Grant application information

I. Call To Order, Introductory of Members
Mr. Libby called the meeting to order and thanked everyone for attending. He then asked for a role call for attendance. When roll call was completed, Ms. Hargreaves and Mr. Rigsby were not present. Mr. Libby then asked for the ECHO Staff to identify themselves and, after this was completed, he asked the attendees in the gallery to identify themselves.

II. Approval of Minutes
Mr. Libby had been told that the minutes from the previous meeting were not finished due to the County computer system being down for an extensive period of time.

III. ECHO Staff Report
Mr. Libby thanked everyone and asked to move to the next agenda item of the Staff Report calling on Ms. Hodge.

Ms. Hodge began by updating the Board members on the previous meeting where they had voted on three projects outside of the competitive grant process. She continued by saying that during the last meeting, the Board voted to fund the two off-beach parking sites but said that they wanted to take the remaining funds (approximately $2.2 million) and keep them in the ECHO fund for competitive grant awards. She said that this vote recommendation would be presented to the County Council during the Council’s first meeting in August. Mr. Libby said that there may be some additional events occurring during this meeting that also may be presented to the County Council during that meeting. He continued saying that he was referring to the suggestion of Mr. Matousek of raising the maximum award levels of both the standard and exceptional grants. Ms. Hodge commented that it might be possible that the 2008 Application Guide could also be presented during that same County Council meeting to which Mr. Libby commented that doing so would be excellent.

Mr. Libby mentioned that three of the Board members in attendance today missed the previous meeting because they were either not nominated or had other plans that could not be changed. He asked these individuals if they were comfortable with the events of the previous meeting regarding the off-beach parking and the trails. All responded, “Yes.”

Mr. Libby then asked Ms. Hodge if we should now move on to the Sunshine Laws and by laws. Ms. Hodge said that she had met individually with each of the Advisory Board members with the exception of Mr. Rudolph. She then stated that the orientation is mandatory for all. Normally, this required briefing is conducted for all in a single session; however, since this group has been appointed at different times, this has not been possible.

The Sunshine Law says that you will not meet with any of your fellow committee members outside of this meeting to discuss anything that could possibly be voted on in the future. Ms. Hodge continued by asking that the members only send email questions directly to her and not to the rest of the board. She will respond individually to these emails. Should she send out an email in-mass to all the members, she asked that the individual members respond only to her and not the rest of the board members. Mr. Libby and Ms. Hodge pointed out that the email could contain an issue that might be voted on at a later time.

Mr. Libby asked if anyone had any questions regarding the Sunshine Laws. Mr. Matousek responded and mentioned that in the past, it was a requirement that the Advisory Board members had to file a financial disclosure report (Form 1) and he asked for a brief explanation. Ms. Seaman responded by saying that in the beginning, the Council was concerned that individual Advisory Board members of Forever and ECHO might be involved with a potential grantee’s organization. However, after many years of observing the personnel and organizations applying, the Council no longer worried about this so they removed this requirement such that the financial disclosure forms no longer need to be filed. Mr. Matousek asked when this change took place to which Ms. Seaman responded that it was voted on a few months ago.

Mr. Rudolph was recognized and stated that what he is hearing is that being a board member on ECHO does not require an individual to file a financial disclosure Form 1. Ms. Seaman responded that this was correct. Mr. Libby asked Ms. Seaman if there was anything else that she would like to point out regarding the Sunshine Law. She responded by reminding the members that anything that they write or email is a public record. She said for the members to not converse with each other by email because those emails will have to be turned over to public record “…so please don’t do it….”

She said there is something that is called a conduit where one can be approached by a person who wants to tell you what one of the other board members is thinking. She said, “You don’t want to do that.” That is what is called a conduit and it breaks the Sunshine Law just as much as you speaking directly with that other board member. She then stated that if any other questions come up to please call her.

Mr. Libby thanked Ms. Seaman and asked Ms. Hodge if she wanted to cover the by-laws as there have been some changes. She pointed out that no longer is there a 3 term limit on being a board member. An individual can continue to serve until they are no longer appointed by any Council member.

Regarding other changes, the only other one pertains to the missing of two meetings by a board member. Should a Board member miss two meetings, Ms. Hodge is required to call the Council member that appointed the person and it would be up to the Council member if they wanted to reappoint the individual at the next council meeting. Ms. Seaman added that this would happen only if the Council member believes the reason for the missed meetings was significant. The Council members were very concerned that on some of the boards, a few of the members missed many meetings and did not represent their District properly.

Mr. Libby summed up the conversation by saying, “Two misses and you’re out.” Mr. Matousek added that even though the schedule of meetings looks like we meet twice a month all during the year, the reality is that we will only meet for another 2 or 3 meetings and that will be all until the January meeting when we will pick up our copies of the grant applications for review. Ms. Seaman added that booking the Council chamber for the year is made to reserve the chambers so meetings can be arranged to accommodate this Board.

Mr. Libby added that if any of the Board members have conflicts with any of the dates listed, please contact Ms. Hodge with this information so she can determine if enough members will be present for a quorum. He continued saying that many of the Board members present are members of other Boards that also have the two absence rule that they must attend, so this is somewhat of a juggling effort. He noted that there was one modification on the calendar, which is the next meeting scheduled for 9 AM instead of the normal 3 PM.

Mr. Rudolph said that he had only been appointed a couple of days prior to the meeting that he missed and that it was impossible for him to reschedule the meeting. He asked if that absence would be counted to which Ms. Seaman said that it would not count. Mr. Libby asked if there were any additional comments relating to item three (III) to which Ms. Hodge said no.

