Grant application information

ECHO Advisory Committee

Volusia ECHO Advisory Board Meeting
April 14, 2004
County Council Chambers
DeLand, FL

I. Call To Order, Roll Call, Introductory Remarks:

Chair Matousek called the April 14, 2004, ECHO Advisory Committee meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.. Chair Matousek asked staff to take roll. Linda Hargreaves and Don Smith had excused absences. A quorum was present. Chair Matousek noted that two Board members, Janet Williams and Teri Ford Cobean, had to resign. Chair Matousek introduced the two new members of the board, Stuart Sixma and Peter Matulis and had them give a brief overview of their background.

II. Election of Officers:

Chair Matousek noted that the by-laws require nomination of new officers for the grant year 2004/2005 and opened the floor to nominations for Chairman. Lorna Jean Hagstrom nominated Charles Matousek. No other nominations were made. Chair Matousek asked for a motion that the nominations be closed. Lorna Jean Hagstrom moved that a unanimous ballot be cast for Charles Matousek and Jack Wiles seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken which was unanimous for Charles Matousek. Chair Matousek opened the floor for nominations for Vice Chairman. Lorna Jean Hagstrom nominated Linda Hargreaves. Jack Wiles nominated Gary Libby. Chair Matousek asked for the roll call vote:

Lorna Jean Hagstrom – Linda Hargreaves
Gary Libby – Gary Libby
Peter Matulis - Gary Libby
Stuart Sixma - Gary Libby
Jack Wiles - Gary Libby
Judson Woods - Gary Libby
Charles Matousek - Linda Hargreaves

III. Annual Goal Setting Session:

Chair Matousek asked that the Board review the proposed revisions to last year’s version of the Committee’s Goals and Strategic Plan.

“Goals” section:

Proposed Deletion of Previous #1 – Reduce the number of ineligible applications received by staff and reviewed by the ECHO Advisory Board. - No change

Proposed #1 – Conduct a survey to update the list of future potential projects. - No change

Proposed #2 – Conduct a review of current ECHO projects and the future of ECHO.
Chair Matousek asked that it be revised to eliminate the words “and the future of ECHO”. The Board concurred that the words should be eliminated and that # 2 should be revised to read, “Conduct a review of current ECHO projects”.

Proposed #3 - Revise and improve policies, procedures and criteria for 2004/2005 where needed including a review of eligibility requirements for applicants and projects, scoring, and encouraging Trails Projects from the Countywide Master Plan.
Gary Libby indicated that he was perplexed at the special designation of the trails program. He noted that the County Council has recommended to the Board that they, in a greater fashion, stimulate grants to smaller organizations. He noted that he has no problem with the trails program but wants emphasis to be on helping small organizations to participate in the grant application process.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom noted that she has a problem with designating one particular project in the goals.

Chair Matousek asked, and the Board agreed, that #3 should be revised to read: “Revise and improve policies, procedures and criteria for 2004/2005 where needed including a review of eligibility requirements for applicants and projects and scoring”.

Proposed #4 – Accept and review the fourth cycle of applications and recommend to the County Council projects for grant awards in 2004/2005. - No change

Proposed #5 – Maximize the timeline of the ECHO process. - No change

Proposed #6 - Enhance public relation efforts regarding ECHO program accomplishments
Lorna Jean Hagstrom asked that the word “relation” be corrected to read “relations”.

Gary Libby asked Margaret Hodge how #6 is accomplished. He inquired if Dave Byron does anything to promote the program via news releases or does the program rely on applicants to promote the program.

Margaret Hodge indicated that the focus has been to support applicants when they have openings or groundbreaking events and future plans are to develop a brochure with photographs of completed projects to be handed out showing the accomplishments of the program.

Gary Libby noted that at the end of each year, there is a database that is compelling and explains that money is being distributed among the 4 components of the program and is being distributed geographically. His suggestion was to have a news release of the cumulative effects of ECHO that does prove the point that the money is being evenly distributed and that set asides are not needed.

Chair Matousek noted that the pie charts used in the March presentation to County Council would be a helpful visual press release.

Margaret Hodge ask that the Board as a whole to request that staff take this to the County’s Community Information Officer.

Gary Libby moved to direct the staff to, each year, or when appropriate, batch the data and provide a news release with as wide a distribution as possible.

Jack Wiles seconded the motion. The motion passed with a unanimous voice vote.

“Strategic Plan” section:

Proposed First Item - Survey potential applicants on the application procedures and criteria.
Chair Matousek indicated that was just recently done and there will be more discussion on that.

Proposed Second Item – Seek input from the County Council on grant application policies and procedures. – No change

Proposed Deletion of Previous Second Item – Seek input on the application procedures and criteria. - No change

Proposed Third Item - Refine the existing application’s format and language and consider (1) creating three Guides: Governmental, Not-For-Profit and Exceptional 2) creating two applications: Single/Multiphase and Exceptional and (3) eliminating the Multiphase application.
Margaret Hodge asked to explain what staff has done. She noted that she has gotten feedback and has spoken with several applicants and while this sounds more complicated than ever, only the front covers will be changed and six to twelve paragraphs in the Guide will be changed out. She explained that there would be a Not-For-Profit Guide and a Government Guide so the Not-For-Profits will only have to read what is relevant to them and governmental agencies will be able to do the same. The size of the Guide will not change but applicants only have to read what pertains to them. She also noted that the Exceptional information has been moved to an appendix at the back of the Guide because there are not many of those kinds of applicants.

