 |
|
|
 Volusia ECHO Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
Chair Libby called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m., welcomed the public and asked staff to take Roll Call of members. Mr. Libby reported that the By-laws were approved by County Council last week with modest changes. The first revision was under Article V, Attendance, regarding three unexcused absences within a 12-month period. The Council preferred to be the final deciding authority on who is revoked from this Board for non-attendance. The Council stated that the committee chair would decide as to what is an excused or unexcused absence, which is consistent with other committee boards. Second, under Article VII, The Council asked to insert the phrase "subject to County Council approval" before the phrase "amendments to the by-laws may be proposed at a regularly scheduled meeting of the committee and must be approved by the majority vote of the committee." Article X, under Staff: an inclusion in parentheses was added. The paragraph now reads as follows: The Growth and Resource Management Department shall provide staff assistance to the Committee during the course of its deliberations and report preparation, which assistance shall include (in conjunction with the Chair) preparation of all agendas and meeting notices, minutes and meeting places. In addition, the Department staff shall prepare for appropriate signature(s) (in conjunction with the Chair), in accordance with Committee action, all written Committee communications. The Chairman of the County Council signed the By-laws, with changes as noted. II. Approval of July 11, 2001 Minutes: Chair Libby directed the meeting to approval of the July 11, 2001, Minutes. There were no additions or corrections. Ms. Hagstrom moved that the Minutes be approved. Ms. Hargreaves seconded. Chair Libby asked for discussion, there was none and the Minutes were unanimously approved. III. Staff Report Chair Libby asked for a report by Ms. Hodge. Ms. Hodge stated that the application workshop would be brought before the Council Members on Aug 9, during staff time. The joint meeting with Volusia Forever has been set for August 8, at 2:00 p.m. in the training rooms, one hour prior to the Committee’s regular meeting, which will be 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Ms. Hodge requested elimination of mail distribution of the Agendas since the Committee’s meetings for the next 3 months are consistently the 2 and 4 Wednesdays at 3:00 p.m. in the County Council chambers. Ms. Hodge reported that it is costly to continue mailing Agendas and other advisory boards do not mail information. Chair Libby asked if there was any objection for a motion to simplify this procedure and to broadcast the meetings on the web site. County Attorney, Mr. Gummey, commented that as long as the Board notified the public, it is in legal compliance. Mr. Davidson so moved and Ms. Hargreaves seconded; there was no discussion. Mr. Schleicher amended the motion and requested that staff mail out one more time to notify everyone of the change in notification procedure. Chair Libby asked for further discussion and a vote and there was a unanimous decision to amend. Ms. Hargreaves asked for clarification on the purpose of the County Council meeting on August 9. Chair Libby responded that the County Council is still sorting out the proper areas to be funded under each of these two resolutions, and wants to share their current thinking with staff and the advisory committees. At last week’s County Council meeting there was a difference of opinion regarding the appropriate funding of ECHO projects. Ms. Hargreaves asked that the ECHO Board be represented at the meeting and Mr. Libby agreed. Mr. Libby stated that it was important to have Board representation to reflect its position. The meeting is projected to clarify where the lines are drawn between ECHO and Forever projects. IV. Old Business: There was no old business brought before the Committee. V. Sub-Committee Reports: Discussion began on the Policies, Procedures, & Guidelines Subcommittee Draft Application. Chair Libby reminded the members that the application was still in draft stage and wanted each member to go over the copies furnished to them by staff (in the green folder) and give their input. He began with one of his areas of concern on Page 14, Project Extensions and Changes in project scope or venue. He stated that he wanted to be absolutely sure that Committee members wouldn’t nullify a multiphase grant designation due to a change in scope because the application currently does not allow for any amendments. He wanted to be absolutely sure that should a project be forced to modify its scope that the members would not nullify and make ineligible the second and third years of that grant. He wanted to entertain an amendment process under project scope or venue that would allow the Board to look at the proposed change to decide whether or not it is within the spirit of the grant. After much discussion of the change in wording, it was decided that Mr. Green’s suggestion to change the words will