IV. Old Business
Mr. Piatek entered the chamber. Under item four (IV), Old Business, Mr. Libby said that he wanted to take some time to reflect on the history of ECHO for the benefit of the new members and the audience alike. In 1998, when the initial Land Trust millage set aside was 20 million dollars, a small group got together with the County Manager and asked that if the land portion was going to be re-authorized, could there be a corresponding millage for environmental, cultural, historical, and outdoor activity needs. He continued saying that the County had been granting funds for these areas; however, it was hard for both the County and the organizations to apply for these funds. He mentioned that the State of Florida had a special grants program that could award up to $800,000 of matching funds for historical and preservation purposes and a cultural arts program that could award up to $500,000 for a one to three year period for an organization. This small group of people approached the Chairman of the County Council and the County Manager to discuss this program.

It was decided that they would take the proposal out to the people in the form of town hall meetings of which many were held during the next 12 months. They also took an inventory as to the needs of the organizations in the four areas of interest and discovered that there was a large backlog of projects that could be assisted with a program such as they were proposing. They also realized that no city of county, by itself, could support all of the projects that were proposed to improve the quality of life in Volusia County.

This fueled the desire to bring this subject to the voters of Volusia County to see if they would support a millage set-aside for ECHO and a separate set-aside for Forever. Many people asked that the two projects be united; however, the environmental groups, who had worked very hard for their desire to purchase environmentally sensitive lands, felt that they wanted to be separate from the ECHO group on the ballot. Both of these items went to the voters with a 0.2 millage rate for each and they were passed with overwhelming margins. The basic concept was to provide funds for bricks and mortar for construction of facilities or outdoor fields for recreation. As time went on, it became apparent that there were other projects that could also benefit from the ECHO program such as the county trails program and the city trails program. Additionally, one of the requirements from the County Council was that off-beach parking become part of the ECHO program. The program is growing and we believe that it will grow and be more accessible each year to the non-profit organizations, the cities, and the county.

Mr. Libby said that the board is preparing to look at the ECHO guide to see if there are changes or modifications that are warranted. He continued saying that what we are trying to do is to make the effort as seamless as possible to integrate the funds from the cities, the State, and other contributions from benefactors and philanthropic foundations with the ECHO grant program. Many of the programs supported by ECHO have brought in monies from other organizations outside of Volusia County. He reiterated that no organization is ever static and the umbrella of programs that encompasses ECHO will evolve as well; however, we will always continue to support our pledge to the people of Volusia County.

Mr. Libby said that we were not sure if the Volusia Forever or the ECHO programs would be affected by any reduction made by the property tax cutback. We initially did not think it would; however, there was talk about looking at millage based referendums to see what could be done with them. The worst case scenario would be a slight cutback in the millage rate. Ms. Seaman responded saying that they could roll back the total funds from a referendum to the funds available from a specific year; however, it is not clear what that year would be if they did so. She continued saying that it was likely that the most that ECHO would be affected would be to have the same amount of money that has been available for the past two or three years.
Mr. Libby said that there are many people out in the field lobbying for the legislature to leave the voter approved referendum millage rates alone. The worst case scenario is that we will have the same amount of money we have had in the past. He then asked if there were any other comments regarding old business. Since there were no comments, he said to move on to new business.

V. New Business
Mr. Libby said the review of Draft 2 of the ECHO Guide will probably take up the remaining time available during this meeting. He asked Ms. Hodge to take the Board through the revised draft and the changes included. Ms. Hodge said that this draft has corrected many of the items listed in the previous draft as they were mostly dates and procedural changes in nature. Ms. Hodge said that she added the comments that were discussed in the previous meeting that they had requested. An example of this is the comment from Ms. Hargreaves when she mentioned scoring and from Mr. Matousek when he mentioned caps on funding. Those can be seen in this draft along with some blocked off copy added to show what the State program is currently doing for this area. Ms. Hodge said that she has compared the State Cultural Facilities grant with the ECHO grant. She continued by saying that she believes the ECHO grant will open up “more doors” than the State grant and that the ECHO grant is a lot more accessible for match dollars than the State grant.

Mr. Libby noted that on the second page of the document, the word “seventy” is highlighted. Ms. Hodge said that she highlighted it here because this subject will be covered in depth later in the document. Ms. Hodge recommended that they start on page 3 with the section titled Applicant Eligibility Requirements. She said that the main difference between the state grant and the ECHO grant is that the state grant allows for a non-for-profit organization, incorporated in a different state but registered in the state of Florida, to apply. Mr. Libby asked Ms. Seaman if it would be possible to modify what we currently have and request that the County Council approve the change to which Ms. Seaman referred to the original enabling legislation. It says, “…that the grant in aid shall be awarded on a matching basis only by the Council on the recommendation of the oversight committee to Volusia County municipalities and not-for-profit organizations.” She continued saying that Council is the body that can interpret this language.
The historical intent was that it be for municipalities and not-for-profits incorporated in Volusia County. This has been stretched in the past to include Florida Corporations who have a group doing business in Volusia County even though they are not incorporated in Volusia County. The interpretation by the County Council has been that if you are a Florida Corporation with a group doing business in Volusia County with a Volusia County address, then this is considered a Volusia County organization. She said that a recommendation can be made to the Council to change this interpretation but Council will have to make a determination as to what the legislation says.

Mr. Matousek said that he likes the language. He also assumed that by the words “foreign corporation” we mean a corporation incorporated in another state. He said he would like the words to be changed to reflect the same policy as the state as he doesn’t want an organization to later say that they didn’t apply for an ECHO grant because of the current verbiage. He continued that he would rather have the words changed then to work on an exception basis. He further stated that the Board members could take this into consideration when they grade the applicants on their projects. He said that as long as the corporation was established and doing business in Volusia County, he would support them.