Gary Libby expressed concern that if any other body of the grant is changed to accommodate a Not-For-Profit over a government entity or a government entity over a Not-For-Profit, the Board would have to know that up front because he would not support that.

Margaret Hodge noted that the language in the original Guide has not changed or what is expected to be provided to the Board.

Gary Libby noted that there is significance and a meaning to having a separate application for the government and that neither the federal form nor the state form offers a separate application.

Margaret Hodge explained further that the “Application” would be the same for Not-For-Profits and governmental agencies; however, the plan is to have separate “Applications” for Single/Multiphase applicants and Exceptional applicants.

Chair Matousek noted that the Board would have the opportunity to review the suggested revisions to the Guide prior to the next Board meeting and will spend the majority of the April 28th meeting discussing the proposed changes.

Gary Libby stated it would be perfectly appropriate if the Board wants to do two Guides.

Margaret Hodge noted that removing multiphase projects was listed as a topic because the Board had discussed it in the past.

Gary Libby indicated that these were thoughtful suggestions and that they fell in line with the Board’s thinking including eliminating the multiphase portion of the application.

Chair Matousek asked, and the Board indicated that they were comfortable with the language.

Proposed Fourth Item - Present the 2004/2005 application at a public meeting for final input. – No change

Proposed Fifth Item - Present the 2004/2005 application to the County Council for final approval. - No change

Proposed Sixth Item - Continue the mandatory application workshop policy requiring that all applicants attend the Grant Review Panel.
Chair Matousek indicated that this was two different items and that the wording should be changed to read “Continue the mandatory application workshop policy and require that all applicants attend the Grant Review Panel. The Board agreed with the change to the language.

Proposed Seventh Item - Continue to encourage Applicants to personally meet with County staff to discuss their specific ECHO project. – No change

Proposed Eighth Item - Continue to encourage Applicants to take advantage of the County staff’s Completeness Review process that assists in identifying if the application includes all necessary elements.
Gary Libby stated that this raises the question of completeness and if the Board is going to establish a policy that if an application is not complete it is not eligible, will it be passed on. He noted that completeness has become a loose term as the Board has passed on incomplete applications into the funding cycle and questioned why have the requirement unless the Board takes a stand that if it is not complete the Board should not see the application.

Chair Matousek indicated that completeness reviews are necessary so that applicants can determine if they have everything and it is a separate issue that the Board should enforce the deadlines that the Board has been soft on in the past. If applicants are late or if key parts are missing the Board has been very forgiving in the past.

Gary Libby asked if the Completeness Reviews should be made mandatory.

Margaret Hodge suggested that this is an issue that can be dealt with apart from the goals and strategies topic.

Chair Matousek did not think that the Completeness Reviews should be made mandatory.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom concurred and noted that everything should be done to make sure the applications are complete.

Margaret Hodge stated that some previous applicants have asked that they not have to attend a workshop if they have attended one in the past and suggested that the Board could look at this when they review the Guide.

“Timeline” section:

Chair Matousek reviewed the timeline with the Board. He asked that the “2005” before the words “ECHO Application” be removed under the July 2004 item. He went on to question the Board as to whether or not they had decided to update the inventory of ECHO projects as noted under August 2004, noting that he did not think they had.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom concurred, asking if it was needed, noting that the Board acts on whatever is brought before them.

Margaret Hodge stated that it is the Board’s decision and that it was put on the list because it had not been done for a year.

Gary Libby advised that it could be used to draw organizations out of the woodwork that are thinking about the process and thought that it could be done with a mailing or a news release, explaining what the program is and inviting people to contact us.

Margaret Hodge explained that it could be used to look at what was the dream that has gone away and what was a dream that has moved forward and that staff may go ahead with it even if the Board is not interested in the results.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom questioned how it would affect the Board, noting that they will not judge future applicants based on whether or not they are on a list.

Gary Libby noted that it could stimulate more public relations with the program and if all the Board was getting were applicants from one area they probably were not getting through to other types of organizations and this might stimulate others to apply.

Chair Matousek noted that it could also help Margaret by adding to her email list of folks to notify for workshops and help them get involved in the process.

Chair Matousek had staff confirm the date of the second August workshop as the 6th and asked Margaret Hodge to discuss the results of the survey done to determine what day of the week is best to hold a workshop.

Margaret Hodge stated from choices of: a weekday, a weekday evening or a weekend, the most favored time is on a weekday and that a Wednesday is fine. The second most favored time is a weeknight and the third was the weekend. The two respondents that choose a weekend were contacted and indicated that a weekday would be acceptable. The current plan is to have one workshop on the east side and one on the west side.

After the Board reviewed the remainder of the Timeline, Chair Matousek noted that he thought that the Board was comfortable with the dates. After asking if there were any more comments on the Goals and Strategic Plan, Chair Matousek asked for a motion for approval.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom moved for approval.

Jack Wiles seconded the motion. The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote.

IV. Old Business:

Chair Matousek asked Margaret Hodge to discuss the Staff Report.

