OVERVIEW
Volusia ECHO Advisory Board Workshop
August 14, 2002
County Council Chambers 
DeLand, FL

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

Chair Libby called the August 14, 2002, ECHO Advisory Committee meeting to order at 3:00 PM, welcomed the public and asked staff to take Roll Call of members.

II. Approval of June 26, 2002, Minutes:

Chair Libby directed the meeting to the approval of the June 26, 2002, minutes and asked if there were any additions or corrections. There were none. Mr. Wiles made a Motion to approve the minutes. Member Hargreaves seconded the Motion. The June 26, 2002, minutes were unanimously approved.

III. Staff Report:

Update on GY 2002 Projects – Ms. Hodge stated that both of the Volusia County projects (Lake Monroe & Rendon Parks) had not broken ground due to Department of Environmental Protection and bid situations. Staff hasn’t received the Restrictive Convenant from the Ponce Inlet Lighthouse Project. According to Don Hampton, the County Clerk’s office had mailed it to the wrong city, creating the delay. Regarding the Athens Theater, staff has requested additional grant information and will not issue a notice to proceed until the information is received. Ms. Hodge informed the board that the applicant, (MainStreet DeLand Association, Inc.) had requested a revised budget, quiet different from the one originally submitted and County staff has asked for official meeting minutes from the association that tells how the $100,000 that is not ECHO eligible, will be covered in their revised budget. The final bid for the African American Museum of the Arts, Inc., came in $100,000 over budget and a slight change in the description of the project is being considered. County staff has requested official minutes from the applicant stating how the $100,000 will be covered.

Schedule for County Council Agenda – Ms. Hodge stated that if the board stayed on track with the current deadline, the County Council agenda date would be September 12, 2002.

Chair Libby directed the board to the July 24, 2002, ECHO Public Workshop Document regarding the GY 2003 Application. The following document includes comments from the August 14, 2002 ECHO Advisory Committee meeting beginning on page 3 under the heading of "Public Discussion Topics and Generalized Comments." Comments from the August 14, 2002, meeting proceed each numbered item.

Workshop Facilitator:
Margaret Hodge, ECHO Program Coordinator

Public Workshop Attendees:
Lynne Plaskett, City of Edgewater
Irene D. Johnson, African American Museum of the Arts
Maxwell Johnson, African American Museum of the Arts
Tom Harowski, City of New Smyrna Beach
Harold London, Commemorative Airforce, FL Wing
Louis Figliuolo, Commemorative Airforce, FL Wing
Ann Brady, Atlantic Center for the Arts
Monso Tatum, Pioneer Arts Settlement
Kent Donahue, City of Port Orange
Samuel Goodwin, City of DeLand
Katrina Powell, City of Deltona
Greg Bartholomew, City of South Daytona
Pattie Pardee, Cultural Arts Center, Sands Theater
Julie Rand, Lively Arts Center
Kelly Ferguson, Lively Arts Center
Michael Brothers, Museum of the Arts & Sciences
Patricia Evans, City of Daytona Beach (didn’t sign in)
Gary Libby, ECHO Advisory Committee Chair
Lorna Jean Hagstrom, ECHO Committee Member
Charles Matousek, ECHO Committee Member
Jack Wiles, ECHO Committee Member

ECHO PROGRAM PRESENTATION – Margaret Hodge:

Workshop Goals:

• Review Application Format Changes
• Explain General Eligibility Requirements
• Explain Major Changes to Application Content
• Receive Public Input

Major GY 2003 draft application changes include the following (application page numbers subject to change with future revisions):

1. Final application deadline December 6, 2002 (pg 6)
2. Each project phase must provide some public access at the end of the grant period (pg 13)
3. Applications missing any section will be "incomplete" and therefore ineligible (pg 16)
4. 50 percent of match must be unencumbered cash - TAB 3 (page 24)
5. MAI appraisal is required for projects sites used as match that are a portion of the parcel - (pg 27) - Property Appraiser value may be used to document match value if the project site is the complete parcel - (pg 27)
6. Not-For-Profit organization may not encumber the project equal to the value of the ECHO grant - Restrictive Covenant - (pg 30)
7. No Exceptional or Unique Small projects for 2003
8. Defining the 5-year Rule

The ECHO Program Coordinator directed the attendees to the application page that provided the specific new language for the major changes previously stated in the opening presentation. (Ms. Hodge read the actual language out loud.)