Mr. Libby said that from what he heard from Ms. Seaman comments, the Commerative Air Force would not qualify. He said that everyone is trying to figure a way that they could qualify. Ms. Hodge said that the highlighted words are the words that have been previously used. The box at the bottom of the page is the States words that we have been discussing. When she proposes new words, they will be placed in the document with an underline signifying that the change is new and not yet accepted. She said that the board needs to create the language that would go in its place. Mr. Libby said that the current language comports with Ms. Seaman’s reading of the ordinance language. He said that he did not think that there is anything that they can do to comply. He said that this would also exclude any other organization with the same incorporation status outside of the state of Florida. The real question is can any organization, like the Commerative Air Force, who is incorporated outside of the state of Florida apply.

Ms. Seaman said that this is how the Council has interpreted the ordinance to date. If you would like to make some recommendations based on new circumstances that change the interpretation, you can do this, as the law is an ever evolving entity. She stated, “What it all comes down to is what is a Volusia County not-for-profit organization?” We know what a Volusia County municipality is. That is relatively easy; but, there is not a definition of a Volusia County not-for-profit. We started out saying it was a not-for-profit incorporated in Volusia County. A few years ago, circumstances arose to where this Board and the Council said, that if they are a Florida corporation with many offices with one of the offices in Volusia County and they work here, that would be an eligible organization.

Putting criteria as to the length of time they have been doing business here may be a way of dealing with one that is not incorporated in the state of Florida but does business here. It would be up to the board to make this recommendation and for the Council to interpret the wording and either approve or disapprove it. Mr. Libby said that they do not want to weaken the eligibility requirements for a separate organization, especially since it is relatively easy to fill out the paperwork and pay the $50 fee to the Department of State to become eligible. He said that we do want the Commerative Air Force to be eligible but they have to realize what we are dealing with here. He asked for the representatives to come up and give their name for the record.

Mr. Peter Jacobs introduced himself and said he was the Wing Leader of the Florida Wing of the Commerative Air Force. Mr. Jacobs said he would like to look at the history of this but wanted to initially respond to the possibility of them forming their own 501(c)3 corporation. He said that this has been looked upon with extreme disfavor by the Commerative Air Force headquarters in Texas. They have done this with a couple of their units and had dismal results when the funds were used for activities other then the maintenance and restoration of the aircraft or the maintenance of the buildings housing these aircraft. Because of this, they have been extremely reluctant to grant this status to them or the many other units that have requested this. This subject is not dead, but it is not likely to happen in the near future.

Mr. Jacobs continued. Going back into history, General Barnhart (present in the audience), a retired General in the Florida Air National Guard, “…Spent weeks of his time in putting together the extremely complex and detailed proposal required by ECHO.” He continued saying that when they first applied, the wording said that one had to be a Florida Not-for-Profit Corporation, which they believed they were since they were registered in Volusia County in the State of Florida. They put this grant together and submitted all of the required copies and it was rejected because they were not considered a Florida Not-for-Profit Corporation by the ECHO legal staff.

They followed up and sent a letter to the State of Florida asking them if they formed a Florida Corporation, what the situation would be. They responded with a letter from the office of the Secretary of State (which they sent to Ms. Hodge) saying that as far as they were concerned, they were a Florida Corporation since they were registered to do business in the State of Florida.

He said that their purpose of originally applying for a grant was to build a hanger at the DeLand Airport, which is definitely a bricks and mortar type of project. Their purpose of applying this time would be to expand that hanger. He said that he thought the concern for working with a corporation not incorporated in the State of Florida is that they could just come and take the planes away at any time. However, they do pay rent on the facility to the City of DeLand and they do feel like they are as much a resident of the State of Florida as if they were incorporated in Florida. He questioned as to whether the other companies incorporated in other states were as strong as they are since the Commerative Air Force does not have other offices in Florida, other than Volusia County, and they don’t want other offices in the state. He appealed to Ms. Hodge who said she would take it up with Ms. Seaman and the ECHO Board to see if the “regulation” would be changed. Mr. Jacobs felt sure that the application would have scored very high if it had not been disqualified for incorporation issues.

Mr. Libby reiterated that the current requirement is that the organization be a 501(c)3 incorporated in the State of Florida, with its principal office in the State of Florida, with a local group doing business in Volusia County. He asked for comments from the board. Mr. Sixma asked Ms. Seaman to repeat what she had said. Ms. Seaman stated, “The grants-in-aid are to be awarded to Volusia County municipalities and non-for-profit corporations.” Mr. Libby said that to describe this organization, they are a Texas Corporation, doing business in the State of Florida, with its principle office in Volusia County. Ms. Seaman agreed and said that this in another twist on the last go around.

Ms. Hodge said that one of the problems concerns ownership of the facility. She asked if the completed structure would be owned by the Texas Corporation or by the applicant. Mr. Jacobs responded saying that this is the problem as the building would be owned by the Texas Corporation. Mr. Libby, Ms. Seaman, and Ms. Hodge all agreed that this was the problem. When Mr. Libby asked if there were any other comments, Mr. Matousek again said that he would be willing to put forward the proposal that foreign corporations, registered to do business in the State of Florida with offices in Volusia County, should be allowed to be considered for an ECHO grant. He assumes that there are many worthy organizations that would fall into this group and supposed that the Boy Scouts may even be a case like this. He said that the board could evaluate whether they should be considered for an ECHO award and would vote that way.

