I. Call to Order, Introductory Remarks, Roll
Call:
Chair Libby called the meeting
to order at 3:10 p.m., and introduced Jack Wiles, the new ECHO Committee member. Mr. Libby
asked staff to provide Mr. Wiles with a complete set of minutes from previous meetings and
suggested that he speak with Mr. Gummey regarding the Sunshine Law and conflict of
interest issues. Staff conducted Roll Call of members. Teri Ford Cobean was absent.
II. Approval of Minutes:
Mr. Libby asked for a motion
to approve the minutes of the November 28, 2001 meeting. Ms. Hodge directed the committee
members to a newly revised copy of the minutes. Ms. Hodge stated that there was a change
on page 2 under Land Acquisition policy – it now reads Volusia Forever Policy instead
of the policy’s of Volusia Forever.
Motion made by Mr. Davidson,
seconded by Ms. Williams.
Mr. Libby asked for the visitors
to introduce themselves. Mr. Libby asked for the minutes to reflect that Teri Ford Cobean
and Frank Gummey were now in attendance.
Mr. Libby – Page 3 –
Mr. Libby made a motion to strike the motion made by Mr. Schleicher at the November 28,
2001 ECHO Board meeting and replace it with:
"Project whose main purpose
is to provide for environmental remediation or code compliance are ineligible, but if
these expenditures are necessary to complete an eligible project then expenditures for
these activities may be used as match. Only level one of environmental assessments may be
used as match."
The motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Hodge – Date
corrections were made on the last page of the November 28, 2001 minutes where the year was
2001 and it should have been 2002 (section 7).
Mr. Libby asked for a vote on
the minutes as amended – The motion passed unanimously.
III. Staff Report:
Ms. Hodge stated that in the
committee’s packet included a list of people who attended the December 5, 2001
workshop and that the turnout had been great. Ms. Hodge also stated that all of the
organizations that turned in an RFIA had attended one of the workshops, with an additional
10 attendees that had not submitted an RFIA. Ms. Hodge then directed the committee members
to the December 5, 2001 workshop document in their packet.
DECEMBER 5 WORKSHOP
DOCUMENT
The following document provides questions from workshop attendees and responses by
Margaret Hodge from the 12/5/01 Workshop. ECHO Advisory Board’s comments from the
12/12/01 meeting have been inserted as needed: (note: when the word "I" is used
it is referring to the ECHO Coordinator, Margaret Hodge.)
Forty-Year Lease was a major
concern for several applicants. Concern was voiced by potential applicants that they
either had a lease that was less than forty years or that they would have to obtain one.
They also voiced concern that the application deadline was too short a time frame to
complete this process. Many stated that they have leases for twenty years with two
ten-year renewal options. Several stated that they have 40 or 50 year leases but may be in
the 15th year of the lease. Legal agreed that a lease is necessary and that
maybe this grant year (2002) that the committee could be lenient. The advisory board
disagreed and felt that the 40-year lease should stand.
Mr. Libby asked for a roll call
vote to affirm the 40-year lease as a basic requirement for ECHO funds. Mr. Schleicher
made the motion, seconded by Ms. Hagstrom.
Roll Call Vote:
Mr. Schleicher – Yes, Mr. Matousek – Yes, Ms. Hargreaves – Yes, Ms.
Hagstrom – Yes, Mr. Wiles – Yes, Mr. Davidson – Yes, Ms. Cobean – No,
Ms. Williams – Yes, Mr. Libby – Yes
Ms. Hodge asked for
clarification as to whether the application deadline date was the absolute starting date
for the 40-year lease. Mr. Libby – "Yes, that is the date that the lease needs
to have."
Staff feels that flexibility in
this area would assist many potential applicants. An absolute forty-year lease starting
upon the application deadline date is nearly impossible and will eliminate many projects,
which would otherwise be eligible.
Use of funds left over
from other state grants to match ECHO. I said that as long as they are not violating
the grant agreement with the other entity I did not see a problem with this. I did
question why the State would not want the funds back or the funds used for a similar
project. The board agreed that the funds would qualify as match.
Matching funds available
upon the application deadline.
One of the attendees was very concerned about this and had been involved with the ECHO
referendum process for five years. He thought that the ECHO funds should be available to
match other grants as long as eventually you met the 1:1 requirement. Board – As
long as there is a pledge by the organization and before the grant hearing there would
need to be some demonstration of reliability. Legal – There is no need to require
that the cash be in the bank to make application and not necessarily to make an award;
however, in the concept of the grant agreement, in order to proceed and to be eligible to
receive reimbursement from ECHO funds, the money has to be in the bank if the
organizations sources are other than a grant, or if it’s a grant they would have to
have a signed grant agreement with the state or a foundation or whomever is providing the
money.
Ms. Hodge – Clarification of
pledge
Mr. Libby – A motion passed by a board of trustees that they are responsible for 100%
of the match.
Ms. Hodge – Would the organization have to show that they have the funds available or
fund raising history?
Mr. Libby – Funds available, value of land or previously spent money that is
connected to the project.
The State as an applicant.
An applicant did not understand why the State was left out as an applicant and remarked
that many ECHO projects are on State lands. These projects include the Sugar Mills
throughout the County and trail connections between county or city owned lands. Staff has
found a typo in a section on page 16 of the application that discusses who the lessor may
be. This should be "lessee" not "lessor". On page 26, the application
correctly reads "The owner / lessor must be a not-for-profit, municipality, county,
state or federal entity." Board – The State was left out as an applicant by
design.
