Absent
members
Teri Ford Cobean
Linda Hargreaves
Charles Matousek
Roy Schleicher
Visitors
(signed in)
Kelly Ferguson, Lively Arts
Center
Margaret E. Lee, Cultural Arts Center
Lynne Plaskett, City of Edgewater
Don Bostrom, Ormond Beach Historical Trust
Maxwell Johnson, African American Museum
Mary Virginia, Museum of Arts & Sciences
Sandra Wilson, DeBary Art League
Call To Order, Introductory
Remarks, Roll Call:
Chair Libby
called the September 11, 2002, Volusia ECHO Advisory Committee meeting
to order at 3:10 PM, welcomed the public and asked staff to take Roll
Call of members.
Approval of August 28, 2002,
Minutes:
Chair Libby
directed the meeting to the approval of the August 28, 2002, minutes and
asked if there were any additions or corrections. Ms. Williams made a
Motion to amend page 3 of the minutes ( page 20 of the GY 2003 ECHO
Application) to include a statement, wording to be determined by staff,
stating that contingency and contractor fees may not be included in any
other division’s
budget items. Ms. Hagstrom seconded the Motion. Chair Libby ask for a
Motion to approve the minutes, as amended. The August 28, 2002, minutes
were unanimously approved, as amended.
Staff Report:
GY 2002 Project Update: Ms.
Hodge stated that there
were no additional updates to the GY 2002 projects, other than
that the Museum of Arts and Sciences had its ECHO sign installed.
County Council September 5,
2002, Agenda Item: Ms. Hodge stated
that the County Council had agreed to direct the ECHO Board to include
some criteria for Exceptional and Unique Small grant projects with basic
guideline recommendations of no more than $3 Million over a 3-year
period ($1 Million annually for 3 years) for a maximum grant amount.
Chair Libby stated
that unbeknownst to the ECHO Advisory Committee, County staff submitted
to the County Council a draft criteria that might be used to establish a
mini and maxi grant program. Most, but not all the items in the draft
that was reviewed by the County Council, came from the ECHO Advisory
Board (discussions during previous meetings). Chair Libby stated
that he was a little perplexed at the technique that the County staff
used by going directly to the County Council with the draft criteria
instead of bringing it (first) to the ECHO Advisory Committee. But, in
retrospect, that he understood technically, that it was to everyone’s
advantage that it happened that way. In effect, the County Council has
asked the board to come up with guidelines for the mini and maxi grant
programs. For clarification purposes, Chair Libby stated that he
would refer to the mini grant program as grant funding under $50,000 and
the maxi grant program as grant funding over $500,000 per year. He
stated that the County Council had changed their minds on a 5-2 vote for
the ECHO Advisory Committee to revisit and offer mini grants, under
$50,000, and maxi grants, over $500,000. The only caveat that the County
Council requested from the board was that it did not give maxi grants in
excess of $1 Million a year for no more than three years. So the maxi
grant would be capped out at "up to and not to exceed $3 Million
over a 3-year period." Ms. Hagstrom questioned whether it would be
3 years out of 5 years. Chair Libby replied, "no, that it was 3
consecutive years." He stated that the board was to establish the
rest of the criteria for the GY 2003 ECHO application.
Chair Libby
stated that the super and mini grant criteria that was submitted to the
County Council, by Montye Beamer and Margaret Hodge, could be used as a
jumping off place by the board to enable them to get going on the
criteria for the mini and maxi grant program for GY 2003..
After much discussion, Chair
Libby called for a Motion to strike the "Unique Small Project
(mini) grant language and the 7 of 9 absolute ¾ majority votes of the
ECHO Advisory Committee from the criteria list and in-fold the Unique
Small Project program into the regular GY 2003 ECHO Application
information. Chair Libby stated that this in essence dropped the cash
minimum requirements for a project to $25,000 with $12, 500 match. Ms.
Hagstrom made a Motion to lower the minimum grant amount (page 14,
Funding Amounts/Caps and Restrictions of the GY 2003 ECHO Application)
that may be requested to $12,500 per project, per year. Mr. Davidson
seconded the Motion.
