APPROVED MINUTES
Volusia ECHO Advisory Board Meeting
June 12, 2002
County Council Chambers 
DeLand, FL

Absent members
Teri Ford Cobean

Visitors (signed in)
Pattie Purdee, Sands Theater Center
Monso Tatum, Pioneer Settlement

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

Chair Libby called the June 12, 2002, ECHO Advisory Board meeting to order at 3:00 PM, welcomed the public and asked staff to take Roll Call of members.

2. Approval of May 8, 2002, Minutes:

Chair Libby directed the meeting to the approval of the May 8, 2002, minutes and asked for additions or corrections. Mr. Schleicher made a Motion to approve the minutes, with no corrections. Ms. Williams Seconded the motion. The May 8, 2002, minutes were approved unanimously.

3. Staff Report:

Update on June 6, 2002, County Council Meeting – Chair Libby stated that he was pleased to announce that the Council meeting went well. Ms. Hodge agreed that the meeting went well and that Council seemed pleased to respond to all of the questions that were presented to them and proceeded to review the Synopsis of the Council direction as follows: (the following synopsis also reflects underlined comments/or the lack of, from the ECHO Advisory Board at its June 12, 2002, meeting).

SYNOPSIS OF COUNCIL DIRECTIONS ON ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE ECHO APPLICATION BY THE ECHO ADVISORY BOARD.

The following list of questions was compiled from ECHO Advisory Board comments and feedback from the 2002 applicants. County Council direction was given June 6, 2003, Agenda Item #7, 9:35 a.m. Time Certain.

1. Eligible applicant criteria: Should the Advisory Board change the existing applicant eligibility criteria? No changes to existing applicant eligibility. Consider adding criteria to require the applicant’s "principal place of business" be located in Volusia County. County Council 6-1. Additionally, some Council members suggested that the ECHO Board consider whether a Not For Profit "membership based" organization meets the "public use" standard of the ECHO requirements.

ECHO Advisory Board had no comments.

2. Goal of ECHO: The Historical community has expressed concern that ECHO does not fund operational or program needs. ECHO goals to fund acquisition, restoration, renovation and construction of facilities remains as stated in existing agreement and are not to include funding of programs or administrative needs. County Council 7- 0.

ECHO Chair Libby stated that numbers 1 and 2 were established policies and not open for annual review.

3. Encumbered Property: Should ECHO support projects on encumbered property? Yes, but only the net value of real property may be used as match. County Council 7- 0.

ECHO Advisory Board had no comments.

4. Reimbursement program / cash match: Should applicants have 25 percent of new cash on hand? Yes. County Council 7- 0.

ECHO Chair Libby stated that this was an issue that he wanted the Board to think about as it went through the review process for corrections. He stated that his understanding was that initially the recommendation that went to County Council was that 25 per cent of the total project had to be new cash or ½ of the local match had to be fresh, new cash, not the five-year rule cash, or in-kind, or the value of land, but had to be new money that was hand-in-glove with the reimbursable policy that was affirmed by the County Council and the County expected the applicant to have spent some of their money in order to be reimbursed by the County and if the applicant was using previously spent dollars, in-kind or the value of land, they wouldn’t be eligible for reimbursements. Ms. Hodge stated that she wanted to reiterate what Mr. Gummey had previously stated that staff ‘s interpretation of new cash is "unencumbered" money that is cash in the bank, eliminating the word "new" cash and not previously spent dollars.

5. Incomplete Applications: What are the specific sections/items within the application that, if not answered, make the application incomplete and therefore ineligible? If an applicant is missing a section they are ineligible. County Council 7- 0. If some items are missed then should the Board assign a specific value to be deducted from each panel review score with no subjectivity by the board member? No. These applicants are ineligible. County Council 7- 0.

ECHO Chair Libby stated that this means if an applicant has responded (not with a N/A) that the board had to evaluate the quality of the response.

6. Funding should the Board be more specific about what items may be reimbursed by ECHO and what may be used for match? The Council did not vote on what items should be funded and sent this issue back for the Board’s recommendation. Council members would like the application to be as clear as possible to assist the applicants in providing "complete" applications.

