I.
Call To Order, Introductory Remarks, Roll Call:
Chair Libby called the meeting
to order at 3:00 p.m., and asked staff to take Roll Call of members.
Members of the audience were asked to stand and introduce themselves.
II.
Approval of July 25, 2001 Minutes:
Member Schleicher MOVED to
APPROVE the minutes of the July 25, 2001 ECHO meeting. Mr. Matousek
SECONDED the motion. Chair Libby asked for discussion, there was none
and the minutes were unanimously approved.
III.
Staff Report:
Ms. Hodge stated that the August
9, 2001 meeting with County Council was rescheduled for August 16, 2001
at a time certain of 2:25 p.m.
Chair Libby stated that they
have forwarded on to the County Council the 8/6/01 working draft
application, knowing that it might be updated, to keep them abreast of
the developments.
Ms. Hodge stated that members’
folders contained the stricken through version of the draft application
that identified approximately 95% of the changes. Also, in the folders
was the definition of the term "complex", in addition
to a Page 7, a recommendation by the Legal Department for a
"new terms language" for the Volusia County Council review
section. Also, the folder contained a Resolution Criteria Requirement
paper, which showed sections of the application that included the
requirement (Resolution 2000-156). Two other items included were
examples of project type and different scenarios of funding examples.
IV. Old Business:
There was no old business
brought before the Committee.
V. New Business:
Chair Libby asked the Board if
they had reviewed the August 6, 2001 draft of the Volusia County Request
for Intent to Apply (RFIA). He stated that the draft reflected all of
the changes to date and asked for a motion to adopt the RFIA 2001 (as
drafted). Ms. Cobean Moved to ADOPT the RFIA 2001. Mr. Schleicher
SECONDED. Chair Libby asked for discussion. There was some
discussion of the language in reference to environmental/ecological and
historical/heritage. Chair Libby asked if anyone was uncomfortable with
this and reminded the Board that it was just a draft and would go to the
County Council for discussion and also public hearings.
Mr. Gummey stated that legally
they were okay to just go with the distribution of the RFIA without
Council’s official approval, as it was just an information gathering
document.
There was a unanimous approval
of the RFIA 2001 moving forward, with the understanding that the County
Council would get a copy of it first.
Chair Libby asked that the Board
insert the single Page 7 into the lined out copy that will be
used as the working copy of the application. He asked if any member of
the Board had any specific questions on items of the application packet.
Mr. Davidson asked about the
"complex" definition. Chair Libby stated that it was an
added definition that would be added to the "definition
section."
Chair Libby also stated that the
lined out copy was the result of reformatting and consolidating some of
the sections into a format that would be neater and cleaner, and that
the Legal Department had reviewed it.
Chair Libby asked the Board to
review Page 7 of the lined out copy of the Grant Application and also
the new single sheet Page 7 which represents a recommendation from the
Legal Department. The original narrative under Volusia County Council
Review states, "The review panel will submit the project priority
list to the County Council of Volusia County for final approval".
Chair Libby read Mr. Gummey’s recommended language: "At a minimum
the department shall provide the County Council a list of all project
applicants, project names, project locations, and funding requests. The
ECHO Advisory Committee shall provide a list of their recommended
projects, with recommended grant amounts and direct expenditures to
County Council for final approval. The Council may change the list of
recommended projects or alter the grant amounts or direct expenditures,
but they may not add grants or direct expenditures for projects that
were not determined eligible by the Advisory Committee, unless the
County Council declares a project eligible for direct expenditure upon
the specific finding that the project is of paramount public
importance."
Mr. Matousek asked the reasoning
behind the intent of the section.
Mr. Gummey stated that it has
two reasons: (1) to provide the Legal Department’s answer to a
discussion that he and Chair Libby had at the last meeting regarding
Council’s authority; and (2) being consistent with the Volusia Forever
program, where the application provides discretion for the County
Council to revise whatever recommendation received from the Forever
Advisory Committee. He stated that the County Council ultimately has
responsibility for providing for County-wide needs, whether it is
through their operating budget or through the ECHO program. If the ECHO
Committee chooses not to recommend a project that is a County project
with direct expenditures, and the Council determines it is of public
importance, the Council retains the authority to make the appropriation.
Ms. Cobean voiced her concerns
over the funding of the grants and the time spent reviewing each
application, and then it going before County Council and the Council
overriding the Board’s recommendation. She objected to the change of
verbiage concerning the Council’s ability to change the list of
recommended projects, altering the grant amounts or direct expenditures,
etc.