The Motion passed unanimously.
IV. Old Business:
Exceptional & Unique Small
Grant Criteria/Procedures - Chair Libby directed the board to the
following document that was submitted to the County Council on September
5, 2002, by County staff. September 11, 2002, ECHO Advisory Committee
meeting comments are included.
SUPER AND MINI GRANT PROJECT
PROGRAM (staff proposal)
The following paragraphs are the
existing language in the 2002 application.
GRANT FUNDING REQUEST CATEGORIES
(2002 application, page 10)
EXCEPTIONAL PROJECT means
a project of paramount and crucial county-wide importance and which
provides for receipt of services by significantly large numbers of
people in all areas of the County as demonstrated and determined by
absolute ¾ majority votes of the ECHO Committee (7 of 9) and the County
Council (6 of 7).
Sept. 11 – Chair Libby asked
for a Motion to strike the word " Exceptional" and replace it
with the word "Super" Project. Ms. Hagstrom made the Motion.
Mr. Davidson seconded. Motion failed (4 to 1 – Chair Libby voted no).
Mr. Davidson moved to leave the word "Exceptional." Ms.
Hagstrom seconded. The Motion passed unanimously.
PROJECT means
the acquisition, construction, renovation and/or improvement of
buildings and appurtenances, site improvements (such as driveways,
parking facilities, storm-water management facilities, landscaping,
signage and pedestrian facilities) and mandated off-site improvements
that meet the requirements of an eligible ECHO project for the use and
benefit of the general public. This definition specifically excludes
furniture, fixtures, and equipment.
Sept. 11 - After
much discussion, the board agreed to add after the word "equipment"
in the definition of PROJECT (above) – as
defined in the grant application.
UNIQUE SMALL PROJECT means
a project requiring matching funds less than $25,000 that has a narrowly
focused public purpose and which provides for a receipt of services by a
distinct unserved or under-served segment of the public as demonstrated
and determined by an absolute ¾ majority of the Committee (7 of 9) and
the County Council (6 of 7).
Sept. 11
– The board voted to strike the language for Unique Small
Project from the draft criteria.
GRANT FUNDING AMOUNTS (2002
application, page 15)
The maximum grant amount that
may be requested is $500,000 annually per project. The grant minimum
amount that may be requested is $25,000 per project per year. After this
grant cycle (2003) the Committee with County Council approval may
provide for Exceptional Projects and Unique Small Project categories.
Should this occur, applicants would be able to apply for more than the
maximum amount of funds for an "Exceptional Project" or may
apply for less than the minimum funding amount for a "Unique Small
Project". (See definitions, page ___ for details on an Exceptional
or Unique Small Project.) Applicants requesting Exceptional or Unique
Small status in future grant cycles will be asked to complete additional
application information if these grant categories are made available.
Sept. 11 –
Chair Libby, with board consensus, directed staff to amend this
paragraph to reflect the new language for small projects (new minimum
grant request amounts) and the new project high for the exceptional
project.
FUNDING CAPS (2002 application,
page 15)
No project, regardless of
single-phase or multiphase status may receive more than $1.5 million
during five (5) consecutive ECHO grant funding years in length. The
5-year cycle begins with the first year the project receives funding.
"Receive" means (month/day) of the fiscal year the grant funds
were awarded by the County Council. No project may receive more than $6
million dollars over the twenty year lifetime of the ECHO grant program
unless recommended for an "Exceptional Project" funding amount
by the ECHO Committee and awarded additional ECHO grant funding by the
County Council if this category is made available and defined as to
allow for more than $6 million over the twenty year lifetime of the ECHO
program.
Sept. 11
- Ms. Hodge stated that language needed to be added to the grant
application explaining that a large project can only get one
exceptional grant and would not be eligible for any additional ECHO
grant funds under the exceptional grant program ($3 Million over 3
consecutive years with a 2-year gap). On the 6th year the applicant
would be eligible to apply in the regular 5-year grant cycle. Chair
Libby stated that the perimeters for an exceptional program needed
to be established adding the $3 Million over 3 consecutive years, (with
a 2-year gap). His understanding of the direction given by the County
Council was that an applicant would be entitled to one super
(exceptional) grant during the life of the bond issue, and would be
eligible to apply, after a two year gap, in the regular 5-year grant
cycle under the terms already in place.
