Grant application information

ECHO Advisory Committee

Volusia ECHO Advisory Board Meeting
May 12, 2004
MINUTES
County Council Chambers
DeLand, FL

I. Call To Order, Roll Call, Introductory Remarks

Chair Matousek called the May 12, 2004, ECHO Advisory Committee meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. and welcomed the Advisory Committee members and the public. Chair Matousek asked staff to take the roll. A quorum was present with 7 members in attendance. Linda Hargreaves arrived at 3:07p.m.

II. Special Public Address to the Committee

Chair Matousek asked the Board to allow Robert McCray, Project Manger for the restoration of Patrol Torpedo Fast 3 (PTF3), to address the Board, prior to the regular Public Participation period, concerning the Board’s stance as to whether his project is eligible to apply for an ECHO grant to which the Board consented.

Robert McCray noted that the Vietnam era PTF3 is owned by Boy Scout Troop 544 of Orange City and is currently kept at the DeLand Naval Air Station Museum while undergoing a three-year restoration. Once restored, the boat will serve as a floating living history museum, going on cruises manned by the Boy Scouts and U.S. Nary Sea Cadets, to museum ports up and down the coast, however, it is anticipated that it will be in Volusia County 6 to 8 months out of the year. It is hoped, with County Council approval, that it will be kept at Lake Monroe Park while in Volusia County, with occasional trips to Daytona Beach in recognition of the large veteran population attending annual events such as Bike Week. Mr. McCray’s concern is over the issue of the boat being a mobile museum, that as noted, will not be in the County throughout the entire year and asked the Board for guidance concerning the projects eligibility to apply for an ECHO grant.

Chair Matousek explained that it was a policy issue and therefore needed the Board’s input.

Don Smith suggested that the Board ask the County Council for a waiver.

Margaret Hodge explained that the applicant would be the party to ask the County Council for a waiver.

Chair Matousek asked Frank Gummey for his opinion on how the Board should proceed.

Frank Gummey noted that the Board could change the application requirement.

Gary Libby noted that the challenge would be whether the project is a floating exhibit or a museum, not the length of time it would be in the County.

Robert McCray explained that they applied for a grant with the State, and were designated as a museum by them, qualifying for a $300,000.00 grant, but because of their ranking (59), they missed out on funding this year when the State ran out of funds at project number 47 or 48. They will reapply for the next round of funding and anticipate being awarded the grant from the State. He further explained that the exhibits would be on the boat with additional items displayed at the DeLand Naval Air Station Museum. The money will be used for restoration of the boat.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom questioned what organization would be submitting the application?

Robert McCray explained that Boy Scout Troop 544, incorporated as a 501(c)(3) in Orange City, owns the boat and would be the applicant.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom asked for confirmation that the boat would not be moved to some other county in the future.

Robert McCray confirmed that it would not, and reiterated the hope that it would be docked at Lake Monroe Park with County Council approval.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom questioned what would happen if they received grant approval from both the State and the County Council?

Robert McCray explained that the total cost is estimated to be $450,000, so the funds from the State grant would not be sufficient to complete the project.
Margaret Hodge noted that there are two issues to be addressed; the first concerns the boat being out of the County for a portion of the year, and second, if that is acceptable, what are the parameters for the time allowed out of the County and asked the Board for clarification.

Chair Matousek asked what would need to be changed to accommodate the project.

Margaret Hodge advised that if the Board viewed the project as bricks-and-mortar, no changes would be needed.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom questioned whether the Boy Scout Troop could be considered primarily an ECHO qualified organization?

Margaret Hodge elaborated that the organization’s mission would have to be to present or produce environmental, cultural, historical, or outdoor recreation activity.

Robert McCray explained that they sponsor the Boy Scouts and incorporated specifically for the purpose of identifying ownership of the boat and the project is an educational, historical, cultural presentation, not the organization.

Chair Matousek explained that under the current guidelines they would qualify, but the changes to the guidelines the Board is currently considering would make them ineligible.

He expressed that he always looks at the intent of a project and would not have a problem with the project if it were outside of the County for some amount of time.

Gary Libby stated that he would be interested in the amount of time the boat would be out of the County.

Robert McCray stated that they would sign a covenant, delineating the amount of time the boat could be out of the County at one time and for how many months out of the year.

Gary Libby stated that it was a great project but whether it was an ECHO project is the question and that this type of project had not been anticipated by the Board, giving them a lot to think about.

Robert McCray advised the Board that he was leaving them with project information for their review.

