MINUTES
Volusia ECHO Workshop
February 13, 2002
Training Rooms
DeLand, FL

Visitors (signed in)

Opening Remarks – Chair

Mr. Libby welcomed the Committee Members to the workshop and asked for a roll call. Mr. Libby asked the members of the public to introduce themselves.

Mr. Libby stated that 27 grants had been received: 12 were submitted by not-for profits requesting approx 44% of the total budget, 10 were submitted by Cities with a request of 32%, 5 from Volusia County with a request for 24%. Mr. Libby stated that "eligibility and completeness" would be discussed later in the meeting and then turned the meeting over to Matt Greeson. Mr. Greeson briefly went over the workshop agenda and the materials that would be discussed. Mr. Libby stated that he and the Board would like to see all of the applications this year to get a feel for what was or wasn’t done correctly. Mr. Libby stated that everything that was done this year would set precedence and so they as a board wanted to be as accessible as possible.

 

Overview of the Agenda – Facilitator

 

Presentation of Application Workshop Procedures – Program Coordinator

Ms. Hodge stated that during the workshops that were held for the applicants, she went through the application with them page by page and answered their questions as they went. Ms. Hodge stated that the following were the questions that were brought up at the workshops:

WORKSHOP FEEDBACK ON SPECIFIC CRITERIA AND ECHO BOARD RESPONSE DECEMBER 12 The following list includes questions and issues that came up at the November 10 and December 5 workshops. These questions and my responses were presented to the ECHO Board at their November 28^th and December 12^th , 2001 meetings. Their comments and revisions are included. Applicants should carefully read the final recommendations by the Board. Staff comments at the workshops encouraging overmatching the ECHO requested amount were not entirely correct. Please review this entire document carefully. If you have questions please call the ECHO office 740-5210, extension 2009.

NOVEMBER 10 WORKSHOP

Issues discussed at November 10, 2001 Workshop. Taken to the ECHO Board on November 28 for discussion.

Page 4, Application Requirements, Number 3: Proof of Lease or Ownership

May the applicant use another legal document other than a lease that states the owner of the property would extend or provide for the lease if the Grant is awarded? Legal has stated that the forty-year lease must be provided at the application deadline with no exceptions. The ECHO Board agreed.

Page 4, Funding Policy

Community Development Block Grants are Federal dollars administered by the County. May these be used for cash match? Another workshop attendee said that funds derived from license plate sales could be used for cash match if they were used for the project. Legal agreed that both could be used for cash match. The ECHO Board agreed.

Page 20, Project Budget Detail

I suggested that if the applicant had questionable match items they would want to include more than just the required match within the detail. This way the Board would be able to determine that at least the required match amount is more than covered. I felt that it would be unfortunate if they only sent in the exact match and the Board decided the applicant has entered match in the wrong category or felt that some of the match was not eligible. Legal felt this was okay if the applicant wanted to provide this information. The Board would need to determine what is the match so the applicant could use the excess match in another grant year. Some ECHO Board members felt the more the applicant revealed about the dollars spent on the project the better they would be able to evaluate the project. Only the amount needed for match would be applied to this application. Overage could be used for future grants. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE LAST TWO LINES OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT GIVEN TO WORKSHOP ATTENDEES HAVE BEEN STRICKEN AND NO LONGER APPLY. THE BOARD REVISITED THIS ISSUE AT THEIR DECEMBER 12 MEETING. "OVERMATCH WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR FUTURE ECHO GRANT APPLICATIONS." PLEASE SEE NOTES UNDER THE DECEMBER 5 WORKSHOP SECTION BELOW.

Page 24, Limitations of Matching Funds

1. One applicant indicated they may have bought the property for one dollar twenty years ago. Could he use the current market value as cash match?. Real Property is not restricted by the five-year rule.