March 18, 2004 County Council Meeting
Margaret Hodge reviewed the March 18th County Council meeting, noting that the County Council had approved all the awards brought to them with the exception of the one for Tuscawilla Park which was held back. The City of Daytona Beach was asked to bring back some greater support from the city for the project because, with the new make up of the City Commission, it was unclear if the support was the same within the City. The City will do so within the next two to three months but the Board will not be involved in further discussions.

Little Theatre of New Smyrna Beach
Margaret Hodge updated the Board on the status of an earlier project, the Little Theatre of New Smyrna Beach. They had to make design changes based on hurricane codes, etc., which resulted in the project coming in with a much higher budget than was expected. The new design is still 90% of what the Board had been presented with, having lost mostly administrative space. They also added 80 to 100 thousand dollars worth of value over their original match. She indicated that the Board is still getting much of what they asked for and staff told the grantee to move forward.

Survey results – Not-For-Profit and Governmental
Margaret Hodge noted that different surveys had been sent to Not-For-Profits and to Government entities because they have differing sets of issues. The Board was previously provided with the results so that they could get a feel from the respondents’ own words. What was of the most concern to the Not-For-Profits was the 1:1 match. She further explained that she reminded them that only 25 cents on dollar now has to be cash in the bank. The Not-For-Profits’ second greatest concern is the requirement for a certified audit because of the cost. She noted that last year the Board agreed to allow them to use that as match and has contacted those with these concerns and sited current standards. Of most concern to the cities is the desire for a simplified application, which can be done by removing duplicative requests for information. She advised the Board that the staff is currently working towards this goal and will be bringing recommendations to the Board on April 28.

Gary Libby asked if the Board is willing to extend the cost of an audit as cash match to all applications.

Margaret Hodge noted that it is something the Board can consider when reviewing the Application and mentioned that they may want to do it for smaller organizations or base it on the amount of an award.

Gary Libby suggested that as a matter of neatness and simplicity, maybe it should be extended to all as cash match.

Chair Matousek noted this would be discussed at the April 28th meeting.

Gary Libby noted that he had one more item to discuss. He asked if the Board wanted to develop a formal amendment process and if they do, should it be staff driven or should the Board see what the amended application is? All other grant programs have the ability to amend the narrative or the budget and his question is how it moves past the amendment appeal and should it be handled by staff, by the Board, or should it go to the County Council.

Margaret Hodge noted that the Guide has language that addresses this issue and it is highlighted for the Board’s discussion on April 28th. The goal is to allow the applicant to move forward unless there is a significant change and then it needs to be determined what is deemed a significant change.

Gary Libby questioned if the significant change is dollar driven or if it is mission driven with the dollars remaining the same, how those changes reflect on the scoring. It may have changed the way the Board would have scored it and the Board would probably want to review the change.

Margaret Hodge brought to the Board’s attention that the audit used as cash match only helps the Not-For-Profits because cities and the County can’t pull out the dollar amount.

Gary Libby noted that there are a lot of inequities that the cities get to enjoy and this might be a balance for the Not-For-Profits. He stated that it would also help the smaller organizations professionalize by doing the audit especially if they could use it as cash match.

Chair Matousek noted that these topics would be discussed at the April 28th meeting.

Gary Libby asked Margaret Hodge to make a list of these items for the April 28th meeting.

V. New Business

Discussion Topics of ECHO Board Meeting, April 14, 2004

Chair Matousek opened the dialogue of the “Discussion Topics” stating that the goal is to have clear, open and honest discussion on issues and to give direction to staff so that if there are changes to policies and procedures, staff can come up with language for the April 28th meeting and also to provide to the County Council, options on how handle the issues at the upcoming workshop. He noted that it is not required to come up with final solutions but they should discuss options so staff can incorporate them into wording for the upcoming meeting.

A. Eligible Applicant/Project

1) 501(c)(3) applicants and projects

Gary Libby reminded the Board that traditionally when the program started, they invited non-sub-divisions of the state as applicants and in the first round Stetson University was one of those applicants. He noted that at that particular time, the Board did not envision sub-divisions of the state as being eligible applicants in this program. He further noted that conditions have changed somewhat and the designations that are enjoyed by certain sub-divisions of the state are different from others and that is question the Board has to look at today and whether anything that they do to invite a political sub-division into the program will open the door to all political sub-divisions of the state. He declared that the mission of many of the sub-divisions of the state have nothing to do with ECHO but some of the programs do, and has a problem how to parse and separate some from others. As way of an example, he questioned if a worthwhile project, such as the one the community college had this year, which was obviously a cultural program, can be separated from the Department of Transportation building a road that will allow people to attend cultural activities. He advised that the Board has to be careful when they come up with a policy, that it absolutely be in the spirit of the program and can be defended.

Chair Matousek noted that the issue is one of the initial intent of the program verses the current situation. He pointed out that the current policies do not preclude these types of agencies in writing but state in the affirmative three types of organizations that are eligible. He suggested that the Board look at the intended use of the facility to determine if it falls within the guidelines. He asked Mr. Gummey to provide the Board with some legal guidelines.