nullify to may nullify was acceptable, and the Committee suggestion was passed on to staff member Ms. Hodge to revise the language of the paragraph. The next category was Funding, under grant request, Page 14. Chair Libby wanted to be sure that the panel meant that the maximum grant amount that may be requested was $500,000 annually, per applicant and not per project. This implies that a single applicant could submit multiple grants as long as it did not exceed $500,000 in total aggregate. Municipalities could apply in four grant categories. Mr. Libby felt that the purpose of the $500,000 cap was to limit, not to expand the number of grant applications. Mr. Libby questioned if there would be a limited number of grants that could be submitted by an applicant? If so, Mr. Libby stated that it be per project and not per applicant. Mr. Libby then asked if there were any questions concerning partnership grants? Ms. Cobean expressed concerns regarding Multiphase funding and the cap on funding. She referred back to Mr. Matousek’s comments in a previous meeting where he looked at the projection trying to make sure the money was accurately distributed across the county. She felt no organization should get 30% of the available funds. Mr. Libby asked what the sub-committee’s thinking was with regards to the maximum amount of monies a project could receive during the life of the program, knowing that it could be phased. He used the Lively Art Center as an example. Chair Libby again questioned, whether it was per applicant or per project? Mr. Matousek thought it should be per project for the maximum. He wanted to try to keep the application as simple as possible by using a common sense approach. Ms. Hargreaves read the definition of project and application, as follows: Project is the acquisition or construction or renovation of a facility, which meets the requirements of eligible ECHO project facilities for use and the benefit of the general public. The applicant is any qualifying non-profit 501(c)(3) or municipality or department/division of Volusia County Government. Chair Libby questioned whether there was one or four projects per applicant. Mr. Davidson stated that every project should be assessed on its value to the public. Mr. Green’s thought was to get the applicant to do the applications. He stated, "Then the Board would rank them without limiting the number of applications." He felt there was a need to know long term goals on some of the projects. Ms. Hagstrom expressed concern regarding the $500,000 limit per project. She felt this would open the door for multiple projects (by applicants). Ms. Cobean thought it needed to go back to the sub-committee to work out. Chair Libby stated that County Government would be eligible under more than one category, municipality and non-profit organization would only be eligible for one category. Mr. Libby remarked that there was a two-tiered program in Volusia ECHO. One was the grant program and one was the possibility of direct expenditure by the County Council passing any evaluation or review by the Advisory Board. Chair Libby said that the Council stated, on record, that they strongly urged the departments or divisions of County government be evaluated by the ECHO Advisory panel, but the ordinance does not require that. Mr. Schleicher wanted to know what role the Committee actually plays when and if they (the County Council) have the ability to directly approve a project. Ms. Hargreaves referred the members to Tab 3, page 7, line 24, Sec X in the ECHO binders the Committee was given at their first meeting. Chair Libby stated that this issue needed to be clarified with the Council at the August 9 meeting, and asked staff to be sure that Council was asked the question posed by Mr. Schleicher. Ms. Cobean stated that she hoped the Council would take the same approach they have taken with the Cultural Council. She stated that they do not make direct awards to organizations and that funding requests came first to the Cultural Council. The Council makes recommendations to the County Council. She reiterated that the Board would like to reinforce with the County Council that projects should come through the ECHO Committee. Mr. Schleicher stated that the Board needed to go to the County Council with the reasons why their (County Council) policy needed to direct the project applications to ECHO. He stated, "Good public policy does not permit two (2) doors to the bank." Members were unanimously in favor of the County being able to apply in more than one area. Seven members were in favor of municipalities also being able to apply in more than one area. The thought of exploring some limits was brought up again because more applications would take a lot of time due to the huge amount of material that must be reviewed. Chair Libby wanted to see a hand vote of those who want to see the City departments be able to apply in more than one area and not a single entity application by a City. 7 members wanted municipalities to have the same as the County government. No count was taken for not-for-profits. Mr. Libby stated, "A joint application