afraid to request past applications from winners of awards.  Why reinvent the wheel?  Much can be learned from reviewing past, successful funding requests.

9.      Speak in English- Few awards are granted for applications that cannot communicate in very basic terms.  This does not mean high end scientific research requests cannot use medical or engineering terms or concepts in their application.  However, most quality applications speak directly and clear as to what problem they are trying to solve and how their team is the best group to solve that problem. 

10.   Less is more- President Woodrow Wilson once made the comment it is much harder top give a short speech than a long one.  Same goes for quality proposals.  However, concise and clear proposal responses will win more often than longer, complicated responses.  The concise document is more challenging to draft but will more often be rewarded with funding. 

Please contact David Robinson, or call at 614 738 2109 if you need any assistance in preparing a grant or other funding request. 

Federal Budget Earmarks Begin to Move

Late House and Senate Action Pushes Process Along Prior to August Recess

Like the train that is late leaving the station, the federal budget earmark appropriation process picked up steam just prior to the traditional August Congressional Recess.  Key House and Senate Committees passed appropriations bills, in some cases, a couple months late.  The FY 2011 Earmark Season got off to a bumpy start with all the House Republicans promising not to make earmark requests.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi then followed up that announcement with her own announcement that for-profit companies would no longer be eligible for earmarks. 

After this political dust settled, the House Democratic and Senators got to work on the appropriations bills.  While not all have passed their respective committees yet, some clear winners in the process are clear:

• Local governments: big & small.  Cities and counties in need of infrastructure funding have again found the Congressional earmark process as an inviting target for funding.  Belmont County, Parma, Cincinnati, Toledo, Seven Hills, Wellsville, Vinton County, Guernsey County, Franklin County, Barberton, Dillonvale, Shaker Heights, Springfield, Mayfield, Pickaway County, and others appear to have benefitted from water, sewer and roadway infrastructure funding. 
• Universities.  From the University of Toledo to University of Cincinnati to to Cleveland State University to Bowling Green State University to Ohio University to community colleges such as Eastern Gateway and Cincinnati State Technical College to private liberal arts colleges such as Ohio Dominican and others, colleges and universities again are benefitting from Congressional budget earmark spending.
• Hospitals.  Urban and rural, research and primary care as well as health centers all survived the appropriations committee process.  A partial list of winners included Good Samaritan in Cincinnati, Holzer Medical Center, Southeastern Ohio Medical Center in Cambridge, Summa Health Systems in Akron, University Hospitals in Northeast Ohio, Mercy Medical Center in Canton, Ohio State University’s James Cancer Center, Ohio University’s health program and others.

The earmark season is not over.  Most bills need to pass both houses and major bills still await committee approval in the fall.  However, it is apparent that the earmark era continues although not quite at the fever pitch of the past couple years.

Third Frontier Still Being Debated

May 4 Primary Ballot Amendment Expected

Illustrating the struggles of the current Statehouse environment, the Republican Senate and Democratic House of Representatives and Democratic Governor Ted Strickland have been struggling to agree on the details of the planned renewal of the Third Frontier Program.  The Third Frontier Program is a $1.6 B plan crafted by former Republican Governor Bob Taft and the Republican General Assembly to transform Ohio’s economy.  This technology based economic development strategy has won national praise, and a recent report by the Stanford Research Institute found the program had created 41,000 jobs, leveraged billions in private investment and created growing clusters of technology companies across the state.  Governor Strickland proposed a $ 1B renewal of the Third Frontier for the May Ballot, and the House Democrats made minor changes to the Governor’s proposal by reducing the amount to $950M.  The Senate Republican majority has been debating the amendment for the past several weeks and revised the House version to allocate $500 M for Third Frontier and added $100 for public works projects.  While many see the Senate changes as making the ballot initiative more attractive to voters, proponents of technology based economic development are worried the dollar amount allocated for Third Frontier is too low to make an impact in the global economy.  It is anticipated Ohio’s legislative leaders will get their act together by the February 3^rd deadline to put the Third Frontier amendment on the May 4^th ballot for a dollar amount somewhere between the $950 M House version and the $500 M Senate version.