Frank Gummey reviewed Referendum 2000-156, section 10 with the Board.
Section 10 of the Referendum notes the kinds of organizations that qualify, one of which are non-profit organizations as well as municipalities of Volusia County or budgeted organizations of Volusia County Government. Mr. Gummey pointed out that non-profit and 501(c)(3) are not synonymous but come close to use to make determination of exterior criteria for non-profit. He noted that the discussions that led up to approval of Referendum 2000-156 may be politically persuasive but as a matter of law, there are no legal boundaries beyond the term “non-profit”. He continued that this is not to say that any non-profit has an entitlement to eligibility and it is within the power of the County Council to develop criteria and within Board’s ability to recommend criteria to the County Council, that are more restrictive than broad term “non-profit”. Mr. Gummey provided a handout from the IRS website, listing what qualifies as 501(c)(3). It seemed to Mr. Gummey that all Florida educational institutions would be eligible to achieve 501(c)(3) status if they were truly operating in a non-profit manner. Mr. Gummey explained that the distinction made on 501(c)(3) status by the IRS in terms of governmental entities is that general-purpose governments are not eligible to achieve 501(c)(3) status and that would be the State Florida, the County of Volusia, and municipalities within Volusia County. He further explained that special purpose governments are eligible, if they are distinct sub-divisions of the parent company and are called “instrumentalities” of the 501(c)(3) regulations. Mr. Gummey quoted from the IRS pamphlet as follows: “A state or municipal instrumentality may qualify under a 501(c)(3) if it is organized as a separate entity from the governmental unit that created it and it otherwise meets the organizational and operational test of a 501(c)(3). Examples of a qualifying instrumentality might include state schools, universities, or hospitals, however, if the organization is an integral part of a local government or posses governmental powers, it does not qualify for an exemption. A state or municipality itself does not qualify for an exemption.” Mr. Gummey reminded the Board of the recent case that was shared with some members in which it was determined by the courts that community colleges should be defined as a political sub-division of the state. He noted that the School Board of Volusia County, all private non-profit educational institutions and religious institutions are also eligible to achieve that status. He went on to say that religious activities within religious institutions cannot be funded, but as a matter of law, cultural etc. activities that might be presented by a religious organization could be funded. He summarized by noting that as a matter of law, all 501(c)(3) organizations, if otherwise eligible, could be permitted under the application to apply. He went on to say that it was not to say that the Board could not restrict on a reasonable, rational basis, the pool of those that would be eligible. Mr. Gummey suggested that the question could be framed to address whether it is it the Board’s desire to restrict eligible applicants in terms of the nature of the applicant or the nature of the project. He advised the Board of the Cultural Council criteria, which says an applicant, must be primarily a cultural organization and has rejected educational applicants because they did not meet the criteria.

Chair Matousek inquired of Mr. Gummey if the Board could and/or should exclude any group from applying?

Frank Gummey explained a variety of organizations that could be excluded and that there was a myriad of ways the line could be drawn and would be a matter of policy.

Gary Libby inquired if the language that the applicant organization be primarily an organization dealing with environmental, cultural, heritage, outdoors programs would do what the Board was trying to do?

Frank Gummey indicated that it would.

Chair Matousek stated that the Board has the option of not making any changes.

Gary Libby stated that he felt that the Board really had to do something because if nothing were done it would produce a continuing problem for their colleagues and friends in these educational institutions and they need to know what is the Board’s feeling. He noted that the projects they bring forward might be very exciting but the problem is the applicant is not primarily in this business and then it falls that the matches and all the other considerations are not the same as the other applicants. He pointed out that the Board has that problem with municipalities and the County to a certain degree but that was built into the program. He noted that if the panel as confirmed by the County Council feels that the Cultural Council shouldn’t be funding the community college, Bethune Cookman or the school system, the Board should look at that posture and that they should not be in conflict and should be complimentary to a certain degree.

Chair Matousek stated that he is not in favor of changing the criteria to mirror that of the Cultural Council but prefers to look at the intended use of facility and look at the project and look at the application. He noted that their mission is different from that of the Cultural Council.

Gary Libby indicated that he thinks the applicant-based approach of the Cultural Council is a good criterion on which to build their policies. He believes that otherwise every case becomes a special case and politicizes every applicant that doesn’t fit the mold and winds up at a County Council meeting. He does not recommend copying the Cultural Council but their policy to draw a distinction is fair and that the Board has been asked by the County Council to recommend some distinctions and need to discuss if language should stay the same, open-ended and subject to interpretation, however, he would much rather be able to say up front where they stand in this funding.

Chair Matousek asked Gary Libby to describe the changes in the language he would suggest.

Gary Libby stated that the Board needs to decide whether or not the program is intended for applicants like the University of Central Florida and the community college and, if it is intended for these organizations and their environmental, cultural, heritage, outdoors programs, then they should act accordingly. But if the Board doesn’t think that the Volusia County taxpayers intended for ECHO to be funding facilities on a community college campus or a state university then should craft language to reflect the will of the voters. He stated that he does not think that is was the intent of the voters to fund these types of organization.

Frank Gummey noted that the only evidence that the Board has of what the voter’s decided on is the ballot question and the Resolution.

Gary Libby agreed and indicated that he does not believe that minds have been made up absolutely but that it is a very important question and the Board needs to tackle the problem this year.

Chair Matousek inquired if Gary Libby wants to include language that would exclude certain groups.

