Chair Matousek opened up discussion
to the proposed changes asking each member to comment on each of the major
policy changes before the Board.
# 1) – Page 3 -
APPLICANT ELIGIBILITY
Item 1a & 2
Proposed:
1a) The organization must be in existence primarily to present,
produce or exhibit environmental, cultural, historical/heritage, or outdoor
recreational programs in Volusia County.
2) The organization may not be a
division of a State or Federal Agency; a school; or a religious
organization
Chair Matousek indicated that the
change was significant in that the emphasis of the program would move from
being “project” oriented to “applicant” oriented.
Jack Wiles noted that he is concerned that the ECHO funds had the potential
of being monopolized by certain types of state supported organizations and
wants schools to be excluded from applying for this reason. He believes that
the applicants should be of a more local character than that of a state
institution.
Don Smith agreed that the schools
should be eliminated as eligible applicants.
Peter Matulis believes that there are
loopholes to be closed but that the word “primarily” in 1 a) may prove to be
too restrictive and would limit projects and not the intended applicants. His
reading of the intent of the program is that it is project oriented and with
the wording as proposed, the Board would be turning a blind eye to them by
focusing on the applicant.
Chair Matousek advised the Board that
they currently have 2 options to propose to the County Council but may come
up with a 3rd or 4th recommendation.
Gary Libby stated that he thinks
organizations, not projects, are the core and the basis of the process and
for this reason, the word “primarily” should be stricken from 1 a). He
further recommended that the wording in 2) be revised to read, “The
organization may not be a political subdivision or a division of State or
Federal Government; a school; or a religious organization.” He believes that
this language better matches what the Board is trying to do.
Linda Hargreaves noted that her
interest is in both the organization and the project but does not believe
that the program was meant to be for schools or other governmental agencies,
but was meant to offer seed money for those organizations that otherwise
would not be able develop projects in any other way. She suggested using a
creative approach, allowing organizations that might not otherwise be
eligible, to pair with those that are.
Lorna Jean Hagstrom questioned if the
Board wants to restrict all schools to just state supported schools. If the
language in 1 a) remains as is, then any school would be restricted so she is
ambivalent about the wording.
Judson Woods is concerned that a
project that is not a school, but is partnered with a school, may be rejected
in the future with the proposed new guidelines.
Chair Matousek recommended that
language be added to allow for partnering between eligible applicants and
state supported organizations to clarify that the Board would allow for this
kind of application as they did with the Lively Arts Center if the lead were
the eligible applicant.
Stuart Sixma noted that he has
studied what the original intent of the program was meant to be and based on
that, is in favor of the restrictive language.
Chair Matousek has reservations about
the change in language. Because the original Resolution language used
“project”, the Board may be wrongly interpreting what the voters thought they
were voting for and secondly, the revised language may prohibit an applicant
from coming forward with a potentially worthwhile project that would have a
huge impact on the community.
Linda Hargreaves asked the Chair to
elaborate on how he would recommend setting restrictions or controls.
Chair Matousek suggested that instead
of making the applicant the criteria, the case could be made to exclude
certain groups such as the Volusia County schools.
Gary Libby recommended that an accommodation could be made to allow a good
project to go forward by a state agency by partnering with an eligible
501(c)(3) and that would allow the Board to keep the protective language. He
indicated that he would be open to a project that included the school system
but not with them as the applicant. However, if the Board were not able to
come up with a system that will allow a great program to have access to a
partnership, then he would be willing to explore how to open the door
somewhat.
Lorna Jean Hagstrom noted that the
language would not shut out a public school if a group of parents banded
together to form a 501(c)(3) to apply for a grant.
Frank Gummey advised the Board that
he did not think that the public schools or higher educational institutions
would allow an outside 501(c)(3) organization to run a program on their
campuses.
Gary Libby noted that there is
already a model for a hybrid applicant in the Pioneer Arts Settlement which
is staffed and funded by the public schools and would like to explore this
type of arrangement.
