I. Call To
Order, Introductory Remarks, Roll Call:
Chair Libby
called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. He stated that he had a few
introductory comments before getting into the Agenda items and that
members of the Board and the public would be introduced after that. Mr.
Libby said he had heard that there had been a request for a manager for
ECHO to be hired and wanted to know if that was correct. Ms. Hodge
responded that it was not correct. Mr. Matousek said he believed it
referred to a manager for a County Department and Ms. Hodge said that
was the Growth and Resource Management Department. Chair Libby
questioned if there would be any impact on ECHO or any reduction in cash
by paying this salary. Ms. Hodge said no, the position does not affect
ECHO.
The second
comment Mr. Libby had was regarding items being taken to County Council
and requesting their opinion. He urged every member of the Board to not
request from staff information from the County Council prior to the
Board discussing the items first. He asked that members of the Board and
sub-committees needing information that has to come from County Council
first present their request to the entire Board. Ms. Hodge explained
that some clarifications had been requested on whether to continue on
two critical items. The first of the two items was regarding the
restrictions on the number of items to be brought forward by one entity
and Council stated there was to be no restrictions on the number. The
second was regarding land purchase and clarification of the term
"facility" in the Resolution of which Council wanted land to
be purchased by ECHO. Mr. Libby again asked that the entire Board first
visit all requests for such information so the separate elements of the
program are wedded. Mr. Matousek asked for clarification that all
requests come from the full Board and not sub-committees. Mr. Libby said
that was the position unless there was a motion to the contrary.
Chair Libby then
asked staff to take Roll Call of members. He then asked members of the
public for their introductions. Chair Libby welcomed them and stated
that there would be time under #5 on the Agenda for public participation
and asked that all comments be limited to three minutes.
Chair Libby then
turned the meeting over to Ms. Hodge to present and explain the
information packet given to Board members. Ms. Hodge explained that the
information in the packets was clipped together by minutes and
sub-committee reports to correspond with the Board Agenda.
II. Approval of
June 13, 2001 Minutes:
Chair Libby
directed the meeting to approval of the June 13 Minutes. He asked if
there were any additions or corrections. Ms. Hargreaves requested time
to review the Minutes. Ms. Hodge explained that the 5-30 Minutes were
approved Minutes and were included as a clean copy for each member. Mr.
Matousek said the location for the June 13 should change to the County
Administration Building. He also stated that he did not believe Item #7
was approved. Mr. Libby concurred. He explained to the public that the
Board was attempting to create language and guidelines for the grant
documents that applicants will find easy to use. He said a Needs
Assessment document form was also in the process of being developed by a
sub-committee. Mr. Gummey had a revision for page 4, item #13, lines #2
& #3. He requested that require be changed to ‘may’ require .
Mr. Matousek said that when he referred to item #7 it should actually be
items #7 and #8. There was brief discussion and Chair Libby said all
these were draft documents and would be revisited throughout the
process.
Chair Libby
asked if there were any additional corrections, revisions, deletions or
additions to the Minutes. There were none. Mr. Davidson Moved that
the Minutes be approved as Amended. Ms. Hagstrom Seconded. Chair Libby
asked for discussion and there was none. The 06-13-01 Minutes were
unanimously approved as Amended.
III. Old
Business:
Chair Libby
directed the meeting to items under Old Business and asked for Ms.
Hagstrom to present the report of her sub-committee. He stated he noted
additions and deletions were indicated and asked if the sub-committee
would have a draft by the next meeting. Ms. Hagstrom said they had
started on that but could not finalize until the Board had made some
decisions.
Chair Libby
stated for the Public Record that Ms. Teri Ford Cobean had arrived at
the meeting (3:20 p.m.).
Ms. Hagstrom
then proceeded with her report and referred to the document titled Key
Points. Ms. Hagstrom reported that the sub-committee had discussed the
501(c)(3) and that 501(c)(4) was the only other one that could be
considered but they had decided not to include that based on the
definition of 501(c)(4). Chair Libby asked if there was any discussion
on the sub-committee’s recommendation to restrict applications to
501(c)(3) and/or units of government. Mr. Davidson commented that if a
501(c)(4) wanted to enter the ECHO program they could become a
501(c)(3). Mr. Matousek commented that his original suggestion to
include 501(c)(4) organizations was because the State includes both (c)3
and (c)4. He was concerned that the Board would be more restrictive than
the State. Ms. Williams requested a definition of 501(c)(4). Ms.
Hagstrom pointed out where the description was included in the document.