Mr. Gummey responded that
"if" the County Council does have the authority, then it is
appropriate to put forth a procedure to recognize and advise all
applicants of that authority.
Mr. Schleicher stated that for
the benefit of the ECHO Committee, he agreed with Ms. Cobean. However,
he stated that looking at it from the County Council side, the
recommendations would be sent to the County Council from the ECHO Board
for them to adopt and follow, and if the Council allowed "more
than" the Committee recommended, then he felt that during the
process every act that the Committee did could be taken to the level of
the County Council. He stated that he didn’t think the County Council
wanted this to happen. He felt that the language should state, "If
the County Council does not like what the Committee has sent them, they
can veto it and send it back, but not to change the
recommendation."
Ms. Hargreaves stated that the
County Council should have the right to accept or reject and that should
be stated in the wording.
Ms. Williams felt that there
should be a built in mechanism for County Council to veto the Board’s
decisions internally, and lobby for that paramount project.
Ms. Cobean stated that in the
past with the Cultural Council, organizations have gone to the County
Council and tried to circumvent the Cultural Council and the County
Council has referred them back to the Cultural Board. She made a MOTION
that the original language be re-inserted, "The review panel will
submit the project priority list to the County Council of Volusia County
for final approval. The Council will review the results of the panel
meeting and approve or deny the recommended projects." She felt
that the wording states that County Council does not have to
rubber-stamp the recommendation. Ms. Cobean stated that the recommended
changes, "the department shall provide the County Council a list of
all project applicants, project names, project locations and funding
requests" was acceptable. Ms.
Cobean made a MOTION to ADD that language to the wording. Mr. Davidson
SECONDED the motion.
There was discussion on the
language concerning County Council and the motion.
Mr. Gummey stated that what he
had previously presented was consistent with the enabling Resolution
that established the County Council as the body responsible for awarding
grants and making direct expenditures. He felt that it was not uncommon
that recommendations made to County Council (such as PLDRC) are
scrutinized and amended, or rejected. He stated that it is not uncommon
that advisory board recommendations are changed.
Mr. Schleicher stated that the
process through the PLDRC, was a three step process; (1) Staff Report
(which recommends for/or against the application); (2) It then goes to
PLDRC where there is a second recommendation made which leads to; (3)
Going before the County Council. The difference with what the motion
leads the Board to is that with Council adopting the paragraph, stating
as part of their (Council) process, they will accept the list from the
panel, as is, or they will send it back to the Advisory Committee for
re-evaluation. Council would not make any additional decisions.
Ms. Cobean read the recommended
change in wording, as follows:
Page 7,
new language - "At a minimum, the department shall provide the
County Council with a list of all project applicants, project names,
project locations, and funding requests. The ECHO Advisory Committee
shall provide a list of their recommended projects, with recommended
grant amounts and direct expenditures to the County Council for final
approval. The Council will review the results of the panel meeting and
approve or deny recommended projects."
Chair Libby asked for further
discussion. There was none, and the MOTION was unanimously approved.
Alice Cycler, a past County
Council member, stated that if she were on the County Council and the
recommendation came before her, she would reject it completely. She felt
that by having this wording as stated in the motion, took the final
decision out of the Council’s hands (as elected officials) and put it
into the hands of an appointed board. She asked if the Council approval
would be project by project or the entire project list.
Chair Libby stated that it could
go either way.
Mr. Sanden, City of Ormond
Beach, stated that he would support the motion as recommended.
Chair Libby asked Ms. Hodge to
incorporate this revised verbiage into the draft application. He then
discussed the Table of Contents which had been reduced from 26 items to
18 items. The Board was asked to compare the lined through version with
the 8/06/01 version.
Discussion was
as follows:
1. Introduction - No changes
2. Volusia ECHO Program Goals -
No changes
3. Applicant Eligibility
& Program Requirements - 1C was changed to read "budgeted
organization".
4. Funding Policy - No changes
5. Application Time Table -
Friday, March 22, 2002; applicants with incomplete applications
section has been moved to follow the technical review deadline.
6. Mailing & Submission
Procedures
Ms. Hodge stated that she did
not feel staff should look at applications received after the technical
review deadline and be expected to advise applicants of incomplete
applications.
Ms. Cobean stated that
originally it said that the application would be mailed by certified
mail, return receipt requested, and now we are giving them the option,
they MAY wish to mail it.