Gary Libby explained that originally he had wanted to include language that would exclude certain categories but was otherwise convinced to list those that they would include and not the ones that they would exclude. He indicated an option now would be to recommend to the County Council what organizations to specifically exclude and to keep coming back to it as situations arise. He went on to say that language could be developed to express the spirit of the program. It is his unique perception, based on his having attended all of the preliminary meetings, that the program did not intend to embrace state university, college systems or state agencies. He noted that they have an opportunity to recommend corrective language to the County Council if it is warranted.

Chair Matousek inquired if Gary Libby wants to exclude state agencies.

Gary Libby stated that he does not have a problem with the Cultural Council’s Resolution to the question and that the applicant must be primarily be environmental, cultural, historical or outdoors.

Chair Matousek likes the current criteria and is concerned about starting to parse out what group is eligible which could get into very tricky situation and believes that the way it is now, is very straightforward. He suggested making it a second option.

Margaret Hodge asked the Board to put forward a motion with options for recommendation to the Council.

Jack Wiles stated that he agrees with Mr. Libby and is concerned about seeing more state agencies & schools come in that eventually might take more control over the funds than the Board would like to see. He is in favor of option one as being the Cultural Council language.

Chair Matousek asked for any further comments and commented that they have two clear options to present to the County Council; one is a clarification as it now is and the other is moving along the lines of the Cultural Council.

Gary Libby requested a voice vote so that the County Council would be aware of which one carried the day.

Peter Matulis commented that if it stays the same, the conversations would continue in the future leaving the opportunity open for a school to apply for 501(c)(3) status using local tax dollars for a program that should be funded by a State budget. He expressed concerned that it will be perceived as a funding source for what should be state funded.

Chair Matousek entertained a motion that the Board should have these two options to put forward to the County Council.

Gary Libby made the motion.

Judson Woods seconded the motion.

The motion passed unanimously by a voice vote.

Chair Matousek called for a roll call vote on each of the options A) leave it alone B) change to Cultural Council

Lorna Jean Hagstrom –Abstained-as a member of a DBCC foundation
Gary Libby – change
Peter Matulis - change
Stuart Sixma – change
Jack Wiles – change
Judson Woods – change
Chair Matousek – same

Chair Matousek requested that Margaret Hodge come up with language for the County Council.

Margaret Hodge stated that they would have the language for their meeting on April 28th that could go to the County Council

2) Projects on State Lands without lease or ownership by the applicant

Chair Matousek started the discussion by noting that the topic could be tied into the discussion of Item D) Trails which are planned or proposed because they go through state lands or lands owned by the St. Johns Water River Management with which Volusia County may have a long term management agreement

Margaret Hodge indicated that the item was put together by looking at the initial list of projects compiled prior to ECHO, which included Chief Tomokee, all of the sugar mills etc., and it is difficult to reach those projects with the conditions as they are now if it is the desire to save or preserve them.

Gary Libby suggested they allow cities and the County to exercise a management agreement, that would satisfy the length of time that is standard in the program and indicated it would satisfy him in lieu of ownership. He noted that the Board needs to be flexible in a matter as sensitive as the trails program.

Margaret Hodge asked if the Board is suggesting that staff look at a document that the Board can consider in lieu of ownership of the property.

Gary Libby confirmed that one management agreement with a number of years in lieu of the deed would satisfy him.

Chair Matousek inquired if this would include the sugar mills.

Frank Gummey said that it potentially would but one difference that he sees is that in the instance of a lease, the danger of a lessee defaulting and the land reverting to the landlords was covered because in all cases the landlord consented to Restrictive Covenants but doubts that they would agree to it under a management circumstance and he is sure that there are provisions, in the advent of breach, that the management agreement would be cancelled.

Gary Libby inquired how they would get around it so that the investment of Volusia County residents would be protected in the trails program as an example.

Frank Gummey indicated that it would be a matter of faith. One would be the imperative that it can’t be moved but the question is, would it remain open and available or would the state abandon the facility if it became dissatisfied with management.

Stuart Sixma inquired what would be the length of the agreement in number of years as a minimum and would easements of private property be allowable.

Frank Gummey stated that he was not aware of any management agreements for private property.

Gary Libby noted that the trails program is an important part of the County’s interface with the public and the Board should be as accommodating within the strictures of the program as possible. He inquired of Frank Gummey if existing addendums to state management agreements could be used or if one should be drafted with the potential of ECHO funds being involved.

Frank Gummey noted that the State likes the consistency of using existing documents.

B) ACQUISITION OF VACANT LANDS

Should you fund vacant land acquisition & 2) If you do fund vacant land acquisition, what are the minimum drawings required, how long before the project is constructed and public use available and should the applicant demonstrate the ability to fund construction or at a minimum discuss how they plan to fund construction?

Chair Matousek asked for discussion and some agreement on what the Board’s feeling on clarification or change to the policy on vacant land is, noting that there is nothing in writing that says it has to be built on or within a certain time period.

Gary Libby noted that they inherited vacant lands from the Forever program and it is in the Resolution. He further noted that applicants will bring forward grants for vacant lands that have merit but as one who scores the projects he is interested the long range plans of the project and not sure how high a score he would give to the project unless it was surrounded by a long range plan that had teeth in it.

Chair Matousek stated that he wants the program to allow for the acquisition of vacant land but feels there is a need for language in their policies and procedures that address a readiness policy to include what the plans are and the time frame for development or building on the vacant land.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom included what are the prospects for capital funds in order to build.