$ 4.8 B in New Broadband Funds Available

Applications Due on March 15, 2010 for Round 2 of Broadband Program

The Department of Commerce and Department of Agriculture issued the guidelines for Round 2 of their broadband funding programs.  The Commerce Department’s program will offer $2.6 B and Department of Agriculture will have $2.2 B.  Applications will be available on February 16, 2010 and are due on March 15, 2010.  There are substantial changes to the program based upon some heavy criticism from Round 1.  Changes to the Commerce Department program include:

• Creation of three project categories: Comprehensive Community Infrastructure (CCI), Public Computer Centers (PCC), and Sustainable Broadband Adoption (SBA);
• Urban projects have a greater chance of success because CCI projects need not include “unserved” or “underserved” areas but will receive added points if they do;
• Middle Mile CCI projects focusing on connections to key community anchor institutions, particularly community colleges will be favored;
• Projects will most likely need to have at least a 30 % cost share; and
• Service areas will now be defined by census tracts and block groups, not by census blocks.

The Department of Agriculture program changes include: eligible areas must have broadband speeds less than 5 Megabits per second; a strong focus on last mile projects and loan-grant requests on at least a 75%-25% ratio and a new focus on satellite, technical assistance grants and rural library broadband projects.

Job Ready Site Program Rolling

Competition for Funding Expected to Be Fierce & Applications Due on April 1, 2010

The Ohio Department of Development’s prime infrastructure development program is rolling along with plans to provide grants for 2010-2011.  60 Ohio Job Ready Site Pre-Application forms were filed with the state of Ohio.  This pre-application process is not mandatory but is an opportunity to gain input prior to the filing of the formal application.  The Ohio Job Ready Site Program application will be released in the coming days and will be due to the District Public Works Integrating Committees by 4:00PM on April 1, 2010.  $20 M in grants will be awarded through the competitive process for either amounts of up to $3.5M or $750,000.  Re-use sites and manufacturing and research park projects are clearly favored by the program rules and key infrastructure already in place such as rail lines will be essential for many projects.  Competition is expected to be fierce with possibly as few as 6 or 7 projects across the state to receive funding through the competitive award.  Lobbying in at the local government and in Columbus will clearly benefit applicants in this marketplace.

Lt. Governor’s Selections Made

Women are the Big Winners

Following the path of former Governor’s Voinovich and Taft, Governor Strickland and his Republican opponent, former Congressman John Kasich, both announced within days of each other their choice for Lt. Governor in the upcoming 2010 election.  Kasich announced the choice of State Auditor Mary Taylor.  Taylor has been a frequent critic of the Strickland Administration’s budget practices and serves as the Republicans only statewide constitutional officeholder.  She is an attractive candidate from Northeast Ohio that will add strong geographic balance and state government experience to the Republican ticket.  Governor Strickland chose former Franklin County Judge Yvette McGee Brown.  Judge Brown currently runs a major not for profit focused on children’s issues, has strong contacts in the Central Ohio community and will no doubt serve as a strong contact with traditional Democratic constituencies.  Brown is an African-American.  Statehouse pundits give both Taylor and Brown positive marks.  The Kasich pick does create challenges for the Republicans by leaving a hole in the race for State Auditor.  Delaware County Prosecutor Dave Yost and State Representative Seth Morgan have announced plans to seek the Auditor’s seat which is very important because the Auditor is one of five members of the State Apportionment Board that draws Statehouse boundaries.  Strickland’s choice of Brown illustrates the current challenges the Governor is having with the voters.  His pick was focused on his base of supporters at a time when the University of Cincinnati’s Ohio Poll found Kasich 6 points ahead of Strickland among likely voters. 

Pre-Application Form Due on December 23, 2009

The long awaited 2010-2011 Ohio Job Ready Site Program guidelines and application was released on December 8, 2009 by the Ohio Department of Development (ODOD).  These guidelines illustrate the largest change in the short history of this infrastructure funding based state program. 

Two types of grants will be awarded during the 2010-2011 Ohio Job Ready Site Program:  High-Intensity Development grants; and Low Intensity Development grants.  High-Intensity grants will focus on projects that require “modest to significant” infrastructure improvements, requires the site to be officially certified by ODOD and carries a $ 3.5 M award cap.  Low-Intensity grants will focus on projects that require “minimal or phased” infrastructure improvements. 

Local governments, non-profit economic development groups or for-profit companies (with a waiver from ODOD) can apply for funding.  $ 20 M will be awarded for Competitive grants (either High-Intensity or Low-Intensity), and $ 10 M will be awarded at the discretion of ODOD.  Those interested in Discretionary grants are encouraged to apply for the Competitive grants and both programs require a substantial funding match.