Legal has stated the following for clarification:

a) According to Legal this is not a qualified sale and should not be eligible for cash match but may be used for an in-kind donation. The applicant should show proof of the purchase and purchase price as well as current fair market value via a MAI.

b) Real Property purchased within the past five years may be used as a cash match and the applicant may prove fair market value via MAI or the actual purchase price. Real Property purchased beyond the five year rule may only be used a in-kind match. Unqualified purchases or donated property may only be used for in-kind match.

c) Legal also determined that a second story addition to a building may not be matched with the first story existing structure or land the existing building is located on.

2) If the County leases a facility to an applicant or has worked on the project for the applicant, may the cash spent by the county to restore or purchase the facility be used as in-kind match (not cash match)?

Legal advised that this is not eligible as cash or in-kind match. The ECHO Board agreed.

3) If a not for profit operated a store to raise money for a project would they be able to use a percentage of the volunteers working at the store for match? Example: A group runs a store and twenty percent of the money earned goes to the project. May they use 20% of the volunteer time running the store as match?

Legal said this can not be audited and would be ineligible. The ECHO Board agreed.

4) May permanently installed educational display cases be funded by ECHO?

Legal determined that built in displays are appurtenances and would be eligible but not the educational elements placed within the displays.

The Board agreed that informational built in interpretive displays and signage bolted down to floors or walls or along trails would be eligible.

From the application definitions: "Project means the acquisition, construction, renovation and/or improvement of buildings and appurtenances, site improvements (such as driveways, parking facilities, storm-water management facilities, landscaping, signage and pedestrian facilities) and mandated off-site improvements that meet the requirements of an eligible ECHO project for the use and benefit of the general public. This definition specifically excludes furniture, fixtures and equipment."

5) Maintenance vs. renovation…what is the difference?

The ECHO Board agreed that repair is maintenance (not eligible) and redevelopment of a facility or a part of a facility is renovation and is eligible. The applicant must be very clear on the activity being performed. The Board agreed that corrective measures regarding code requirements should be incidental to the project and not the whole project.

From the Application: "ECHO funds are to be used solely to finance acquisition, restoration, construction and improvement of environmental/ecological, cultural, historical/heritage and outdoor recreation facilities for public use." Please Define: Renovation, Maintenance, Restoration, Construction, Improvement, Public Use and Adaptive Reuse. The Board agreed that the State grant definitions and the Webster Dictionary definitions would be used.

DECEMBER 5 WORKSHOP

Issues discussed at the December 5 workshop. Taken to the ECHO Board on December 12 for discussion.

1) Forty-Year Lease was a major concern for several applicants who do not own their own property. Either they had a lease that was for less than forty years or they would have to obtain a lease. The application deadline is too short a time frame to complete this process for this year. Many have leases for twenty years with two ten-year renewal options. Several have 40 or 50 year leases but may be in the 15^th year of the lease.

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 that would otherwise be eligible.

ECHO Board passed a motion to uphold the forty-year lease requirement. Applicants must at a minimum provide a lease that includes forty years from the application deadline of February 8, 2002.

COUNTY COUNCIL NOTICE: On December 13, 2001 the County Council decided to review the requirement for a forty -year lease at a meeting in January 2002 (Agenda has not been scheduled). Applicants with concerns about this requirement should send their comments to the ECHO Program Coordinator, Margaret Hodge, Room 200, 123 W. Indiana Avenue, DeLand, FL 32720.

2) 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.

ECHO Board agreed that they accept cash from all legal and eligible sources.

3) 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.

ECHO Board upheld the requirement to have matching funds upon the application deadline. Binding agreements from grants or organizations are sufficient.

4) 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."

ECHO Board maintained that the State may not be the applicant. Projects are acceptable on these lands if they are leased by an eligible applicant (not-for-profit 501 (c)3, municipality in Volusia County or the County of Volusia).

5) 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.

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.

ECHO Board indicated that the purpose of this section is to provide a vision of your project and that common sense should prevail. A detail of a portion of a trail is sufficient. They indicated that a site plan is good because it shows the project in relation to other structures and roads. Building construction or renovation must provide a drawing of what the facility would look like. Mainly they need to be able to draw a connection between the drawings and the budget detail and your narratives. Additionally in Tab 2, the applicant must discuss "…how you will protect the current infrastructure…and possible impact on neighboring facilities or residential units…" (page 17 of the Application).