Ms. Hodge stated that she and Ms. Hargreaves had met and established a supplemental addendum to the e-mailed application and would be sharing that list later on in the meeting. Chair Libby stated that currently under the "definitions" section of the application that the board implies that a lot of the items are allowable because the ECHO items verses what may be used for match have not been distinguished, but during the review process would like to segregate the items if possible.

7. Maximum and Minimum grant amounts: The 2002 minimum application request is $25,000 ($50,000 project including match) and the maximum request could be up to $500,000 ($1,000,000 project including match). Should applicants be allowed to request less than or more than the existing minimum and maximum amounts? No changes to existing minimum or maximum grant request amount. County Council 6 – 1. If a project is developed in phases should ECHO only fund a phase that will allow immediate public use of the project? The County Council did not provide a consensus statement on this question but comments from most members indicated a preference that projects be immediately available for use by the public as the grant is completed.

Chair Libby stated that because of the Council’s ruling for GY 2003 that the board would be eliminating from its policy language "super grant and mini grant," but that this request would continue to be brought before the Council every year when the board reviews and updates the application process so Council would have the

opportunity to use the super and mini grants.

4. Old Business:

Goal Setting Session: The following "Draft of the 2002/2003 Main Goals and Strategic Plan" include comments from the June 12, 2002, ECHO Advisory Board meeting -

DRAFT

2002/2003 MAIN GOALS AND STRATEGIC PLAN
VOLUSIA COUNTY ECHO ADVISORY COMMITTEE
GOAL SETTING AND STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSIONS

May 8 and June 12, 2002

Goals:

The following goals were established at the Goal Setting Session of the ECHO Advisory Committee May 8, 2002:

1. Reduce the number of ineligible applications received.
2. Encourage greater new cash on hand as match.
3. Establish policies, procedures and criteria for 2003.
4. Accept and review the second cycle of applications and recommend to the County Council projects for grant awards in 2003.

The board unanimously agreed to add the following to number (1) – Reduce the number of ineligible applications received by staff and reviewed by the ECHO Advisory Board (no motion made for this amendment). (Amendment #1)

Strategic Plan

- Seek input from the County Council on grant application policies and procedures.

• Seek input on the application policies and procedures from potential applicants.
• Hold a minimum of one ECHO Advisory meeting per month.
• Refine the existing application and consider a "fill in the blank" application format.
• Develop a list of specific items that will not be funded by ECHO.
• Develop a specific list of required backup to officially document match.
• Provide that a portion of the match shall be new cash on hand.
• Present the new application at a public meeting for final input.
• Present the revised application to the County Council for final approval.
• Continue the mandatory application workshop policy.

Mr. Davidson recommended that the applicants be encouraged to take advantage of the Technical Review process (no motion was made). The following was added to the Strategic Plan - Encourage Applicants to take advantage of the County staff’s Technical Review process. (Amendment #2)

Under Goals: Mr. Matousek requested that the words new cash be replaced with unencumbered cash on hand. Chair Libby asked for a Motion to replace new cash with unencumbered cash on hand. Mr. Matousek made the Motion and Ms. Hargreaves Seconded. The Motion passed unanimously. (Amendment #3)

Timeline

The following recommended time-line of events was established at the June 12, 2002 ECHO Advisory Committee Strategic Planning Session.

June 2002

• ECHO Inventory site map updated by County staff for Committee review.
• County Council agenda on the application policies and procedures.
• ECHO Board finalize and approve Goals and Strategic Plan 2003.

July 2002

• Goals and Strategic Plan presented to the County Council.
• Application Workshop/presentation with County Council.
• Review of ECHO Inventory map by Committee.

August 2002

• 2003 ECHO Application approved by the Board and prepared for the County Council approval.
• County Council agenda requesting approval of ECHO Application 2003.

September 2002

• Establish grant application availability via press releases and on web page.
• Mandatory application workshop for applicants Fri., Sept. 20, 8:30 –12 noon. *(revised)

October 2002

• Mandatory grant application workshop, Wed., October 2, 8:30 – 12 noon. *(revised)
• Technical Review deadline Friday, October 25, 4 p.m.

November 2002

• Technical Review responses out by staff Friday, November 8.