Mr. Libby said he had never seen a social welfare organization apply for
a grant and did not know why the State included (c)(4). He felt the
Board should obtain a clarification from the State on their inclusion of
these type organizations. Ms. Williams said she was concerned because in
the description of (c)(4) Ms. Hagstrom had stated that they were for the
welfare of their members. Ms. Williams said they also could be service
organizations working for the community and not in the interest of their
members. Mr. Libby stated that once the guidelines are made part of the
packet there will be a lot of deliberations that will take place in the
hearings on the grants that will allow the Board to look at the mission
of the organization and the description of their project. He was
concerned about being too restrictive and shutting the door on any
organization. Ms. Hodge asked if the Board wanted staff to research this
further through the State Cultural Grant. Mr. Libby and Ms. Hagstrom
agreed that it would be good to research this further. Mr. Matousek
stated he would rather err on the side of being more inclusive than more
restrictive. Mr. Schleicher commented on the footnotes for contributions
allowable that organizations may establish (c)(3) to receive charitable
funds. Mr. Libby stated he felt most would agree that 501(c)(3) was the
principal target per the advertisement and the bond issue (referenda).
Mr. Matousek said he would feel better if the Board knew what the intent
of the State was regarding (c)(4) organizations. Chair Libby asked if
the Board could move on accepting 501(c)(3) in a conditional way and
accept it unless something serious had been overlooked. He asked if
there was any other discussion and then asked Mr. Gummey what the proper
term was for government. Mr. Gummey responded that it was "local
government" or "general purpose government." Chair Libby
asked again if there was any other discussion regarding including
general purpose governments plus the 501(c)(3) category, knowing there
was a condition based on research into the State’s use of the
501(c)(4). There was none.
Ms. Hagstrom
continued with Item #2, of the sub-committee report, (Land Match would
remain at State level 50 percent of the local match for nonprofits but
would be reduced to 25 percent of local match for cities and the County)
by asking Ms. Hargreaves to explain why she felt so strongly that this
be left as is. Ms. Hargreaves stated she was struggling with trying to
create a level playing field between small organizations versus
incorporated cities with tax dollars, buildings and land. She asked if
that could be managed and possibly only half the value of land is given
so cities and counties would not have a greater opportunity. Chair Libby
asked if there was any other discussion on this, which suggests that
with a minimum of 1:1 match required by this program that one-half of
the local match for 501(c)(3) can be in the value of land subject to a
fair market evaluation and subject to serious determination on the value
of the land but that fraction would be reduced by half for
municipalities and the County. Mr. Gummey stated that the Board would be
attempting to judge the "merits of the project" and not the
merits of the organization so it should not matter. Mr. Libby stated
that on the State level, colleges and universities are restricted to the
amount of dollars they can compete for because they have already tax
based dollars as their match, which is in conflict with the Florida Arts
Council and the Division of Historical Resources desire to have tax
dollars matched by private dollars. So they have been restricted because
of the perception of unfair advantage compared to a 501(c)(3) having
only its budget and no tax based dollars. He said PECO was developed to
fill this vacuum. He said Ms. Hargreaves point was whether or not cities
and counties have an unfair advantage on the budget side of the grant
application because they already have a land bank. The State now is
asking cities and counties to bring only new land to the table. He asked
Mr. Gummey if there was any legal problem in wanting units of local
government to only be allowed to match up to 25% of their one dollar of
local match in this program. Mr. Gummey said it may not be a legal
problem for municipalities and the County may be funded by direct County
expenditures with no match. The 50% match criteria do not apply to
County projects. Mr. Libby asked if it was correct that the County would
be exempt from this "match" rule but the municipalities would
be held to it. Mr. Gummey replied that was correct. Mr. Davidson
questioned whether it would be public perception that cities were being
required to spend more actual tax cash. Mr. Libby made further comments
regarding the match, how it can’t be 100% with land. Ms. Cobean
questioned if the Board would ever run into a situation where a
nonprofit 501(c)(3) in partnership with a government would use land
purchased with tax money. She felt that if this occurred it would be
perceived that governments are being penalized if they bring a
government project forward. Mr. Libby agreed the program could work in
this way. Mr. Schleicher questioned whether the County would not be 25%
but would be at 50%. Mr. Gummey responded that there is no requirement
for match for County. Mr. Schleicher commented that the Cities would
benefit more if they deeded property to a 501(c) (3) (even if it were
their own). This would make them eligible for an automatic 25 per cent
more grant funding. Chair Libby asked if there was any other discussion.
Ms. Cobean made a follow up comment referring to Mr. Gummey’s comment
that in reviewing applications it would be on the merit of the project,
not on who the applicant is. Ms. Cobean felt this was a very important
point. She stated she had a bit of concern that the 25 % reduction in
land match would be perceived as penalizing the Cities.
III a) Public
Participation on "Match":
Chair Libby
asked some representatives of the Cities present if they felt the
reduced amount on the match affected their plans. Jack Corder, City of
Edgewater, stated he felt it was unfair. Michael Sanders, City of Ormond
Beach, echoed this comment and also felt voters may not accept it well.
Tom Harowski, City of New Smyrna Beach, felt it might be more equitable
if cities had an opportunity to contribute land on the same basis as
someone else did. He felt cities might only want to manage a project on
city owned land. Kent Donahue, City of Port Orange, agreed with the
previous comments. He raised the issue of what would occur if a city had
joint ownership of a property with another city or with the County.
