Call To Order, Introductory
Remarks, Roll Call.
Matt Greeson
went over the agenda and discussed the ground rules and the agenda:
AGENDA
The County Council’s
meeting and the actions that came out of that meeting that had an impact
on the Committee.
Specific issues that the
Committee thinks are unresolved. Each member will be giving their
concerns and issues they think need working on.
Then prioritize those issues
that they think are of most importance and they would like to solve
today.
Mr. Greeson
asked if there were omissions to the agenda that members wished to add.
The members indicated there were none. He then asked Jamie Seaman to
give an overview of the August 16, 2001 County Council meeting.
Ms. Seaman
stated the questions that were asked of the Council, Council’s
responses and how the Echo and Forever interrelate. These were questions
regarding issues that came from both Committees.
1) What funding sources can be
used for the land acquisition of primarily historic sites? Was it to be
ECHO, Forever or both?
The Council indicated it
was both programs. Decisions would be project driven. The project can’t
go to both. The distinction was made that if it is eligible for the
State Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) program then it is
probably a Forever project. If it is eligible for the State Historic
program then it is probably an ECHO project. This was a dividing line
for the Council.
2) Which funding source should
be used for the land acquisition of primarily linear recreation trails?
Forever, ECHO or either? Their answer was either program. Again this is
project driven. Urban trails would probably be ECHO and those in rural
would be Forever. When asked about FEC Corridor, this would be a Forever
Project. This was a consensus of the direction the County Council wanted
this program to go.
3) Which funding source can be
used for improvement to access water resource and environmentally
sensitive and outdoor recreation lands purchased with Volusia Forever
Funds? The answer was both programs could be used. They did state they
wanted 10% of the Forever funds set aside for access and improvement and
would be reviewed next year for the adequacy of that amount.
4) Will Forever funds be used
for improvements for access of lands purchased with the 1986 bond funds?
The response was that Forever moneys could be used for access on these
properties.
5) The next question to the
County Council was a Forever question about the bond issue and was
pushing for bonding immediately. Their response was they would consider
the bond issue after the ranking of the projects and would not make that
decision immediately.
6) Were they envisioning a
maximum per project per year amount for an ECHO project and their
response was yes. They did not state an amount and would wait for a
recommendation from the ECHO Committee.
Mr. Libby asked
how the board would balance the need for limits against large important
projects that can positively impact the entire county. He asked the
Council to grant 4 conditions and the third was flexibility. While the
Council expected limits out of this program they would grant the
Committee the ability to exceed the maximum amount per project per year
or for the life of the bond issue in extraordinary circumstances. They
will closely view the recommendations of this Committee. We are going to
be asked to set a limit per year that any one project can receive. But
we also have been granted the option to exceed that if we feel that we
are dealing with something that demands a greater share. How we draft
that language will rely upon Mr. Gummey.
Ms. Seaman stated
that all the way through the questions the Council hoped for flexibility
and that they would be the ultimate authority and final decision making
body. They also said they had a lot of faith in the Committee and the
Committee would come up with a good recommendation. One way or the other
they are the final authority.
Mr. Libby
stated one of the four concepts he asked the Council was for mutual
respect. We were the Committee appointed by the County Council and we
understand the Council has the ultimate authority they appointed us and
we talked about mutual respect. Then we talked about authority, and we
totally acknowledge that they have total authority of all decisions and
they have to grant this Committee a certain degree of authority if we
are to move forward with any integrity and they were willing to do that
and were very supportive. We also ask for flexibility as we move forward
with some of these projects. They granted us flexibility as we move
through the process. Then he asked for some degree of comfort that this
is a political situation so we could move forward under an umbrella of
political comfort. It was a very positive exchange and they were willing
to grant the Committee that exchange. The Council stated that there
needed to be a minimum as well as a maximum limit.
Ms. Seaman stated
that there was some discussion and setting a minimum might be an
appropriate thing to do but when it came to the final discussion of
questions specifically asked the Council they did not state that, but
they did state if you did want to make a floor limit to make a
recommendation.
7) Ms. Seaman asked
the Council what is their definition of a project and used Light House
Point Park and the bird center that might be put in there and boardwalks
as an example. She asked them if each individual component would be
considered a project or if they consider Light House Point Park a
project complex. The consensus was that a complex was "a
project" and they would not entertain individual components coming
in separately and being treated in the same year as separate projects.