Ms. Hodge stated that they could
deliver it or mail it. She was concerned with using the postmarked date,
as she has received mail two weeks after the date of the postmark.
Ms. Cobean stated her concern
was that the applicant would mail their application without return
receipt and have no proof. They should suggest or recommend to them that
some type of return receipt be used when mailing the application.
Mr. Gummey suggested that the
safest course would be to have a deadline and tell them that they could
choose the method of delivery, either hand delivered or return receipt.
However, they would only be considered if they met the deadline.
Ms. Hodge suggested that the
applicant be directed to call on the day of the deadline to ensure the
application had been received.
Chairman Libby stated that this
situation would be addressed in the workshop.
Ms. Williams stated that under
"Technical Eligibility Review Deadline," sample
should be taken out of the verbiage.
Chair Libby asked Ms. Hodge to
strike "sample" from the paragraph, and also to include
"one copy of the application" in the sentence.
7. Application Review Process
& Calendar - Page 7 revised earlier
8. Project Support Period - No
changes
9. Application Definitions -
Continue to look at definitions and they will fine-tune them.
Mr. Matousek stated that the
definition for historic was separate from the heritage project and was
different from the definition in the RFIA and recommended they be
combined and changed to be identical to what is in the RFIA. Mr.
Matousek stated that another issue was on Page 10, Outdoor Recreation
Projects. This definition was also different from the one in the RFIA.
Chair Libby asked that Ms. Hodge
and Ms. Williams meet to adjust these definitions. Ms. Hodge stated that
staff would make the changes as needed.
Chair Libby questioned whether
or not they wanted to include the clause, "and may include the
purchase of land". He directed staff to eliminate the clause from
the draft application.
Ms. Cobean questioned the change
under definitions from department/division of Volusia County Government
to a budgeted organization of Volusia County Government.
Ms. Hodge explained the need for
the term budgeted organization was because County government
restructures itself and may do so whenever needed.
Chair Libby stated that when
they get to the number of applications per applicant, they may want to
revisit this term.
Ms. Hargreaves questioned the
term "complex" on Page 9.
Chair Libby stated that a
complex would be an added definition to the draft of 8/6/01. The
definition reads: A complex is where a project is located in the same
building or multiple buildings of the same site as another project, or
the projects share infrastructure or in supporting facilities, share
amenities, signage or designation or have other attributes of actual or
perceived linkages. Mr. Libby stated that municipalities have lands set
aside for complexes of different types.
Ms. Hodge stated that the
definition was going to relate further in the document when Funding Caps
and Grant Requests were discussed. These sections will address why the
definition of the word complex was entered.
- Application Submission Format
& Evaluation Procedures - These were relocated.
Ms. Hodge explained the score
sheet sample was previously located in the back of the document and was
brought forward. A full page example of the score page was not needed,
just a sample reduced in size, of how the ECHO Score Sheet may look.
Chair Libby discussed the
different point totals, and asked if the committee was comfortable with
Scope of Work from 1- 15, Project Budgets and Matching Funds Statement
1- 15, Operating Forecast Detail 1- 25, and the Impact as the most
significant 1- 45 points.
Ms. Hodge stated that the points
should be based on the needs of the community, and not the needs of the
applicant organization. A lot of the narratives relative to the
Resolution’s goals will be found in Tab 5, Project Impact.
11. Projects: Single
Phase/Multiphase – Changes
in bonus points
Ms. Hodge stated that there were
no changes, except for going from 2 bonus points to 1 bonus point on the
multiphase. Ms. Hodge stated that she and Chair Libby had met on this
matter and felt that points might serve better in the areas addressing
the Resolution’s goals, versus a multiphase project.
Chair Libby stated that the
panel should realize that if any member of the panel should recluse
themselves from voting for any reason, and they throw out the top and
the bottom scores, and one person is absent, there are five people
voting or fewer if there are more absences. Chair Libby asked if the
Committee was comfortable with 1 bonus point versus the 2 points for
Multiphase projects.
Ms. Hargreaves asked Chair Libby
and Ms. Cobean, if in their experience, the applications tended to be
that close between 1 and 1 ½ points.
Chair Libby stated that if this
panel and future panels were very conservative and did not choose to see
great differences in the applications, then one point is a million. If
there was a huge range in the projects, based on clear criteria, then
there would be a natural range where one point would not make a
difference. He asked if the panel wanted to give a multiphase project
any points at all and, if so, how many.