There were also comments that the Cities don ’t have a lot of property
in inventory for E-C-H-O type projects due to development.
ECHO Committee
Member, Mr. Green commented that according to #10 on the Key Points
document of the Procedures, Policies & Guidelines Sub-Committee,
property could not be leased and a City would have to deed it away. Ms.
Cobean suggested leaving the match at 50% for everyone. Ms. Hargreaves
asked Ms. Cobean to assist her in thinking through the process by
clarifying, since the applications are to be reviewed on project merits,
if land is leased, would she still feel comfortable with a 50-50 match
and with land that has been in a city land bank several years or just
recently purchased. Ms. Cobean stated she felt specific examples would
have to be reviewed. Ms. Cobean stated there would be instances when
501(c)(3)’s would use land in an agreement with a city that had been
paid for by tax dollars so that meant cities were being penalized. Mr.
Matousek said he had concerns with making the percentages different
because we are assuming that cities and counties all have land banks. He
stated he would rather deal with the issue during the application
process.
Mr. Davidson
stated he felt everyone was very uncomfortable with this and Motioned
that the Board strike the difference and just leave it at 50% for all
applicants, with the understanding it could be changed later. Chair
Libby stated that there was a motion on the floor by Mr. Davidson to
equalize the percentage of local match as to the value of land and asked
if there was a second. Ms. Cobean seconded. Chair Libby asked if
there was any discussion on the Davidson motion.
Mr. Matousek
stated that in one of the listening sessions there had been discussion
by municipal officials about the Resolution not requiring the County to
provide a match. The response from County Council was that though the
Resolution says they can fund with direct expenditure, it is their
intent to obtain grants and matches just like everybody else. Mr.
Matousek said that the intent issue is very different from what the
Resolution says. Mr. Libby concurred and asked if there was any other
discussion.
Mr. Gummey
requested recognition and stated he had been advised by Mr. Bryon, the
County Community Information Officer, that there were members of the
public who were unable to attend because of the size of the room and
that the Council Chambers were available. He suggested the Board recess
and move there.
Chair Libby
asked if there was anyone in the hall who desired to speak on this
particular issue and if not, he would bring this to closure before
moving to Council Chambers. He asked if anyone would like to speak on
this issue or if anyone was in support of reducing municipal share down
to 25%. There was none and there was no other discussion on the Davidson
motion.
Chair Libby
called for a vote. Ayes were given and Mr. Libby asked if any opposed.
There were none and the Motion passed.
There was a
brief recess called at 3:50 p.m. while the meeting moved into the County
Council Chambers. The meeting reconvened at 3:55 p.m. in the Council
Chambers.
Ms. Hagstrom
continued with the report from her sub-committee and addressed item #5
in the Key Points. She explained issues addressed by the sub-committee
and the reasons for their recommendation. Chair Libby clarified that the
recommendation was that there is an annual cap of $500,000. Ms. Hagstrom
agreed, and stated that was what had been sent back to the
sub-committee. Chair Libby asked Ms. Hagstrom to revisit parts of #5 and
if the sub-committee recommended a maximum per year. Ms. Hagstrom said
yes and a maximum over a 5-year period of time. Mr. Libby questioned the
amount of the 5-year maximum and Ms. Hagstrom replied $1.5 million.
Chair Libby
asked if there was any discussion. Mr. Davidson objected to the cap over
5 years. He felt this immediately cut out some good projects that might
be more expensive. He felt it would be better to place as few
restrictions as possible. Mr. Davidson clarified that his comment did
not apply to the annual cap. Chair Libby asked if Mr. Davidson was in
favor of the $500,000 annual cap and Mr. Davidson responded he was. Ms.
Hagstrom clarified that it didn’t mean the applicant couldn’t come
back in the next 5 years. Mr. Schleicher stated that means it couldn’t
be capped at half million a year if an applicant needs more than $6
million in 5 years. Mr. Davidson said it could extend payment of $6
million at $500,000 per year. Mr. Schleicher clarified that there would
be a guarantee of half million a year for 12 years to attain the $6
million. Mr. Libby stated that any multi-year grants would be subject to
yearly review. Ms. Hargreaves said the general discussion was that an
applicant had to meet what they said they would do in year one and for
following years so the evaluation is historical and guidelines are met.
Chair Libby
asked if everyone was comfortable with the $500,000 cap maximum a year
so the process could be open to more applicants. Mr. Schleicher agreed
it is important to articulate the reason for the half million dollar a
year cap is so no one project, even if extremely worthy, takes all the
funds in any one year. Ms. Hagstrom agreed and stated that fair and
equitable is what should be achieved. Board chose to mirror the State so
they won’t grant more than the State will match. Mr. Matousek referred
to Charlene Weaver’s Revenue projections, Tab A, one of the pages
shows ECHO growth projection of $16 million and with a maximum of $1.5
million over 5 years, one project could take almost 37% of the funds.