The ECHO Program Coordinator then opened the floor for public input. The following comments and suggestions were made:

Public Discussion Topics and Generalized Comments: (August 14, 2002, comments begin following the numbered items)

1. APPLICATION FORMAT: Consider numbering the various sections under the Tab sections or bolding the questions. Staff Note: Staff has now inserted additional numbers to more clearly identify each section to be answered in the application and placed a corresponding number on the checklist of the application that is to be placed on top of the original application.

Aug. 14 - The board agreed with number (1), Chair Libby asked for a Motion to be made to accept (1) Application Format as stated by staff. Ms. Hagstrom made the Motion and Ms. Cobean seconded. The Motion passed unanimously.

2. UNENCUMBERED CASH MATCH: Consider (A) Allowing cash purchases of property, purchased within a given period prior to application, to be used as the unencumbered cash match, and (B) Reducing the unencumbered cash match requirement for 2003 to create a transition period before increasing to a full 50% of the match being unencumbered cash on hand.

Aug. 14 - Chair Libby asked if there was a Motion to change the draft language of the application document. Ms. Hagstrom made the Motion that the Match be 50 per cent cash of which 25 per cent must be cash on hand, not pledges, not in-kind, not previously spent cash, but cash on hand and in the bank. Mr. Matousek seconded the Motion. Chair Libby asked for a Roll call vote. The Motion failed 7-1.

• (Ms. Cobean – No, Mr. Wiles – No, Ms. Hagstrom – Yes, Ms. Hargreaves – No, Mr. Matousek – No,

Mr. Schleicher – No, Ms. Williams – No, Chair Libby – No)

1. CASH IN THE BANK: Consider (A) Allowing the applicant to provide proof of the funds in the bank after the Grant Review Panel ranking but before the County Council approval. Only the applicant may provide the pledge document from the applicant’s organization. Staff Note: Pledges from organizations, other than the applicant, can not be used to meet the requirement of documentation for unencumbered cash match. , and (B) Changing language on pg 25, Unencumbered Cash on Hand, section C, to "during" instead of "throughout".

Aug. 14 - The board made no motion to change the draft application to reflect the proposed changes in number 3. Staff was directed to leave the current wording in the draft application.

2. PAGE 15, 19-21 MATCH AND ECHO FUNDED ITEMS: Consider (A) in section "May not be used for ECHO funding", page 15, number 5, changing the word "borrowing" to "borrowed", and (B) verify that the notations in the Budget Detail definition section, pages 19-21, that direct the applicant as to whether or not the budget item may be used for match and/or ECHO funding. The first two definitions do not state how they may be used. Staff Note: Staff has inserted "and/or" wherever there was the word "or" between the word Match and the word ECHO in all definitions. Additionally staff placed the language MATCH AND/OR ECHO after the first two items listed in the definition section, Real Property Acquisition and Architectural Services.

Aug. 14 - Ms. Hodge asked the board to revisit pages 19-21 so staff would know exactly what the board wanted changed. Chair Libby recommended a change on item 5, page 15 – change the word from "borrowing" to "borrowed." Ms. Hodge recommended that on page 15 contingency funds (fees) be added under Non-Allowable Costs. Chair Libby called for a Motion to add contingency funds to become number 13 and move what is currently number 13 (Items as listed on pages 19-21) to number 14. Ms. Cobean made the Motion. Ms. Williams seconded.

The Motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Hodge recommended on page 15, adding as number 6 – "General conditions. Mr. Gummey recommended adding the words - including mobilization under the heading May be used as Match but not for ECHO funding. Chair Libby asked for discussion, there was none. Chair Libby asked for a Motion to add "General conditions including mobilization as number 6 on page 15. Ms. Hargreaves made the Motion. Mr. Schleicher seconded the Motion. The Motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Hodge directed the board to pages 19-21. Ms. Hagstrom asked for clarification of architectural services. Ms. Hodge stated that this section had not changed. Chair Libby stated the current existing policy for architectural services didn’t allow the applicant to ask for ECHO funds to reimburse architectural services in preparation of the ECHO grants-in-aid application, but if the grant was awarded, and additional architectural or engineering services were required during the process of the grant and the applicant had written those costs clearly into the budget, then the ECHO Board could allow them. Ms. Hargreaves recommended adding (page 15, line 4, under Architectural Services) Match and/or before the word ECHO.

Chair Libby asked for a Motion to add Match and/or to line 4. Mr. Schleicher made the Motion. Ms. Hargreaves seconded the Motion. Chair Libby asked for discussion. After much discussion. Mr. Schleicher amended the Motion to reflect the approval of the concept of architectural services with the understanding that staff would bring back to the board a clearer wording for architectural services. The Motion passed unanimously.

Chair Libby asked for a Motion to insert the words "and/or" wherever the word "or" appeared between the word Match and the word ECHO in all definitions (pages 20-21). Ms. Cobean made the Motion. Mr. Schleicher seconded the Motion. The Motion passed unanimously.

3. PAGE 30, PROTECTION OF ENCUMBRANCE OF GRANT VALUE: There appeared to be acceptance of the need for this language and some attendees thanked the Board for not moving forward on the Mortgage language previously submitted by the County Legal Department.

Aug. 14 - Chair Libby confirmed with Mr. Gummey that the protective language for the County, in the event an applicant breached the grants-in aid contract, was located in the Restrictive Covenant and the Grant Award Agreement. Chair Libby stated that the applicant couldn’t mortgage the building, including the amount of the grant, if awarded, because it would be a breach of the agreement with the County of Volusia.

Mr. Gummey read the County’s protective language of the Restrictive Covenant (page 31, number 4 of the 2003 Grants-In-Aid Application Draft Document, BA8-1-02.doc.) – The Owner and Grantee/Lessee are liable to the County of Volusia for the amount of the grant if the Owner or Grantee/Lessee breach the grant agreement dated (date signed). To insure the ability to repay the grant, the Owner and Grantee/Lessee have agreed that they will maintain unencumbered equitable value in the property of at least the amount provided in the paragraphs above. The Owner and Grantee/Lessee will not mortgage or otherwise hypothecate that equitable value in the property.

Ms. Hagstrom made the Motion to accept the language that was read by Mr. Gummey. Mr. Wiles seconded the Motion. Chair Libby asked for discussion. There was none. The Motion passed unanimously.

4. PUBLIC ACCESS: The general feeling of the group was that this language is not reasonable for large projects (more than a 1-year project). This may generate some sort of token effort in order to meet the requirement. This creates liability concerns on construction sites without Certificate of Occupancies. Recommendation from the attendees is to delete the language "for intended purpose" or strike the whole sentence completely. County staff stated that the Council’s desire is to have public access as quickly as possible upon completion of the project where reasonable. Staff Note: The applicant does provide a timeline for completion of phases and may be able to include information on when the public will have access to parts of the project or the whole project (Tab 2). The Board may require the applicant to demonstrate secured funding sources to show that the project’s opening day will occur as indicated in the grant (Tab 3). The Board may decide that this is an area important to evaluate as they score this project in order to ensure public access.