Ms. Hargreaves asked how the
panel would be looking at multiphase projects, just for the one year or
for the entire phase of the project.
Chair Libby explained why the
State uses the point system on multiphase projects.
Discussion was held on the
multiphase point system. General consensus of the panel was to use 1
(one) point and revisit the point system at a later date. The panel was
comfortable with the high and low scores being thrown out and the
conflict of interest section tabled for further discussion.
Mr. Davidson stated he felt that
a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 7 member votes should be averaged. He
further stated not to thrown out the high and low scores.
Chair Libby asked Ms. Hodge and
Mr. Gummey to meet and arrive at a "minimum acceptable number"
that would be used for Board votes. He asked if the panel was
comfortable with throwing out "elimination of the high and low
scores and just averaging the scores of the members present."
Mr. Davidson reiterated that he
felt all the votes should count and not to throw out the high and low
scores. He stated that the example of the multiphase project should be
deleted.
Chair Libby stated that the
example would be eliminated and the high and the low scores would not be
thrown out. Everyone present at the Grant Panel Review meeting (if there
was a quorum) would be voting members.
Ms. Cobean commented on the
conflict of interest that needed to be addressed.
Chair Libby noted that there is
case law and State guidelines on "conflict of interest"
that the County Council follows. Mr. Libby stated, "The question
is, if you feel you have a conflict of heart, whether or not you would
be allowed to recluse yourself from voting. Unless you have a very
serious conflict of interest, which you would derive a benefit, the
State law requires you to vote. You may fill out a conflict of interest
form and state your conflict of interest and then it becomes part of the
record."
Mr. Gummey provided information
on conflict of interest: No committee member who is a board
member, officer, employee, consultant, advisor, or who has a contractual
or beneficial relationship with any entity that is an applicant for
grantee of funds from the Volusia ECHO Program, shall participate in
consideration of or vote on any matter concerning that entity.
Chair Libby stated that the project
extensions section of the document had not changed.
Mr. Davidson questioned why an
extension would be given.
Chair Libby stated that it would
be for finishing "the project" and this would be added
to the verbiage of the project extensions section.
12. Funding: Match and Cash
Requirements
Chair Libby stated, "The
current proposal states, the maximum grant amount that may be requested
is $500,000 annually, per applicant, per project. There is no minimum
funding cap and the decision needed to be made regarding the number of
applications each applicant was entitled to." He said that there
were two alternatives shown in the application: (1) Each applicant could
submit an application in each one of the four ECHO categories and (2)
All applicants would be eligible to apply in two of the four ECHO areas.
He then read through the Funding statement and asked if the Committee
was comfortable with the wording.
Mr. Davidson stated that he
remembered the cap being $6M and not $3M (cap for a complex facility).
Ms. Hodge explained that the funding
of what might be considered a "complex facility" had been
discussed under the Funding Cap at previous meetings. At the last
meeting, staff noted some Committee members seemed concerned regarding a
partnership grant or if the Board allowed several people to come forward
with a grant for one site, that ultimately millions of dollars could be
spent at one location. Ms. Hodge stated, "The question is, what is
the cap (if there is a cap) for a complex that may have one to four
applicants building on it."
Chair Libby asked each Committee
member what he or she felt should be the maximum allowable amount for
any complex project.
Mr. Green stated, "A
maximum amount might limit what an applicant wants to do."
Mr. Schleicher stated,
"Originally thought $500,000 was right, not in favor of a maximum
limit set on paper, as a project could benefit a large area of people
and that the Panel has enough knowledge, personal experience and common
sense to set limits even if they were not on paper." He felt that
the Board would use its best judgement.
Chair Libby stated the question
was "whether or not to limit a single project." He stated that
the initiative was discussed with the voters and there was always a
limit of $3M cap per single project.
Ms. Cobean expressed that she
would like to have a workshop to discuss: (1) How the funding is
going to work (2) How the allocations are going to be done and
(3) The funding cap.
Chair Libby stated that with the
more options you have, the more you have a need for limits.
There was discussion on the
limits of funding.
Ms. Hargreaves stated,
"When you limit dollars, you limit vision."
Chair Libby asked the Committee
if they would be comfortable with eliminating the $3M over the 20-year
life of the program and keep the $500,000 and the 3-year rule, bringing
the maximum to $6M. He asked if the Committee was comfortable with the
$6M over the life of the program.
Ms. Hodge stated that the
20-year lifetime portion would be eliminated, and the $6M per project
would be re-inserted in the application draft.