Mr. Libby said that they could probably accomplish what Mr. Matousek said by adding additional language to the current statement in the guide without having to do away with the threshold requirement. Requirements could be added such as the number of years doing business in Volusia County. But the real question is what do you do about the ownership of the building by a Texas (or some other state) Corporation. Mr. Matousek said that they are not going to move the building. He feels that there is adequate protection for the encumbrance of funds to ensure that the money will be spent on what it is supposed to be spent. He continued saying that this is not like the planes going away.

He said that when they considered the boat restoration project, he did have some concerns as the boat could just be taken somewhere else. So he is open to expanding the eligibility requirements. Ms. Seaman asked Mr. Matousek if he really felt our requirements protected the ECHO funds spent to which he replied in the affirmative. Ms. Seaman said that she asked that question to point out to the new members that there are restrictive covenants that ECHO requires from the grantees which are recorded with the Volusia County Clerk of the Court, whereby there is a lien against that property for the period of time specified in the restrictive covenants. This means that the property cannot be conveyed during that time period without the County receiving its money back. Ms. Hodge interjected that the period for new construction is 40 years.

Ms. Hodge then said that what this is saying is that the Texas Corporation would be the organization signing the Restrictive Covenants and the Florida Wing would manage the property. Ms. Seaman agreed and reiterated what she previously said. Mr. Gizzi said that he agrees with Mr. Libby in just adding language to allow consideration, as he is concerned that if the primary language was modified, would this open some kind of loophole that could be used in a negative manner. Ms. Hodge said that they could appropriately add the amount of time of service in the community. This way, there would be a record of accomplishments for the community. Mr. Gizzi replied questioning if this would mean either a minimum number of years of service or a Florida Corporation to which the reply was yes.

Mr. Piatek said that the discussion on the Restrictive Covenants answered his concerns about what would happen should the aircraft be permanently moved out of the State of Florida. The other point he wonders about is if they abandon the building, what is the counties opportunity to reclaim the property? Ms. Seaman responded saying that the Restrictive Covenants requires them to allow continued use of the facility for the public for the purpose that was the basis of the grant. If they abandoned the facility, we would use the Restrictive Covenants to recover the funds we spent on the project. Mr. Libby asked Ms. Seaman as to who owns the land that this facility sits on. Ms. Seaman said that she believes that the land is owned by the City of DeLand. Mr. Libby asked if the City of DeLand would have to sign the Restrictive Covenants as the land owner. Ms. Seaman said they would have to sign them.

Mr. Libby asked Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Barnhart if they had discussed the Restrictive Covenants with the Texas organization and did they know that they would have to sign them? Mr. Jacobs said that he had and he added that the Commerative Air Force will have to put up half of the money for this facility so they will not want to walk away from that investment. He continued saying that the time consideration he believes is a good thing; however, he feels the time period should be reasonable since there is a requirement for Clean Hands. When Mr. Libby asked Mr. Jacobs how many years they have been in Volusia County, Mr. Jacobs replied nine years now and ten years by the date that this grant could be awarded. Mr. Libby said that not only do they have to consider his organization; the board has to consider future organizations applying and their stability and worthiness of receiving an ECHO grant.

Mr. Libby asked Mr. Jacobs the length of the lease of the land from the City of DeLand to which Mr. Jacobs replied that it was a 30 year lease that they signed 2 years ago so they have another 28 years on this lease along with right of first refusal on the renewal. Mr. Libby asked if there was a dissolution clause in the lease and Mr. Jacobs said no. Ms. Hodge spoke up and said that the lease would have to be extended to 40 years to which Mr. Jacob responded saying that this was no problem. Mr. Piatek added that by opening up this language, it might encourage investment from organizations outside the state by them saying that this would be a good place to organize and facilitate the development of other organizations; therefore, there may be a positive side to this.

Mr. Libby asked Ms. Seaman if she could draft some additional language that would state the length of time (he believed all agree with 10 years), and any other niceties that she feels would relax this requirement modestly. Mr. Libby informally polled the rest of the board for agreement on this step and all agree. Ms. Hodge asked that the record show that the agreement was unanimous to which Mr. Libby said that he would entertain a motion on the item. The motion was made by Mr. Rudolph and seconded by Mr. Piatek. The vote in favor of the motion was unanimous for Ms. Seaman to draft some language as discussed. Mr. Libby thanked the representatives from the Commerative Air Force for attending.

On Page 4, Ms. Hodge said that she went to Mr. Doug Weaver’s office and asked him what they do when they need an appraisal for large properties for Volusia County versus the MAI which people seem to struggle with. She said Mr. Weaver indicated that an MAI appraisal is not more expensive then the state certified appraisers who are listed on some of the different state web sites. This opens up options for the applicants for the appraisals that are required by ECHO. Mr. Libby said that we are now giving the applicant the option of using an MAI appraiser or a state certified appraiser to which Ms. Hodge agreed. Ms. Hodge also asked if they wanted to look at the $250,000 sale price break point for only requiring a Certified General Appraisal. Mr. Libby opened the floor for discussion. Mr. Libby asked the board if they were comfortable with the $250,000 or did they want to change it? Several members said that they were comfortable with the current dollar amount. Mr. Gizzi questioned when the number of $250,000 was created.

Discussion ensued with Mr. Matousek saying he did not think this was in the original ECHO requirements. Ms. Seaman said that that was true as ECHO only put the $250,000 in when the State and the rest of Volusia County required a state certified appraisal for property of any kind over $250,000. A motion was made to accept the revision to make the State Certified appraisal an authorized alternative to the MAI appraisal and also to leave the sale price break at $250,000. The motion was made by Mr. Sixma and seconded by Mr. Rudolph. The yes vote was unanimous.