Linda Hargreaves suggested offering
an extra point for those applications that have partnered with an ineligible
organization.
Chair Matousek suggested lowering the
hurdle to re-granting.
Frank Gummey warned that this would
open up the opportunity for a straw man, which might make it difficult to
distinguish legitimate applicants.
Chair Matousek asked Margaret Hodge
to come up with clarification language to allow for partnerships.
Margaret Hodge pointed out that what
the Board is recommending is that an eligible organization be the applicant,
which is already in the language and reminded them that they have been moving
away from requiring something as a higher value for scoring (referring to
Linda Hargreaves suggestion of an additional point for partnering-see page4).
Chair Matousek asked Margaret Hodge
to develop clarifying language to bring others in by partnering.
Frank Gummey suggested that this
could be done with the matching funds provision.
Margaret Hodge noted that there is no
restriction on matching funds so this is already available to the applicants
and could be brought to their attention with additional language.
Lorna Jean Hagstrom brought up
religious organizations and asked, if a group within a church were to form a
501(c)(3), would they be eligible to apply for a grant with the current
language?
Gary Libby stated that if a group
from a church met all the other requirements as a 501(c)(3), with a project
that was open to the general public and was an ECHO project, he would be
interested in looking at the project.
Larry Atkinson, Daytona Beach
Community College (DBCC) came forward and asked that he be able to address
the Board concerning the issue of partnerships. He explained that his
organization has a current project that could be a model for what the Board
is discussing. He went on to describe how they are partnering with Orange
City, DeBary and Deltona and will be going before the County Council on May
6th, to ask them to also be a partner by providing the land. He noted that to
get the 1:1 match from the State, DBCC must be the applicant and be the owner
of the project. If language is drafted that excludes them, major damage will
be done to the project.
Gary Libby noted that they would not
be eligible because they do not meet the 2-year rule for being a 501(c)(3)
because the IRS document is dated 2004.
Chair Matousek noted that the Board
had not seen anything regarding the 501(c)(3) status of DBCC and the Board
was not prepared to comment on it.
Margaret Hodge noted that it was not
germane to the discussion and that DBCC had until December 2005 to resolve
the situation.
Linda Hargreaves asked Mr. Atkinson
if his point were, if the Board made a requirement for partnering such that
his organization could not be the lead, it would hinder them being eligible
for other funding?
Larry Atkinson, Daytona Beach
Community College (DBCC) confirmed that this was his point.
Jack Wiles inquired if it was a
project that would be contingent on ECHO funding and if it was an ECHO
project?
Larry Atkinson noted that they were
hoping to receive ECHO funding and that there would be an ECHO element to the
project and they would have to prorate the project costs so only those that
were ECHO related would be eligible for ECHO funds.
Peter Matulis asked that, if they did
not receive ECHO funding, would they be able to get funding elsewhere either
now or later, and, would not getting the funds mean the end of the project?
Larry Atkinson noted that they are
getting funding from a number of different sources, including the cities, the
state, and a capital campaign in the community and hopefully ECHO funding.
Chair Matousek reflected that the
original purpose of the program is to use ECHO dollars to leverage bringing
outside dollars into the community for valid projects and they may be
restricting the ability to do this.
Larry Atkinson explained it is
important for DBCC to be lead because it is that organization that is
eligible for 1:1 match from the State, which doubles the impact of the local
dollars.
Chair Matousek asked Frank Gummey and
Margaret Hodge to come up with language that helps to address this issue.
Frank Gummey advised that the Board
has the choice of either restricting the type of applicant that is eligible
or they may judge an application on the merits of the project.
Margaret Hodge commented that if the
Board did not restrict the applicant they could require that a project have a
high percentage of public use (80-90%) and could then deal with the project
and not the applicant.
Don Smith recommended that the Board
move-on and suggest language to the effect that strongly encourages
partnerships with eligible applicants.