Mr. Matousek suggested a 5-year
maximum limitation. He also suggested that the Board define project. He
felt that if the definition of project would be any one of the four ECHO
categories, then the Resolution states that the money was to be
distributed equitably over the life of the funding.
Ms. Cobean expressed concerns
discussing the 20-year lifetime portion, the maximum limitation and the
funding cap, since the Funding Process has not been established, nor
have they addressed the equitable distribution or how many applicants or
projects may come in under each of the ECHO categories. She felt some of
the decisions might preclude the discussion about the cap.
Chair Libby repeated that this
document was just a draft and there would be adjustments made.
Mr. Davidson made a MOTION that
the entire Section Funding Caps be stricken. Ms. Hargreaves SECONDED the
motion. Chair Libby asked for discussion. Ms. Cobean stated that she was
not prepared to vote on the motion at this point until the funding
process was addressed. Mr. Matousek stated that a workshop was needed or
a section on the agenda just to deal with these kind of issues. Mr.
Davidson WITHDREW his motion.
Chair Libby reiterated that the
Committee was okay with the $500,000 grant request per project, no
minimum funding amounts, $1.5M over 5 years, and the maximum amount per
project or complex, but timeframes (5 - 10 - 15 years) were the concern.
Mr. Schleicher stated that the
workshop should deal with all of the issues of funding, and a
significant portion of time needs to be blocked off (not just 45
minutes).
Chair Libby stated that the
Funding and Restrictions issue would be revisited in a special workshop
and by that time they would have some feedback from the County Council.
Ms. Hodge stated that she would
set up a room for a workshop.
Mr. Matousek stated that he felt
the meeting time needed to state the actual time the meeting would last,
i.e., 3:00 - 5:00, 3:00 - 7:00……..
Chair Libby asked if the general
feeling of the Advisory Committee was to adjourn their discussion of the
application, and accept the sections that had not been changed
significantly by staff and the Committee.
Ms. Cobean MOVED that the
Committee ACCEPT all sections that have not been changed by staff and
discuss the funding issue at a workshop. Ms. Hargreaves SECONDED the
motion. The Committee unanimously APPROVED the motion.
Chair Libby stated that the
Volusia Forever Chairman requested postponement of the combined meeting
for fear it was prior to the County Council’s discussion of some of
the issues. He did not want to be on record prior to the County’s
discussion.
Ms. Williams brought an omission
to the Committee’s attention on Page 30, top of the page with
the bullets, service provider was taken out because of the impact
it could have on the bidding process. Ms. Hodge stated that she would
make the correction.
Chair Libby asked if there was
any other New or Old Business to discuss. There was none.
VI.
Public Participation:
The floor was opened to the
public for participation.
Mr. Tom Harowski, Development
Services Director with the City of New Smyrna Beach, stated that some of
their concerns had been addressed in a letter to Ms. Hodge and he hoped
they had been shared with the Committee. He stated that the application
was more complex than it needed to be. A few of the items included in
his letter were:
(1) Size of grants - look at a
tiered system. It is a concern that there will be large projects that
will come in and take away most of the money.
(2) Grant matching - is land 50%
of the match?
(3) Number of applications -
They have other units within the City that could possibly apply for a
grant. He wanted to know if that would be considered a separate agency
and could they apply as a separate agency.
(4) The new project amendment
procedure seems to be more workable than the original procedure.
Chair Libby stated that a lot of
the provisions that appear to be "nit-picking" were picked up
from the State Cultural Facilities Grant.
Mr. Harowski felt that this type
of application would be squeezing out the smaller organizations that
couldn’t afford to put out $4,000 - $5,000 of costs, on the bet they
would get a grant.
Ms. Hodge stated that the 8/6/01
draft was available for Mr. Harowski.
Chair Libby stated that he
understood his concerns and the level of detail involved.
Mr. Harowski questioned what the
"detail budget" told the Board about the quality of the
project. He felt all that was really required was a concept plan of what
was going to be built and a list of the major elements and the cost. He
stated at that time (if you do get the grant) the Board would be
presented with a required list of pre-construction information. Chair
Libby asked that Mr. Harowski follow-up with a letter that summarized
his concerns.
Ms. Hodge stated she had not
received his letter. Mr. Harowski provided a copy for Ms. Hodge to
distribute to the Board.
Mr. Larry Nordman, City of
DeLand, Parks and Recreation was concerned about verbiage that was
deleted in the definition section and that an applicant could only apply
in one category of ECHO in any one project.