Margaret Hodge asked the Board to confirm that they do consider this a bricks-and-mortar project and consider it as being eligible until such time that they look at the application and see something that would change their minds, to which the Board affirmed.

III. Approval of April 28, 2004, Minutes

Chair Matousek directed the meeting to the approval of the April 28, 2004 minutes and asked if there were any additions or corrections.

Gary Libby made a motion to approve the minutes of April 28, 2004
Jack Wiles seconded the motion.

The April 28, 2004 minutes were unanimously approved without change.

IV. Staff Report

Chair Matousek explained that the Board would be reviewing the Not-For-Profit and Governmental Agency Guides and the Single Phase and Exceptional Applications with the Board’s recommendations, as they will be presented to the County Council and asked Margaret Hodge to go over the documents with the Board.

Margaret Hodge directed the Board to the May 20 County Council workshop agenda item in their folder and advised that she had been on a May 7th deadline to submit it, but noted that should there be changes made by the Board during the meeting, she would be able to submit those changes to the County Council if necessary.

V. Review of the Major Recommended Changes to the ECHO Guides & Applications

Margaret Hodge explained the sequence of the review would be:

• Not–For-Profit Guide – page-by-page review
• Governmental Agency Guide – the 2 sections that differ from the Not-For-Profit
• Applications – Single Phase & Exceptional

Additionally, she brought to the Board’s attention, a page with recommended changes since the Guides and Applications were mailed to the Board. The recommended changes were a result of a situation that arose in the City of Deltona, specifically, the City charges different user fees for the soccer field depending on whether the user resides in or out of the city limits. The changes mandate that fees be uniform for all residents of Volusia County. Secondly, clarifying language was added to the property language. Ms. Hodge proceeded with a page-by-page review of the Not-For-Profit Guide.

Cover Page: THIS IS THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT FOR THE ECHO GRANT APPLICATION AND IS THE DOCUMENT FOR FINAL INTERPRETATION OF THE ECHO GRANT REQUIREMENTS

Mr. Libby questioned the use of the word “interpretation”.

Frank Gummy recommended “definition” to which the Board agreed.

Revision-Cover Page: THIS IS THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT FOR THE ECHO GRANT APPLICATION AND IS THE DOCUMENT FOR FINAL DEFINITION OF THE ECHO GRANT REQUIREMENTS

Page 6: Final Application Deadline: “Applications delivered after the deadline to the Department office are ineligible and shall be returned to the applicant.”

Linda Hargreaves asked to address the issue of applications delivered after the deadline.

Chair Matousek noted that the Board has accepted applications that were submitted after the deadline and the question is whether the Board will abide by the written policy in the future or should they change the policy to accommodate late submissions.

Margaret Hodge explained that the Board has that option at the time when they are submitted by staff to designate them as ineligible.

Gary Libby recommended that applications submitted late be returned to the applicant and that staff notify the Board only of the number of ineligible applicants, but not who they were.

Chair Matousek recommended that the Board keep the wording as stated.

Frank Gummey suggested that the Board could score down late applications to avoid an after-the-fact decision.

Chair Matousek suggested having an appeals policy.

Linda Hargreaves noted that the Federal government does not have an appeals policy.

Jack Wiles made the point that if the Board keeps the wording, they should abide with policy and agrees that the Board should not see the application.

Chair Matousek asked the Board if the wording should remain as is, to which the Board agreed and confirmed with Margaret Hodge the Board’s intent.

Revision-Page 6: None

Page 9: ADMINISTRATIVE & REPORT REQUIREMENTS:

4) Submission of a final grant report, including a final internal Program audit/review of the project and a narrative that covers the project development over the grant period in a format and in a time frame directed by the Department.

Gray Libby questioned if the intent was to have a statement from the internal financial officers that they have reviewed the data and found no inconsistencies or irregularities and stand behind it and sign it.

Margaret Hodge explained that it was not what she was looking for. She has been accepting an internally produced, professionally finished record of all the activities of the project, noting the areas where it had gone over or under the original application, which served as a final review of the complete project. In addition, she receives receipts from the grantees when they submit requests for reimbursement and is comfortable with that level of reporting. She noted that the requirement for an outside audit was eliminated in response to the Not-For-Profits’ struggle to pay for the expense of one. She suggested that the word “audit” be stricken from the paragraph to which the Board agreed.

Revision Page 9: ADMINISTRATIVE & REPORT REQUIREMENTS:

4) Submission of a final grant report, including a final internal Program review of the project and a narrative that covers the project development over the grant period in a format and in a time frame directed by the Department.

