I.
Call To Order, Introductory Remarks, Roll Call:
Chair Libby called the meeting
to order at 3:00 p.m., and staff conducted Roll Call of members. Allen
Green was absent (excused) due to illness. Members of the audience were
asked to stand and introduce themselves.
II.
Approval of Minutes:
Member Davidson MOVED to APPROVE
the minutes of the August 22, 2001 meeting. Ms. Williams SECONDED the
motion. Mr. Schleicher moved to APPROVE the August 8, 2001 minutes and
Ms. Hargreaves SECONDED the motion. All Minutes were unanimously
approved.
III.
Staff Report:
Ms. Hodge stated the September
12, 2001 meeting package included copies of the agenda, draft minutes
which were just approved, a copy of the revised RFIA, noting only a
change was made on the map, a copy of the signed by-laws, the most
current draft of the application, draft Index page of the Needs
Assessment Map, and a letter from the City of New Smyrna Beach.
Ms. Hodge said she has met with
County Legal, Finance and Contract Administration office staff to get
additional information to enter into the application for the needs of
the County. Ruby Barnett has been working on the RFIA and Needs
Assessment with Tom Scofield. RFIA forms were sent out. There has been
an overall good response by interested applicants.
IV. Old Business
DRAFT APPLICATION:
Mr. Libby asked for a motion to
adopt the RFIA as amended, Ms. Hagstrom so MOVED and SECONDED by Ms.
Williams. Mr. Libby asked for discussion. There was no discussion. The
motion was unanimously passed.
Mr. Libby
presented to the committee the draft Grant Application (9-07-01),
stating the document included all the amendments that had been
discussed. Ms. Hodge directed the committee to look at three
items in the table of contents. Two items were moved up in the Index and
one was deleted from the Index.
Mr. Libby asked
for each member to comment on the application.
Ms. Hagstrom:
(1) Page
3, of the application Under the Applicant Eligibility Requirements:
heading. Ms. Hagstrom wanted to strike the word "one of" in
the first sentence. The committee agreed.
(2)
Page 5, under the heading Application Timetable. Ms. Hagstrom believed
that March was too late and January would be more appropriate with
February as a cut off date.
Mr. Libby
stated that the timetable was a decision make by the staff.
Ms. Hodge
stated that the time was critical. It relies on how quickly this
application gets through to the County Council and the current time
frame is "worse case scenario."
Ms. Hagstrom
wanted to go on record as saying she felt that the time frame needed to
be sooner.
Mr. Libby
wanted to pass the document today and after the County Council looked at
it go back and look at changing the dates.
Ms. Hodge
suggested if we were going to change the date to do it before going to
Council.
Mr. Libby
asked Ms. Hagstrom if she had a date in mind and she suggested January
10th.
Ms. Hodge
stated she felt hesitant to make any type of changes to the dates today.
This would still be an option later after the Board approves the rest of
the document.
Mr. Libby
suggested specifying the dates at the next meeting.
(3) Page
12, under the Application Evaluation, the high and low score. The
committee agreed to not have a high and low and the Chair would have the
deciding vote if there was less than a majority of the members present
at the meeting. The committee decided to discuss this at a later time.
(4) Page
13, Under the heading Multiphase Time Limit, the word "not"
needs to be left out.
(5) Page
14, under the heading Funding Caps, the sentence stating "and may
apply in only 3 of 5 consecutive years for the same project" needs
to be deleted. After discussion the committee decided to put a period
after the word "length" and delete the rest of the sentence.
(6) Page
22, the example Income Chart needs to be detailed. The statement below
the chart states the applicant must be detailed in a list within the
narrative and yet there is no example of a detailed list on the chart. Ms.
Hodge reminded the Board that staff was asked to simplify some forms
and that is why the detailed list of funding sources was moved to the
narrative. This way the applicant could maintain the same form for
cumulative dollar totals and include details of funding sources in
whatever format was available to them within their narrative. The
committee agreed that "Individual Donations" could be one lump
sum but Corporate, Grants, Municipal, and Fundraising events must be
identified separately.
After much discussion among the
committee Ms. Hagstrom made a motion to break down the Income section by
example and detail as the Board had just agreed upon. Ms. Hargreaves 2nd
the motion. The motion passed 5/1, with Mr. Matousek dissenting.
(7) Page
27, the last paragraph of Restricted Covenants states "If your
applicant" is funded should say "If your application" is
funded.