partnership application was an attempt to broaden the pool." Ms. Hodge stated the term to use for the County applicant is "budgeted organization" which is in the budget system. County ECHO programs/projects are housed in the Growth and Resource Management Department and would come from that department. Chair Libby asked Ms. Hagstrom to repeat the motion again. Ms. Hagstrom made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cobean, that we accept the amended language under making a request, which was, the maximum amount for making a request is $500,000 annually per applicant entity. There is no minimum amount. Under restrictions 1st line, 32 b, no more that one project per applicant will be accepted and no more than one applicant will be accepted under a single application deadline, for the same facility, project, site or phase. Cross out Volusia, Cities, and or capitalize the word The County of Volusia may submit applications by their budgeted organizations that are separate and distinct budgetary units provided the applicant does not address the same facility. Chair Libby asked for roll call to vote on the motion; Ms. Williams, no, Ms. Cobean, no, Mr. Davidson, no, Mr. Green, no, Ms. Hagstrom, yes, Ms. Hargreaves, No, Mr. Matousek, yes, Mr. Schleicher, no, and Mr. Libby, yes. The motion failed. Mr. Libby asked if the members wanted to make a substitute motion or should they bump this back to the sub-committee, knowing that they could come back with this motion. Mr. Schleicher did not like the fact the motion did not have the cities as well as the county in it. (Staff Note: Referencing the cities, by "applicant definition", would not be allowed as many applications as the County.) Ms. Cobean stated that she felt that the wording was the issue and it needed to go back to the sub-committee. Ms. Hagstrom said she did not want it to go back to the sub-committee. She felt that everything that was said in the meeting should be considered, as well as Mr. Gummey’s recommendations on how the Committee should deal with the county and municipalities issue. Ms. Hagstrom reiterated that the sub-committee did not know what the committee wanted and requested that this issue not return to them. Chair Libby asked that Part A of the grant request be discussed regarding the maximum amount of $500,000 annually, per applicant, with no minimum funding amount. Mr. Libby asked for a motion on the first part. Ms. Hagstrom motioned that the maximum grant amount would be $500,000 annually per applicant with no minimum funding amount. It was seconded by Mr. Schleicher. A roll call was done; Ms. Williams, yes, Ms. Cobean, no, Mr. Davidson, no, Mr. Green, yes, Ms. Hagstrom, yes, Ms. Hargreaves, no, Mr. Matousek, yes, Mr. Schleicher, yes, Mr. Libby, yes. The A part passed. Chair Libby stated the restrictions. No more than one application per applicant will be accepted under a single application deadline for the same facility project, site or phase. The County of Volusia may make application for their division or departments as a separate and distinct budget unit provided the applications do not address the same facility, project site, or phase. Mr. Schleicher was concerned that municipalities will be treated differently than the County. He stated that for this to be preserved as public policy it should be as fair as possible, and the means and methods of the County’s ability to provide or apply for funds should be the same for the cities. He felt they were all part of and pay into ECHO. He felt the solution might be that the cities be permitted to apply under the E,C,H, and O as a single project. Addressing the concern over the number of applications, he felt that many of the cities would not have the staff to apply for all categories, thus eliminating the likelihood that the Board would get four (4) applications from all the cities. His single objection (to the restriction) was that it needed to be a level playing field. He thought that if the cities could apply for each category, they would likely consider it a fair deal. They would have the same opportunity as the County to have one project under each category. Ms. Williams expressed concern that the Board would so restrict itself that they would not be able to achieve the goals that were set out in the resolution and would in turn not be able to address the broad distribution that they were looking for, because of the restricting of the submission of grant applications to them. Ms. Williams stated that she wasn’t saying to go overboard and encourage 50 or 60 applications, but that the Board needed to come up with some means of allowing the permit applicants to submit at least two, (one in two areas of ECHO), thus allowing the Board a broader base to select from and to work with. Mr. Schleicher expressed concern over volume and said restricting to two for municipalities may be okay. He stated that if the County Council looks at this issue as a much bigger picture, with the little amount of funds projected for ECHO, then this would be nothing in comparison. He stated that when the Board looks at trying to divide gas taxes, this