Aug. 14 - Chair Libby stated that "public access" needed to be better defined and that maybe this could be accomplished at the public workshop. After much discussion, Chair Libby asked for a Motion for the ECHO Program Coordinator to be allowed to insert in the appropriate places in the grant document, language explaining to each applicant that the ECHO Committee expected a description or an explanation of public access as part of the grant narrative. Ms. Williams made the Motion and Ms. Hargreaves seconded. The Motion passed unanimously.

Before the vote was taken Chair Libby allowed public participation.

Julie Rand, Executive Director, Lively Arts Center – expressed concern regarding liability issues of providing public access to multiphase projects. She stated that with her current understanding of the public access policy, it put a burden on multiphase projects.

Monson Tatum – expressed concern that the public access policy seemed to be for single-phase projects.

After much discussion, Ms. Cobean called for a question on the Motion. Chair Libby called for a vote on the Motion. The Motion passed unanimously.

5. ELIGIBILITY OF APPLICANTS: Consider (A) If a Foreign 501(c)(3) organization that has operated and been physically located in Volusia County for 7 years incorporates, in the State of Florida, would they be able to apply to ECHO without meeting the two year Florida Corporation requirement, and (B) If the requirement "a majority of Board Members of a Not For Profit organization must live in Volusia County" creates an unnecessary obstruction that limits an International Organization from performing its mission or bringing additional new money and economic development into Volusia County. (A) County Staff believes the ECHO Board might consider waiving the two-year to one year for exceptional conditions as stated above. (B) County Staff believes the requirement that a majority of Board members must live in Volusia County could be eliminated from the eligibility requirements.

Aug. 14 - Chair Libby opened the meeting for public participation. There was none.

Item 7 (A) – The board’s response to this recommendation was "No." No Motion was made for the board to vote.

Item 7 (B) – Chair Libby called for a Motion. Ms. Hagstrom made the Motion to strike the language in 7 (B) from the 2003 grant application. Ms. Cobean seconded the Motion.

Chair Libby asked for public participation on item 7 (B) –

Ann Brady, Atlantic Center for the Arts – expressed concern of having to have "a majority of Board Members of a Not-For-Profit organization live in Volusia County." She stated that the Atlantic Center for the Arts had gone outside of Volusia County for membership so as not to compete with the Museum of the Arts and Sciences and the Lively Arts Center. She stated that new money has been and will continue to be brought into Volusia County with the outside membership.

Ms. Hodge directed the board to a procedural recommendation regarding the Motion that Ms. Hagstrom had made. She stated that the board had previously voted on "a majority of Board Members of a Not-For-Profit organization must live in Volusia County." Chair Libby tabled Ms. Hagstrom’s Motion. Mr. Schleicher made the Motion to open the discussion of "a majority of Board Members of a Not-For-Profit must live in Volusia County." Ms. Hagstrom seconded the Motion. The ending Motion to strike the language in 7 (B) was Motioned by Mr. Schleicher and seconded by Ms. Hagstrom. The new Motion reads "strike the language in 7 (B) - a majority of Board Members of a Not-For-Profit organization must live in Volusia County." The Motion passed unanimously.

6. GRANTEES WITH EXTENSIONS APPLYING FOR 2003 GRANT: In 2003 the proposed application deadline is December 6, 2002. The 2002 grant period ends May 2003. This means that some 2002 grant projects will not be complete at the time of the 2003 deadline. Staff Note: The County Legal Department has stated they have no problem with a 2002 grantee applying for a 2003 grant for a new project as long as the grantee has maintained compliance in the 2002 grant period and 50% of the 2002 project scope is completed. The reason for allowing the application is (1) the Board has chosen to move the application deadline forward two months and (2) final approval for 2003 grant recipients, by the County Council, will not occur until March or April 2003. An evaluation of the existing condition of the 2002 project will be conducted by the County prior to the 2003 grant approval by the County Council.

Aug. 14 - The board’s response to this recommendation was "No change to be made to the current language that is in the GY 2003 draft application. – There was a general consensus of the board. No Motion was made for the board to vote.

