Grant application information

Call To Order, Introduction 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, Mr. Gizzi was not present. Mr. Libby then asked for the ECHO Staff to identify themselves and, after this was completed, he said that he would ask the attendees in the gallery to identify themselves at a later time.
Motion for Approval of Minutes for May 30 & June 13 meetings
Mr. Rudolph made the motion to accept the May 30 minutes – seconded by Mr. Sixma. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Gizzi arrived in the chambers at this time. Mr. Rudolph made the motion to accept the June 13 minutes – seconded by Mr. Sixma. Ms. Hodge made the suggestion that the minutes be recorded as audio minutes in the future with just the motions, the applicable discussions, and the vote of the motion. The Board members verbally agreed with having an audio recording and action minutes.

Motion by Mr. Gizzi that the length of time that a “Foreign” Corporation must have 501(c)3 status and the amount of time that this Corporation need be doing business in Volusia County be changed to five (5) years and five (5) years. Seconded by Mr. Rudolph. The motion passed unanimously. The language on page 3 will be modified accordingly.

Motion by Mr. Piatek for the deletion of public and the inclusion of State or Federal in section five of program eligibility. Seconded by Ms. Hargreaves. Mr. Matousek asked Ms. Seaman if the Restrictive Covenants that have been signed to date valid. Ms. Seaman said that there are few projects that have been on State or Federal land; however, to better protect ourselves, we looking at revising the Restrictive Covenants. The vote to approve the substitute language was passed unanimously.

Motion by Mr. Rudolph that the maximum amount a grantee could receive over the life of the ECHO program for a single project with a fixed footprint be set at $3 million. Seconded by Ms. Hargreaves. Mr. Matousek asked if the Board was looking at the Exceptional Grant level of $1 million per year for 3 years when looking at this funding cap. Mr. Libby commented that they were. He continued saying that this would allow a small organization to come back to ECHO repeatedly for small amounts each time whereas a large organization could apply for the Exceptional Grant and receive the $3 million in one grant. Mr. Matousek further added that this is a fairness issue where everybody is at a maximum of $3 million. Mr. Sixma said that he was bothered by the fact that the trails were excluded from this limitation. Ms. Seaman said that there would be separate language for the trails program to cover this. Mr. Libby commented that the question of limits on all applicant groups is what Mr. Sixma raises. Mr. Libby asked for public comment. There was none. The vote to approve the $3 million was passed unanimously.

Ms. Hargreaves recommended for discussion the term “footprint” as used in the Application Guide. She said that this could exclude organizations that would want to possibly add a second or third floor to a facility. She recommended that “useable square footage” be substituted for the word footprint. She said that the new cap for all projects should be placed at $6 million. Ms. Hargreaves made the motion that any additions to the square footage of a project receive a maximum of an additional $3 million limiting the maximum amount of funds a single facility could receive over the lifetime of ECHO to $6 million. Mr. Rudolph asked that the words “total square footage” be used instead of “usable square footage” to which Ms. Hargreaves amended her motion accordingly. Seconded by Mr. Rudolph. Mr. Matousek agreed saying that this would be a fair program for all grantees. Ms. Seaman asked if changing the language from area footprint to total square footage was part of this motion to which Mr. Libby responded yes. Mr. Libby asked for public comment. There was none. The vote to change the verbiage to reflect a maximum of $3 million of additional funds over the life of the ECHO program was passed unanimously.

Mr. Libby stated that “Do we allow them to have multiple exceptional grants and/or do we allow them to go over the $6 million level that we have applied to all of the other grantees?” is the question regarding the trails program. Mr. Rigsby said that he feels that the trails issue is very important to the quality of life. Mr. Libby agreed saying that the question is if there should be limits placed on it because it is so large and can consume such a large percentage of the ECHO funds. Mr. Rudolph pointed out that the last meeting said that each trail segment would be looked at as an individual project which answers the question before them. Mr. Libby suggested tabling the current discussion until they have considered the request that the match amounts be relaxed for the Trails program.

Ms. Hodge suggested that the Board consider whether historic reimbursement policies should be extended to off-beach parking and the master trails program. Mr. Libby asked if the board wanted to consider off-beach parking and the master trails together or did they want them separated. Ms. Hargreaves asked that they be considered individually. Mr. Rigsby made a motion that the consideration of the historic reimbursement policies be extended to off-beach parking be discussed. Ms. Hargreaves seconded the motion. Ms. Hodge explained the policy of historic reimbursement. This would allow the mortgage of an off-beach parking acquisition be used as match. Mr. Matousek and Ms. Hargreaves voiced their agreement with allowing this to occur. The vote to allow historic reimbursement policies to be extended to off-beach parking was passed unanimously.

Ms. Hodge mentioned that her conversation with Mr. Harper from Leisure Services considered the different ways that the Master Trails program could have match funds. Property is often granted to them by the State or Federal Government. They do not receive any additional funds from the County other than the ECHO funds. She continued saying that the only other source for funds is the Department of Transportation which can give a small amount on a year to year basis. She said that Mr. Harper asked if the land can be used for all match.