December 2002

• Grant application deadline Friday, December 6.
• County staff including Legal and Finance review applications for completeness and eligibility.

January 2003

• County staff sends written notice to applicants with incomplete applications providing one week for response from those who disagree with staff as to the applications completeness.
• Board determines final eligibility list Wed., January 22, 3 p.m.
• Board receives all eligible applications for review Wed., January 22.
• Written notice from staff to ineligible applicants by Fri., January 24.

February 2003

• Grant Panel Review Wed., February 26, 8 a.m. – 5 p.m.

March 2003

• Recommendation is taken to County Council for final approval.

April 2003

• Grant funds are made available for expenditure by the Grantee.

Ms. Hagstrom questioned whether or not the time line was going to be adopted at "today’s" meeting. Ms. Hodge responded that she was concerned that last year’s deadline had been February and now the new deadline had jumped ahead two months and she feared that the applicants may find this new deadline difficult to meet.

Ms. Hargreaves stated that she thought the public needed to have a meeting to review the new application before the mandatory workshops. Ms. Hodge agreed and recommended that the 2^nd meeting in July (July 24) be scheduled to review the new application form. Chair Libby asked for a Motion to use the 2^nd meeting in July to review the new application form. Mr. Schleicher made the Motion and Ms. Hargreaves Seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

*Note: the revised workshop dates are Wed., September 18, 2002 and Sat., October 5, 2002 – 8:30 A.M. - Noon

Chair Libby asked if there were any more comments/suggestions from the board. Hearing none, Chair Libby called for a Motion to adopt the Draft 2002/2003 Main Goals and Strategic Plan as amended. Mr. Davidson made the Motion and Ms. Hargreaves Seconded. The Motion passed unanimously.

4. New Business:

Draft Application: Chair Libby directed the meeting to Ms. Hodge to discuss the Application Draft 2003 document for language purposes. She stated that the board’s agenda packages also contained the "Application and Guide" that reflect the new format changes for the "2003 Grant Application" process. She stated that the Application and Guide were not to be used for language changes. Ms. Hodge stated that the agenda packages also contain "Additional Changes as of June 12, 2002," that would be inserted as the application was being reviewed.

Board changes as follows:

Page 3 – Ms. Hagstrom – APPLICANT ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS - 1. Change the word and located after the word Florida to with.

Page 3 – Mr. Davidson - ECHO APPLICATION PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS - 1. Application – replace the word provided with the word required.

Page 4 - #4 Audit (a) - After much discussion, Chair Libby asked for a Motion to replace the current language with – "Non-Profit, tax exempt Florida organizations must submit copies of the applicant organization’s independent, certified audit. Mr. Matousek made the Motion and Ms. Hargreaves Seconded. Discussion proceeded and the Motion was amended to reflect a request for a "Current Financial Statement." The Motion passed unanimously. (#4 (a) – New Language – "Non-Profit, tax exempt Florida organizations must submit copies of the applicant’s last completed Fiscal Year Audit, plus a Current Financial Statement.)

#4 (b) Mr. Gummey suggested that the board include the request for an "Opinion Letter." #4 (b) – New Language – County of Volusia budgeted organizations and Municipal governments shall submit a Management Letter and an Opinion Letter, Annual Financial Audit, or an internally prepared financial statement of revenues and expenses (eliminating the rest of the verbiage in #4 (b)).

Page 5 – Mr. Matousek – change Technical Eligibility Review Deadline to Technical Completeness Review Deadline and replace the word eligibility with the word completeness throughout the paragraph.

Page 6 – Change the Wednesday date of October 2, 2002 to a Saturday date in October – Fri., Oct. 25, 2002 – Change the word Eligibility to Completeness – Fri., Jan. 10, 2003 – New Language – ECHO Grant Program Coordinator notifies applicants who submitted "Ineligible" applications.

Page 7 – Chair Libby – beginning 6^th line down – eliminate "and applicants have seven days to respond in writing if they disagree with the ineligibility status."

Page 7 – Ms. Hargreaves – remove the word " critical" and "Exhibit A" – New Language – Applications that are missing items will be deemed ineligible.

Page 9 - Chair Libby – GRANT FUNDING REQUEST CATEGORIES - Remove the EXCEPTIONAL PROJECT and verbiage.