Chair Libby stated that the number of years was not being discussed now
it was just the maximum per year. He said the number of years and
maximum amount per project would be a later topic of great discussion.
Chair Libby
asked if there was a Motion on the report of the Hagstrom sub-committee
that $500,000 be the maximum award given to any organization in a single
calendar year.
Ms. Cobean
Motioned in favor. Ms. Hagstrom seconded. Chair Libby asked if there was
any discussion. There was none and Chair Libby called for all those in
favor say Aye. Chair Libby asked if any opposed. There was none and the
Motion passed unanimously.
Chair Libby
asked Ms. Hagstrom to continue with item #5 of her report. Ms. Hagstrom
said the sub-committee recommended not setting a 10-year or 20-year cap.
Chair Libby clarified that the sub-committee was recommending a $1.5
million cap over a 5-year period. Mr. Matousek again raised his concerns
that with a $1.5 million cap over a 5-year period one project could use
over a third of all the money so that would be as high a cap as should
be made. Mr. Davidson questioned the numbers given by Mr. Matousek. He
said he saw projected revenue for the first 5 years of $16 million so a
$1.5 million cap would only be 10% of the money. Mr. Matousek said there
were four categories (E-C-H-O). Chair Libby clarified that Mr. Matousek
was assuming there would be at least one grant in each of the four areas
but that might not be so. Ms. Hargreaves said limitations were being
placed without knowing what was coming and that it might be better to
limit after the fact as each project is reviewed.
The Chair
recognized Mr. Davidson, who stated he had to introduce a piece of paper
that had been handed to him on the way to the meeting. He asked if all
the Board could have copies because it deals with an example. Chair
Libby asked Ms. Hodge to copy and distribute the paper. He stated that
he did not want to solicit documents being passed to members of the
Board during meetings in the future. Chair Libby asked if there was any
other discussion on a 3-year cap within a 5-year period.
Mr. Gummey
commented that in multi-level programs, the approval of projects would
be by an elected body that will change composition. Chair Libby asked if
there was any other discussion on the total number of dollars for a
single project within a 5-year project. He asked if the applicant could
come back in the sixth year and Ms. Hagstrom replied that they could.
Ms. Williams asked if in essence no more than $500,000 was given in any
particular year, how long would it take to get to $1.5 million, because
the assumption being made was the grant request would always be at the
$500,000 level. She felt it could take an organization seven or eight
years to get to the $1.5 million level based on what the Board feels are
the merits and the recommendations made for the funding level each year.
Ms. Hargreaves said that addressed the issue she was struggling with –
do we fund 100% of the applicant’s request from the top project down
or do we fund portions of the projects as seen necessary. Mr. Libby said
that in reviewing an application that says it will take seven or eight
years to complete is too long and the applicant should come back when
they are ready. He referred to the State concept of readiness and the
grant form also deals with readiness. Chair Libby asked if there was any
other discussion. Mr. Schleicher stated there is a fixed amount of money
and if there were only a few projects in the County a cap wouldn’t be
necessary. He said that at each meeting there are more and more members
of the public present and he assumes they are interested in obtaining
funds for their organizations. If the funds are divided between those
present and those who are not here, in the next 20 years the Board will
not be able to fund a substantial amount of money very many times or the
money will be gone. He concluded that the Board needs to be very careful
in these early years that large sums of money will be provided but
rather supplementary funds for projects that have a lot of other support
if they require a lot of money. Ms. Williams concurred that was her same
trend of thought. She asked if the Board was communicating they would
totally fund a project from initiation to completion or saying this will
be a part of the funding source. Chair Libby said he felt it boiled down
to a very large project and at what level the County could help fund. He
asked that if the Board felt that $1.5 million was the most the County
should pledge in a 5-year plan for a substantial project, if so then the
recommendation from the sub-committee makes sense. Mr. Schleicher stated
the Board was not the definitive answer and the Board should approve
this point and send it to County Council, explaining item by item why
the conclusions were made. It is the County Council’s elected call to
decide whether to agree with smaller amounts for a larger number of
people or they may decide that the money be available in large chunks.
He felt that the important part would be the explanation to the Council.
Chair Libby
asked if there were other comments. Ms Hargreaves asked Mr. Green for
his opinion for a time period if there were no caps, no limits, would a
6-year payout plan be reasonable in building a new structure. Mr. Green
replied that the time to respond to all government requirements and
protection processes takes 2 years to produce even a set of documents to
generate costs. He said it could be four years to accomplish anything.
He further stated it is difficult to get a major project off and running
in a short period of time and a lot of up-front money would be needed.