Gary Libby questioned what if they do not plan to build, what if they want to buy a piece of Florida and keep it as a natural environmental space?

Chair Matousek commented that that was not the issue, rather, is the applicant going to inform the Board of their plans for intended use and the timeframe, which is currently not asked in the Application. There is currently nothing in the policy that asks for information on the intended use.

Margaret Hodge noted that it is in the application but probably won’t rank very high so maybe the guidelines should stress to the applicant what the Board wants to see such as when will there be public access, does the Board want to see a design or just read about a conceptual project or show that they have or will have funding. She explained that the language as it now stands, addresses improved properties but does not address those applicants that want to obtain land but are not yet ready to build on the land.

Gary Libby commented that ECHO had started as a bricks and mortar program at one point in time and the basic question is, should this program be funding the purchase of vacant land.

Jack Wiles stated that he thinks it could be an outdoor project and that there are lots of opportunities for viable projects to develop water front parks or a recreational facility and with a timeline and access they could be top projects.

Margaret Hodge explained that currently there is no time line and asked if the Board should put an ending on the timeline.

Jack Wiles commented that the timeline would come into play with the scoring

Margaret Hodge suggested that the Board could give guidance to an applicant of what length of timeline the Board desires and what happens if they don’t build within that timeline.

Gary Libby said he sees the potential for a situation in which no building is planned and questioned what happens in that case.

Jack Wiles commented that both situations may occur and that a project of setting aside pristine land and a project with development have different time lines. The setting aside of pristine land would have a short 1-2 years access time line and one with development could have a three year timeline.

Frank Gummey commented that in talking about pristine land, the Board is straying from the Resolution in which the preamble says that there is continuing need for high quality user-oriented outdoor recreational opportunities. He further noted that the Forever Resolution makes reference to resource based recreation and communing with nature is generally considered a resource-oriented activity and not a user-oriented activity.

Chair Matousek suggested that the needed language is already in the Resolution and just needs clarifying about asking for the intended use in a time frame.

Margaret Hodge explained that the application right now would have one line in the budget noting the purchase price and a drawing or a vision but the Board has no clue on how it would be funded.

Jack Wiles stated that it should go a step further because they need to see the matching grant piece plus a budget based on what plan to build, how much it will cost and how they plan to raise the dollars and how the funds will come in.

Margaret Hodge said staff would come up with something to address that on the basis these kinds of projects would have an opportunity to score better than they do currently.

Chair Matousek commented that the Board also needs to better communicate the criteria to the applicants.

Jack Wiles agreed.

Gary Libby questioned what if applicant wanted to purchase undeveloped land and have no other plans other than to produce a guide book, how would that be scored and should it be done based on the importance of the property. He explained that as long as they leave open the possibility of a project like sulfur springs, should they decide not to develop that project, being eligible, he would not have a problem.

Chair Matousek commented that is goes back to the scoring.

C) REVIEW AWARDS, INTENT OF ECHO, SCORING, AND FUNDING POLICY

Chair Matousek stated that the issue with scoring is whether or not the Board wants to continue with multiphase projects. He continued that the other issue is eligibility if the Board should fund every applicant that comes forward if there is money.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom noted that 70 is currently the minimum and that they have not awarded funds to anyone below 70 and that not every single application has been funded so the current process is working.

Chair Matousek indicated that it has not yet been a problem but it worries him that it could be in the future. It concerns him that a project could be funded that is not what the voters intended.

Gary Libby commented that they are going to have differences of opinion but as long as they are willing as individual reviewers, to identify an inappropriate grant and score it down, they just need to be tougher.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom agreed

Jack Wiles said some of it gets by them and if someone on the Board recognizes that it would be great if they pointed it out to the other members of the Board

Margaret Hodge recommended that the Board look at the sheet she gave them that noted that 75% of the projects went to those on the initial ECHO project list and 25% went to those not on the list. She then advised them to look at the vision of ECHO and see if it is falling apart by the projects that are coming forward and if it is, it is important to fine tune the program to make sure that the projects are okay or if not, to say that they aren’t.

Chair Matousek summarized the discussion by stating that they are in agreement that they do not need to raise the score and should keep the minimum at 70 and the policy of 100% awarded annually will stay the same. He opened for discussion the topic as to whether or not to keep multiphase, which awards an extra point to the applicant.

Gary Libby stated that it is onerous and would rather have a single phase and let them check a box if there is going to be additional phases and share somewhere in the Application what the future phases will be.

Margaret Hodge asked if the Board is saying that the applicant doesn’t need the budget and will only need to explain briefly in the narrative, what the future phase will be.

Gary Libby commented that when they bring the following year’s application it would have to fit in the picture.

Margaret Hodge asked for clarification as to whether the Board wants to leave in multiphase with an extra point to which the Board replied in the negative.

Jack Wiles stated that he has a problem with that because the second phase might tie together with the first and wants to make sure the applicant has a plan and a budget.

Margaret Hodge explained that the state removed multi-phase status, and one of the Board’s goals was to have a phase complete within itself and not rank it based on it having another phase.

Chair Matousek commented that an applicant should show in that grant cycle the benefit of the project.