Margaret Hodge asked for
clarification of the language.
Frank Gummey suggested revising the
wording to read, “The organization must have as a substantial purpose, to
present, produce or exhibit environmental, cultural, historical/heritage, or
outdoor recreational programs in Volusia County.” which the Board found
acceptable.
Gary Libby additionally wanted to
edit #2 to read, “The organization may not be a political subdivision or a
division of a State or Federal Agency; a school; or a religious
organization.” and moved that it be done.
Jack Wiles seconded the motion.
Chair Matousek called for the vote.
The vote was 8-1, with Lorna Jean Hargreaves voting in the negative.
Chair Matousek asked if the Board wanted to move on the changes as
recommended for 1 a) to which it was agreed that the language was accepted in
the absence of an objection.
FINAL
REVISION:
1-a) The organization must have as a
substantial purpose to present, produce or exhibit environmental, cultural,
historical/heritage, or outdoor recreational programs in Volusia County.
2) The organization may not be a
political subdivision or a division of a State or Federal Agency; a school;
or a religious organization
Item 5
Proposed:
5) Restrictive Covenants. Restrictive Covenants will be required
if a grant is awarded. If the project of the application is on mortgaged or
leased property, a letter from the Mortgagee or Lessor, stating they agree to
sign a Restrictive Covenants must be supplied with the application.
Margaret Hodge explained that in a previous year, an applicant that
ultimately had been granted an award, originally had difficulty getting a
Restrictive Covenants and the revised language attempts to prevent this from
occurring in the future.
Chair Matousek affirmed with the Board that they were in agreement with the
revision.
# 3) – Page
19 – TAB 1 - APPLICATION FORM
Item 1.1 – 9
Proposed:
FACILITY OWNERSHIP, LEASE OR LAND MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT; WHO OWNS
THE PROPERTY AND/OR BUILDING? The question of ownership of the facility of
this application must be addressed here. The applicant must be a party to any
leases, land management agreements or mortgages. If the facility is being
leased or under a land management agreement the lessor or owner must be named
and the length of the lease or land management agreement must be disclosed.
If the application is for the acquisition of real property, explain who is
the present owner. Please see page 00 section 1.5, UNRESTRICTED
OWNERSHIP/UNDISTURBED USE OF FACILITY, for required documentation and length
of lease or land management agreement. If leased or mortgaged, the owner of
the project property also must agree to sign a Restrictive Covenants document
if a grant is awarded (see section 1.6).
Item 1.1 –
13
Proposed:
Single Phase Applications (maximum funding of $500,000.00) must
provide:
Insert the amount of money being requested from the County of Volusia ECHO
Grants-In-Aid Program for this grant cycle.
Insert the total confirmed matching
funds which means resources presently available and designated to the project
for which funding is requested (including unencumbered cash on hand,
irrevocable pledges, value of in-kind services or materials, and value of
other donated assets eligible as match).
Insert the total project cost (grant
and match).
Exceptional Applications (funding in
excess of $500,000) must provide:
Insert the amount of money being
requested from the County of Volusia ECHO Grants-In-Aid Program for Grant
Years 1 through 4 (if applicable).
Insert the amount of the total
confirmed matching funds (definition above in A-b) for Grant Years 1 through
4 (if applicable). At a minimum, the Match for each Grant Year must be equal
to 4 times the amount of the grant being requested. The total confirmed Match
must be officially documented at the time of the application although it may
be encumbered and expended over the total grant period.
Insert the total Exceptional project
cost (grant and match) and sign the form stating if they will accept the
maximum of $500,000 if they do not receive Exceptional status from the ECHO
Grant Review Panel.
Chair Matousek affirmed with the
Board that they were in agreement with the revision.