Mr. Libby suggested he was hearing a compromise to lift the $1.5 million
total for any single project and allow a single project to request more
than $1.5 million but over a longer period of time. That it can receive
a $1.5 million allocation within the first 5-year period, but the same
project could come back the sixth year and request another 3-year
pay-out of $1.5 million, or a total of $3 million over an eight year
period. He stated that was a compromise over the initial recommendation
that no single project ever receive more than $1.5 million, which is the
State model. Ms. Hagstrom said she didn’t realize the State set that
cap, only for funding, not for single project and a project could be
done in phases and call it something else. Mr. Libby said that this is
double what the State allows because the State, under any circumstance,
will not allow any single project to receive more than $1.5 million. Ms.
Hagstrom gave an example of the Daytona museum project being phased and
each time it was a different project within the same museum. There was
further discussion by Ms. Hagstrom and Mr. Libby regarding multi-year
and phased projects. Mr. Libby said this was then a much more generous
recommendation than the initial one, which was $1.5 million for any
project ever. Ms. Hagstrom said an extension of a project could be
called a new project and could be adding something.
Ms. Cobean said
this was a departure from where the Board was originally and she felt
the Board was going to mirror the State as closely as possible and if it
was going to be relaxed, that the language for multi-phase should be
looked at. She was concerned about being cautious in committing up front
and that funding requests in years past the first three would be
greater. Mr. Libby asked if there was other discussion. Mr. Davidson
questioned the theory that only projects that will have State match will
be funded. He stated that would cut out many projects. Mr. Libby asked
if there were other comments. Mr. Matousek said that ‘project’ had
not yet been defined. He said there were four categories, E-C-H-O. Mr.
Matousek asked for clarification as to whether an applicant was applying
for only one category. Mr. Libby said the Board should come back to that
later as it was another complimentary issue. He then addressed Ms.
Cobean’s comment regarding mirroring the State requirements. Mr. Libby
said the State does allow multi-phase projects but no single project can
be kept open beyond a $1.5 million, 5-year cap, but a project could come
back with additions and new projects. That is when the committee must
decide if that additional project is better than a new project. The
State does allow cities and counties to come back multiple times for
different projects. Ms. Hodge pointed out that the application draft
defines multi-phase projects on page three and she read the definition.
Mr. Libby said that referred to project but not applicant organization.
There was further discussion by Mr. Libby, Mr. Davidson and Ms.
Hargreaves regarding the $1.5 million cap. Ms. Hargreaves felt it was
impossible to see 20 years into the future and setting a cap now would
be restrictive years later. Ms. Cobean stated that at previous meetings
the Board had looked at what the survey of public comments were as well
as looking at the State model. Ms. Hagstrom stated that the public
favored a cap. Mr. Libby concurred and asked if there were any other
comments. Ms. Cobean requested permission to read an item for
clarification for everyone. She read that the State says no multi-phase
project, regardless of the number of phases, may exceed five consecutive
State fiscal years in length. She explained it was specific that, no
project regardless of single phase or multi-phase status may receive
more than $1.5 million during five consecutive State fiscal years. There
were further brief comments by Mr. Libby, Ms. Hagstrom, Mr. Davidson,
and Mr. Matousek this issue. Chair Libby then asked if there were other
comments. There were none so he called for the Board to move on the
Hagstrom recommendation on #5. He asked Ms. Hagstrom to repeat the
recommendation.
Ms. Hagstrom
stated that no one applicant receive more than $1.5 million in a 5-year
period; no mention of 10 year or 20 year cap.
Mr. Libby questioned if that was slightly different motion than the
original recommendation that referred to project and not applicant. Ms.
Hagstrom said it always referred to applicant. Chair
Libby asked if there was any discussion on this recommendation. Mr.
Matousek seconded and Chair Libby asked if there was any discussion on
the first part of item #5. There was none and a voice vote was called.
Ayes were stated and Chair Libby asked if any opposed. There was one
opposed. (Mr. Davidson)
Ms. Hagstrom
stated that item #6 had already been discussed so she would start with
item #10. Mr. Libby asked if #5 was completed. Ms. Hagstrom stated #5
and #6 were finished. Mr. Libby clarified that the implication is that
an applicant can come back after the 5-year period for another share of
dollars for another phase or a project which has a different
description. Ms. Hagstrom stated that #10 dealt with allowing facilities
to be built on leased property. She stated that after the sub-committee’s
review and with good input from the public, the recommendation was to
mirror the State and allow projects to be built on leased land. She said
the County Attorney suggested some provisions could be made and she
noted that the State allowed as little as a 10-year lease, but the
sub-committee felt 25 years should be the minimum. Mr. Libby clarified
that the 10-year is a restrictive covenant on the use of the property
and has nothing to do with the lease. It is a separate document that
every organization receiving State dollars must file in the County in
which the building resides, pledging the use as the mission in the grant
in the 10-year period, but to build a new building on State land, the
State requires a minimum of a 40-year lease. He further stated that to
add a new wing onto an existing historic building requires a 30-year
minimum lease and to renovate an old building requires a 20-year lease.
