Grant application information

ECHO Advisory Committee

MINUTES
Volusia ECHO Advisory Board Meeting
October 13, 2003
County Council Chambers
DeLand, FL

Absent members
Jack Wiles

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

Chair Matousek called the October 13, 2003, ECHO Advisory Committee meeting to order at 3:00 PM, welcomed the advisory committee members and the public.  Chair Matousek went on to explain the purpose of this meeting as to discuss an agenda item on the upcoming county council meeting relating to ECHO, give committee members a chance to voice concerns regarding agenda and related issues.  Any consensus items will be taken to the County Council on Thursday.  Asked staff to take Roll Call of members.

II. Staff Report:

Montye Beamer informed the committee on the upcoming October 16, 2003 County Council Agenda Item.  Ms. Beamer briefly discussed the history of the committee votes, outlining the creation of the exceptional grant category and the labeling of the Lively Arts Center as an exceptional project, which was later denied by County Council.  New circumstances have arisen that strengthen the Lively Arts Center’s position as an exceptional project.  Ms. Beamer expressed County Council’s sentiment that this is not a case of bypassing the committee, but that the circumstances have changed and the County Council needs to revisit the issue.

III. Old Business:

There was no old business discussed.

IV. New Business:

Chair Matousek opened the discussion and stated the intent of this meeting was not to revisit the Lively Arts Center project itself, but to discuss the County Council agenda item pertaining to ECHO.

Gary Libby expressed his view that since the committee had already voted and decided that the Lively Arts Center qualified as an exceptional project, that the County Council is not bypassing the Committee at all, simply reopening the project for discussion.  It is his position to remain with the committee’s original position.

Don Smith stated that he felt as if the process is being finagled.  He feels that the Lively Arts Center project has already gone through the grant process, like the other projects, and if they wish to be considered for additional funding, that they should be made to wait until the next grant application deadline as the current process dictates, unless the County Council decides to tweak the process again. Mr. Libby remarked as to the nature of the question which needs to be discussed which he feels is how to handle the new $2.4 Million limit, and how to handle appeals if the County Council goes through with the agenda item.  Should the committee develop an official appeals process or is it something that will happen through the County Council itself?

Chair Matousek asked for clarification as to whether the money being requested by the Lively Arts Center is for 2003 or 2004 funds.  Julie Rands replied yes, they are requesting 2004 money.

Montye Beamer informed the committee that the County Attorneys information would suggest that the agenda item is not an appeal, but an additional request.  The money would be coming from the 2003-2004 funds.  It is possible that the first $500,000 from the previous year would count toward the total.

Linda Hargreaves asked if the county council wants to hear the input of the committee, Montye Beamer and Chair Matousek both reassure the committee that the County Council will hear their views and concerns on this matter.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom asked if the committee wanted to reaffirm their original recommendation?  Second, if so, how do we handle the funding?  Is there a third issue?  The general consensus from the committee showed that, since they called it exceptional from the beginning, they did not need to revisit that issue, however, how do we handle the funding?

Chair Matousek stated that the actual funding request is making a change in County Policy.  Policy states that an exceptional grant may be awarded up to $2.4 million ($600,000/year) less any grant monies that had previously been awarded, the requests asks for something other than that.

Don Smith feels that the committee is being asked to put their stamp of approval on circumventing the process.  The recommendation was made, the county refused, and the process ran its course.

Janet Williams asks what procedures the lively Arts Center will have to use in the future in fairness to the other grant applicants for the 2003-2004 application process.  Montye Beamer explains that the additional funding sought is from the 2002-2003 application, therefore they would not have to reapply.  Mrs. Williams feels that we are now in a new application year, and that the steps that the Lively Arts Center and the County Council are taking are indeed circumventing the current policy and process in place.

Linda Hargreaves states we can go back to the county council and reaffirm our decision to make the Lively Arts Center an exceptional project, but we still have to deal with the issues of the process and how to maintain it.

Gary Libby feels that it is a reconsideration of the original application with the new information, and that it would reactivate the application and the Lively Arts Center would then have to comply with that document, or an amended version there of, as other projects amend their budgets when financial situations change.  The compelling question is whether or not we need to establish an appeals policy.  He believes that it is not the intention of the County Council to make the process any more difficult, but simply to work out issues in this particular case, which it feels are extenuating circumstances.

Lorna Jean Hagstrom Points out that if the County Council decides, under the original application from the Lively Arts Center, to deem it an exceptional project, then funding will come automatically, the only question would be the dollar amount.

Chair Matousek states that that is correct, the issue with that is that it would change the current criteria of the $600,000 per year for 4 years, and we need to point that out to the County Council.