becomes a war between the cities and the county. He reiterated that he hoped that the council would feel comfortable in giving the cities this opportunity to apply for at least two of the four categories. Chair Libby, condensing Mr. Schleicher's statement stated that he is recommending one application for not-for-profit, two for a municipality, and four or more for the County based on the budgetary units. Ms. Hargreaves stated the issue was not leveling the playing field for the not-for- profit organizations. She stated that if the Board wasn’t going to limit on the government side then how could it limit on the not-for-profit side? Mr. Schleicher stated most non-profit organizations were limited on usually one item, a historical or outdoor project, and there was no way to avoid the smaller budget limitations. He reiterated that if they don’t have the staff or funding then they are not likely to participate at this level Chair Libby commented that the Board was trying to balance the County, cities and not-for-profits. To handle this program, the Board must look at the scoring sheet and give the proper weight to certain categories on that sheet knowing the weight will vary if each category is given the proper score. Chair Libby posed questions on, how the Board would tackle the maximum amount per year and, questioned how would the Board not limit the number of projects that could be applied for in the different categories of the program? Mr. Matousek stated a different version of restrictions, which was no more than one project per category for all. He stated that every organization should have one for each category and that would make four, making it even. Under Restrictions, Mr. Matousek made a motion that no more than one project per applicant per ECHO category be accepted. Seconded by Mr. Green. Chair Libby ask for discussion of the motion. Mr. Davidson commented that the definition of applicant allowed each budgetary unit to submit as a separate applicant, thus making the city one applicant. Scoring was discussed. Chair Libby’s definition of a project was single unit not multiple parts. The Motion by Mr. Matousek restated that no more than one project per applicant per ECHO category be accepted. The second part was the Definition Section, page 6, applicant, and striking the word department. Restricting the County to four, municipalities to four, and the not-for-profit to four. Mr. Green seconded the motion. Chair Libby asked for a roll call vote to amend the language in 2 parts of the draft application; Ms. Williams, no, Ms. Cobean, no, Mr. Davidson, no, Mr. Green, yes, Ms. Hagstrom, no, Ms. Hargreaves, no, Mr. Matousek, yes, Mr. Schleicher, no, and Mr. Libby, no. The motion failed. Chair Libby asked Ms. Hodge to come back with several options to consider and to get with Mr. Gummy regarding this process. The A part of the motion passed and the B part of the motion did not pass. Ms. Cobean stated her objection was the definitions of applicant and project. Chair Libby went to section Limitations in matching funds, Page 27 or 28, the bullet listing. There were four items in question. Bullet Section: Building or Land as match, #2. The building or land must have been purchased or acquired within 5 years prior to the date of application. Chair Libby stated he would like to strike the 5 year rule. #3. The Building or land must have been intended for the grant purpose at the time of purchase or acquisition. #4. Only the purchase price or documented acquisition date value, not current market value, may be used as match. He stated that he would like to use property value at the time of the grant application and use current fair market of land at that time. Mr. Gummey stated that the current value of lease was discussed before. He stated that you could value a lease or appraise the property and determine what value is pertinent. The possible discontinuation of lease was discussed. Mr. Gummey stated that any new lease holder would incur the current liability and restrict covenant on the land. Under building or land #2, Chair Libby wanted to see the lease be used as match and if the applicant wanted to go through the fair market value as match, the Board should not restrict that. He stated that a lease of 40 years would be equal to ownership so land could be valued. Chair Libby wanted to see "by applicant" and "fair market value" added to #2. A restriction on the amount of property that you can use for the match was discussed. Ms. Hagstrom stated she would like #4 to stay as it was. Chair Libby instructed the members to think on these items and they would come back to them. Mr. Green asked if the land could only be used one time as a match. Mr. Schleicher commented that there needed to be tracking as to what part of the land was used so the land couldn’t be used again in a later project. Chair Libby explained that this was part of the workshop for the applicant to learn how to divide land to enhance the match for their project, so that maybe they would need to save part for a later project. Chair Libby asked Ms. Williams for her input on any items. Ms. Williams’ review of the grant application was given to each member of the board and read and contained the following:
She stated that such safeguards should be imbedded in the requirements stated in the application. Specifically: Page 14 – NON-ALLOWABLE COSTS: Recommendation: That item #6, page 13 of the State’s Cultural Facilities Application (which was the only item deleted) be included in the County’s application. #6. "Projects which are restricted to private or exclusive participation, which shall include restricting access on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability, age, handicap, or marital status". Ms. Williams wanted to know why this statement was left out of the revision. Mr. Gummey stated that it was always good to have this section in. Ms. Williams made a motion that the Board includes under Non Allowable Costs, page 13, item #6, exact wording provided by Mr. Gummey. Seconded by Ms. Hagstrom. Chair Libby asked for approval by the members and it was unanimously passed. There was no discussion. Ms. Williams recommendation, Page 29 – Tab 5: Project Impact The recommendation was to insert the following bold print. The statements discuss how the project will serve the community, especially regarding new or improved programming, "providing for increased accessibility to activities by low income families, seniors, minorities and others, involvement of local artists and service providers," community services, echotourism, etc. Ms. Williams made a motion to include this statement. Mr. Davidson seconded the motion. Chair Libby ask for discussion. There was a concern voiced that the Board may be establishing protective classes that need special protection. Mr. Gummey said that the larger issue was that these are operational restrictions once a project has been filed. Members indicated that the non-discrimination bullet could be moved up on the list for emphasis. Ms. Hodge stated that the bulleted items were not in any order of importance and asked if the committee was now setting them in order of importance. Chair Libby said no. Ms. Hargreaves stated that the bulleted items were given to the Committee at the town hall meeting by the voting people as to what was important to them for the ECHO program for any project to be built. She stated that these were the words that came to the County Council and the Board needed to look to see if it wanted to change the validity of the wording. Ms. Williams withdrew her motion and it was seconded by Ms. Hargreaves. Ms. Williams restated her motion to expand the bullet that state programs for children, senior families, disabled, minorities, low income and others and then to include in the bulleted list involvement of local artist and service providers. The motion was seconded by Mr. Green. Mr. Schleicher asked for an explanation of service providers. He voiced concerns that local business providers may be given preference over outside county contractors. Ms. Williams moved to remove service providers from the motion. Chair Libby asked for further discussion, there was none and he then asked for a roll call vote; Ms. Williams, yes, Ms. Cobean, yes, Mr. Davidson, Yes, Mr. Green, yes, Ms. Hagstrom, yes, Ms. Hargreaves, yes, Mr. Matousek, yes, Mr. Schleicher, Yes, Mr. Libby, yes. The motion Unanimously passed. Mr. Schleicher suggested the places when copies were requested to be submitted, to also request a CD. He stated that once in electronic format, the information is available in seconds. On the applicant page 9 definitions Minority: The word Owned is not proper. Staff will take another look at this also. Under the definition of project we missed a comma (acquisition, construction). Under definition project manager, Mr. Schleicher questioned if this had to be "Volusia County Employee?" He questioned if the Board needed to strike Volusia County and/or could it be a consultant or employee or project manager? It was determined that this should be the Volusia County Employee that looks over the funds. Ms. Cobean wanted to look at page 29, Project Impact Tab 5, bulleted item has a proven track record. She stated, "that the issue was, what is a proven track record and who does or does not have a proven track record." Ms. Cobean made a motion to remove the bullet where it says has a proven track record and is well established from the list. It was seconded by Ms. Hargreaves Chair Libby asked for a roll call vote; Ms. Cobean, yes, Mr. Davidson, yes, Mr. Green, yes, Ms Hagstrom, yes, Ms. Hargreaves, yes, Mr. Matousek, yes, Mr. Schleicher, yes Mr. Libby, yes, Ms. Williams, yes. Ms. Cobean asked to look at Page 5, Application Timetable. It refers to Final Application Deadline and a complete application. She questioned whether the Board would review complete packets and would the Board accept excuses why the application wasn’t complete? Chair Libby stated that the Board was not interested in entertaining anything other than a complete application. Ms. Cobean asked to look at the application review process. She questioned what process the Board would use, iteration or human touch, and how the ranking would be done. Chair Libby