Mr. Libby reported these are the current State requirements that have to
be reflected in the State grant application. Ms. Hagstrom stated the
recommendation of the sub-committee is to allow facilities to be built
on leased property and the minimum number of years is up to the Board.
Mr. Libby asked if anyone had a problem with the State requirements and
stated he felt it would be better to interface with the State. Mr.
Gummey suggested a slight change in terms and rather than ‘general
body’ it should be ‘general purpose government.’ He questioned the
10-year restrictive covenant as seeming too short. Mr. Libby explained
that referred only to the use and the committee hasn’t looked at
restrictive covenant. Ms. Williams questioned whether having a new
facility on leased land was from the date of the application. Mr. Libby
stated the 10 years are in the future, not back years. Ms. Hargreaves
questioned if we needed 20, 30 and 40-year restrictions as it seemed
complicated. Mr. Libby asked if anyone had a suggestion for a number of
years of lease. Ms. Cobean asked if this had anything to do with the
amount of funding that would be allocated. Mr. Libby stated the funding
was not affected at this time, but he was not sure what the thinking had
been in setting the years.
Ms. Hagstrom
moved to allow leased land for a period of 20 years. Chair Libby stated
there was a motion on the floor that leased land is allowable and that
the applicant must bare in the application an agreement of a lease for
at least a 20-year period. Mr. Davidson seconded.
Chair Libby asked if there was any discussion on the 20-year period. Mr.
Gummey asked if the provision that the lessor be a general purpose
government was still included. Mr. Libby responded yes and Ms. Hagstrom
concurred and gave the example of an organization leasing from Stetson
University. Mr. Libby said the Board would have to look at that as that
is a second question as to whether or not leases can come from
individuals or organizations. Ms. Hargreaves stated there was a motion
on the floor regarding the length of the lease. Mr. Gummey stated that
government or 501(c)3 could be a criteria, but would not recommend a
private individual or "for-profit" entity. Mr. Davidson
questioned why not. Mr. Gummey responded that it would potentially
shorten the length of the use of the facility by the public. Chair Libby
asked if there was any further discussion on the length of the lease.
Mr. Davidson asked if a minimum was set there would be no control and he
wondered if a longer or perpetual lease should be set. Ms. Hargreaves
supported a longer lease. Mr. Schleicher agreed. Ms Hagstrom withdrew
her Motion and Mr. Davidson withdrew his Second. Chair Libby asked
if there was another Motion. Mr. Davidson moved to set a minimum
limit on a lease to 40 years. Ms. Hargreaves Seconded. Chair Libby
asked if there was any discussion. Mr. Schleicher asked if this was for
any lease no matter who it’s from. Ms. Hargreaves said yes at this
time. Mr. Schleicher stated this did not address the length of time if
it were a private individual or a for profit corporation. Mr. Libby
stated these would be ineligible but Mr. Schleicher said that had not
been decided yet.
Chair Libby said
there was a Motion for 40 years and a Second and asked if there was any
other discussion. Mr. Green suggested staying with the State
requirements. Ms. Hargreaves said the State does have a 40-year as well
as a 20 and 30. Mr. Green said he favored staying with the 20, 30, 40.
Chair Libby asked if there was any other discussion regarding a blanket
40-year lease from any applicant. Mr. Davidson had a question if the
property was sold would the new owner be responsible for the terms of
the lease. Mr. Gummey responded, yes. Mr. Schleicher commented that
selling property might not shorten a lease but it might not be extended.
Mr. Gummey stated that a lease does not guarantee that a use exists to
the end of the lease and even a long-term lease could be defaulted.
Chair Libby
asked if there was further discussion. Ms. Cobean asked Mr. Gummey if he
could foresee any circumstances in which a 40-year lease would be a
hardship or not possible. She stated that while 20 years may be too
short, would there be any problems legally with a 40-year lease of if it
would be a hardship to negotiate. Mr. Gummey responded the only area
where there could be a problem would be in the historical area. People
might want to see something preserved but might not want it turned over
to the public.
Chair Libby
re-stated that there was a Motion on the floor and a Second regarding a
40-year lease. He asked if there was any other discussion. There was
none. Chair Libby then asked that all those in favor of a minimum lease
of 40 years please raise their hands. The hand vote was seven in favor
and the Motion passed. (DUE
TO THE HAND COUNT, NO VERBAL OR WRITTEN RECORD OF SPECIFIC MEMBER’S
ACTIONS WAS FOUND)
Chair Libby
stated the second issue was the issue of covenant of use. He explained
it was a complicated document and asked if the Board wanted to look at a
covenant of use. Mr. Schleicher asked Mr. Gummey if the entity the
project is leased from could be for-profit, individual, government or
another non-profit organization, not necessarily 501(c)3. Mr. Gummey
stated that was correct. Mr. Schleicher asked if they could decide to
not extend the lease. Mr. Gummey said that was correct and that any
lease could be defaulted. Mr. Schleicher said that setting a 40-year
limit wouldn’t make any difference who it was leased from. Mr. Gummey
replied that it did make a difference. He said not to concentrate on the
40 years but concentrate on the termination of the lease because it
could be at 40 years or 5 years if the organization defaults. Mr. Gummey
stated that at that point it reverts to the lessor, the owner of the
property. He explained and gave examples of what could happen in
different default situations. Mr. Schleicher asked about a 501(c)3. Mr.