Don Smith agrees, saying that the County Council needs to over turn their last vote, and then decide where to come up with the funds. 

Lorna Jean Hagstrom wants to make sure that this will not take away any funding that was awarded to any other projects.

Chair Matousek asks Montye Beamer for clarification on the funding.  Montye Beamer projects that if the award is a $600,000 award, you are still looking at a projected $3.2 to $3.4 million.  One issue to bring to the county Council is the consistency of the process.  Realizing that this is only the third year of a 20-year program, but that some consistency needs to be in place.

Gary Libby reminds Chair Matousek that the committee itself has changed the application each year of the program as well, but adds that change can be good as well.  One thing to remember is that ultimately, the County Council has the final say so.

Linda Hargreaves expresses concern that they are not meeting the needs of the County Council, pointing to the constant changes they make to the committee’s recommendations.

Chair Matousek agrees, saying that change in the process or policy can be good, but change in the middle of the process leads to confusion.  Let’s get the policy set and live by it.

Janet Williams does not see any problem if the County Council simply rescinds their original decision.  Any changes to the last cycle would not impact the current cycle the committee is in.

Gary Libby suggests asking the County Council to set a time limit for appeals such as this, much like the time limit to revisit zoning issues, to which Montye Beamer then explains that process and time frame.

Janet Williams stated that every project out there feels that they are exceptional, the important thing for the committee, and County Council, to ensure is that there is a process that they can turn to, to put their needs and concerns on the table beyond the application process if necessary.

Gary Libby reminds the Chair that after the first two sessions, organizations that did not receive funding or were not happy with amounts took their concerns to the County Council.  The process is in place; the only exceptional thing here is the time frame.

V. Public Participation

Monso Tatum, Pioneer Arts Settlement.  Chair Matousek explains that the position of the Committee is to ensure that the County Council is aware of the current policy, and how the agenda item will change that policy.  Mr. Tatum then asked about state grants and whether or not they were funded yet.  Mr. Libby’s understanding is that there are grants other than state grants, which are to be part of their match funds.

Steven Stewart, Chair Matousek explains that the committee has an issue with the fact that it seems they are using last year’s process for this year and future years grant money.

Elliot Gross, Ormond Beach.  He would recommend to the County Council that the time to revisit a project should be minimal.  As he understands it, any project can come back the following year and reapply for funds, and, unless there were errors in the presentation, that is the process that should be followed.

VI. Committee Comments

Terri Ford Cobean asks what exactly the position of the committee is on the Lively Arts Center.  Citing the cases of the Main Street Pier project and the Lively Arts Center, and pointing out the tendencies of the County Council to rule in opposition of the committee’s recommendation, she states that the committee should stay true to the policy they have set by staying with the recommendation that they made last year.  The criteria has been set, the application process was followed, if the County Council wants to overturn their vote, that is certainly their prerogative.

Gary Libby addresses the record in explanation of items to Elliot Gross.  He states that the County Council originally set the exceptional funding limit at $3 million dollars, but asked that the committee not recommend it.  After the next County Council election, which saw the addition of two new County Council members, the recommendation of the committee to fund an exceptional project was entertained, but not approved, dropping its funding to $500,000.  They then reduced to cap on exceptional funding to the current level of $2.4 million.

Chair Matousek shares with the committee what he sees as the consensus of issues he has to bring to the County Council.  First is the change in exceptional status policy that the agenda item would make, that would be the change of current policy of $2.4 million less any previously awarded money.  That would change current policy.  Number two it appears clear that this is 2003 process looking for 2004 and beyond grant money, which is confusing.  There is an issue that I hear that there needs to be a deadline policy on appeals, and in fact a deadline that changes policy, perhaps, on the whole process, or appeals policy in general.  Those are the major issues that I am hearing from this board.

Gary Libby would take issue with the confusion to the field about the multi-year grant decision from the County Council.

Linda Hargreaves wanted to reconfirm that the presentation to the council will be to reaffirm the committee’s original position recommending the Lively Arts Center as an exceptional project awarded at $600,000.  Chair Matousek states that the issue will not be revisited nor will the committee change their recommendation in any way.  Linda Hargreaves would like to know how the Chair would respond to the additional funding.  Chair Matousek will point out to the Council that it is not in accordance with current policy.  County Council may choose to change or go around current policy, but he will point out what that current policy is.

Gary Libby asked that some time consideration given to a possible appeal process so that the previous years grants are not being appealed as the current years applicants are undergoing their process.

Chair Matousek thanks everyone for being able to attend on short notice, and will express to the County Council that they will have the support of the Committee regardless of their decision.

VII. Adjournment

Meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m.