Page 12: APPLICATION EVALUATION AND SCORING

Evaluation Criteria                                      Score Range Review Notations    Final Score

Scope of Work                                               (1-15)      ___________          __________
Comments:
Project Budgets and Matching Funds Statement   (1-15)      ___________          __________
Comments:
Operating Forecast Detail                                 (1-25)      ___________          __________
Comments:
Project Impact                                               (1-45)      ___________          __________
Comments:
General comments/ strengths and                   TOTALS:     ___________          __________
weaknesses of the project or application
                                                         FINAL SCORE:     ___________ DATE: __________

Linda Hargreaves questioned if the Board wanted to change the scoring, particularly for “Scope of Work” and “Project Budgets”.

Gary Libby noted that the current scoring allows for an easy arrival at the required 70 points. He suggested that the question is if the current scoring over-weights the technical requirements and under-weights the substantive quality requirements. He reminded the Board that they had discussed changing the scoring on the first two items to 10 and adding the 10 points to “Project Impact”, making it 55 points. He commented that he would like to see “Project Impact” have more than half of the points.

Linda Hargreaves agreed and noted that “Project Impact” is critical and would like to see it be at least half of the points.

Gary Libby suggested taking 5 points from “Operating Forecast” and moving them to “Project Impact”.

Don Smith commented that he also liked Mr. Libby’s earlier suggestion and to take 5 points off of each of the first three items, moving a total of 15 points to “ Project Impact”.

Chair Matousek called for a motion to remove 5 points from “Scope of Work”, 5 points from “Project Budgets” and 5 points from “Operating Forecast Detail” and move them to “Project Impact” for a score range of 1-60.

Don Smith so moved.

Gary Libby seconded the motion.

Chair Matousek asked for additional comments.

Linda Hargreaves suggested that staff emphasize the importance of “Project Impact” to workshop attendees.

The Board unanimously approved the motion.

Revision -Page 12: APPLICATION EVALUATION AND SCORING

Evaluation Criteria                                         Score Range Review Notations     Final Score

Scope of Work                                                 (1-10)      ___________          __________
Comments:
Project Budgets and Matching Funds Statement     (1-10)      ___________          __________
Comments:
Operating Forecast Detail                                   (1-20)      ___________          __________
Comments:
Project Impact                                                 (1-60)      ___________          __________
Comments:
General comments/ strengths and                     TOTALS:      ___________          __________
weaknesses of the project or application
                                                           FINAL SCORE:      ___________ DATE: __________

Page 14: Funding Policy: All available grant funds, as determined by the County Chief Financial Officer, shall be awarded each grant year.

Gary Libby questioned if the Board wanted to continue to award 100% of the dollars until the money runs out?

Chair Matousek stated yes, unless they score otherwise.

The Board offered no other comments.

Revision - Page 14: None

Page 19: 1.5 UNRESTRICTED OWNERSHIP/UNDISTURBED USE OF FACILITY – 2) Proof of undisturbed use of property and/or building(s) for a specific period of time: This specific period of time must continue for the minimum period listed below and may include up to 6 months prior to the final grant application deadline date for which funding is requested:

• Restoration or renovation projects on existing real property – Twenty (20) years
• Expansion, additions on existing real property – Thirty (30) years
• New facilities – Forty (40) years
• Trails/Historic Restoration with Management Agreements – Ten (10) years with an automatic ten (10) year renewal

Linda Hargreaves questioned what the kind of escalation charges would there be in terms of management costs as the management agreements changed.

Frank Gummey noted that the one doing the managing has the costs and would be in-kind such as employees doing the work, and is episodic.

Revision - Page 19: None

Page 22: 1.8 FORM – PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION AND RESUME:

2) Insert the Resume Of Experience of the person who signed Form 1.8.

3) Exempt projects: Unimproved land acquisition projects are automatically exempt. Projects that include improvements must complete Form 1.8 and provide a Resume Of Experience unless they receive an exemption from the County. Most projects for improvements will not be exempt. Exemptions are possible for some projects that may not require an architect/engineer or contractor due to the nature of the project. To receive an exemption, applicants should send a request in writing to the ECHO Program Coordinator no later than 60 days prior to the final application deadline in order to receive a written response. A written response approving exemption status must be obtained from the ECHO Program Coordinator and the applicant must insert that document in place of Form 1.8 and the resume.

Gary Libby questioned how an exemption from the County is received?