Page 10 – Chair Libby – Remove the UNIQUE SMALL PROJECT and verbiage. Chair Libby stated for the record, that each year the "exceptional and the unique small project" would be taken before the County Council for consideration.

Page 10 – Ms. Hagstrom – APPLICANT – Change the word "and" to "with."

Page 10 – Ms. Hodge – Remove the word "REVIEW from ANNUAL AUDIT REVIEW.

Page 11 – Ms. Hagstrom - FIVE YEAR MATCH PERIOD – Remove the verbiage – "but no more than 75% of the match.

Page 11 – Mr. Davidson – MAI CERTIFIED APPRAISER – Questioned what the remainder of the sentence was – Mr. Gummey stated that it was to achieve membership in the appraisal institute.

Page 12 – Ms. Hodge – APPLICATION SUBMISSION FORMAT & EVALUATION PROCEDURES – inquired to how the board wanted the application numbered. A general consensus from the board was to number consecutively, (Re: TAB 3 – Page 14).

Page 13 – General board consensus – APPLICATION EVALUATION – Remove the underlined section.

Page 14 - Ms. Hargreaves – MULTIPHASE PROJECTS – expressed concern funding projects that will not have public access upon completion of the phase for which funding was issued. After much discussion, Chair Libby asked for a Motion to accept the new verbiage regarding public access. Ms. Hargreaves made the Motion and it was Seconded by Mr. Schleicher. MOTION – "In order for a phase of a multiphase project to be funded, the application must demonstrate some (with the meaning of some to be determined at a later date) public access will be available upon completion of the phase for which funding is being requested." The Motion passed with a 5-2 vote - (Mr. Matousek and Mr. Davidson opposed).

Page 14 – Chair Libby – MULTIPHASE PROJECTS – requested that the word "one" be substituted for "a" bonus point.

Page 15 – Chair Libby – FUNDING AMOUNTS/CAPS AND RESTRICTIONS – remove "Exceptional Project and Unique Small Project" and related verbiage where applicable.

After much discussion regarding the current ability of applicants that were awarded ECHO grants-in-aid funds to borrow against ECHO dollars, Chair Libby asked Mr. Gummey to bring a "Signatory Document" back to the board for its approval. This document would put a Time Payback Lien" on the awarded applicant’s ECHO project.

Page 16 – Ms. Hodge – NON-ALLOWABLE COSTS - #9 moved to May be used as Match but not ECHO funding -to become #3, and #13 deleted – duplicative of #9.

Page 16 – Ms. Hagstrom – requested the sentence "Create all narratives in Microsoft Word, at least version 97" be deleted.

Page 17 – Ms. Hargreaves – Respond to every question on the application – requested that the word "shall" replace the word "may" and delete "or a reduction in score."

Page 18 – Chair Libby – PROJECT TEAM – change the Professional Certification form to include a typed or printed name, plus the signature.

Page 19 – After much discussion, the section BOARD OF DIRECTORS (Not-For-Profit Organization only), was

deleted and replaced with a REQUEST FOR A COPY OF THE ANNUAL REPORT TO THE DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

Page 19 – Ms. Hagstrom – PROJECT NARRATIVE – requested that (6) begin with Provide – deleting "applicants must."

Page 20 – TAB 3: BUDGET DETAIL/MATCHING FUNDS – After much discussion, Ms. Hodge stated that she and Mr. Gummey would review the original County Council records of June 6, 2002, to clarify what the Council voted on regarding the 25 per cent new cash requirement and bring new language (if needed) back to the board for clarification/discussion.

Monso Tatum, Pioneer Settlement, stated that he was confused on the 25 per cent new cash requirement. Chair Libby assured him that this issue would be researched and clarified.

5. Public Participation:

There was no public participation.

6. Meeting Dates:

June 26, 2002
July 10, 2002
July 24, 2002 – Public Workshop

VIII. Adjournment: 5:25 PM

Chair Libby asked if there was anything else from members of the Committee. There was none. The Chair asked for a Motion to adjourn. Mr. Davidson Motioned for Adjournment. Ms. Hargraves Seconded. The Motion was approved unanimously.

back to home page

 Public information produced by Volusia County Government