MINUTES
Volusia ECHO Advisory Board Meeting
November 28, 2001
County Council Chambers
DeLand, Florida

Visitors (signed in)

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

Chair Libby called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m., and staff conducted Roll Call of members. Janet Williams and Linda Hargreaves were absent. Members of the audience were asked to stand and introduce themselves.

2. Approval of Minutes-

Mr. Libby asked if the committee looked over the minutes of the October 24, 2001 meeting. Ms. Hagstrom stated that she had some changes. On Page 7 second paragraph last sentence: strike. On page 6 change Programs are eligible to ineligible. On page 5 – Pioneer Arts Settlement does not think the board said that the restoration of a historical structure was not eligible. Gary Libby - this was an answer to a RFIA Request that was submitted by the Pioneer Arts settlement as drafted that did not qualify, not that the content of the draft did not qualify, just how it was worded.

Ms. Cobean made a motion to amend page 3 under section 4 to read Ms. Hodge reviewed and presented the RFIA projects, as they were written, in order for the Board to clarify which elements of a project were eligible. Mr. Davidson seconded. Motion was passed unanimously.

Ms. Hagstrom made a motion to make the changes on page 6 and 7 as stated above. Mr. Davidson seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously.

Mr. Libby asked for a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Davidson made a motion seconded by Ms. Hagstrom. Motion passed unanimously.

3. Staff Report-

Ms. Hodge stated that contained in the list of items in the committee’s packets, there was a list of people who attended the November 10, 2001 workshop. Ms. Hodge stated that the workshop went until about 12:15 and that there were a lot of questions. Ms. Hodge stated that she would like to discuss the questions with the committee during old business so that some policy decisions can be made. The December 5, 2001 workshop has over 60 people signed up.

4. Old Business-

• Update on RFIA & Needs Assessment

Ms. Hodge directed the members and the audience to the map that contained an inventory of the significant elements of the ECHO map so that there is a broad base view of the community. She explained that the Boards packet included an index of what is on the map and what projects were removed from the original list of ECHO related projects that was created two years ago. Mr. Libby stated to the public that the map sites are being used as reference sites only and no importance is placed on them other than a reference point so that funds can be distributed equitably.

• Land Acquisition Policy (Contract)

The Volusia Forever policy is going to provide some challenges, because one of the three prongs of Volusia Forever was eliminated and made an enhancement under the other two i.e. the purchase of historical or cultural lands. The committee’s decision is to see how much of that can be absorbed into the ECHO program rather than see this need left unmet. Ms. Hodge clarified that the new Forever Resolution does not void the original Forever Resolution – they work together. Mr. Gummey agreed.

• Project Categories (Application)

Mr. Libby stated that the public is concerned about eligibility. Mr. Libby stated that he feels that they missed one project category – A project to cure a sick building.

Mr. Libby asked the committee if they would like to discuss this issue now or wait until the rest of the committee was there. Mr. Libby asked Mr. Gummey if this would fall under a code compliance issue. Mr. Gummey stated that it could be construed as a code compliance issue, it is something that would make the property habitable. However, when you are reviving a building there is a higher standard that is going to have to be met in terms of structural or environmental quality. Marc Davidson stated that if curing a sick building that meets the ECHO criteria is part of the renovation then yes, but if merely curing the sickness is the project then no, it would not fall under the ECHO umbrella. Ms. Cobean stated that the committee would have to make sure that the degradation is not a result of maintenance deficiency. Mr. Schleicher stated that there could be some complicated issues i.e. lead paint or plumbing fixtures, asbestos etc.; if the building is already approved for renovation and these things are run into, then they would have to be taken care of.

Mr. Matousek asked if there was an RFIA that had raised this issue. Mr. Libby – Yes, we have one that has skirted the issue, a building that was not constructed properly has a mold problem. Mr. Matousek agreed with the other committee members, that if renovation is already in progress and then things are found then deal with on case by case, but not just because it is sick. Ms. Hagstrom – deal with on case by case. Mr. Libby – Let’s table discussion until next meeting.

Marc Davidson suggested that they make a motion now before the December 5^th workshop. Mr. Libby asked for a motion –

Mr. Schliecher made a motion – No projects that are in need of environmental remediation, renovation or restoration project that is really just a guise for environmental remediation, but when the environmental remediation is incidental to renovation or restoration then those costs would be eligible save for code compliance. Mr. Davidson seconded. (NOTE: This motion was rescinded and new language was approved unanimously at the December 12, 2001 ECHO Advisory Board meeting.)

Mr. Libby asked the audience if they had any discussion regarding this motion. The audience asked for a definition of renovation. Ms. Hodge gave them the definition within the application as passed by the County Council.

The motion passed unanimously.

• "Match" Elements of the project

Mr. Libby stated that he spoke with the new Director of Cultural Affairs to get a feel from him on his position on the five-year rule and the eligibility of previous grants as local match. The local match may be satisfied 100% by previous grants or previous dollars spent on the project, however, the state said the previous grants have to have a nexus to the project under review by ECHO.

• Mr. Gummey – When people apply with pledges of private funds or evidence of applications for state or federal grants that will be used for their match it is ok for determination of this board; the condition is that with private funds you will have to have the cash in hand or have in hand the signed grant agreement, before they get the notice to proceed with the project.

• Ms. Hodge directed the committee members to the document - Issues Discussed at 11/10/01 workshop.

ISSUES DISCUSSED AT November 10, 2001 Workshop
Taken to the ECHO Board on November 28 for discussion.