Margaret Hodge explained that in the past, it was determined by staff attorney, that small projects done internally, could be exempt from having to provide professional certification.

Chair Matousek stated that the question before the Board is if they want to have an exemption from the requirement for the Resume of Experience.

Margaret Hodge suggested that when a project does not have a contractor or an engineer, the Board could ask for a resume from the person in charge of the project.

Chair Matousek recommended the Board do away with the exemption and require that whoever is doing the work, provide a resume and asked the Board to comment.

The Board agreed with the recommendation.

Review of the Major Recommended Changes to the ECHO Guides & Applications (cont.)

Revision - Page 22: 1.8 FORM – PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION AND RESUME:

2) Insert the Resume Of Experience of the person who signed Form 1.8 or, if exempt from having to provide the form, you must insert the resume of the individual(s) providing project management.

3) Exempt projects: Unimproved land acquisition projects are automatically exempt. Projects that include improvements must complete Form 1.8 and provide a Resume Of Experience unless they receive an exemption from the County. Most projects for improvements will not be exempt. Exemptions from Form 1.8 is possible for some projects that may not require an architect/engineer or contractor due to the nature of the project but the applicant still must provide a resume of the individual(s) managing the project. To receive an exemption, applicants should send a request in writing to the ECHO Program Coordinator no later than 60 days prior to the final application deadline in order to receive a written response. A written response approving exemption status must be obtained from the ECHO Program Coordinator and the applicant must insert that document in place of Form 1.8 and the resume.

Page 24: 2.3 -SCOPE OF FUTURE PHASES

1. Required for Vacant Land Acquisition Projects – Others may provide if they wish:
2. Describe the future phases of this project.
3. Provide a timeline when the total project will be completed
4. Describe when and how the public will have use of the facility.
5. Describe the total project costs and funding sources that are available or that will be requested to complete the project.

Linda Hargreaves asked if a timeline had been established for development of a vacant land project?

Margaret Hodge noted that it would be up to the Board to use scoring to determine if the timeline asked for in number 2 was acceptable. She went on to say that the Restrictive Covenant provided for reimbursement if the agreement was breached. She suggested that during the workshops, the Board’s preferences could be explained to the applicants.

Revision - Page 24: 2.3 -SCOPE OF FUTURE PHASES:

1. Required for Vacant Land Acquisition Projects – others may provide if they wish. Vacant land must be developed for public use within a reasonable timeframe relative to the size and nature of the project. The ECHO Advisory Board prefers projects that will be completed within 3 years.
2. Describe the future phases of this project.
3. Provide a timeline when the total project will be completed
4. Describe when and how the public will have use of the facility.
5. Describe the total project costs and funding sources that are available or that will be requested to complete the project.

Page 26: 3.1 PROJECT BUDGET DETAIL CHART

6. Overmatch dollars within this application may not be used to match future ECHO grant applications. Applicants shall provide general costs of the total project within the Matching Funds Statement (3.2 (1)) so the Grant Review Panel understands the total project value or may insert a total budget at the end of Tab 3. Applicants must not include those dollars in the Budget Detail (3.1) or Match Summary Chart (3.2 (2)) if the applicant intends to use these expenditures as match for future applications
7. 7) Applicants who wish to provide an additional budget chart demonstrating the total project budget may insert one here but this is not required. Applicants may discuss the total project budget in the Match fund statement (3.2(1)) but this is not required.

Gary Libby stated that he wants to see the full scope of the project and is concerned that the language used when discussing overmatch may discourage the applicant from doing so. He suggested that the importance of showing all the elements of the project should be explained at the workshop.

Margaret Hodge explained that number 7 under 2.3 allows the applicant to give all of the information for the project.

Chair Matousek recommended that the language in number 6 stay as is and clarifying language be added to number 7 leaving it up to the applicant to decide whether or not to supply the information.

The Board agreed with the recommendation.

Revision -Page 26: 3.1 PROJECT BUDGET DETAIL CHART

7. The Total Value may be provided on an additional budget chart but this is not required. Applicants may also discuss the total project budget in the Match fund statement (3.2(1)) but this is not required. The ECHO Board has indicated an interest in understanding the scope of the total project beyond the phase of this application.

Page 28: EXPENSES:

Real Property – MATCH AND/OR ECHO: Documented amount paid by the applicant for purchasing real property involved in the project, or current (within one year of the application) documented in-kind value of real property donated for the project according to a certified general appraiser. The current market value or leasehold value of the real property is eligible for match.