Ms. Hodge said that the dates on page five (5) for the Mandatory Application Workshops are the only changes on that page. Those dates can only be met if the board can complete the work in time for her to take the completed guide to the Council for approval by the August 2, 2007 meeting. Mr. Libby said to leave them in with the expectation that they can complete the work by that time. The only changes to pages 6 and 7 are the dates changing them from the 2006 / 2007 time frame to 2007 / 2008.

Ms. Seaman asked everyone to look at the January 9, 2008 date. She said that is the date the Board meets to determine the final eligibility list. She asked that everyone check their calendar for that date and for February 27, 2008. If any conflicts exist, they are to let Ms. Hodge know as soon as possible. Ms. Seaman said that the 27th of February was the day that the ECHO Advisory Board meets as the Grant Review Panel. Ms. Hodge said that the January 9 meeting will be from 3 PM to 5 PM and on February 27, the hours are from 8 AM until finished, which is usually somewhere around 4 or 4:30. Mr. Piatek said that the highlighted area on page 7 should have the 2006 changed to 2007, which Ms. Hodge had previously noted on her copy.

On page 8, Ms. Hodge explained that the text in blue is what the state says about the specific areas and can be crossed out or included as the board desires. Mr. Libby said that the question is, “Do former members of this board have to recuse themselves from any activity that would have to do with the applicant or represent an organization or lobby for them?” On the state level, with both the State Historic Preservation Advisory Board and Florida Arts Council, former members cannot write a letter of recommendation, be present for, or have anything to do with an applicant for three years after the end date of service. Ms. Hodge recommended consideration of this question and Mr. Libby stated that it is a good one now that we have members rotating off of the board. Mr. Libby asked the board members if they thought it was necessary to affix language like this and, if so, what should the number of years be that would prevent a former board member from being an applicant before this board? Mr. Matousek stated that the language says “…that any committee member represents an applicant…” which says existing board member to him. Mr. Libby said that that subject is covered in the Conflict of Interest section. Ms. Hodge said that the language currently in our guide is just specific language the state had as a reminder in that section. Mr. Libby said that his question is different in that do we want to have a former board member standing in front of us as an applicant and if so, is there a cooling off period that must transpire before they can come before us? Mr. Rudolph said that he really does not see anything like this to be necessary, as he does not believe that there is anything like that in the by-laws of the PLDRC or the County Council for that matter. Mr. Libby responded that if you are a member of the State Legislature – either the Florida House or the Florida Senate – you cannot become a lobbyist for three years.

Mr. Sixma said that he would not have a problem with a former board member coming before the board. In fact, he said that it could be a detriment to the applicant (laughter). Mr. Matousek also concurred. Mr. Gizzi asked if the original purpose of this was to prevent a current member from lobbying to which Ms. Hodge said, “Yes that was their intent.” Mr. Piatek also did not see any need to change the current language. Mr. Libby said that we would drop making a change to this as this concern is covered in the Conflict of Interest section.

Mr. Libby read the note on the bottom of the page which states how the State operates regarding allowing the question / answer period of the board. It further states that the State waits until all the applicants have been reviewed and the audience has had an opportunity to participate before they rank any of the applicants. Additionally, the note says that the applicants are allowed to use a live phone for questions and answers if they are unable to attend the meeting in Tallahassee. Ms. Hodge said that she has only noted the difference between the State and the ECHO procedures for purposes of discussion. Ms. Hodge explained that, unlike the State procedures, this board has always had the question and answer session and immediately afterwards, they rank the applicant.

Ms. Seaman said that since there are new members on the board, she will describe the entire ranking process. She said that the applicants are heard in the order in which we received their application. In other words, the date and time the applicants come in the door with their application is how they are numbered and that will be the order that you hear them. The applicant comes up to the board and makes a small presentation. Afterwards, there is usually some discourse and a question and answer session. She continued explaining that the board members will have already read these applications and given a preliminary score. We ask that you put those preliminary scores in ink on the score sheet. After you have listened to the applicant, you may modify your score. Their explanations may resolve some concerns you previously had about the project or maybe they did not express the project well in writing but they did verbally. You will then put the new score, in ink, on the score sheet. Immediately after the scores have been marked down by the Board members, Sedrick will ask each member what their score is for the applicant and he will record it on a spreadsheet for later tabulation. He will rotate the board member he starts with so no one board member will have a large influence over the scoring. This gives real time scoring to the people in the audience. The way the State does it is that you mark your scores for each applicant after they are finished and then you hand the papers down to the end of the table where they are held until after all of the applicants have presented and been questioned. At that time, all of the scores are displayed simultaneously.

Mr. Libby said that he was just recently a chairman of a board in Tallahassee and there are changes on how they are doing it. He said that everything is being done on line now, which is actually making everything more difficult. It is being strongly suggested that the boards allow the public to speak between the time the applicants speak and the posting of the scores. He continued saying that he strongly believes in this method as he feels the worst thing we could do is to ask for the public comment after we have already decided what the scores are.
Mr. Libby asked Ms. Seaman if this would cause any kind of procedural problem to which Ms. Seaman said no; however, she continued by saying that they better be prepared for the session to last a lot longer as many projects will have multiple speakers in favor of their project.