6) 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. I indicated the applicant would want to place an asterisk next to the dollars they want to use in future applications so the Board can see this.

ECHO Board will not allow any "over match dollars" shown in this application to be used for future ECHO grant requests if a grant is awarded to the applicant this year. Applicants may elect to show more than the required 1:1 match if they believe it will help explain the project. Applicants should not show dollars in the budget detail they will need to match future ECHO grant requests. This does not exclude an applicant from providing bulk expenditures in the narrative which describe the cost of the total project of with the ECHO project is only one part. An example would be an applicant requesting ECHO funds to add a new ball field within an existing sports complex.

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.

ECHO Board felt that the detail in the current application is appropriate. Applicants may use their previous experience in building similar structures to complete the work if they feel comfortable doing so otherwise they will need to have a builder provide the information for them. Minor changes in the projected costs will be acceptable as the project develops and with approval by the ECHO program coordinator. Major changes will require ECHO Board approval and possible County Council approval.

7) 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.

ECHO Board members do not specifically provide extra points for more than the 1:1 match. The members will carefully review where the additional match has been derived from. Ultimately it is the merit of the project itself, which counts. Applicants are only required to show 1:1 match.

8) 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.

ECHO Board members do not have any real idea of what they want to see in a project specifically. Again it is the merit of the project that counts.

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.

ECHO Board upheld the decision to provide 100% of the funding request for a project up to the maximum amount allowed.

9) 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.

ECHO Board had no other remarks on this item.

10) 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.

ECHO Board requested legal to respond to this item. Legal staff stated that "shall begin" is a mandatory statement. It is felt that all applicants should respond in a consistent format. The beginning should start with a list of the valued goals and applicant will discuss. The applicant may list across the page rather than down the page in order to save space.

1. OTHER DECEMBER 12 MOTIONS BY THE BOARD

Motion recommendation, Page 3 of November 28 Minutes

"Projects 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 Board unanimously passed the above motion on December 12 to replace previous motion passed on November 28.

PROSPECTIVE APPLICANTS SHOULD CHECK THE WEB PAGE FOR UPDATED INFORMATION. WWW.VOLUSIAFOREVER-ECHO.ORG CONTACT THE ECHO STAFF AT 740-5210, EXT 2004 OR 2009 FOR ASSISTANCE.

Ms. Hodge directed the Board Members to the Application Proposed Revisions document and stated that these were her findings while reviewing the applications:

APPLICATION PROPOSED REVISIONS (Workshop 2-13-02)

1. Include narrative stating that the copy received for the Technical Review will not be returned in order to comply with the Sunshine Law. The Board agreed.
2. TAB 1 The checklist is not consistent with the application directions so the Certification Form with four signatures tends to be placed in two different locations. The Professional Certification form requires one signature on page 17 but page 16 allows for an exception. (PROJECT TEAM: At least the architect/engineer or contractor must have been selected and the Professional Certification (page 33) signed for the application to be eligible…If names are not available the applicants must state the reason they have not been selected at the time of the application and provide the time line and process for when the selection will be made.)

The Board felt that they were two separate requirements and it should stand as is.

3. TAB 2 The applicants tend to miss including a clear distinct time-line of the project. They also tend to miss including the use of ECHO/Match funds in this narrative. The Board may wish to remove the discussion of the use of funds in TAB 2, because it is described in detail within TAB 3. This would allow the applicant additional space to describe the project providing a greater understanding of the project to the Board.
4. TAB 3 set specific guidelines regarding documentation. For example: Page 24 allows for previous expenditures to be shown "upon request". (Matching funds may be expended 5 years prior to the start date of the grant award agreement as long as they are clearly a part of the project described, and can be documented upon request). This appears that previously spent cash from grants do not require official documentation in the application package. Staff understood the Board wanted copies of previous grants so the mission of the grant could be matched with the ECHO project in order to verify match. This is not clear in the directions. Several applicants have not provided the grant agreement document. It is likely available if requested.