stated that the grant application has a total of 100 points. He stated that the high and low of 9 scores will be thrown out and a balance of the 7 scores will be averaged. He reiterated that the minimum score to be considered was 70 points. The remaining applications would be ranked high to low. He suggested that the Board try to fund at 100% until the money ran out, then divide the remaining scores and divide the funds so all applicants would get a reduced amount. This would allow everyone to go away with something. He stated that the meaning of scores would be discussed later in the meeting whenever they reached the scoring section. Under an iteration formula, the Board could give a grant applicant asking for $100,000, a larger amount but fewer grants would be given. Mr. Schleicher commented that if they asked for an amount and the Board gave them less than what they had asked for, that they would still need the entire amount to do the project. Chair Libby made a motion that the point totals determine the ranking, and that all scores above 70 would be eligible grants to be funded from the top down (at 100%) until the available money runs out. The motion was seconded by Mr. Davidson. Chair Libby ask for discussion. There was no discussion on the motion. However, the Committee did discuss the ranking and geographic distribution. Mr. Libby stated, "that over time the Board would have geographical distribution and would have to keep a very accurate tracking record, because it is very important that the wants and needs out there are met." Ms. Cobean stated that she had not thoroughly gone over scoring, needs, and undeserved audiences. She stated that the committee had not had the time to go over all the sheets to be able to vote on this item at this time. Chair Libby repeated the previous motion that Volusia ECHO would fully fund (100%) grant applications with 70 points or above from the top down until the available funds run out rather than the iteration formula that would take off the 70 or above divide all the total points and redistribute the available dollars to the available applicants. Mr. Schleicher stated it was not the right time for this motion. Mr. Libby asked for a roll call vote on the motion; Mr. William, no, Ms. Cobean, no, Mr. Davidson, yes, Mr. Green, yes, Ms Hagstrom, yes, Ms. Hargreaves, no, Mr. Matousek, no, Mr. Schleicher, no, Mr. Libby, yes. The motion failed. Chair Libby stated this issue would be revisited at a later time. Ms. Hargreaves asked to discuss Tab 6, on page 29, Ownership or Lease of Property/facility. For Acquisition only: Can we purchase the land and have others improve it, or purchase as a phase 2 of another project? They will still have to have matching funds. Chair Libby explained that in a year or two this group could come back and modify the application. He stated that there would be categories that the application seems vague on. Ms. Hargreaves asked on Tab 7, under Audit, Review, or Attestation. "Does one year’s audit meet financial stability?" Chair Libby stated, technically yes. As the panel reviews the application they have the right to question this type of item. This is why the applicant needs to come to the hearing. He stated that the Board could request previous audits or question these items if the Board members were unsure of the stability. Financial statements of the smaller organizations could also be requested. Chair Libby responded to a question about bonding from Ms. Hargreaves and stated that Volusia ECHO always was "pay as you go" and the expectation of the public is a pay as you go. Volusia Forever is requesting bonding of $10 million. Ms. Hodge commented that there was a presentation on bonding coming to Volusia Forever and the ECHO Advisory Committee was welcome to attend the presentation. Ms. Hargreaves indicated an interest on receiving notice of the presentation. Mr. Matousek questioned the length of the application, documents and attachments - 30 to 40 pages. He wanted to have staff reduce pages to ease the burden on examiners and applicants. Mr. Matousek brought the committee’s attention to the Project Budget Summary on page 25. He stated that there seems to be a duplication of the Budget Summary on page 25. The Matching Funds form on page 23 may not be needed at all. In the Resolution, the Board wants the amount and availability of matching funds and it does not say anything about source. He suggested that the entire form might be eliminated. The Project Budget Detail on page 23 and form sample on page 24, suggests they list out every specific support entity. Chair Libby suggested that they may want to see the break down of cash (this also shows broad-base support). He asked Staff to go through the document and reduce it where possible. Chair Libby commented that the Board was asking for cost details that a new organization could break out. If they spent more in a category than they asked for and it differs, its ok, because it is expected to differ some within the category. Mr. Matousek asked about page 14, Non-Allowable Cost - Expenses incurred or obligated prior to or after the grant