The Council did state that they felt there should be a maximum dollar
amount set for a project over the 20 years and they did not make a
recommendation what that was and thought the Committee would provide
them with guidance. The belief was they did not want one project to
consume all or most of the money even if there were different
organizations or there were different addresses at the same general
site. They wanted to be able to see the geographical distribution.
Mr. Green stated
he disagreed. He felt that a project could be multiphase. A project
should be based on what was in that site and not in the fact that it has
the same address.
Mr. Libby stated
that they did not want all to come in the same year as separate
projects. They did not want more than one applicant in one year. Each
project per year will have a maximum amount and this does not cap the
whole thing at the maximum, as each one could be a multiphase (over
several years).
Ms. Seaman
continued that the Council also felt that they did not want any one
project to get all the moneys over the 20 years. They want flexibility.
Projects which are located within the same complex, should be considered
one project over the life of the program. The Committee must be aware of
this concern as they select projects.
8) The Council did not want a
limit on the number of projects per applicant or how many projects an
individual could bring in for each of the individual categories E, C, H,
or O. They want to see what is out there.
Mr. Gummey asked
that staff provide an update on the Request for Intent to Apply (RFIA).
Mrs. Hodge
said a map of current and proposed projects is being put together by
staff and that the RFIA has been put on the web. The public will be
notified through a press release and a notice will be sent to the
current mailing list. Complete RFIA packets will not be sent unless the
organization asks for a hardcopy. All notices encourage them to download
from the web site.
Ms. Hargreaves
said that some criteria might change today.
Ms. Hodge
reminded the Committee that the RFIA includes a disclaimer telling the
respondent that the proposed application criteria in the RFIA document
is subject to change according to County Council approval of a final
grant application.
9) Ms. Seaman stated the
next question was if the Council wanted to set aside (a percentage of
funds) for the geographic distribution or for the E, C, H, and O.
Council consensus was they did not want specific fund amounts set aside
for either. However, they did state a preference that an element of E,
C, H, and O be included in each year but understood that this decision
is applicant driven so they would understand not having a project in a
category. The Council will look at the program and evaluate it every two
years to make suggested adjustments starting this year and every two
years thereafter.
10) The next question was
about "Ranking". The Council stated that all grant projects
were to be ranked and the grant requests given up to the maximum amount
set until the funds ran out. This would be like the Florida Trust, State
Historic Grant, State Cultural Facilities Grant, and capital projects
with the State. Any project that is approved for funding but not funded
due to the money running out, will come back and be ranked in the
following year with other applications. Funding 100% is okay even if
there are only a few projects funded. Funding should be based on the
merit of the project.
Mr. Davidson asked
if ECHO funds were left over could they offer more than the maximum (to
a confirmed grantee). The members generally agreed that a special
project might receive more but they would need to meet a standard.
11) All applications will go
through the Committee ranking and process including the County projects.
The County Council stated that they would retain the final authority
over awards.
12) The Council seeks protection
of the funds. Ms. Seaman stated the Council agreed that there would be a
construction draw process paid out when phases of work were completed.
The remainder (overage funds) would be turned back into the fund balance
to be allocated the next year. She said that the process of distribution
and builders draw would need to be decided at a later time. The money is
also allowed to collect interest. The budget reflects a $2.4 million in
revenue and about 40 thousand dollars in interest to be accumulated and
it is put into a trust account. It will be added to the principal and
will be available.
Mr. Libby If
there is money left over (after ranked projects are funded 100%) the
State gives the next ranked applicant the option of taking the remainder
or reapplying the following year.
Ms. Seaman issue
number 12 goes into that to a certain extent. The Council has the final
authority to which projects would receive funding and how much. Which
takes us back to Mr. Libby’s comments earlier that a project might be
funded a little bit more than the maximum and that Council requested the
discretion to be able to move projects around or choose the funding.
What they were looking for from the Council is that the Committee ranks
the projects by quality from 1 to the bottom number. It is a simple
mathematical calculation to actually distribute the funds as they are
requested. They then wanted the ability to look at that and determine
that everything was equitable.
Mr. Libby stated
that the Council Chairman at the end of the meeting and the Council
unanimously concurred that only in the most exceptional circumstances
would they consider changing the ranking the recommendations of the
advisory board.
Ms. Seaman stated
that Ann Mcfall stated numerous times that she wanted to be able to look
at those records and Ms. Northey stated that same desire several times,
so there are some that still want to retain the ability to look at the
projects and geographical distribution.