Jack Wiles stated that he is willing to strike the multiphase if, when the applicant comes back for the second phase, the first phase is complete and they would be ineligible if is not.

Margaret Hodge noted that staff is recommending language that requires that funds be encumbered in the first year and that the project be completed within two years.


Gary Libby shared with the Board that the multiphase language was developed because they were not sure what would happen with the Exceptional phase language and they were concerned what would happen with large projects. Now that the Exceptional has a life of its own, it lessens the need for the multiphase and would support Jack Wiles contention that they need to be separate and he will grade it on the merits of the grant and budget that is before him.

Margaret Hodge clarified the Board’s intent by saying that their suggestion is that the applicant is just required to explain a future phase in tab 2 but won’t need to provide a specific budget and they do not receive an extra point. She noted that this brings up those who have previously been awarded multiphase grants.

Chair Matousek said that it would be prudent that they have a grandfather period for any applicant who has multiphase status this year and award them the extra point next year. The Board agreed.

Chair Matousek opened discussion to the question if the value of the goals needs to be ranked.

Gary Libby commented that he does not think the Board can and doesn’t want more goals to be equal to more points.

Margaret Hodge expressed that the question is, what are the goals of ECHO and if they annually award all the money and they do not change the minimum score of 70, are the projects they award the right projects for ECHO?

Gary Libby commented that the Board has the option now. They just don’t give them a 70.

Chair Matousek commented that the Board needs to step up to the table and do a better job of scoring and as to the ranking the value of goals he believes it will make it too complex. He summarized the Board’s decisions to keep the minimum score of 70, spend 100% of the funds annually, not to rank the value of the goals, and eliminate multiphase projects.

D. TRAILS

Chair Matousek explained that the issue of trails is the concern of the County Council that the program is not funded well enough and not progressing as fast as they would like and it is the general feeling that not enough has been accomplished and that there is discussion of dedicated funding from ECHO to the Trails Master Plan and they need to have discussion on the topic and give the County Council some feedback.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom stated that she has no problem with funding the trails but does have a problem with a set aside. She suggested that they should come along with the other applicants and be scored and if they receive a high enough score she is all for it. If there is a set aside there will not be much left for other applicants.

Gary Libby stated he would not entertain set asides at this stage of the game and recommends that the County should be as aggressive as they can in bringing these projects to them.

Margaret Hodge explained that they could make two recommendation to the County Council, one being the status quo and have the trails program compete with everyone else or they could indicate that the trails are important priority for everyone, city, Not-For-Profits and the County. She suggested that trails might need to be addressed on a timelier basis than coming in December with an application. She introduced John Harper from the County’s Leisure Services Department and advised the Board that he could discuss the problem of funding for the trails.


Chair Matousek asked John Harper to summarize what the issues are

John Harper indicated that one of the issues is coming up with matching funds.

Gary Libby asked what if they were awarded an Exceptional Grant for three years?

John Harper indicated that the problem is the 4:1 match.

Gary Libby asked what his annual budget is for the trails program?

John Harper stated that this year it is $500,000 but he can’t tell them what he would have the following year.

Gary Libby noted that they are required only to have a quarter of the match in cash and they could use the value of the land including the leased land and would not have to use their entire budget.

John Harper noted that one of the drawbacks is having to have ownership or lease of the land.

Gary Libby questioned that if the Board could eliminate that requirement, what other impediments would there be?

John Harper mentioned that the trails program envisions land use of power line and utility easements.

Chair Matousek asked what the issues are pertaining to utility easements?

Frank Gummey commented they could get leases but did not know what kind of consideration the utility would give and may just license them.

Jack Wiles noted that utility easements are vacating the property and are giving them to the municipalities.

John Harper commented that even on the active ones they could get what is called an encroachment agreement. He stated that there are a number of mechanisms that they can get which permit them to use it and maintain them in perpetuity.

Margaret Hodge explained that there is the issue of the dynamics of time frame when it comes to the match. The land value comes from long linear trails but asked if much of the 2.4 million will be covered and reminded them that they cannot take all the land that they received and use it as match.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom suggested that the funds they get from the ECHO grant can be used as match for a state grant.

John Harper indicated that they could do this if the time frame was longer to spend the money.

Gary Libby asked if a six-year time frame would not be enough.

John Harper noted that the time frame is a problem if it is for smaller projects.

Gary Libby commented that it would work if they used the program to their best advantage.


John Harper mentioned that it is not just County trails but City trails that are included and if Council agrees to set asides for trails they could do a special category just for them.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom commented that it is conceivable that the municipalities could win some grants and then the program could fund a lot more that way.

Gary Libby thinks that 2.4 million dollars over four years and the concession on the land ownership and value of the land as match would make a set aside a very contentious issue in the community.

Jack Wiles noted that it would be more than that if the cities applied for 2.4 million dollars. He went on to say, however, that he has a problem using land as cash match because it is not owned and it not leased.

Gary Libby noted that the license has a value.

Jack Wiles commented that if there is not possession there is no value and that there needs to be something to have value.

Gary Libby suggested that how the property is tied up for the trail could be the value.

Frank Gummey noted that these would be “special use” property, which is an appraisal problem, and it is difficult to determine market value.

Gary Libby commented that it is done for Not-For-Profits who are given land by private companies and municipalities and it can be done.