Mr. Libby said the question is can the land value for the trails program be used as 100% of the match component of an ECHO grant. Mr. Matousek asked if the $500,000 per mile cost for the trails included money to purchase the land to which Ms. Inman said no. Discussion continued regarding allowing ECHO funds (County Council annual commitment) to match ECHO funds. Mr. Matousek said that it would be easier just to allow the land to be used for up to 100% of the match dollars. Mr. Rudolph made a motion to allow 100% of the land value to be used as match, which was seconded by Mr. Rigsby. Mr. Matousek asked if the existing trails constructed with ECHO funds (County Council annual commitment) could be used as match to which the answer was no. Ms. Hodge pointed out that the land consists of Federal, State, and County land. Mr. Libby pointed out that the applicant cannot use ECHO funds or the construction of projects from ECHO funds to be used as match. If the funds came from somewhere else, they can be used. Mr. Matousek asked if they could use other County dollars for match for ECHO to which the answer was yes. Ms. Hargreaves asked if the land value was only to be the land for the specific project. Ms. Hodge replied yes.

Mr. Libby said that what the Board is being asked is to allow the land, whether owned by the County, State, Federal, or even a private citizen, to be used as match up to 100% of the value of the land. Mr. Sixma asked if this is going to tilt the playing field towards the Trails Program as the voters passed the ECHO program and not the trails program. Mr. Libby responded saying that this might be the case but he suggest trying this for a year or two and if the program becomes excessive, they can change the plan to bring a more equitable solution for all. Mr. Libby said that the Board has waved the ownership of the land and now will wave cash match by using the value of the land for the entire match. Mr. Libby said that this is not a balanced approach as the Board is giving the trails program a big advantage over other applicants but this is an attempt to see how this will work. Mr. Gizzi asked if the motion opens the door to where the land value match solves the problem of where the trails program can come up with match dollars. Mr. Libby said yes. Mr. Gizzi asked if the 12 month period for ownership required of a 501(c)3 will be applicable for the trails program. Mr. Libby said that this is another area where the Board will have to change the rules for the trails program. He said that they still have to write a very competitive proposal as they will be competing for the funds with the other applicants. Mr. Rigsby agreed that they will have to be highly competitive to be awarded the funds.

Mr. Libby repeated what the motion on the floor was which is to allow the trails program to use the land controlled by the trails program, whether owned by the county or not, as match up to 100%. Mr. Matousek asked if this will preclude the County from coming up with other match dollars to which Ms. Hodge said no and she said that she believes that they would do this where they could. Ms. Hargreaves asked what answer could be given to the municipalities when they ask why they have to come up with cash match for their trails and the County does not. She asked if the answer was that they are not the County was the correct one. Mr. Libby said that he did not see any other way to think about it. Ms. Seaman said that the County builds many trails that are not part of the master trail program and those trails do not qualify for this consideration. Ms. Hargreaves then asked if a municipality brought an application for a trail that was shown on the master trail program, would that qualify for a 100% land value match to which Ms. Seaman said yes. The vote to approve the motion was approved by all except Mr. Sixma who voted against the motion.

Ms. Hodge referred back to whether the County trails program can use the historic reimbursement policies for the purchase of land. A motion for discussion was made by Ms. Hargreaves and seconded by Mr. Rudolph. Ms. Hargreaves said that she was happy with the current status of the historic reimbursement policies and the use of them for off-beach parking. She said that she believed that enough incentive had been given to the trails program without adding this. Mr. Rudolph concurred. The vote to allow the historic reimbursement policy to be extended to the trails program was unanimously rejected by the Board.

Ms. Hodge brought up another topic – that being the encumbrance of funds by a grantee. Currently a grantee cannot encumber funds before the application is submitted to ECHO. This may be preventing the non-profits, municipalities, and even the County from possibly closing on good financial contracts. Mr. Libby mentioned that they need to also look at the liability of allowing this as the applicant must understand that there is no guarantee for them to be awarded a grant by ECHO. Ms. Seaman explained the match process and did not feel the County would be responsible if the applicant entered into a contract before the grant process and was not awarded a grant. Mr. Libby said that the State began requiring unencumbered funds after a few of the applicants pleaded hardship and the potential loss of their half of the funds if the State did not award them the grant. Mr. Libby asked if there was any comment from the audience. There was none. Mr. Libby asked if anyone wanted to make a motion to change the current policy. No motion was made and the encumbrance requirement will stay as it has been.

A motion was made by Mr. Matousek and seconded by Mr. Sixma to change the requirements of PSC-1 to PSC-5 including the accounting requirements. Ms. Hargreaves asked that an accounting on how the cash match will be determined over the past five years. Ms. Hodge said that the current grant application guide states what items are allowed for PSC-1 cash match and that this could just be extended to PSC-5. Ms. Hargreaves expressed concern about the additional paper that would have to be submitted with the application for this change. Mr. Libby repeated the motion that the language now describing PSC-1 be applied to PSC-5 and eliminate PSC-1. The vote on the motion was passed unanimously.

For the record, Mr. Libby asked the audience to identify themselves. The names and organizations are listed above. The meeting adjourned.