Mr. Libby stated
that was not what she had previously said, change the scores and the
amount of money, and that is very different. Mr. Libby wanted to go back
to Council and get a vote to see if this process is one that they want
to review and change under exceptional circumstances or whether they see
themselves as a second grant panel to re-rank and re-allocate the money.
This was one of the critical questions we asked them.
Ms. Seaman said
she and Mr. Libby disagreed with what the Council had said. She listened
to the tapes (County Council, August 16) again this morning and very
clearly heard everyone of them state yes they had faith in the Committee
but the Council still retained the right to change the ranking and the
funding. If the Council will actually do any changing remains to be
seen.
Mr. Libby stated
he heard they retained the right to send it back to the Committee.
Mr. Schleicher stated
he had listened to the Council presentation via the Internet and
what he heard was the Council saying they, without a doubt, were the
final authority on the expenditure of the money. He also heard them say
they would exercise a veto power over the list that was presented to
them. If they disagreed with that list they would send the list back to
the Committee at which time we could take into account their comments
and send it back to them, always understanding if they decided to just
do it they could. But, they clearly got the message from the Committee
that if they do as the Council expects them to and that is to put
together a program that is very specific in how you apply and how the
determination is made on what was submitted to them (for grants). If we
follow our own process and submit that to them then if there is
something there that they do not agree with that it would come back to
the Committee. They will not allocate funds in some way contrary to what
we have recommended to them until it has come back here to the
Committee.
Ms. Seaman stated
that she also heard him say that they retained the ability to do that if
they so choose, and she agreed with him on that.
Mr. Schleicher stated
they understand that we do not want to do this if they are going to just
be a second allocation Committee. They also realize that the most
devastating thing you could do is to toss out an Advisory Committee
decision. The process is that you accept and set up a Committee like
this one with the purpose of taking their good advice. Common sense on
their part is what he heard and that they trust what we are doing and we
trust what they are doing. They will give the Committee the opportunity
to go back and look at what they have done.
Ms. Seaman did
not disagree with Mr. Schleicher but she did not want him to forget that
little piece, she heard him say that they retain the right to make the
final decision.
Mr. Schleicher stated
not to get hung up on that. Now is not the time for this Committee and
the Council to get hung up on that potential. We are in a much more
comfortable and clearer position in our dealings with our County
Council. Mr. Schleicher gave Mr. Libby the credit for that.
Mr. Greeson directed
the Committee to the next issue Identification and Prioritization of
Unresolved Issues.
Mr. Greeson stated that he
understood that scoring, funding and ranking was a concern but he would
like each member to provide a discussion topic. The members came up with
the following list of unresolved issues:
- Maximum and minimum limits
over the lifetime and annually of the project.
- Project impact and evaluation
- Definition of project
- Percentage of the up front
draw
- Length of application.
- Partnership application
concept, the amount of money to be put in.
- Costs to applicant for
application
- Complexity issues the grant
application
- Two (2) tiered funding system
The top issues that ranked
highest were # 1, # 2, # 3, # 4 and # 8.
Mr. Greeson asked the Committee
to pick their top three (3) out of the list of issues to resolve
tonight. The Committee
selected the following:
1. Maximum and Minimum limits,
maximum per year and life time.
Project impact and evaluation
Definition of project
Mr. Greeson asked to break
down the first part of number 1, maximum limit. The Committee
suggested the following options:
Option 1 $500,000 a year for 3
out of 5 years for $1.5 million over 5 years, $6 million over 20 years.
Option 2 $500,000 a year with a
maximum of $10 million over 20 years.
Option 3 $500,000 a year with a
maximum of $6 million over 20 years.
Option 4 $6 million over 12
years for special projects
Option 1, consensus is 5 votes,
Option 2, 2 votes, Option 3, 1 vote.
After further discussion another
count was taken.
Final vote of Option 1 -
6 votes, Option 2 - 2 votes, Option 3 - 1 vote
Mr. Libby stated
that if there is a special project category then the maximum or minimum
can be changed.
Mr. Greeson directed the
Committee to the second half of number 1, a minimum grant request
amount.
Mr. Libby suggested
a $25,000 grant request.
Ms. Williams thought
this may be too high for some organizations and that $10,000 might be
better. Discussion about this limit continued.
Ms. Hodge requested
some examples of projects under $50,000 since a minimum of $25,000 grant
would indicate a $50,000 project.