Ms. Seaman said that what you are asking for is for the applicant to speak, members of the public to speak, and then scoring the applicant. She continued saying that the board still needs to evaluate when the scores would be shown – either immediately after the scoring or at the end with everyone being scored at the same time. This would make one question if seeing the scores would prejudice anyone about future applicants that had not yet presented to the board. Ms. Seaman said that changing would mean the scores would be passed down to the program assistant so no one would see the scores that were given to each applicant until all the applicants had presented to the board.

Mr. Libby asked if this was the way it was being done now and Ms. Seaman said that now – the scoring is being called out by each board member after the applicant has presented and has finished being questioned. If an applicant scored an 80 and your favorite project was coming up, you could try to skew the results so your favorite receives an 82; however, since we drop the lowest and highest scores, it would be difficult to sway the score. Mr. Libby said that this would be a good question to ask the board and the public. The question is should the public have a chance to speak prior to the scores either being announced publicly or handed in? Mr. Piatek said that he felt public participation would be good with controls. Mr. Gizzi said that he would welcome any light or shadow put upon a project prior to the scoring.

Mr. Matousek said that he likes the way the scoring is done as it has in the past. He believes that the public participation would be good; however, he also believes some controls need to be put on it to prevent packing the audience with large numbers of people to speak kindly about the proposed project. He would like to see it not changed from previous years. Mr. Sixma said that he likes the way it has been done; however, he would welcome public participation as long as a constraint was put on it. He asked if it would be a time limit or a number of people; he doesn’t know. Ms. Seaman said that with the County Council, there is a function that times the individual speaking that lights a green light that turns to yellow when there is one minute left, and turns to red after a total of three minutes has elapsed.

Mr. Libby asked Ms. Seaman if we allow applicants to speak after the applicant has presented but before the scoring, should we make them fill out a form? He added, we do on the state level at this time. Ms. Seaman said that we do that for Council at this time. At the very least, they would have to identify themselves by their name and their address of residence. The reason that we ask them to fill out the form is so we have the information accurately to help the recording secretary. For most of the boards, we do require them to fill out a slip with their name and address. Mr. Libby said that if that is what we collectively want, we can have the public fill out the form and then speak regarding the applicant.

Mr. Piatek asked Mr. Libby as to where the limit of public response regarding a specific applicant is set at the state level. He supposed that an applicant had 500 supporters at the meeting, which could take several days to complete, what is the cutoff for the state boards? We certainly do not want the room packed with people commenting on a grant application. Mr. Libby said that on the state level, they allow a limited number of people in favor of the applicant and then they ask if there are any people that are against this project to come up and speak and then it stops. Ms. Hodge said that his is a good point as with a State grant, the people have to travel to Tallassee where as with this grant, everyone is from or near Volusia County. Mr. Libby said that even in Tallahassee, they have had groups of 50 people or more that have a tee-shirt on that is for or against a particular grant, which is quite visible to the panel.

Ms. Hodge said that all she did was to point out the difference between the State grant and ECHO. She then said that one thing the board has removed that the State allows is the letters of support. Mr. Libby said that with the many new members on the board, it is difficult to say we are comfortable doing things the way they were when many do not know how they were. Mr. Libby said that the worthiness of the grant should not be based upon the number of people that can enter the chamber in support of the project, but should be based upon the submitted grant and the representatives of the applicant organization while they respond to our questions.
Mr. Piatek asked if there was public participation at the County Council to which Ms. Seaman responded that there was. Mr. Piatek said that maybe that takes care of the question that we have on this subject. Mr. Matousek said that even the applicant is not allowed to give a presentation to the ECHO Board. They are there to answer questions the Panel may have.

Therefore, he feels that it would be incorrect to allow members of the audience to speak for the applicant. Mr. Sixma also said that he was not in favor of changing the current procedures during the Grant Advisory Panel. Mr. Piatek said that although he is in favor of public participation, he can see where this could easily get out of control; therefore he too is in favor of maintaining the status quo.

Ms. Hodge referred the board to the paragraph on page nine regarding the County Council Review and Award of Grants. Ms. Hodge brought this up for the benefit of the new ECHO board members. She said that there are no changes from the last year. The next page, which is Administrative & Report Requirements is the same as last year and seems to work well for both the applicant and the ECHO organization. The following page, regarding accessibility requirements, is also the same as last year with the exception that the telephone number has been changed. Regarding submission format, unlike the State who requires an original and 15 copies, we only require the original and 12 copies. Mr. Libby commented that the State is moving to the new National Grant Software, which they used in several of the panels he was on. He said that the software did have a few trouble spots but applicants were using the software on Oasis. Ms. Hodge said that as soon as the software becomes non-troublesome, we too will move to consider Oasis.

Ms. Hodge said that she highlighted the evaluation procedures because Ms. Hargreaves commented that we consider a minimum score of 70 for funding an applicant whereas a school system would give that grade a “D.” Mr. Libby commented that unlike the school system, the only thing we need to concern ourselves about is that each individual on the Panel is consistent with their own scoring. If one board member typically grades in the 90’s while another typically grades in the 70’s, the relative scores of the applicants will not be corrupted.

Mr. Libby continued saying that the real question is do we want to consider changing the minimum score of 70 to a higher number. He mentioned that in Tallahassee this year, each panel was allowed to pick the minimum score that would be funded. He said that one of the panels picked a score of 85 as a cutoff. This caused only about half of the applicants to be funded; however, they were funded at or near the amount of funds they had requested. Mr. Libby opened the discussion to the floor for comments. Ms. Seaman spoke up and mentioned that there are three new members who have not yet completed an ECHO scoring session and do not know the history on how we came up with the weights given to each section of the criteria. Ms. Seaman stated that we were able to fund all of the applicants last year because we had sufficient funds. Previous years had seen several of the applicants not receiving any funds. The reason was not that they scored below 70. The reason was because there were more applicants than funds to support requests. Originally, we had planned on taking in approximately $2.4 million per year but, due to the increase in construction and property values, we now take in more than $4 million per year earmarked for ECHO.