Page 4, Application Requirements, Number 3: Proof of Lease or Ownership

May the applicant use another legal document other than a lease that states the owner of the property would extend or provide for the lease if the Grant is awarded? Legal has stated that the forty-year lease must be provided at the application deadline with no exceptions. The ECHO Board agreed.

Page 4, Funding Policy

Community Development Block Grants are Federal dollars administered by the County. May these be used for cash match? Another workshop attendee said that funds derived from license plate sales could be used for cash match if they were used for the project. Legal agreed that both could be used for cash match. The ECHO Board agreed.

Page 20, Project Budget Detail

I suggested that if the applicant had questionable match items they would want to include more than just the required match within the detail. This way the Board would be able to determine that at least the required match amount is more than covered. I felt that it would be unfortunate if they only sent in the exact match and the Board decided the applicant has entered match in the wrong category or felt that some of the match was not eligible. Legal felt this was okay if the applicant wanted to provide this information. The Board would need to determine what is the match so the applicant could use the excess match in another grant year. The ECHO Board said that they felt the more the applicant revealed about the dollars spent on the project and who provided would be best. Only the amount needed for match would be applied to this application. Overage may be used in future applications if it meets the five-year rule.

Page 24, Limitations of Matching Funds

1. One applicant indicated they may have bought the property for one dollar twenty years ago. Could he use the current market value as cash match?. Real Property is not restricted by the five-year rule. Legal has stated the following for clarification:

a) According to Legal this is not a qualified sale and should not be eligible for cash match but may be used for an inkind donation. The applicant should show proof of the purchase and purchase price as well a current fair market value via a MAI.
b) Real Property purchased within the past five years may be used as a cash match and the applicant may prove fair market value via MAI or the actual purchase price. Real Property purchased beyond the five year rule may only be used a inkind match. Unqualified purchases or donated property may only be used for inkind match.
c) Legal also determined that a second story addition to a building may not be matched with the first story existing structure or land the existing building is located on.

2. If the County leases a facility to an applicant or has worked on the project for the applicant, may the cash spent by the county to restore or purchase the facility be used as in-kind match (not cash match)? Legal advised that this is not eligible as cash or in-kind match. The ECHO Board agreed.
   
3. If a not for profit operated a store to raise money for a project would they be able to use a percentage of the volunteers working at the store for match? Example: A group runs a store and twenty percent of the money earned goes to the project. May they use 20% of the volunteer time running the store as match? Legal said this can not be audited and would be ineligible. The ECHO Board agreed.
   
4. May permanently installed educational display cases be funded by ECHO? Legal determined that built in displays are appurtenances and would be eligible but not the educational elements placed within the displays. The Board agreed that informational built in interpretive displays and signage bolted down to floors or walls or along trails would be eligible.
   
   From the application: "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."
   
5. Maintenance vs. renovation…what is the difference? The ECHO Board agreed that repair is maintenance (not eligible) and redevelopment of a facility or a part of a facility is renovation and is eligible. The applicant must be very clear on the activity being performed. The Board agreed that corrective measures regarding code requirements should be incidental to the project and not the whole project.
   
   From the Application: "ECHO funds are to be used solely to finance acquisition, restoration, construction and improvement of environmental/ecological, cultural, historical/heritage and outdoor recreation facilities for public use." Please Define: Renovation, Maintenance, Restoration, Construction, Improvement, Public Use and Adaptive Reuse. The Board agreed that the State grant definitions and the Webster Dictionary definitions would be used.

Lynn Plaskett – Regarding the limitations of matching funds on page 24. Can you use title insurance, title search monies expended?
The committee said no.
Surveys? Yes.
Environmental Assessments? Yes, only level one can be used as match.

V. New Business

• Grant Agreement

Ms. Hodge stated that she and Mr. Gummey met and made some changes to the Draft. Mr. Gummey will be reviewing that and it will be mailed to the committee before the next meeting. Also, the Reimbursement and Reporting Procedures will come to you at the same time. The Site Visit Policy/Form was provided to the committee members. Ms. Hodge stated that this form was based on the state form with a few revisions made to simplify it. The Committee expressed concerns regarding the fairness of site visits. Mr. Libby stated that according to the time table there is not enough time this first round to do the site visits.

Ms. Hagstrom made a motion to table the Site Visit Policy/Form for this first cycle. Ms. Cobean seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

• Final Application Review Date

Ms. Cobean stated that she had concerns regarding the two week time line that has been set to review the applications. Ms. Hagstrom stated that she felt that the time line was sufficient. Ms. Cobean stated that the Cultural Council has always been given four weeks to review the grants.

Mr. Libby asked for a motion to extend the timeframe from two weeks to approximately four weeks. Ms. Cobean made the motion and Marc Davidson seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

VI.  Public Participation:

• Mayor Shuttleworth – Clarification on use of land as match – Land bought under a FTC Grant. Can the fair market value of the land be used as cash match?

Mr. Libby – How long have you had the land? Mayor Shuttleworth – Approx. 9 months. Mr. Libby – Yes the fair market value of the land can be used for your cash match.

VII. December/January meeting dates

• December 12, 2001 at 3:00, if necessary.
• No meeting on December 26, 2001.
• January Dates – 1/09/02 and 01/23/02

VIII. Adjournment

Motion to Adjourn by Teri Ford Cobean – All approved

Meeting was adjourned at 5:00 pm

back to home page

 Public information produced by Volusia County Government