Chair Libby asked for a Motion
that would set the initial guidelines for an exceptional project in that
an eligible applicant could ask for $3 Million over 3 consecutive years
with a 2-year gap after the 3rd year. The applicant could then move into
the regular 5-year grant cycle on the 6th year. Ms. Hagstrom made the
Motion. Mr. Wiles seconded the Motion. The Motion passed unanimously.
RESTRICTIONS (2002 application,
page 15)
No more than one application for
the same facility complex, facility, project, site or phase will be
accepted per year regardless of the number of applicant organizations.
II. Proposed
Eligibility Requirements if Super and Mini grants are approved
Super Grant Applications must:
Show the project meets the
existing definition of an Exceptional grant.
Provide a minimum 5:1 match
(with 50% of match as unencumbered cash)
Demonstrate full match at the
time of application and provide all required unencumbered cash match at
the time of the Grant Panel Review.
Must provide Public Access to
the project at the completion of the project and shall not be later than
three years from the date the grant is awarded by the County Council
Sept. 11: - Heading - Replace
the word "Super" with "Exceptional, remove Mini grants -
replace, in line 1, the word
"grant" with the word "project." Chair Libby
stated that staff and Mr. Gummey would have the responsibility of
deciding whether or not to declare a project as an "exceptional
project."
Line #2 - 5:1 Match – Chair
Libby stated with the
5:1 Match Rule, an applicant that requested $3 Million would have to
have $15 Million Match, with no less than $7.5 Million of unencumbered
cash on hand at the time of the application. The question he posed to
the board was "if the bar was too high or too low?" He then
opened the floor for discussion. Mr. Davidson stated that he
agreed with Ms. Hargreaves (information emailed for meeting) that the
bar was too high. Mr. Wiles asked for clarification on the
5:1 Match. Ms. Hodge stated that an "exceptional grant"
was a one time total grant award and would be for a full $3 Million
dispersed over 3 consecutive years and the applicant must have
the full match of $15 Million with $7.5 Million of unencumbered cash on
hand. Chair Libby stated that this was to ensure that the
applicant was ready for an "exceptional project."
Chair Libby asked for a Motion
on whether or not to confirm or reduce the "exceptional grant match
minimum of 5:1." Mr. Davidson made a Motion to reduce the 5:1 Match
to a 4:1 Match. Ms. Hagstrom seconded the Motion. There was no
additional discussion. Chair Libby asked for everyone in favor to say
"aye." Ms. Hodge questioned whether or not everyone voted on
the Motion. Mr. Wiles and Ms. Williams had failed to voice their vote.
Chair Libby asked for a Roll Call Vote. The Motion passed unanimously.
Mini Grants must:
Show the project meets the
existing definition of the Unique Small grant .
Provide a minimum 1:1 match
(with 50% of the match as unencumbered cash)
Sept. 11 - Page 2 – Mini
Grants – 3 lines of verbiage at the top of the page to be deleted.
Chair Libby asked for a Motion
to approve Roman Numeral II , as amended. Ms. Hagstrom made the Motion.
Mr. Davidson seconded the Motion.
The Motion passed
unanimously
III. Proposed Funding Caps:
Super Grants:
Up to $1 million dollars per
year for three consecutive years.
Annually the ECHO Board will
recommend to the County Council if Super Grants applications should be
accepted based on availability of ECHO funds and evaluation of the ECHO
program goals.
Mini Grants:
Up to $24,999 for 365 days from
the date the grant is awarded by the County Council.
Annually the
ECHO Board will recommend to the County Council if Mini Grants
applications should be accepted based on availability of ECHO funds and
evaluation of the ECHO program goals.
Sept. 11 - After
much discussion, the board agreed to change the word "super"
to the word "exceptional" and delete the verbiage "Mini
Grants."
Chair Libby
asked for a Motion to approve Roman Numeral III, as amended. Mr.