The following restrictions apply:

The fair market value of real property may be used as in-kind or previously spent cash match regardless of when the property was purchased or donated but may be used only once as match and is limited to no more than 50% of the total match.

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 reflect the value of the total land available for public access.

In lieu of using actual land purchase value for match, the value of land may be determined by the Property Appraiser value or a general appraisal by an independent appraiser. A MAI appraisal will not be required to value public land not owned by the applicant.

Margaret Hodge pointed out the changes to page 28 as noted on the “Additional Changes to ECHO Guides” handout.

Gary Libby moved to accept the changes.

Chair Matousek noted that there was a motion to approve the changes to page 28 as indicated on “Additional Changes to ECHO Guides”, dated 5/11/04 and asked if there were a second to the motion?

Linda Hargreaves seconded the motion.

Chair Matousek inquired if there was discussion?

Gary Libby stated that he hoped Margaret Hodge had had the opportunity to meet with the appropriate members of the County Council and that it satisfied them and arrests the discussion about the Trails Program.

Margaret Hodge commented that the recommended changes would be presented May 20th to the County Council, and that the Board has the opportunity to make additional recommendations if they choose to do so. She has dealt with staff and they have indicated that the recommendations are working as best they can within the competitive nature of the grant program.

The Board voted unanimously to accept the changes.

Revisions - Page 28: EXPENSES:

Real Property – MATCH AND/OR ECHO:

The fair market value of real property may be used as in-kind or previously spent cash match regardless of when the, (other than trails of the Trails Master Plan or historical restoration projects that are discussed in the following paragraph) property was purchased or donated but may be used only once as match and is limited to no more than 50% of the total match.

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 unencumbered cash match and 100% of “other” match regardless of when the property was purchased or donated but may be used only once as match. For linear trails crossing large tracts of land, the value will reflect the value of the total land available for public access.

In lieu of using actual acquisition value of land for match, the value of land may be determined by the Property Appraiser value or a general appraisal by an independent appraiser. A MAI appraisal will not be required to value public land not owned by the applicant.

Frank Gummey pointed out a correction was needed on page 28 in the third bullet point paragraph, from “Member of the Institute of Appraisers (MIA)” to “ Member of the Appraisal Institute (MAI)”.

Page 34: NON-ALLOWABLE MATCH AND/OR ECHO ITEMS - MAY BE USED AS MATCH BUT NOT FOR ECHO FUNDING

Expenditures from tax increment financing districts or community redevelopment agencies are acceptable for match at a fifty-cent on the TIF dollar basis.

Gary Libby questioned if the Board wanted to stay with allowing only 50% of Tax Increment Financing dollars to be used as match and if so why?

Frank Gummey explained that the idea was to look for a commitment from the municipal applicants so they are not just using County dollars to match County dollars.

Chair Matousek reminded the Board that the original intent was to ensure that the municipalities were using their money, not CRA money that was County money, which is achieved by only allowing the 50%.

Gary Libby noted that the Board is allowing a more liberal posture to be taken in other areas, and questioned if the Board should do the same in the redevelopment areas?

Chair Matousek queried if other members of the Board wanted to make any changes?

Other Board members indicated that they did not.

Revisions - Page 34: -None

Page 37: TAB 4: OPERATING FORECAST DETAIL 4.1 FORECAST NARRATIVE:

2. Provide a five-year budget projection spreadsheet similar to the example below but include the details appropriate to your organization’s activities including this project.
3. Provide a minimum of two measurable operational goals in this section that will be tracked from the beginning of the grant period through the three-year period following the end of the grant period, which will be included in the quarterly reports, final project report and annual reports for three years following the completion of the grant period. The goals should be operational goals.

Margaret Hodge pointed out the changes to page 37 as noted on the “Additional Changes to ECHO Guides” handout that addresses the User Fee issue, explaining that the recommended language would become number two, the current number two would become three, and the current number three would become four.

Chair Matousek asked for a motion to accept the changes.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom so moved.

Linda Hargreaves seconded the motion.

The Board voted unanimously to accept the change.

Revisions - Page 37: TAB 4: OPERATING FORECAST DETAIL 4.1 FORECAST NARRATIVE:

2. User Fees: Organizations that collect user fees must insert the fee schedule to demonstrate that fees do not restrict users living within Volusia County based on their place of residence. Projects that receive an ECHO award may not discriminate in the schedule of fees or other terms of use of the facility based on residential location of users who reside in Volusia County.
3. Provide a five-year budget projection spreadsheet similar to the example below but include the details appropriate to your organization’s activities including this project.
4. Provide a minimum of two measurable operational goals in this section that will be tracked from the beginning of the grant period through the three-year period following the end of the grant period, which will be included in the quarterly reports, final project report and annual reports for three years following the completion of the grant period. The goals should be operational goals.