Ms. Hodge – Clarification on
state owned land.
Mr. Libby – If there is not a 40 year lease, the project is not eligible.
Jay Bushnell – Concerned about the lease requirement for projects that are on State
Lands i.e. Sugar Mill Ruins.
8 ½ x 11
design/development architectural drawings and/or excavation plans.
Applicants are concerned that this will not provide enough detail. I stated that they
could send a reduced map of the site on one page and a detail of the project on another
page. I thought it more important for the Board to understand what the project looks like
rather than limit them on pages. Parks and trails were the main concern here. Board
– 8 ½ X 11 design/development architectural drawings and/or excavation plans will be
sufficient.
Another issue is the cost of the
detail drawings. Generally a city or the County must have already bid the project out in
order to get such detail and to have selected a contractor. I believe the Board had stated
that an in-house contract administrator would be sufficient for the signature required on
page 33 Professional Certification.
Budget Detail.
Concern was for the level of detail. I indicated that ECHO project was the main focus for
Tab 3 but they would want to show significant elements that were previous phases of the
project (some of this would be their match as well). It was my understanding from the
Board meeting on November 28 that the applicant should show as much match as possible. The
concern is that they would not be able to use the "over match dollars" as match
for future grant years. I told them that the Board would deal with whether they have used
up the match during the annual application review process.
Board – Over match should
not be used for more than one project. Applicants should not show dollars as match which
they will need for matching in future ECHO applications.
Additional concern was about the
detailed break out of the budget. Many are still concerned they will not know the exact
amount for the electric and earthwork especially if the project has not been legally bid.
I told them to do the best they could with their experience if they cannot get a bid by
the application deadline. Many of the applicants have built similar projects before. Board
– Reveal the project description and reveal everything that the board needs to put
dollars to the project and to the scope.
Scoring benefits for
having greater than the 1:1 match.
I stated that you would be looking at that in regards to the viability of the project but
that the Board had not given specific higher points for greater match. It was my
understanding that the Board feels that cities and the County would have more
opportunities for a greater match than not-for-profits. Board – Some members
wanted to see all match while other members felt 1:1 was all they needed to score a
project.
What did the Board want
to see in a project?
I was asked what I thought the Board was looking for and so I stated that several of
you were very interested in partnerships on projects. Others of you wanted the applicant
to select the best project or couple of projects for ECHO instead of sending in a large
number of projects. We discussed the amount of money available and the potential number of
grants to be awarded. I told them that the Board was looking at the merit of the project
and how well it met the goals of the
ECHO resolution so both small and
large project had potential for an award. I told them as few as five grants may be awarded
in the first year if four projects got the maximum $500,000. Board – They will
review each project on it’s own merit. Generally, they agreed with staff’s
comment, but the comments may not be relative to all projects.
Several of the applicants were
disappointed to hear that the grants would be "all or nothing" like the State
Road program. I believe the smaller organizations felt that they might have a better
chance if the grant amount could be negotiated. Board – It’s merit and
project quality that they are looking for. Board - Reserve the right, in the first year,
to spread the money out over a two year period with willing applicants who have been
awarded large amounts of dollars in GY 2002.
Tab 5, how an applicant
might demonstrate "assists in the broad geographical distribution of ECHO grant
dollars.
I told the applicant that they might show how their project balances the funds for the
E-C-H-O elements in a geographic area. Identify what E-C-H-O is missing in the area and
how they fill that void? I repeatedly stated that they only want to discuss the valued
goals in the list that relate to their project and that they are not penalized for not
discussing all valued goals. Board – Applicants are not expected to address
every element of ECHO with their project.
Tab 5, must
the applicant list the goals first then begin the paragraphs or may they list a goal then
provide written support, then list another goal and provide written support?
Some applicants are running out of room listing the goals at the top of the page and would
prefer to list them individually at the beginning of each supporting paragraph. The
application language states " Discuss how the project will serve the community.
Applicants shall begin this Tab section by listing selected valued goals from the bulleted
list below…" The ECHO program coordinator does not have a problem with this
change.
Board – Staff to decide,
the easier the better. Legal stated the word "shall" makes it mandatory and will
keep the application format consistent. The ECHO Program Coordinator agreed with legal.
IV. Old Business-
- Update on RFIA & Needs Assessment –
Nothing new, everything moving along.
- Land Acquisition Policy (Contract)-Should have been
stricken from the November 28, 2001 agenda
V. New Business-
- Grant Agreement – Ms. Hodge stated that
she had met with Mr. Gummey and will get the new information to the Board for the next
meeting.
- Reimbursement/Reporting Procedures –
Ms.
Hodge – this information will be coming with the grant agreement.
- Need for Additional Workshop – The
Board felt that there was no need for an additional workshop and directed staff to put the
new information on web site. Ms. Hodge stated that she would mail out the changes from the
December 5, 2001 workshop to the attendees of the workshop and to the board.
VI. Public
Participation - None
VII. January/February meeting dates
- January Dates – 1/09/01 and tentatively
on 01/23/01
VIII. Adjournment
- Chair Adjournment – 5:00 P.M.
back to
home page
Public information
produced by Volusia County Government