Gummey explained that it would be tax exempt because it was in the
public benefit. Ms. Hagstrom said the definition of lease stated it
could be a government body or 501(c)3. Mr. Libby said this could be
revisited to be sure it fits. Mr. Davidson stated that no matter how
careful the Board is, they cannot prevent an applicant from going out of
business. He felt a restrictive covenant was no good. Mr. Gummey said
the property owner would provide the restrictive covenant. He further
stated it would make the lessor seriously consider whether it wanted to
assume the function from the lessee. Mr. Libby questioned if it was
needed as the State had operated without one for 20 years and has only
implemented this in the most recent grant years. He asked if the Board
wanted to mirror the State regarding a restrictive covenant language and
the actual form and he asked if there was a Motion.
Mr. Davidson
Moved to mirror the State restrictive covenant. Ms. Hargreaves Seconded.
Chair Libby asked if there was any discussion other than after adoption
it would be given to Legal to look at. Ms
Williams asked for clarification if it was being sent back to committee
for review or is the Board adopting one. Mr. Libby said it would be
reviewed either at sub-committee or Board and it can be kept or
rejected. He restated the Motion was to adopt the State 10-year
restrictive covenant. Ms. Williams again questioned if this was being
adopted or going to review first. Mr. Libby stated the Motion is to look
at the State 10-year restrictive covenant language and to include it as
a possible element in the Board’s grant packet. He said right now
there was nothing to look at and he felt it should be reviewed by the
entire Board rather than committee. He said if the Board liked it, then
it would be moved forward as part of the draft recommendation to go
before County Council. Mr.
Libby asked if there was any other discussion. There was none and Chair
Libby called for all in favor to voice an aye. The ayes were given and
the Chair asked if any were opposed. There were none and the Motion
passed.
Chair Libby
directed the meeting back to Ms. Hagstrom for the final part of item #10
in her report. Ms. Hagstrom stated that only leases in which the
lessor is a public entity governed by either a municipality or County or
a not for profit entity will be considered . Mr. Gummey suggested
adding in the State and the Board concurred. The Chair stated the
amendment was to include County or State. Mr. Davidson questioned if
the Federal government should be included. Mr. Gummey said if he could
get them in then get them. Chair Libby stated Federal government
would be included in the amendment. He asked for a Motion. Ms.
Cobean so Moved, Mr. Davidson Seconded. The Chair asked if there
was any discussion. There was none and the Chair asked those in favor to
indicate aye. Ayes were given and the Chair asked for Opposed. There was
none and the Motion passed.
Mr. Libby asked
if Ms. Hagstrom had any further report. Ms. Hagstrom said the committee
was working on the packets for the applicants and would have those for
the next meeting. The Chair asked if there were any other questions
regarding Ms. Hagstrom’s report. Mr. Davidson questioned #9, use of
funds. Other Board members did not have #9. Ms. Hodge stated that Mr.
Davidson was looking at the original and not the revision presented
today. Mr. Davidson stated he was looking at the draft minutes of June
19. Ms. Hodge replied that the only items included were items that had
been referred back to the sub-committee. Mr. Libby suggested looking at
the complete "Key Point" document at the next meeting and
other Board members concurred.
Chair Libby then
asked Ms. Williams to present her sub-committee report. Ms. Williams
reported that the Board had received in their packet today the draft of
the Request f or Intent to Apply package with the form. She indicated
this was an information-gathering instrument. Ms. Williams said she
would like to give the Board time to fully review the document and then
discuss it at the July 11 Board meeting. Mr. Libby suggested that Ms.
Williams also meet with Ms. Hagstrom to be sure both documents agree and
that the definitions in both agree. Ms. Williams said some cross
referencing had been done already. Mr. Libby asked if Ms. Williams had
anything else to report. Ms. Williams said she just wanted to be sure
she understood the Board would be reviewing the other sub-committee
material at the next meeting. Mr. Libby asked Ms. Hagstrom if a draft of
the application would be available at the next meeting. Ms. Hodge stated
she would merge all the appropriate documents. Ms. Hagstrom stated her
sub-committee had a meeting scheduled for next Thursday, July 3rd, in
the Bridge Room at 3:00 p.m. Mr. Gummey suggested Ms. Hagstrom and Ms.