Ms. Seaman said that we operate different from the State in that the State will award the applicants with a portion of the funds they requested. On the other hand, we will fund the applicants the amount they requested until such time that we run out of sufficient money to award the next applicant the amount they requested. When that happens, we will offer the remaining funds to that applicant as a grant which they can either accept – modifying their original project – or reject the lesser amount of money.

Ms. Seaman continued saying that she has heard from Council members and applicants alike that they are concerned about the value that Project Impact has on the total score since it is worth 60 points out of a total of 100. An applicant, who may have only received a 45 for that section, may ask what they did wrong and what can they do better in the future. That is why you, the Panel members, are asked to write notes on your project evaluation sheets when reviewing these grant applications. There has been previous discussion on the ECHO board as to whether this section should be broken down into subsections. This has been considered and has been rejected; however, it may be something that you want to consider. Mr. Libby asked if the score sheets we use has sufficient space between the sections for comments which Ms. Hodge answered that the sheets have room in between the sections and if the panel member needs more space, they can continue on the back side of the page.

Mr. Libby said that it is very important for the panel members to give comments, both negative and positive, regarding the application. Comments are especially necessary if either a low score or a high score is earned, as these scores need to be justified and understood by the applicant or any other individual who may review these reports. In the past, when a Council member has reviewed an application and the scores it attained, there occasionally was a minimum of comments to justify the score, which can lead one to ponder favoritism or prejudice by the panel member. Mr. Libby suggested that we hold a workshop for the new panel members regarding scoring, how we have ranked past applicants, and the reasons why we ranked them the way we did.

Mr. Piatek asked if an applicant had ever scored below the minimum of 70 and money available from the fund to which Ms. Hodge and Ms. Seaman said no. Ms. Hodge added that there had been an applicant that scored below 70 in the past; however, the funds had long since been depleted by awards to higher scoring applicants. Mr. Libby said that it had been decided in the beginning of ECHO that the funds would not have set asides for the various areas of ECHO nor would there be set asides for the east side or west side. The money would go to the applicants that scored the highest whether they were a county agency, a municipality, or a 501(c)3. Ms. Hodge mentioned that some projects that might be questioned by some as to whether they were really ECHO projects were typically scored lower than others. In the past, this meant that they would not receive any of the funds; however, since we now have more money for ECHO, this changes the dynamic to where these projects have been funded in the recent past.

Mr. Libby pointed out that should the board recommend to raise the maximum award to $600,000 for a standard grant and $3 million for an exceptional grant, that this would take up some of the extra funds that would have been available for the lower scoring projects. Mr. Libby continued saying that the question before the board now is whether the Project Impact category should remain at 60 points or should it be changed. Mr. Sixma said that in the past when Mr. Matousek was the Chairperson, they had in depth discussions regarding the weight given to the Project Impact category and it was decided that this was the correct balance as this is what will be visible to the residents of Volusia County.

Hearing no motions to change this page, the panel moved on to the next item. Ms. Hodge had highlighted dealing with budgetary shifts in the grants that have, at times, exceeded 10% of the total amount of the grant. Ms. Hodge said that she wanted the board to know that this was happening and she said she wanted to make sure that the board was comfortable with having staff make these changes. She emphasized that the changes did not change the scope or basis of the project but was a shift of funds within the project. She continued saying that if the board wanted to review these changes that it would slow down the projects and the processing of the reimbursement requests. Mr. Libby mentioned that initially, the Chairperson of the board reviewed these changes; however, he feels that the staff, who has more familiarity of the projects, can evaluate each change request on its merits.

Mr. Matousek mentioned that the board members receive copies of the quarterly reports, which keeps them informed of the status of the projects and any changes that have been made from the original grant application. Mr. Libby mentioned to Ms. Hodge that if any project does come up with a problem that is of concern, then she could always bring it up to the board for consideration. Ms. Hodge mentioned that this had been done once in the beginning with the Pier Project.
Ms. Hodge said that the next item for discussion concerns the grant funding amounts on page 15 of the guide. Mr. Libby asked for a motion and a second so the discussion can begin regarding this subject. Mr. Matousek made a motion that the maximum amount of funding for a grant be raised from $500,000 to $600,000. The motion was seconded by Mr. Piatek. Mr. Matousek said that his reason for wanting to increase the amount is that the cost of materials and services had increased significantly; therefore, this proposed increase will get us close to where we were when ECHO was created in buying power of the grant. Mr. Libby asked if there was further comments and hearing none, he called for a vote which was unanimous in favor of the change.
Mr. Libby said the next paragraph regarding funding caps was open for a motion. After a few brief comments, Mr. Matousek made the motion that the funding cap be raised from $1.5 million over a 5 year period to $1.8 million over the same period of time. Seconded by Mr. Sixma. Mr. Libby asked for comments. Hearing none, he called for a vote, which was unanimous in favor of the change.