# 4) – Page
21 - TAB 1 - APPLICATION FORM
Item 1.5
Proposed:
1.5 UNRESTRICTED OWNERSHIP/UNDISTURBED USE OF FACILITY – Item 4
4) Trails and historical restoration projects on public lands not owned by
the applicant: In lieu of the Restrictive Covenants and unrestricted
ownership, for trails projects that are part of the Trails Master Plan
approved by the County Council in 1999 or historical restoration projects on
public lands, the public right of continuing access and undisturbed use shall
be provided by a Land Management Agreement to which the applicant is party.
Only municipalities of the County of Volusia or the County may be the
applicant(s) of the Management Agreement. If the Management Agreement is
dissolved prior to the end of time period in the Management Agreement
included as part of the grant award, the grantee shall repay the County in
the manner set forth in the Restrictive Covenants, page 00 of the ECHO Guide,
section 3.
Margaret Hodge explained that the
State has a standard that is unknown, so the number of years covered by the
Management Agreement is not specified. She further explained that “historical
restoration projects” are identified in the language in response to the
Board’s discussions on the Sugar Mills and how to address projects on State
land. Lastly, she noted the stipulation that only municipalities or the
County may enter into a Management Agreement was also a result of the Board’s
previous request for this limitation.
Chair Matousek affirmed with the
Board that they were in agreement with the revision.
# 5)–Page 26
– TAB 2 - SCOPE OF WORK
Item 2.3
Proposed:
SCOPE OF FUTURE PHASES - Required for Vacant Land Acquisition
Project – Others may provide if they wish
Describe the future phases of this
project.
Provide a timeline when the total
project will be completed
Describe when and how the public will
have use of the facility.
Generally describe the total project
costs and funding sources that are available or that will be requested to
complete the project.
AND
Page 28 –
TAB 3 BUDGET DETAIL/MATCHING FUNDS
Item 8
Proposed:
Vacant Land Acquisition projects shall provide (1) a Budget Chart
for the acquisition and (2) a simplified estimated Budget Chart for the
project improvements as described in Tab 2, 2.3.
Chair Matousek explained that revision was a change in policy and opened the
floor to discussion.
Lorna Jean Hargreaves stated that
ECHO was meant to be a bricks-and-mortar program and should not be in the
business of buying vacant land. Further she noted that there is no guarantee
that once the land is purchased, the improvements will be made and therefore
is not in favor of the changes.
Chair Matousek noted that vacant land
is currently eligible but there is no requirement for further information
regarding the plans for the land. He likes the revisions because they would
insure that a project to purchase vacant land would be required to provide a
description of future phases; a timeline; the total project cost; and when
the public would have access.
Gary Libby noted that the Board was
addressing two questions, what to require of 1) applicants, including
municipalities and the County, that want to do urban infill parks or to buy
property for future parks and 2) applicants that want to purchase land that
would not be developed but used as natural green space. In the first
instance, Mr. Libby agrees that applicant should be required to provide what
the revised language is asking but does not believe that the revisions
address the second situation and asked if they would even be eligible for the
ECHO program?
Chair Matousek stated that the issue before the Board was whether or not to
approve the language as presented.
Margaret Hodge suggested that the
language be revised to state “vacant land for the purpose of improvements for
user-oriented use”.
Lorna Jean Hagstrom questioned how a
situation would be handled if a project for land purchase with development
planned in the future, was awarded a grant, but in the out years, could not
acquire the needed funds for the development of the land and noted that the
proposed revisions to the language did not address her concerns.
Gary Libby suggested that the Board
could only evaluate the project on the value of the land and not what the
future plans may entail.
Chair Matousek suggested using the
current revisions and to use scoring to determine viable applications.
Linda Hargreaves recommended adding
language that would return the funds to ECHO if the development was not done
within a defined amount of time.
Gary Libby suggested eliminating the
unimproved provision due to the issues involved.
Jack Wiles stated his position, that
open space could be a critical part of the program and envisions some great
projects being developed on open-land acquisitions and would hate to see it
go. He noted that the same problems could be encountered in a
bricks-and-mortar project. He is in favor of the language as presented with
the addition of a time limit with three years being the outside limit.