Davidson made the Motion and Mr. Wiles seconded. Chair Libby opened the
floor for discussion. Ms. Williams asked if an applicant had received
previous funding could they come in as an exceptional project? Chair
Libby stated that the current rule would allow organizations that had
already received a grant, the ability to apply for an exceptional grant.
He stated that Mr. Gummey had expressed concern that the board not
exclude applicants based on prior success, that but the board needed to
weigh the merit of the grant itself (project) against the perimeters of
the program, and not block access. He stated that over time, if funds
were being distributed weird geographically or by discipline then the
board could do some adjusting to tweak the program, but wanted to keep
it as accessible as possible.
Ms. Hodge
stated, "the question (asked by Ms. Williams) was a good one,"
and that the applicant could go and not get an exceptional project, but
could get a project funded for up to $1.5 Million over 3 years and then
on the 4th year, could come into the 5-year grant program, asking for an
exceptional project. Ms. Williams stated another issue the board needed
to keep in mind was that the exceptional projects were dedicated
projects ($1 Million/annually for 3 consecutive years), and wanted the
board to be cautious about dedicating all of the grants-in-aid funds to
exceptional projects. Chair Libby stated that the exceptional project
category would be reviewed on an annual basis to avoid this from
happening. Chair Libby called for a question on the Motion. The Motion
passed unanimously.
IV. Proposed
procedure for Super and Mini Projects if approved
All applicants have the same
application deadline.
ECHO Program Coordinator reviews
applications for completeness and eligibility.
ECHO Board approves eligibility
list and accepts eligible applications.
ECHO Board convenes as the Grant
Review Panel:
The Grant Review Panel begins
the meeting by conducting a vote on each Super and Mini grant
application to determine if the project meets the eligibility
requirements for such projects as stated in the application.
The Grant Review Panel then
ranks all applications including those approved as Super and Mini.
If the Super grant application
ranks in the top two then it remains Super with additional funding. The
Board determines the final funding amount and grant period prior to
scoring.
If the Super fails to rank in
the top two, its funding request amount automatically returns to the
maximum grant amount of $500,000 for one grant year.
The Mini project is not required
to rank in the top two in order to maintain Mini status.
The County Council has final
approval of all grant awards and funding amounts. If the County Council
does not approve the Super funding amount, the excess funds over
$500,000 would automatically be offered to the next highest scoring
applicant(s) in a future County Council agenda item or if no such
applicant is available, the excess funds would roll over to the next
grant cycle.
Sept. 11 – Heading should read
– Proposed procedure for Exceptional Projects if approved. The word
"super" was replaced with "exceptional" and the mini
grant language was stricken from the paragraph.
4) line 3 - with a general
consensus from the board, the sentence – the Board determines the
final funding amount and grant period prior to scoring, was deleted -
line 4 , after the word two, the board instructed staff to add "and
if the applicant continues in the grant program the match will be
reduced to 1:1 - line 5 , the sentence regarding a mini project was
stricken - line 6, the board directed staff to place a period after the
word "applicant(s), delete, "in a future County Council agenda
item, begin a new sentence with the word "If."
Chair Libby called for a Motion
to accept Roman Numeral IV, as amended. Ms. Hagstrom made the Motion.
Mr.
Davidson seconded the Motion.
The Motion was unanimously approved.
V. Proposed Changes in
the Application to include Super and Mini projects:
Include Super and Mini projects
on the Application Form, section number 7 and add eligibility language
in the Tab 1 section of the application manual. Include language on the
Application Form where the applicant signifies they agree or disagree to
having their ECHO grant request amount reduced to the maximum amount
allowed if their project does not receive Super status from both the
ECHO Board and the County Council.
Allow an additional page for
Tabs 2 and 5 for all applicants. The applicants would include
information as needed in any section of Tab 2, but no more than a total
one page additional narrative is allowed for Tab 2. The Super applicant
must show two time-lines in Tab 2 based on receiving the Super status or
not. Tab 3 is not limited to a certain number of pages. A Super project
must include a two-part budget detail in Tab 3. The first part would
include the match and ECHO expenditures for a $500,000 ECHO grant and
the second part would include ECHO funds and match for the amount
requested beyond the $500,000. A Super Project must demonstrate all
match requirements at the time of the application, no matter what the
length of the ECHO grant reimbursement period.