Chair Matousek noted that the Board had not yet approved the changes to page 3 as noted on the “Additional Changes to ECHO Guides” handout dated 5/11/04 and asked for a motion for approval.

Revisions - Page 3: Add a bulleted section:

The organization may not discriminate in the schedule of fees or the terms of use of the facility based on residential location of users who reside in Volusia County.

Review of the Major Recommended Changes to the ECHO Guides & Applications (cont.)

Gary Libby so moved.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom seconded the motion.

The Board voted unanimously to approve the changes.

Page 39: TAB 5: PROJECT IMPACT / NEED:

1. Discuss how the project will serve the community: (b) Applicants must demonstrate the need for the project and support narrative key points with actual data when possible. If the application indicates there will be an agreement with an educational entity, proof of that relationship must be documented at the end of this Tab by a contract or letter of intent from the educational entity.

Linda Hargreaves noted the importance of explaining at the workshop how to present this portion of their project.

Margaret Hodge pointed out the changes to page 39 as noted on the “Additional Changes to ECHO Guides” handout and inquired if the Board found the type of documentation asked for in the revision acceptable?

Chair Matousek asked for a motion to accept the changes.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom so moved.

Linda Hargreaves seconded the motion.

The Board voted unanimously to accept the changes.

Page 39: TAB 5: PROJECT IMPACT / NEED:

1. Discuss how the project will serve the community: (b) Applicants must demonstrate the need for the project and support narrative key points with actual data when possible. If the application indicates there will be additional major users of the facility, proof of that relationship must be documented at the end of this Tab, such as official minutes of a meeting, a letter of intent, or draft agreement.

Chair Matousek asked for a motion to accept the changes to the Not-For Profit Guide.

Gary Libby moved to accept the amendments to the 2005 Not-For-Profit Application Guide as discussed and as recorded.

Stuart Sixma seconded the motion.

Chair Matousek asked for discussion, hearing none he called for a vote.

The Board voted unanimously for approval.

Chair Matousek asked Margaret Hodge to proceed with the review of the changes to the Governmental Agency Application Guide.

Margaret Hodge noted the two areas of difference in the Governmental Application Guide were on page 3, Applicant Eligibility, which is specific to governmental applicants and on page 38, 4.3 which had a different financial audit requirement from that in the Not-For-Profit Application Guide.

Chair Matousek noted that the relevant approved changes in the Not-For-Profit Application Guide would also be made to this Guide.

Linda Hargreaves questioned the discrepancy between the use of the word “agency” in the title of the Guide, and the reference to “organizations” in the Guide.

Frank Gummey clarified that County departments are not legal entities so using “organization” glosses over that.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom moved for approval of the Governmental Agency Application Guide.

Jack Wiles seconded the motion.

Chair Matousek asked for discussion, hearing none he called for a vote.

The Board voted unanimously for approval.

Chair Matousek asked Margaret Hodge to proceed with the review of the Single Phase Application.

Margaret Hodge explained that the changes in the Guides were reflected in the Application with the exception of the changes just approved by the Board, which will be added.

Gary Libby moved to approve the Single Phase Application.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom seconded the motion.

Chair Matousek asked for discussion, hearing none he called for a vote.

The Board voted unanimously for approval

Chair Matousek asked Margaret Hodge to proceed with the review of the Exceptional Application.

Margaret Hodge explained that the application was, for the most part, the same at the Single Phase but for the Exceptional grant requirements, and again reflected what was in the Guides. She directed the Board to the language in the box on page 4 of 12 and asked the Board for any recommendations they might have.

Page 4: - Exceptional Application

Gary Libby clarified with Margaret Hodge that the language is asking the applicant to demonstrate that they have the 4:1 Match for all of the years, on the first year of the application?

Chair Matousek explained that in any one year the Match could be over or under the ECHO request but that the total must add up to the 4:1 Match.

Margaret Hodge further clarified that if the applicant provided the information indicating that they had guaranteed grants, maybe not available until the 2nd, 3rd or 4th year, that the Board would accept it as meeting the 4:1 Match to which there was agreement by members of the Board.

Don Smith noted that sentence should be changed from “subsequent years at a of minimum of 4:1” to “subsequent years but at a minimum of 4:1.”