Lorna Jean Hagstrom indicated that she would be comfortable if a time limit
was added to the language.
Jack Wiles inquired of Linda
Hargreaves if she agreed with a three-year time limit?
Linda Hargreaves stated that she did and that the development need not be
major.
Chair Matousek requested that Margaret Hodge add language that will address
the time limit issue.
#4) Page 30
EXPENSES
Real Property – MATCH AND/OR ECHO - 6th Bulleted Item
Proposed:
The acquisition value of land
provided for the purpose of a project of the Trails Master Plan or a
historical restoration project that is not owned by the applicant may be used
for up to 50% of the required cash match and 100% of “other” match. For
linear trails crossing large tracts of land, the value will be adjusted to
reflect the value of the total land available for public access.
Gary Libby reviewed what he
understood to be the Board’s intention; to allow applications for trails to
use not only the value of the land the trail is on for match, but also, the
value of the land they intersect.
Linda Hargreaves questioned how to
identify the value of the “available land for public access”.
Margaret Hodge explained that the
original purchase price would be used, however, the Trails Program is
struggling with how to value land that had been purchased several years in
the past and how to bring it up to today’s value.
Gary Libby said he believes that
there is a 5-year limit on the number of years from the time of purchase, to
be able to use the land as match.
Margaret Hodge indicated that land
does not fall within that limitation and would confirm the requirements for
the Board.
Chair Matousek requested that the
current revisions be used with the clarification of the time limit.
Gary Libby inquired of Margaret Hodge
if this satisfied all of the questions that the Trails Program has and will
this get them in support of their participation of the grant program?
Margaret Hodge stated that she could
not speak for the Trails Program but she is working closely with them to
discern what will work and this is what they have come up with so far.
Linda Hargreaves expressed a concern
over the potential of the amount of match if the Board changed to a 100% of
the land value being used as match which could result in having projects for
which there is no cash money.
Margaret Hodge explained the proposed
language is a result of the Board’s attempt to help the Trails Program
qualify for an Exceptional grant but it would not be clear if this works
until they look more closely at the numbers.
Jack Wiles asked how value is
determined if the land is leased or owned by the State and who will maintain
the trail?
Frank Gummey stated that a Management
Agreement would be used and does not have any value, so would have to go back
to the value of the land.
Margaret Hodge explained that in
partnership with the owner of the property, the purchase value of the land
could be used.
Jack Wiles stated that he was not
comfortable in terms of determining what is the value of the land and asked
how it would be determined for an 8’ wide parcel purchased in 1960?
Margaret Hodge explained that as
defined by the language, value would be determined by using that value of the
whole parcel of land the trail traverses.
Linda Hargreaves noted it should be
understood that the access of surrounding area was not restricted.
Frank Gummey explained that there are
two elements, the access and then the ecosystem that supports the trail.
Jack Wiles agreed, but wants to be
reimbursed if the owner of the property should decide to sell off a
significant portion of the surrounding land that was used as match for the
grant.
Margaret Hodge offered that language
could be added to address what is being discussed.
Chair Matousek stated that the Board
is comfortable with the revisions if clarifying language is added on Mr.
Wile’s issue to which Mr. Wiles concurred.
#5) Page 37
NON-ALLOWABLE MATCH AND/OR ECHO ITEMS
Item 7 - 2nd Bullet - MAY BE USED AS MATCH BUT NOT FOR ECHO FUNDING
Proposed:
Not-For-Profit organizations
operating on less than $100,000 annually, averaged over a three year period
may use expenditures for Certified Audits or Reviews necessary for applying
to ECHO for funding as unencumbered cash match or other match.
Chair Matousek explained that it is a
cash match issue that would be of benefit to the smaller applicants by giving
them a break on the cost of doing an audit.