Additionally, "cash in the bank" may be found in TAB 7 if an audit is included. Applicants tend to not include supporting documents of "cash in bank" in TAB 3 nor do they suggest you go to TAB 7 to find it. TAB 7 does not always require an audit so is not a reliable source of "cash in bank" documentation.

Additionally applicants may try to use the construction definitions in the section when they don’t fit the project well. Staff recommends that new language or enhanced language is inserted so that applicants know the definitions are guidelines.

Narrative should be added regarding the MAI required for land value or land lease value. This is expensive and takes time to achieve. Purchase price of real property must be documented but applicants fail to understand this. Applicants may think that the document in TAB 6 is enough. Generally the TAB 6 document is a Warranty Deed which generally do not show the purchase price.

5. TAB 4 confusing language and chart. Language requests a ten-year chart but the example only shows 6 years. Several applicants only provided a 6-year chart.
6. TAB 5 the requirement of listing all of the values first on the page is confusing and wastes valuable narrative space. Mainly applicants who called staff for a one to one discussion seemed to understand this request. Staff recommends a change in this requirement so that as long as the value is clearly visible it is sufficient. The applicant should begin the narrative paragraph with the value goal and bold that line so that they may be seen easily.
7. TAB 6 Staff recommends inserting language that indicates the Restrictive Covenant must be provided at the time of the grant award from County Council.

Staff recommends that the Lease requirement start from within 6 months of the application deadline date.

8. TAB 7 Staff recommends that language be added requesting the applicant provide a street map showing the location of the project and drawings/pictures demonstrating the existing conditions and the proposed conditions after the project.

Question and Answer – Facilitator

1. Presentation of Panel Review Score Sheet – Program Coordinator

Question and Answer – Facilitator

2. Presentation of eligibility/ineligibility – Program Coordinator

Question and Answer – Facilitator

3. Presentation of Grant Panel Review Procedures – Program Coordinator

Question and Answer – Facilitator

4. Other topics
   
   
   
5. Adjournment –

GRANT PANEL REVIEW PROCEDURES
(Developed during the ECHO BOARD WORKSHOP FEB. 13, 2002)

1. Eligible applicants are called in order of when the application was received. Applications are numbered GA 02-__ (Grant application 2002, number __)

Applicant may provide update to the project – 3 minute maximum.

Applicant, if asked by the Panel, may answer questions.

2. Each grant review panel member calls out their score through a roll call score format. Highest and lowest scores are deleted. Remaining scores are added, then divided by the number of panel members associated with the remaining scores. In the case of duplicate high or low scores only one of the duplicate scores will be removed from the final score tabulation.
3. ECHO Program Coordinator and support staff calculate scores and provide the panel with the list of final scores in descending order. The list will demonstrate which applicants reached the required score of at least 70 points. Applicants with 69.999 or lower are not eligible for grant funding.
4. The Panel has agreed to provide 100% of the determined eligible funding until the ECHO funds are totally dispersed. The Panel agreed that if there is a balance of funds left after full award to top scoring grants, these funds would be offered to the next eligible applicant. If the applicant refuses the offer of partial funding then the Panel may continue to offer the funds to applicants in the order listed or the funds may be rolled over to the following year.
5. If there are tied scores the ECHO funds will be dispersed to the tied applicants until the funds are gone. If the total grant funds available are less than the total amount requested by the tied applicants then the Grant Review Panel must vote to break the tie. The Panel members will rank the tied applicants first to last and not re-score the applications.
6. The Panel has reserved the right to split the grant request amount over two years if it serves the community better and the applicant agrees to the proposal. This will reduce the amount of funds available for distribution in the following year but is meant to assist in funding more projects in the current grant year.

back to home page

 Public information produced by Volusia County Government