Mr. Davidson:
Page 14, Project Extensions says
"extensions may not exceed 90 days" and on page 7, it says
"up to nine additional months."
Ms. Hodge
stated that the 90 days was not correct any more and it should be up to
9 months. After further discussion with other County Staff she felt that
would best serve the Department and the applicants if it read 365 days.
Mr. Libby
stated that the committee would decide what amount the extension should
be up to the 365 days maximum. Then the applicant would have to come
back to the panel.
Mr. Libby
stated the applicant has the first 12 months to set up contractors and
the second 12 months to finish the project and to pay for the encumbered
amounts.
Mr. Matousek
stated that on the top of page 13 it states 21 months.
Ms. Hodge
stated the language had already been changed in the working draft but
she would go back and make sure these figures were consistent throughout
the document. She added that the term "365 days" would be
preferred over "12 months".
After much discussion a MOTION
by Mr. Davidson moved to change it to 365 days. Ms. Hargreaves SECONDED
the motion. Move to approve was unanimous.
(2) Page
19, The language "The time limit for claiming real property
acquisition as match is not limited but may be used only once", was
confusing.
Ms. Hodge
recommended that the sentence read as follows: "The fair market
value of real property could be used as match regardless of when the
property was purchased or donated, and may be used only once as ECHO
fund match". Only the value of the land used for the capital
project maybe used for match. Ms. Hodge stated she included this in case
of large tracks of land with capital construction facility as a main
project.
Mr. Matousek MOVED to use the
change in the application language as written by Ms. Hodge, on page 19.
Ms. Williamson SECONDED the motion. There was no more discussion. There
was a unanimous vote to use this statement.
(3) Page
20, Matching Funds. He suggested to say, "in-kind support can only
be 50% of the match" in each section. It is further down in the
document but he would like to see it here in this section as well.
Ms. Hodge
stated that this information is clearly written in the instructions and
felt if important to leave the language as it is written because it
might be confusing to the applicant if instructions appear duplicative
or is only partially explained in various areas of the document.
Mr. Schleicher:
(1) Page
7, "Review Panel Meeting" and the time schedule. There needs
to be plenty of time to get the paper work done and give us and staff
plenty of time to do so.
(2) Page
9, the "Exceptional Project". Where it says, "by ¾
absolute majority votes of the committee." How many people is this?
The committee decided 7 for Committee and 5 for the Council. If everyone
is not present then you still need the same amount of votes. If fewer
members are present the Chair will determine the "super
majority" number.
Ms. Cobean
questioned the box to mark for "Exceptional Project" on the
Application Form, Tab 1. Does the applicant or the committee determine
what is an Exceptional project?
Ms. Cobean stated there are
several places in the application where it refers to the Exceptional
Project and the Unique Project. One time on Page 9 where it talks about
definitions and one on Page 14 where it talks about Grant Funding
Amounts. It says the maximum grant-funding amount is $500,000 annually.
The maximum amount is not specific in this section regarding whether an
Exceptional Project gets additional funding over several years.
Mr. Libby
wanted to know what the feeling of the panel was for the Exceptional
Project. What is the reason that we would like to exceed the $500,000
maximum for each year for 3 years for a single project?
Ms. Hodge
stated that it was the staffs understanding that the consideration of an
application for an Exceptional Project would be annually and that annual
funding was based on the decision of this board. Multi-phase also would
come back annually.
Ms. Williams
asked if an Exceptional Project was ranked as exceptional where it might
receive funds left over after funding other ranked projects at 100 %
funding or was it funded first at 100% of its request and all other
projects funded with the dollars the Exceptional did not receive? The
Board discussed several options and decided to discuss this at another
meeting.
Mr. Matousek
stated that the first year we would be short on funds and the
Exceptional Project should be eliminated the first year.
Mr. Libby
asked for a motion of the definition of a special project to include the
number of votes required and the distribution.
Mr. Davidson moved the
definition of the exceptional project that meets the criteria of the
application and receives a vote to be granted at a vote of 7 of 9
committee members and 5 of 7 of County Council members. The applicant
should be granted first and the amount of money to be received should be
granted in full. There was no SECOND to the motion and the motion
failed.
Ms. Hagstrom MOVED that there be
7 of the 9 committee members votes for an Exceptional project and 5 of 7
for County Council. Ms. Hargreaves SECONDED the motion. There was no
discussion and the motion unanimously passed.