Williams could also meet at that time, as it was a public meeting or
else they could assign to staff. Ms. Williams stated her committee had
few definitions and in this particular form they were at base line
level. Ms. Hodge reported that staff was making sure the same
definitions were used interchangeably between the RFIA and Final
Application documents. Mr. Libby stated he had noticed there was not an
Agenda item for the Needs Assessment. Ms. Williams stated the
sub-committee has scheduled a meeting for July 18 and staff is working
on a draft for first review. Ms. Hodge reported that the timeline was to
look at the mapping index of current facilities on the 18th and to have
the Request for Intent to Apply out in August.
Mr. Libby
explained to the Public that the Board is attempting to collate from
many resources to see what is available in the County. There are many
wonderful projects and the Board is attempting to look at what is in
existence and how they fit in the four categories and in the geographic
distribution. Chair Libby asked if there were any comments on either
sub-committee report or if either Ms. Hagstrom or Ms. Williams had
anything further. There were none.
Chair Libby then
asked the Program Coordinator for a report on the goal setting session.
Ms. Hodge requested that a meeting date be set for which that could be
the key topic. She believed she could have a document to review before
the July 11 meeting and it shouldn’t take long to discuss.
IV. NEW BUSINESS:
Chair Libby
asked if there was any New Business to be brought before the Board.
There was none. The Chair moved to Public Participation and stated
members of the public were invited to come forward, identify themselves
and their organization, and requested that their comments be kept to 3
minutes if possible.
V. PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION:
Julie Rand,
Director of Development for the Lively Arts Center Project, introduced
herself. Ms. Rand read a statement and urged the Board to not put a $1.5
million cap on funding a project. She felt applicants should be able to
present their case and let each project stand on its own merit. She felt
the more rules that were imposed the more the Board’s hands were tied.
She again asked the Board to not set a funding limit.
Tom Harowski,
Development Services Director for the City of New Smyrna Beach, came
forward next. He said he had only a couple of thoughts regarding
structural issues that he didn’t hear in the discussion today. He
stated he did support the funding limit and that the $500,000 was
extremely generous compared to most programs. He questioned having a
project completed in 12 months, with a 9-month extension beyond that.
Mr. Libby stated he was sorry if the documents Mr. Harowski had
reflected that and that the Board had relaxed that considerably. Mr.
Harowski said that made sense and that most grants had a 3-year
requirement. He suggested the Board might want to consider a policy for
extension as part of the original grant contract. Mr. Harowski further
commented that evaluating a project and not the grant recipient was good
but he felt the Board also needed to look at ability of non-profits
being capable of doing the work or have support to help with the work.
Ms. Cobean
addressed that comment and stated that the grant application, which Mr.
Harowski had not seen yet, would include administrative ability, which
would be a large part of the evaluation process. Ms. Hargreaves stated
that there was not a grant application at this time and it was in
process. Ms. Cobean stated again that administrative ability would be a
major part of the application. Mr. Libby stated this was another
exciting project the Board was undertaking.
Chair Libby
asked if there were any other public comments. Ms. Holli Vanater,
Gillespie Museum at Stetson, addressed the meeting next. She stated the
Board had approved a maximum 5-year, $1.5 million per project, and asked
if there was an annual cap of $500,000 per year as well and if that was
part of the $1.5. Mr. Libby stated yes and by approving it the item was
moved forward to another hearing where it will be looked at again for
further review until a final document could be prepared. Ms. Vanater
congratulated the Board on trying to distribute a piece of the pie to
everyone.
Kent Donahue,
City of Port Orange, had a question next in reference to the category of
distribution throughout the County. He wanted to know how well that was
established and if it was a criterion in terms of points. Ms. Hagstrom
answered that hadn’t been addressed yet. Mr. Libby said geographic
location would be considered but not as part of the evaluation of the
project. Mr. Davidson replied that the map was a sample only. Ms.
Williams agreed and stated that the A-B-C-D areas were only
informational.
Chair Libby
asked if there were any other comments from the public. There were none.
STAFF MEETING UPDATES:
Chair Libby then
asked Ms. Hodge to report on the July meeting schedule and locations.
Ms. Hodge said the location would definitely have to be changed. She
stated she would contact members on new location regarding the July 11
and July 25 meetings.
VII.
ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Libby
asked if there was anything else from members of the committee. There
were none so the Chair asked for a Motion to adjourn.
Mr. Davidson
Motioned for Adjournment. Ms Hagstrom seconded and all in favor stated
Aye. The meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m.
Minutes Approved
07-11-01
Minutes Approved
With Amendments ______________
Amendments As
Follows:
_______________________________
______________
Chair Date
_______________________________
______________
Program Coordinator Date
UPCOMING MEETING
UPDATE (not part of the official minutes):
July 25, 2001
– 3:00 – 5:00 p.m.
Volusia County Council Chambers – DeLand
August 8, 2001
– 3:00 – 5:00 p.m.
Volusia County Council Chambers – DeLand
August 22, 2001 – 3:00 –
5:00 p.m.
Volusia County Council Chambers - DeLand
back to
home page
Public information
produced by Volusia County Government