period. Mr. Matousek questioned if this meant they could spend grant money before the award or did they have to wait? Mr. Libby commented that the Board does not have a builders draw format. He stated that no ECHO money could be spent prior to grant award. Ms. Cobean suggested a meeting on the agenda items previously referenced by Mr. Matousek, regarding the budget pages, funding criteria, score sheets, and how the money would be allocated. Chair Libby expressed that he could not find the value of land in the Grant application where it referred to ½ of ½, on page 21, where support was defined. Ms. Hagstrom expressed it was located on page 25 in local match and the cash had to be 50% and would go down in time and no more than 50% of the fair market value. Chair Libby expressed concern that applicants would not know that site means land and asked Ms. Hodge to go through and change anything that may be suggestive of land and change it to say land to make it clear to the applicant. Chair Libby asked Ms. Hodge to prepare an updated draft that would give options on how to bridge the gap. He suggested that she get with Mr. Gummey and to also invite the Board members to look at the draft and give it another read through. He stated that the Board still had some concerns they were not clear on. Chair Libby asked Ms. Williams to go over the RFIA. Ms. Williams addressed the handout that was in the folder and asked if any member had any questions (fourth draft dated July 18). The draft included the input from the board’s last meeting, specifically the items that they wanted clarifications on. Chair Libby asked if any changes needed to be made to reflect the changes that had been made on the application. He directed that Ms. Williams get with Ms. Hagstrom to ensure the two documents mirror each other. (Staff Note: This must be within Sunshine Law and made a public hearing.) Then the RFIA should move on to the final draft stage. Ms. Hodge stated that criteria set in the RFIA document was not approved by County Council and that it was only a means of getting information on possible projects. Chair Libby asked staff to give the RFIA a final look. He instructed staff to bring it back to the next meeting for a final approval. He stated that the RFIA needed to go to the County Council for a final review and asked Ms. Hodge to have the County Council go over it, although it is not for their official agenda approval. VI. NEW BUSINESS:Chair Libby asked if there was any New Business to be brought before the Board. Ms. Hargreaves asked if there was a staff position for ECHO. The County Parks and Recreation (now Leisure Services Department) is hiring an individual to manage the new department of Cultural and Historical Resources. Ms. Hodge responded that this was a replacement position only and there was no additional staff positions planned at this time. There was no other business. The Chair moved to Public Participation and stated members of the public were invited to come forward, identify themselves and their organization. VII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Mark Rakowski of New Smyrna Beach and Southeast Historic society wanted to urge everybody that the amendment process that was talked about was a good idea. As a grant recipient there is most always some type of a change to the grant agreement and not to make it go to the board or County Council to work it out. He asked to give the staff a lot of latitude to allow amendments. Joe Sullivan of the Boys and Girls Clubs was recognized. Mr. Sullivan serves kids of all areas of Volusia County and has all kinds of different relationships with their partners, cities, etc. If this committee only gives a non-profit one shot (one application) it would be hard for us to do and to please take it under consideration. Chair Libby asked if there were any other comments from the public. There were none. VIII. STAFF MEETING UPDATES: Chair Libby then asked Ms. Hodge to report on the next meetings. The joint Volusia Forever meeting on August 8 at 2:00 p.m. in the training rooms on the 1st floor. and ECHO is the 2 and 4 Wednesday in the County Council chambers at 3:00 p.m. She clarified that August 9 will be "staff time" with the County Council to clarify some issues and will not be a set time on the agenda. (Staff Note: The August 8 Joint Meeting has been postponed.) Ms. Hagstrom ask for an excused absence due to being out of town for the next meeting. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Libby asked if there was anything else from members of the committee. There was none. Chair Libby asked for a Motion to adjourn. Ms. Hagstrom Motioned for Adjournment. Ms. Williams seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Minutes Approved _____________ Minutes Approved With Amendments ______________ Amendments As Follows: _______________________________ ______________ Chair Date _______________________________ ______________ Program Manager Date UPCOMING MEETING UPDATE (not part of the official minutes): 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 Public information produced by Volusia County Government |