Ms. Seaman spoke
on the cost of a small project such as restoration of existing projects
needing bathrooms, parking lots, window shutters, etc. to help narrow
the options of the kind of amounts they are looking at as a minimum
grant funding.
Ms. Cobean felt
that the current complexity of the grant application for a minimum of
$10,000 was too much and felt that they might consider a simpler format
if they did a $10,000 minimum. Two tier or raising the limit from
$10,000 was discussed also. Two-tiered was not supported at this time by
the Committee. They want one grant process. The difference in operating
and capital dollars was discussed. The organization’s ability to
administer the funds if they can not match funds at that level would be
a concern.
Option 1 $25,000. Minimum grant
request
Option 2 $10,000. Minimum grant
request
The vote was 6 for Option 1 and
3 for Option 2. Due to the possible special grant category the three
members for Option 2 agreed to support the $25,000 minimum.
Mr. Greeson moved the discussion
to the Project Impact, Tab 5 of the application.
This tab lists the qualities that the Committee is looking for knowing
that these are just guidelines and not a check list for grant acceptance
and knowing that some of these items will not pertain to each project.
Ms. Seaman brought their attention to the back page of the Resolution
156, Section X., Criteria and Procedures. She reminded them that these
are critical parts of the application. Mr. Libby stated that he believed
her staff has included all areas at this time. Staff was directed to
eliminate the duplication of "Programs for children, seniors,
families, disabled, etc. Bulleted statement number seven "Fills
current void in the Volusia community", the language unserved/underserved
was to be added.
Mr. Matousek suggested
that staff provide a sample grant to better explain what is needed in
order to answer some of the questions appropriately. This could be used
in the workshops. The final consensus was that staff should get various
grant samples from the State system but not provide a made-up grant.
Further the Committee needs to provide a list of the types of answers or
documents that an applicant might provide to complete the application.
Definitions should be given as to what is meant by some of the items
listed for staff to use in the workshop. For example: What mix of the
documents would answer "community support"?
Ms. Williams suggested
that Committee members be at the workshops to guide these applicants in
filling out the application. There was no consensus on this suggestion.
The Committee
suggested that applicants check each item that applies to their project
and that would be used as a guide as to what should be expanded on in
their narrative. New language in the instructions should clearly state
that the Grant Review Panel (ECHO Committee) understands that all
elements listed in this section do not apply to all projects and
applicants would not be downgraded if all sections are not checked and
discussed. Applicants should only provide information on the elements
that apply to their project. Staff was asked to provide for this new
language within the Tab 5 section.
Mr. Greeson directed the
Committee to the next item, the definition of a project.
He read the definition of Project and Complex from the proposed draft
application.
"Project -
means the acquisition, construction or renovation of facility, which
meet the requirements of an eligible ECHO project facility for the use
and benefit of the general public."
"Complex -
means a project located in the same building or multiple buildings on
the same site as another project or the projects share infrastructure
and /or supporting facilities, share amenities, signage or designation,
or have other attributes of actual or perceived linkage."
Ms. Hodge
reminded the Committee that definition of a "complex" was
language provided by Mr. Gummey and was put in the list of definitions
at her request, not the Committees. Further it is understood that the
Committee may want to change this definition to allow greater
flexibility.
The discussion of the definition
of project led to the following changes:
Project means the acquisition,
construction, renovation and/or improvements of land, buildings, site
improvements (which include appurtenances and mandated off site
improvements and specifically excludes furniture, fixtures and
equipment) which meets the requirements of an eligible ECHO project
facility for the use and benefit of the general public.
Mr. Greeson stated the Committee
had accomplished what they had set out to do.
The remaining issues were listed for further discussion at a later date.
The Committee asked staff for
recommendations on these remaining issues:
Mr. Matousek asked that staff
review the complexity and length of the application and provide
examples. He also requested that staff create a blank application so the
Board has a sample of the maximum length of a response.
Ms. Hargreaves requested staff
to reconsider how a Partnership Application might work (Who would be
lead on this type application?).
Mr. Libby requested staff to
determine a percentage of Construction draws.
Mr. Gummey was asked to create
language for the definition of special grants.
The Committee agreed that they
should soon be ready to submit recommendations to the County Council
along with the final application. All major issues should be resolved at
that meeting.
Mr. Greeson thanked the
Committee for letting him facilitate. The workshop closed at 7:00 p.m.
Minutes
Approved_______________________
______________________________________
________________
Chair
Date
______________________________________
________________
Program
Manager
Date
back to
home page
Public information
produced by Volusia County Government