Chair Libby stated that the
definition section was moved to another area of the draft. He stated
that the Board was considering if an applicant could apply in any one or
in all four of the areas. There was discussion that maybe it should be
in two of the four areas. Mr. Libby felt that it was a practical
consideration to limit the number of applications, per applicant.
Alice Cycler stated that she had
a concern that the public could only get up and speak at the end of the
meeting after all the votes were taken. She felt there was no public
participation. She also had concerns about when the Committee sends
their approval list to County Council, "Can the Council reject
individual projects or do they reject the whole list." Ms. Cycler
commented that it seemed that the money was being allocated up to
$500,000 and there were multiple cities and apparently four budgeted
governments. "Would there be any priorities given over non-profit
organizations?" She voiced concern that the bonus points would be
given to governmental organizations only.
Chair Libby stated that they
could have public participation on each issue but they are bound by time
restraints. He stated that County Council could reject individual
applications, and priorities would not be given to any applicant. Under
the ECHO grant program, the County Council and the citizens that voted
for this competitive grant process, created as level a playing field as
possible. He stated that multiphase bonus points could go to any of the
applicants.
Mr. Greg Bartholomew, City of
South Daytona, asked if the drafts and agendas could be e-mailed or
mailed out to the public prior to the meeting.
Chair Libby reinforced that this
was just a draft document and there was no sense of urgency at this
stage in the hearings. These issues have been addressed and motions made
and revisited many times. They have not had a workshop with County
Council yet, so they are a long way off from the finished product. He
stated that before there is a final document, there would be public
hearings and the documents were subject to change.
Ms. Hodge expressed concern with
sending out staff generated minutes/information that the Committee had
not seen, reviewed, discussed, or approved. Ms. Hodge stated that the
bulk of the 8/6/01 draft would not change.
Chair Libby stated that the
sub-committee on grants did look at a whole broad range of grant
applications. He stated that the Cultural Facilities Program keeps being
mentioned over and over because it has been the traditional partner for
the biggest dollars in capital construction.
There was no one else from the
public who wanted to speak.
VII.
Staff Meeting Update:
Ms. Hodge stated that the next
meeting date was Wednesday, August 22, 2001, in the Training Room on the
first floor, from 3:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. This would be a workshop
with a facilitator on the issue of funding.
Mr. Schleicher questioned
whether the Committee would be provided green folders at the meeting
with all the "printed" information that had been E-Mailed to
them prior to the Board meeting. If so, he stated that this would
prevent him from printing and would help save trees.
Ms. Hodge responded "Yes,
the E-Mailed information (agenda, minutes…..) would be included in the
Board’s green folders and there would be no need for members to print
the information."
Ms. Cobean asked that the
funding scenarios created by staff, and included in this meeting’s
packet, be included in the workshop information. She encouraged the
Board members to read them carefully because the examples brought a lot
to light.
Chair Libby asked that all of
the information pertaining to funding be reviewed by the Committee prior
to the workshop on August 22.
Ms. Hodge commented that the
scoring samples of current projects included some "partnership
grants" and partnerships had been deleted from the
current application draft document (dated 8-6-01). Staff felt that the
Committee was not moving toward partnerships. Ms. Hodge reminded the
Board that the samples were all hypothetical situations.
Chair Libby stated that ECHO has
a 2:25 p.m. time certain at next week’s County Council meeting. He
urged each of the Committee members to either forward to Ms. Hodge any
questions they may have for the County Council or bring them to the
meeting.
Mr. Schleicher stated that his
main question to the County Council was for them to define what their
role would be in the Grant Funding and Selection process.
Ms. Pulver, Daytona Beach News
Journal, questioned when it changed from being strictly a County Council
and "staff discussion" to a "time certain" at County
Council.
Chair Libby stated that
originally the ECHO Board had been scheduled (8/16/01) for "staff
time" with the County Council and he (out of consideration for the
Council) was planning on attending the Council meeting. He stated that
the time shifted to a "time certain" agenda item and the Board
was going to take the opportunity to share some questions with the
Council.
VIII. 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.
Mr. Schleicher MOVED to ADJOURN
the meeting. Ms. Williams SECONDED the motion. The meeting adjourned at
5:45 p.m.
Minutes
Approved_______________________
______________________________________
________________
Chair Date
______________________________________
________________
Program Manager Date
back to
home page
Public information
produced by Volusia County Government