Ranking was discussed further
and after much discussion the consensus of the members was that an
Exceptional Project must be in the top 3 ranked applicants to be funded
as an Exceptional Project.
Mr. Davidson made a MOTION to
accept the written definition of an Exceptional Project as written in
the application with the exception of the checking of the box on the
application page. Ms. Hagstrom SECONDED the motion.
Board consensus was that an
Exceptional Project status would require the applicant to respond to an
additional addendum page.
Mr. Davidson restated the MOTION
to accept all language of the draft of 9-7-01 application on pages 9 and
14 regarding Exceptional Projects with the amendments as for the 7 of 9
Committee members votes and 5 of 7 of the Council votes and eliminating
the box on the front of the application for Exceptional Project. Ms.
Hagstrom SECONDED the motion. There was no other discussion and the
motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Matousek made a MOTION to
not have an Exceptional Project the first year. The motion was SECONDED
by Mr. Schleicher. After discussion and a roll call vote the motion
passed with 5 members voting " yes" and Ms. Hargreaves, Mr.
Schleicher and Mr. Davidson voted "no."
The Unique Project. Mr.
Matousek said he did not like the use of unique and asked that Mr.
Gummey consider another descriptive word like "small". Ms.
Hodge reminded the Board that "small", might not be enough
and "Small Unique" was an alternative. She then recommended
that the same language regarding the number of required votes be added
to this as it was to "Exceptional Projects."
Ms. Hodge
noted this needed to be changed for the Exceptional Project as well.
Ms. Hagstrom made a MOTION to
also add the vote of 7 of 9 committee member votes and also 5 of 7 votes
from the County Council to the Unique Project definition. Mr. Schleicher
SECONDED the motion. There was no discussion and the motion passed
unanimous.
Ms. Cobean
asked that the box on the application for Unique Projects be taken out
along with the Exceptional Project box. Also, page 14, under the topic
"Grant Funding Amounts" where it states "a Unique Project
may receive less than the minimum grant funding amount." The
language needs to be changed to may apply for less than the minimum
instead of may receive less than the minimum.
(4) Page
15, Under Non allowable costs. Mr. Matousek asked if permit fees were
allowable? And stated that this could amount to a lot of money on behalf
of the applicant. He stated that he was okay with allowing permit fees.
Ms. Hodge
stated that she thought the applicant was responsible for permits and
fees according to the draft agreement, which the Board has not seen, but
would check with other staff.
Mr. Matousek:
(1) Page
3, item number 2 of the Application. The items say, "The
organization does not owe the County of Volusia any money or have any
outstanding violations of Volusia County Code of Ordinances." The
concern was that this could hold up a lot of applications due to
municipality disputes with the County.
Ms. Hodge
stated this was put in by legal and is not negotiable but she would
bring it up to legal along with item #6 again.
Mr. Schleicher
remarked that hopefully common sense would prevail in these matters. He
felt the language would be okay the way it was.
(2) Page
17, Project Team, Management Prospectus and Policy Statement and
Professional Certification. The smaller projects would not be able to
have a project team. Is it feasible to ask for things that do not exist?
Ms. Hagstrom
stated that they should have a plan and a contractor and that would be
sufficient.
Mr. Schleicher wanted
Professional Certification to ask for an engineer "and/or" a
contractor instead of ask for both. The Board agreed.
Ms. Hagstrom
found an inconsistency on page 16 and 31 of the application under ECHO
category #8 it says select one and under the application it says select
all that applies and it needs to be consistent. The Boards’ revision
was to "select all that apply".
Mr. Libby
asked if there was any other discussion on the draft application.
Ms. Hagstrom MOVED that we
forward the draft application to the County Council. Mr. Davidson
SECONDED the motion. There was no discussion and the motion unanimously
passed. Ms. Hodge added she preferred it to come back to the committee
at their next meeting before going to the Council. The Board agreed to
review the draft again at the next meeting.
New Business
Conflict of Interest:
Mr. Libby
wanted to go over the conflict of interest issue that has been brought
up by members due to some of the members holding positions on other
committees. Mr. Gummy has been consulted and Ms. Hodge will get a copy
of the State Conflict of Interest and have it for the committee at the
next meeting.
Mr. Schleicher
had gone to his attorney and submitted a copy of a letter to staff for
the record. The letter stated his attorney’s opinion that he is not in
conflict, as he works for an agency not a city. However, he will refrain
if any issue arises concerning his organization.