Ms. Seaman mentioned that the maximum funds can be awarded over a five (5) consecutive year period. If a year is skipped, this does not start a new five year period. This has not happened in the past on a project. If the footprint of the project is increased, this would pose a different view of the grantee request. Ms. Seaman said that Ms. Hodge has added some language to this section that will not be restrictive; however, it will ensure that a project cannot use a year off as a means to go around the intent of the program. Ms. Hodge said that there is one Grantee that has acquired grant funds, near that of an exceptional grant, with only a one to one match by skipping a year in the grant cycle. Ms. Hodge said that she made these changes to prevent this from occurring again; however, she requested that the board have her and Ms. Seaman come up with the proper language to prevent an applicant from receiving more funding than was intended. Mr. Libby asked for a motion that would request that Ms. Hodge and Ms. Seaman craft language that would prevent a Grantee from abusing the intent of the ECHO program funds. The motion was made by Mr. Matousek and seconded by Mr. Sixma. There was no discussion on the motion so a vote was taken and was unanimous for the request.

Ms. Hodge brought up the next subject of Restrictions. Because the Master Trails program is one large program, the current wording would restrict them from having anything more than a single exceptional grant. There is added verbiage that would allow Leisure Services to look at the different trail segments as individual projects for funding with ECHO money. Mr. Sixma commented to the new members of the ECHO board that the Trails program already receives $1 million of ECHO money each year by County Council decree.

Mr. Libby asked if it was reasonable for individual segments of the Trails program to be brought to the board for a grant and for the trails program not to be considered as a single project. Ms. Hodge mentioned that when she met with Mr. Harper from Leisure Services, he told her that the program is already defined by segments.

Mr. Rudolph said that he can’t see any reason not to look at this massive program in segments and that he does not have a problem with the changes made to this paragraph. Mr. Piatek said that the trails program is a positive benefit for the citizens of Volusia County and he believes that any money left over from one year to the next should not be rolled over but instead be put into the Trails program.

Mr. Matousek made a motion that the language change made in the Restrictions section of the guide be adopted. Seconded by Mr. Rudolph. Mr. Matousek said that even though he was vehemently against giving the trails program the left over funds from the previous year, what he wanted was for them to compete with everyone else, which is what this does for the community. The motion was carried unanimously.

Mr. Libby next read the paragraph that restricts any single project from receiving more than $6 million during the life of ECHO. Ms. Seaman suggested that Ms. Hodge raise all money limits by 20%. A motion for this was submitted by Mr. Gizzi and seconded by Mr. Matousek. Mr. Matousek commented that he had asked that the exceptional grant be raised by 25% instead of 20%. Mr. Libby asked Mr. Gizzi if his motion still was good to which he asked if raising the exceptional grant to this level, would this cut out some of the smaller non-profits from receiving money. Ms. Seaman pointed out that $12,500 is the minimum and also commented saying that when small grants of $30,000 to $60,000 has been asked by non-profits, those applicants typically score in the top 5 and would receive their requested amount. Mr. Libby added that it could affect some applicants but they would be the ones that didn’t score that high on this grant cycle. Mr. Gizzi modified his motion to include the change suggested by Mr. Matousek of raising the exceptional grant numbers by 25%. Mr. Matousek requested that the exceptional grant be handled separately as there are some other items that may come into play. All previous motions were withdrawn and Mr. Matousek made a new motion that all of the money amounts be raised by 20% with the exception of the exceptional grant. Seconded by Mr. Rudolph. Mr. Libby asked for any discussion of which there was none. The vote was called for and was unanimous in favor of the motion.

Ms. Hodge pointed out that it was near five PM and we typically reserve the last few minutes for public participation. Mr. Libby suggested that we try to finish up the exceptional grant before calling for public participation. Mr. Libby called for a motion to which Mr. Matousek made a motion to change the current funding for the exceptional grant from $2.4 million over 4 years to $3.0 million over 3 years. Seconded by Mr. Rudolph. Mr. Matousek was asked to speak to the motion and he stated that 4 years is too long for a project. He believes that 4 years is too long for even a very large project.

Ms. Seaman reminded the board that the exceptional grant funds come off of the top of the available money. She further explained that the first thing to come off of the fund allocation is the TIF, which is the tax increment funding district. The next money that comes off is the $1 million for the trails fund after which comes the money for the exceptional grant. The remainder is what is left for all of the other grant applications. She just wanted to make sure everyone understood how the money is allocated. Mr. Libby suggested that if the motion is passed, that we see what the unintended consequences are as we can always modify it in the future. Mr. Gizzi asked if we do get a 10% reduction in millage for funding, would we still have sufficient funds for the other applicants? Mr. Libby and others responded in the affirmative. Mr. Libby called for a vote and it was unanimous in favor of the motion.

Mr. Libby concluded the business session and opened the floor for public comment. He asked that they give their name and address when they come up to the lectern. Mr. Wayne Atherholt introduced himself and said that he is the Director of the Museum of Arts & Sciences in Daytona Beach and lives at 310 Plantation Drive in DeBary. He said that during the last session, the subject of allowing administrative costs for the grant was broached but it was not brought up again at this session. He continued saying that it was not uncommon for some grants to allow administrative costs of 10% with some grants allowing up to 17 or 18%. Mr. Libby commented that this board may want to take up the subject of allowing the grantee to put in for ECHO dollars for administrative expenses. He said that it use to be done at the state level; then they stopped it, and now they are looking at considering it again. There was no other comment from the public; therefore, Mr. Libby welcomed the new board members and stated that the meetings usually ended at five (5) PM and this one has gone over that by 5 or 6 minutes. He asked for any additional comments.

Ms. Hodge said that she will edit the guide to draft #3 and will make the modifications with Ms. Seaman that the board has directed. She asked that the board members review Draft #3 when it is sent to them sometime next week. Mr. Libby asked that the green folders be left so they can be used for the next meeting. Mr. Libby verified the next meeting as being on June 27th at 9 AM in the same Council Chambers at 123 W. Indiana Avenue in DeLand. The meeting was adjourned.