Chair Matousek asked to have staff come back with changes in language to ease the burden on the trails program as it relates to ECHO. He also believes that the Board is not in favor of a set aside for the trails. He went on to say that his concern is if they have more Exceptional projects along with having a dedicated funding source, how much would be left for all the other applicants and believes it is a fairness issue.

Margaret Hodge said it brings up the question of how many Exceptional projects to entertain in a year and suggested that one of the things they should consider is trails as a strategic goal.

Gary Libby stated that at this stage he is not willing to declare that the trails program is more important than any other single project brought by a municipality or a Not-For-Profit. Categorically, he noted that he would like to look at what the trail is, where it is going, what impact does it have. These are generalities that are being compared to a real bricks and mortar projects and they can’t do that. He went on to state that they have not had a presentation on the trails program and do not know what it is other than it is a trails program.

Margaret Hodge suggested that they could consider making it a part of their strategic goals and have a workshop with John Harper during the summer or fall.

Jack Wiles did not want to start the precedent.

Gary Libby said it was also a fairness issue on the amount of money that would go back to the County.



Margaret Hodge noted when the plan for the trails was brought forward, the cities and Not-For-Profits liked the master plan, so the County Council approved a huge master plan that appeared that everyone would benefit from, so the question is, “is it just the county benefiting because they are taking the lead to build or is the community benefiting?”

Gary Libby stated that the County Council should realize that the Board likes the trails program and that they will do whatever they can short of a set aside or something that cuts into the body of the program. He stated that if they come to the Board, they would have a welcome audience.

Jack Wiles asked if they needed to vote on it.

Chair Matousek stated that staff will come with changes in language but will not change the process.

Gary Libby moved that they share with County Council the caveats and that they are not in favor of a set aside for the trails program.

Jack Wiles seconded the motion

Margaret Hodge asked if the Board is not interested in a workshop at this time to which they indicated that they are not.

Chair Matousek called the question at to whether the Board should share with the County Council the caveats they are recommending for the trails program and that they are not in favor of a set aside for the trails program. The vote was unanimous.

VI. Public Participation

Chair Matousek invited the public to address the Board.

John Harper of Volusia County Leisure Services noted that as soon as they purchased the land for Tom Renick Park, the public started using it and even though he thinks the Board is are in line with requiring a time frame to establishment, he wanted the Board to know that there is usage they can get out of vacant land. Secondly, he noted that the Board is in line with setting up a minimum bar for points, as do most other grants.

Connie McMillan, Grant Administrator for the City of Daytona Beach, asked the Board to consider letting the applicants know upfront what the Board will take off for missing documents because nobody knows what the Board will do because it is not in written form. She also noted that she was under the assumption that when they went before the Grant Review Panel, they were to only answer questions and is concerned that she would not get the same amount of time as previous applicants.

Chair Matousek noted that it is the Boards intention to rely on the written grant application and at the Grant Review Panel to ask clarifying questions.

Connie McMillan explained that they need to know what type of grants the Board will be accepting up front because she is not sure what is acceptable and what is not acceptable and is getting conflicting messages. In particular she noted the issue of a parking lot. Additionally, she felt several questions and comments by the Board were inappropriate.

Chair Matousek stated that if it was a parking lot it was eligible and it was a scoring issue.

Connie McMillan noted that the Board’s questioning of the City’s ability to pay should not be a part of a grant discussion.

Brian Babb, Daytona Beach Community College, stated that in the interest of time, he would, for their foundation board members, put their position in writing to the Board and to the County Council based on the information that was stated here today including issues concerning 501(c)(3) status, the school system’s inability to obtain 501(c)(3) status because it a taxing authority, issues of UCF and the use of the Lively Arts Center and the use of other non-profit organizations and memberships on boards and employment with those types of organizations.

Bill Rayborn, Little Theatre of New Smyrna Beach, stated that he was initially appalled by the cost of having to do a financial audit but now that his organization has gone through it, his opinion has changed and thinks that it is important to require it because it forces the organization to look at how they operate. He believes that a viable project can find a firm that will do it as an in-kind service. He also stated that he believes that the Board should address the issue of 501(c)(3) organizations and whether or not projects from educational institutions should be funded. Lastly, he stated that on the issue of scoring, if a project does not meet the spirit of ECHO then the scoring should reflect that as long as the Board keeps the 100% funding and on the issue of completeness, he noted that if the Board first tells applicants that an application will be rejected for incompleteness and then accepts one, it will encourage slipshod preparation.

Lynn Plaskett, City of Edgewater, spoke to the issue of response to the survey sent out by Margaret Hodge and that she had personally contacted individual organizations asking them to respond. In so doing she was told by some that they did not want to respond because they felt if they said something negative it could be used against them. She, however, encouraged them to respond because their comments mattered.

Chair Matousek replied that the Board’s objective is to make the program better and that they are looking for feedback.

Larry Norton, taxpayer, commented that as a taxpayer he agreed with Mr. Matousek that applications should be looked at by the merit of the project.

Chair Matousek asked if there were any further comments of which there were none.

VI. Committee Comments

Chair Matousek noted that the next meeting will be April 28 with a workshop May 20 and in June they will have a final look at policies and procedures, following a public workshop held by County staff .

VII. Adjournment

Meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m.