Gary Libby moved to accept the Exceptional Application with the language on page 4 of 12 as amended.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom seconded the motion.

Chair Matousek asked for discussion, hearing none he called for a vote.

The Board voted unanimously for approval.

VI. Echo Workshop with the County Council

Chair Matousek directed the Board to Agenda Item 51 for the workshop with the County Council and explained that there were two main issues: 1) the applicant eligibility change in policy and 2) the change in policy as it relates to trails. The Chair asked for motions on accepting the changes to the policies. He noted that he wants the County Council to be aware that the Board has had three full meetings to discuss the issues and that the Board understands full well the implications of the changes and wants to be able to inform them of the outcome of the votes taken on the changes.

cc Attachment 4 –

I APPLICANT ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: To be eligible to apply for a Volusia ECHO Program grant, a Not-For-Profit applicant must meet the following criteria:

1. Be a corporation, incorporated in the State of Florida, with its principal office located in Volusia County and classified as 501(c)(3) tax exempt under Federal Internal Revenue Service regulations for a minimum of two (2) years prior to the date that the application is due and designated as in compliance with s.170 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. If the organization satisfies the eligibility requirements then it shall also comply with the following:

1. 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 must indicate diverse support within the community and include Volusia County residents among its Board of Directors.
3. The organization must be accessible to a broad range of the community.

2. The organization may not be a political subdivision or a division of a State or Federal Agency; a school; or a religious organization

Gary Libby moved to accept Agenda Item #51, dated May 20, 2004.

Chair Matousek asked that separate votes be taken on the eligibility issues and the trails issue.

Gary Libby moved to accept the eligibility recommendations.

Stuart Sixma seconded the motion

Chair Matousek asked if there were further discussion.

Peter Matulis revisited the topic of an ineligible applicant being able to partner with an eligible applicant and questioned if the ability to do so was inherent in the language of the proposed changes and if it were, would that not mean that they would ultimately fund an organization that the language was meant to exclude?

Chair Matousek stated that it was not known what the implications would be in terms of exchanging property, tax issues, creating additional corporations and there would be a lot of things at play.

Peter Matulis referred back to a comment by Mr. Gummey, regarding the potential for creating a situation that would have a straw man, which would lead to another set of questions.

Gary Libby stated that it was not an issue of a straw man but one of an appropriate partner that would bridge the gap between an organization whose nature is not ECHO oriented with a good program with one that is, and it was an attempt by the Board to make the program as accessible as possible under the spirit of ECHO.

Peter Matulis noted that it came to the question of whether ECHO is project oriented or applicant oriented or both. He believes, that by using a partnering approach for a project the Board indicates they like, says that it is project oriented program and yet, creates an additional hurdle for the applicant to overcome. As an example, he noted under the current guidelines, the Gillespie Museum at Stetson University would be an eligible applicant, but if the changes were approved, they would have to form a separate 501(c)(3) and meet the 2-year incorporation requirement, which would push off the project.

Gary Libby noted that the 2-year eligibility issue is another question and the Board could discuss whether or not it was too stringent. He stated that he does not think that the Board is saying that ECHO is just project oriented and he believes that a number of the members of the Board view it as both project and applicant oriented. He further commented that the Board has a huge responsibility factor to be accountable and the way to have accountability was through the applicant and not the project because it is the applicant who will be the manager of the project and will be the one signing the covenants. He finished by stating that as long as there are reasonably facile ways to fund good projects, he did not want the threshold to be lowered.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom expressed concern that the Board had funded a project with the school as the applicant last year and during the comment and scoring process, no one had mentioned a concern that a school was organized for a different purpose from that of ECHO. She stated that she believed that the ECHO program was project oriented and not applicant oriented.

Chair Matousek is concerned about unintended consequences, using the Boy Scout project as an example of an organization that would not be eligible as well as the Gillespie Museum because it was a part of Stetson University. He commented that from an accountability standpoint, he would prefer to have an applicant of the caliber of Stetson as opposed to one that was created for the purpose of applying for a grant.

Peter Matulis noted that point 2) further excludes additional organizations and suggested leaving 1-a) in the Guide but not point 2).

Jack Wiles noted that schools have access to funds that other organizations don’t and sees that they could absorb ECHO money when they have other means for funding.

Margaret Hodge asked if an organization, that had been part of another 501(c)(3) organization that had been in existence for many years, formed a new one, would the Board still require the 2-year incorporation period to which some members of the Board said that they would.

Chair Matousek asked if there was further discussion, hearing none he called for a roll call vote.