VI. Public Participation
Irene Johnson
of the African American Museum of Arts wanted to know if the application
states that leased property or mortgaged property is a match. For multi
phase projects, can phase I be used as part of a match for phase II and
can phase II be used as part of a match for phase III?
Mr. Libby’s
response was that mortgaged property could be used as a match because
the payment of the mortgage fee is part of the general operating
expenses. The portion of the land needed for the project but only that
portion. The phase I and phase II match can not be used for the next
phase match.
Tom Harowski
of the City of New Smyrna Beach had several issues he wanted clarified.
(1) Professional
Certification, and Budget detail structure on page 19. He felt it was
not helpful and created a lot of extra work on the part of the
applicant. It would be extremely difficult in getting detailed
information of this sort. He can not bid the project before applying. He
has to completely design and bid the project before giving this
information to get realistic numbers. As a municipality he has to do RFP’s
to get the professional people and the bid for a project is only good
for 60 to 90 days and by the time it gets to the County Council the bids
would no longer be good.
Mr. Libby stated that the
applicant was required to give technical and detailed information in
the narrative.
(2) Matching
funds on page 25. As Mr. Harowski understood the application he was not
allowed to use loans or bonds to get the match money. Grants and
borrowed money is standard procedure for the City to get money to use
for projects.
Mr. Libby
stated that if he had an approved bond issue the application should
state this as cash.
Mr. Harowski
was confused about the wordage in the application.
Mr. Libby
stated he could go into the application with and IOU from the City and
get the grant and pass a bond issue and substitute those dollars and
still satisfy the terms of the grant.
Mr. Harowski
stated it needed to be clarified.
Ms. Hagstrom
stated he could use a copy of minutes from a meeting where the money was
pledged and it could be used for the application match. We need to know
it is a viable project.
Mrs. Hargreaves
stated as long as the City is obligated to pay back the money. That is
all that will be needed.
I3) The
amended process concerned him and wanted to know any changes that might
have been made or added.
Mr. Libby
stated that there is draft language on amendments in the application.
Mr. Hodge
read the section Changes in Project Scope or Venue on Page 14 for him.
Much discussion was held on this
issue as to the process.
Ms. Cobean
asked what process the City used to apply for State grants if their
process is so different.
Mr. Harowski
stated in the past projects, such as the Historical Society, the land
was given to them and they then applied for the grants. To the knowledge
of Mr. Harowski they have not applied for Cultural grants.
Mr. Schleicher
stated that the City has a different process of getting bids. This is a
great opportunity for the City and the County to work together.
Mr. Libby
stated they would look over the application and see if they could fix
some of the language to be more understandable. He asked Ms. Hodge to
meet with Mr. Harowski.
Ms. Hodge
stated that staff was willing to take new ideas and adjust where
possible, however, the Contract Administrator and Finance for the County
had been consulted on details for this application and they approved it
as is.
Mr. Harowski
asked about changes in construction figures. Is there a form to fill out
for such changes in the application to make small number changes in
figures?
Mr. Harowski
expressed interest on the issue Mr. Matousek brought up on Eligibility
on non-program issues. He expressed concern about debt owned between the
City and County and hoped it would not make the city ineligible for
grant money.
Mr. Harowski
stated that time to implement is a concern and he hoped the committee
would look at a 3-year completion on a project.
Audit issues and submitting
audits for 3 years after the project is gone. Does a project need to
have an audit for three years if the project is finished in one?
Mr. Libby
stated that if the project was finished there would be no need to do an
audit.
Mr. Schleicher
said that Mr. Harowski is the only municipality representative at this
meeting and there will be plenty of other questions from other
representatives in the future. Ms. Hodge will be able to answer those
questions as they come up.
VII. September/ October meeting
dates
The next meeting dates will be
September 26, 2001 at 3:00 p.m., in the County Council Chambers, Thomas
C. Kelly Administration Center, 123 W. Indian avenue, DeLand 2nd floor.
Ms. Hodge stated that on October
24, there will be a health function for County employees and it may be
harder to find parking on that date so come early.
Adjournment
Mr. Schleicher MOVED to ADJOURN
the meeting. Ms. Hargreaves SECONDED the motion. The meeting adjourned
at 6:00 p.m.
Minutes
Approved_______________________
______________________________________
________________
Chair Date
______________________________________
________________
Program Manager Date
back to
home page
Public information
produced by Volusia County Government