ODOD guidelines create five clear goals for the Ohio Job Ready Site Program that will guide the grant awards:

1. bolster Ohio’s current inventory of sites available for future development and reuse;
2. promote re-investment and re-use of formerly developed property;
3. leverage state and local communities’ previous investments in infrastructure;
4. foster regional cooperation and economic growth strategies; and
5. encourage sustainable development.

Funding can be used on:

• acquisition of land and buildings;
• building construction;
• renovation;
• remediation of environmentally contaminated property; and
• infrastructure improvements such as demo, construction of roads, bridges, traffic devices, parking lots, water and sewer systems and facilities, utility service and rail service.

A four step process exists for Job Ready Site awards.  First, two days before Christmas, a “voluntary” pre-application form is due to ODOD.  The purpose of this form is obviously to take a first cut at discouraging a large number of applications.  Next, Ohio’s 19 Public Works Commission District Integrating Committees across the state will take the first shot at reviewing local applications and creating a priority funding list for review by ODOD.  No doubt this process is typically political but each District Integrating Committee can submit up to six grant applicants to ODOD.

Next, ODOD will then award grants under one of five categories.  Ohio’s Job Ready Site Program requires applicants to define their project as:

• Mega-manufacturing;
• Smart office;
• Manufacturing;
• Technical research/laboratory; or
• Industrial.

ODOD’s guidelines indicate a preference for manufacturing, technical research/laboratory and industrial

Finally, for those lucky enough to get the OK from ODOD they then must be approved by the state of Ohio Controlling Board—a body of state legislators that approve of state spending. 

What’s the analysis of the 2010-2011 guidelines?

1.        Politics matters.  Gaining the local support and support of state elected officials very much matters in this grant process.

2.        Don’t Focus on Mega-Manufacturing & Smart Office.  You are most likely to gain funding if you focus on what ODOD wants to fund.

3.        Get Help.  The short timeframes and advocacy requirement ensure that those that will be successful will have consultants help with the application and advocacy.

4.        Focus on Re-Use or Existing Projects.  ODOD’s program goals make clear the Strickland Administration is going to continue to focus the Job Ready Site program on existing developments over the Taft Administration’s focus on green field based projects.

5.        # 1 Rank from District Integrating Committee.  Trying to gain funding with anything but a # 1 rank from your District Integrating Committee will require a lot of political muscle and most likely following the Discretionary grant award.

Special Federal Budget Earmark Report

Five Clear Lessons from 2009 Earmark Season

With the federal budget process nearing completion, now is a good time to review how the world of earmarks survived.  The news media focus’ substantial negative attention on federal budget earmarks but a review of the 111^th Congress clearly illustrates five clear lessons for Buckeye state residents looking for federal budget help in tough economic times.

Earmarks are still alive and breathing.  The announcement of the death of federal budget earmarks was clearly premature—to steal a famous line.  Nearly every subcommittee that passed a federal budget included some budget earmarks. 

Public and not for profit sector more likely winners of earmarks.  A notable change with the advent of “earmark reform” has been the dominance of local government, universities and economic development groups as winners of earmarks and the growing lack of direct funding for private sector companies.  As an example, a quick and non-exhaustive list of winners from Ohio include:

Universities- public and private colleges and universities for research oriented and educational facilities and programs

                                                               i.      Bowling Green State University;

                                                             ii.      Mount Union College;

                                                            iii.      Ohio State University;

                                                           iv.      Ohio University;

                                                             v.      University of Akron;

                                                           vi.      University of Cincinnati; and

                                                          vii.      University of Toledo.