Ms. Hagstrom No
Ms. Hargreaves Yes
Mr. Libby Yes
Mr. Matulis No
Mr. Sixma Yes
Mr. Smith Yes
Mr. Wiles Yes
Chair Matousek No

The motion passed 5-3

Chair Matousek directed the Board’s attention to item II, addressing the issue of the Trails and asked for a motion to accept the changes as written with the approved amendments.

II. PROJECTS ON PUBLIC LANDS NOT OWNED BY THE APPLICANT: The ECHO Advisory Board discussed the initial vision for ECHO and determined that there is language in the application that if adjusted, would assist in providing for projects on lands not owned by the applicant, specifically trails of the Trails Master Plan and historical restoration projects such as Sugar Mills. These projects were ranked as top projects during the public meetings of the ECHO initiative. Basically the newly proposed language allows for a Management Agreement in lieu of a Lease or Ownership and allows 75% of the match (unencumbered cash match 25% and “other” match 50%) to come from the purchase value or the property appraiser’s value of the land. The other 25% must still be unencumbered cash (Grants, money in the bank, or pledged by the applicant).

1. Guide - Page 4–5 – ECHO Application Program Requirements – Restrictive Covenants
   
   Management Agreements for trails of the County Master Plan or historical restoration projects on public lands not owned by the applicant are acceptable in lieu of Restrictive Covenants. Only a City or Department of the County may provide a Management Agreement.
    
2. Guide - Page 19 - Tab 1, 1.5 - 2 – Unrestricted Ownership/Undisturbed Use of Facility
   
   Trails/Historic Restoration with Management Agreements – Ten (10) years with an automatic ten (10) year renewal
    
3. Guide - Page 19 - Tab 1, 1.5 – 4– Unrestricted Ownership/Undisturbed Use of Facility
   
   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 the time period stated in the Management Agreement that is included as part of the ECHO Grant Agreement, the grantee shall repay the County in the manner set forth in the Restrictive Covenants, page 00 of the ECHO Guide, section 3.
    
4. Guide - Page 20 – 1.6 – 1) – Restrictive Covenants
   If a final Management Agreement is only available after a grant is awarded, those projects that may use Management Agreements may provide, in lieu of a Management Agreement, a letter from the owner stating their intent to provide a Management Agreement for a minimum of 10 years with an automatic renewal period of at least 10 years.
    
5. Guide - Page 28 – 6th Bulleted Items – Expenses - Real Property - Match and/or ECHO
   
   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 unencumbered cash match and 100% of “other” match regardless of when the property was purchased or donated but may be used only once as match. For linear trails crossing large tracts of land, the value will reflect the value of the total land available for public access.
   
   In lieu of using actual acquisition value of land for match, the value of land may be determined by the Property Appraiser value or a general appraisal by an independent appraiser. An MAI appraisal will not be required to value public land not owned by the applicant.

Mr. Libby so moved.

Mr. Sixma seconded the motion.

Chair Matousek asked if there was discussion on the item. He stated that it was a major step forward for funding the trails.

Don Smith questioned whether or not the Board would be swamped with trail applicants.

Margaret Hodge noted that the Board had limited the eligibility to the Master Trails Program and the participants can only be municipalities or the County.

Jack Wiles commented that the ability to have the match would be the key.

Chair Matousek asked if there were further discussion, hearing none he called for a roll call vote.

Ms. Hagstrom Yes
Ms. Hargreaves Yes
Mr. Libby Yes
Mr. Matulis Yes
Mr. Sixma Yes
Mr. Smith Yes
Mr. Wiles Yes
Chair Matousek Yes

The motion passed 8-0

VII. Public Participation

Chair Matousek called for public participation.

No one came forward.

VIII. Committee Comments

Chair Matousek advised the Board of the workshop with the County Council on May 20 and noted that he and Ms. Hodge would speak to the Council. He commented that members of the Board were welcome to attend and that it would be broadcast live on the Internet.

Chair Matousek asked Margaret Hodge to comment on the Board’s upcoming schedule.

Margaret Hodge explained that the Guides and Applications would be presented to the County Council for approval in June. If the County Council gave the Board direction during the May 20th workshop, the Board would meet on May 26.

Chair Matousek asked the Board to put the May 26th committee meeting on their schedule in the event that they need to meet.

Frank Gummey advised that the council secretary has the agenda item on the schedule for 3:00p.m. on May 20th.

IX. Adjournment

Chair Matousek adjourned the meeting at 4:45p.m.