Sept. 11 – Heading to read –
"Proposed Changes in the Application to include
"Exceptional" projects –
Sub-Section 2 – Ms. Williams
stated that she thought the pages for an exceptional project should be
inserted as its own tab, possibly Tab 9. Ms. Hodge stated many
applicants during the GY 2002 cycle, complained that Tab 2 didn’t
allow enough space for them to argue for their project and expressed
concern that the application should be fair to all applicants and didn’t
think the exceptional project category needed to be given a
"Special Tab." She emphasized that the board could judge all
the applicants at one time and that the exceptional project shouldn’t
get additional pages (to argue for their project). The application
should be inclusive and have a fairness level for everyone. This would
allow the smaller projects to come forward with additional space to
argue for their projects, against the larger projects. The fairness
level was created so all applicants would have the same opportunity to
apply for an ECHO grant.
After much discussion, Chair
Libby asked for a Motion to accept Roman Numeral V, as amended. Ms.
Hagstrom made the Motion. Ms. Williams seconded the Motion. The Motion
was approved unanimously.
Chair Libby asked for public
participation regarding the changes that the board had recommended.
There was none.
Chair Libby called for a Motion
to move the GY 2003 Draft ECHO Grants-In-Aid Application, as amended, to
the County Council for final approval. Ms. Hagstrom made the Motion. Mr.
Davidson seconded the Motion. There was no additional discussion. The
Motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Hodge asked
the board for clarification on whether or not they wanted to see the
updates to the ECHO GY 2003 application before it went to the County
Council for final approval, or did they want her to make the changes and
send it directly to the County Council. Mr. Davidson stated that
the updated grant application could be emailed to the board for
comments. Chair Libby stated that he would meet with Ms. Hodge
for a final review of the GY 2003 application before it went to the
County Council on October
3, 2002.
Chair Libby asked Ms. Hodge to
ensure that if board members wanted to attend the workshops, they could
without causing a conflict with the Sunshine Law. Ms. Williams stated
that if a board member attended one workshop, then they must attend
both. Ms. Hagstrom questioned why a board member would want to attend
the workshops. She stated that this was a workshop facilitated by staff
and she saw no need for the board to be present.
V. New Business:
Tours of
existing projects – Ms. Hodge stated
that she would be setting up tours of the existing projects later in the
fall. Ms. Hodge asked the board if the current tour policy would
apply during GY 2003. After much discussion, the board agreed to keep GY
2002’s tour policy of board members not visiting the new grant
project sites in an official capacity.
VI. Public
Participation: Chair Libby opened
the floor to public participation.
Lynne Plaskett,
City of Edgewater,
requested that the mandatory workshop dates be moved up (extended) a
month. She stated that the timeframe seemed to be getting tighter and
tighter and that the total application calendar should move commensurate
with the calendar. Chair Libby assured her that the board and staff were
currently doing the very best they could, and asked her to please be
patient with them (staff note: the only change to the GY 2003
Applicant Review Calendar was the September 18, 2002, mandatory workshop
date was canceled and rescheduled for October 9, 2002.
Mary Virginia,
Museum of Arts and Sciences,
asked the board to consider not attending the mandatory workshops, even
though they have the right to, because the intimidation factor could
keep the applicant from getting clarification on the application.
"They won’t ask the questions if they know that someone that is
going to grade the application is going to be there." She
emphasized that it would be a hindrance to the applicants.
VII. Meeting
Dates:
September 25,
2002 – canceled
October 9, 2002 – tentative date
October 23, 2002 – tentative date
Ms. Hodge stated
that she would keep the board apprised on whether or not there would be
meetings in November and December.
VIII.
Adjournment: 4:53 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. Mr. Davidson Moved for Adjournment. There
was no second. The Motion was approved unanimously.
back to
home page
Public information
produced by Volusia County Government