Not for profit hospitals- urban and rural, research and general care hospitals for facilities and programs

                                                               i.      Akron’s Children’s Hospital;

                                                             ii.      Barnesville Hospital;

                                                            iii.      Cincinnati Children’s Hospital;

                                                           iv.      Lake County Hospital;

                                                             v.      NEOUCOM;

                                                           vi.      Ohio State University Cancer Hospital;

                                                          vii.      St. John’s Hospital;

                                                        viii.      St. Vincent’s Hospital;

                                                           ix.      Summa Health Care System;

                                                             x.      Trihealth;

                                                           xi.      University Hospital;

                                                          xii.      Van Wert County Hospital; and

                                                        xiii.      Wadsworth-Rittman Hospital;

Local governments- urban, suburban and rural cities, townships, port authorities and counties for water, sewer and roadway infrastructure primarily

                                                               i.      Akron;

                                                             ii.      Ashland

                                                            iii.      Belmont County;

                                                           iv.      Butler County;

                                                             v.      Cleveland;

                                                           vi.      Coshocton;

                                                          vii.      Chardon;

                                                        viii.      Dillonvale;

                                                           ix.      Fostoria;

                                                             x.      Fremont;

                                                           xi.      Hilliard;

                                                          xii.      Hiram;

                                                        xiii.      Independence;

                                                        xiv.      Knox County;

                                                         xv.      Muskingum County;

                                                        xvi.      Ottawa County;

                                                      xvii.      Sagamore Hills;

                                                     xviii.      Stow;

                                                        xix.      Vandalia;

                                                         xx.      Worthington; and

                                                        xxi.      Valley View.

Bi-partisanship is still a winning earmark formula.  While the news headlines are all about a Congress in the grips of partisanship, federal budget earmarks continue to follow the tradition of both Republican and Democratic members gaining earmark funding for their constituents.  However, the majority Congressional Democrats are clearly gaining more and larger earmarks and members of the Appropriations Committee are gaining a substantial share of all the earmarks given.

Earmarks for “green” projects a growing trend.  Following the growth of the alternative energy industry, a trend is clear that alternative energy projects are hot as a form of “high-tech” economic development.  Whether through universities, local governments or not for profit economic development groups, a variety of federal department budgets will be directed to support local high tech projects geared toward developing the alternative energy industry. 

Ohio has a strong presence on the House and Senate Appropriations Committee but Congressmen Hobson and Regula were missed.  While it is difficult to quantify, those who advocated for federal budget earmarks noticed the challenge created by the loss of two senior Ohio Congressman, Ralph Regula and Dave Hobson, who served as Chairs of House Appropriations Subcommittees at one point.  Ohio does benefit from the presence of Senator George Voinovich, Congressman Tim Ryan, Congressman Steve LaTourette and Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur and the appropriations bills are filled with amendments they sponsored.  Other than Congressman Pat Tiberi, Congressman Steve Austria, and Congressman John Boehner, the entire Ohio Congressional Delegation requested federal budget earmarks and all gained several requests on behalf of projects in their district.

Federal Broadband Grants to be Streamlined

Pending Applications Waiting Until December for Round 1 Awards

The US Department of Agriculture and Department of Commerce jointly announced restructuring plans for the funding of federal broadband grants through the federal stimulus program.  2,220 applications were filed seeking nearly $ 28 B for regional broadband projects.  Considering only $ 4 B was available, Round 1 of broadband funding was no doubt popular.  Agriculture and Commerce decided to combine the second and third round of wards based upon the demand for grants through Round 1 and have asked for feedback on the Round 1 process.  In addition, these federal agencies have asked for input on whether a portion of the remaining should be used to promote regional economic development tied to broadband deployment.  Most importantly, it was announced the decision on who would receive Round 1 awards will be announced in December of 2009. 

State Budget Stalemate Continues

Pressure Shifts from Governor to Senate Republicans

The bad news story of 2009, the state budget, continues into the waning months of the year.  Following an Ohio Supreme Court decision on VLTs at the race tracks, an $ 850 M hole was created in an already stretched state budget.  Governor Strickland acted quickly and announced his plan to stop the implementation of an income tax plan cut as part of the state’s multi year tax reform plan.  The Ohio House Democrats followed quickly after the Governor’s announcement with all but two House Republicans opposing the plan.  The plan next moved to the Ohio Senate where it was expected a small number of Senate Republicans matched with all the Senate Democrats would hold their nose and vote for the Governor’s plan.  After weeks of hearings, the Senate Republican Majority was unable to reach agreement on the Governor’s proposal and created a plan of their own.  The Senate Republican Plan included a delay in a portion of the income tax cut as well as some additional spending cuts and use of other state government revenue.  However, the Senate Republican Plan apparently lacked widespread support among the Republican members and was opposed by all the Democrats.  The General Assembly escaped for the Thanksgiving Recess but will return in early December for several more weeks of legislative session and, potentially, an answer to the budget challenges of the state.