Ms. Hodge stated that staff would make a report during the Grant Panel Review as to how well the applicants were doing with the projects.

Additional Items - numbers 9 and 10 were discussed as follows:

7. Ms. Hagstrom raised the issue from the July 24, 2002, ECHO Public Workshop – restrictions on the number of applications an organization may submit.

Ms. Hodge reminded the board that Motions had been made in a previous meeting to leave this section alone. There are no restrictions on the number of applications an organization may submit for GY 2003. Chair Libby agreed.

8. Chair Libby raised the issue from the July 24, 2002, ECHO Public Workshop – should there be caps or limitations on any of the grant award areas and caps? None were voted on.

4. Old Business:

Chair Libby asked for public participation on any of the workshop or grant application concerns.

Monso Tatum, Pioneer Arts Settlement – expressed concern on the meaning of new cash. Ms. Hodge explained that the correct terminology is "unencumbered cash."

Ann Brady, Atlantic Center for the Arts - stated that she thought it would be short-sided of the ECHO Committee if they limited the number of applications an organization could submit.

Julie Rand, Executive Director, Lively Arts Center – appealed to the ECHO Advisory Committee to reconsider the recent board decision for $1.5 Million over 3 years for a " Super (Exceptional) project" for GY 2003. She stated that the Lively Arts Center had a $20 Million + construction budget and that it could provide public access. She stressed how important the ECHO grants-in-aid funds were to the completion of the project. She stated that the board’s director, Tippen Davidson would be appealing to the County Council tomorrow (August 15, 2002). Ms. Rand stated that $1.5 Million over three years would drastically reduce the ability of the project and reiterated her appeal to the board to reconsider the super grant project category for GY 2003.

Ms. Hodge reminded the board that they had a procedure to follow before this issue could be brought up again. Mr. Gummey informed the board that a Motion would be required to reconsider the super (exceptional) grant category.

Mr. Wiles reminded the board (read from the June 26, 2002, ECHO Advisory Committee meeting minutes) that Chair Libby had asked the board at the June 26, 2002, ECHO Advisory Committee meeting to be thinking about what it would take for the board to accommodate a request, if the County Council asked them, to revisit the "Exceptional and Unique" project categories for GY 2003.

After much discussion, Mr. Wiles made a Motion to advise the County Council that "yes" the board would be available, in the event they inquire as to whether or not the board feels it can put together guidelines for an "Exceptional or Super Grant" program in the time allowed for review by them on September 12, 2002.

After much decision Mr. Wiles amended the Motion to include – May also include changing the proposed internal time lines for GY 2003.

Mr. Schleicher seconded the Motion. Chair Libby restated the Motion for clarification: "This Advisory Board can provide the guidelines for a super or exceptional grant program, but those guidelines might warrant that the board adjust its internal timeline for grant submittals."

Chair Libby called for a Roll Call Vote on the Motion made regarding the "Exceptional" Projects for GY 2003 –

Roll call vote as follows: Motion passed – 4 to 3

Mr. Schleicher – yes Ms. Hagstrom – no

Ms. Hargreaves – yes Ms. Cobean – no

Mr. Wiles – yes Ms. Williams - no

Mr. Libby - yes

Mr. Matousek –left - 4:30 PM

Mr. Davidson – absent

5. New Business:

Ms. Hodge stated that the board would be receiving an updated grant application that would reflect all the changes made to date (August 14, 2002).

6. Public Participation:

No additional public participation

7. Meeting Dates:

August 28, 2002 - next meeting date.

VIII. Adjournment: 5:55 PM

Chair Libby asked if there was anything else from members of the Committee. There was none. The Chair asked for a Motion to adjourn. Ms. Hargreaves Motioned for Adjournment. There was no second. The Motion was approved unanimously.

back to home page

 Public information produced by Volusia County Government