Chair Libby
stated that he had some feedback from last month’s meeting regarding
the "Exceptional & Unique Small" projects that he wanted
to share with the board. He stated that at the last board meeting (June
12, 2002) that he had shared with the board that the suggestion from the
County Council was that they were hesitant to entertain the mini grant
or the maxi grant categories for next year and (subsequently) that the
ECHO board had discussed and moved to remove (strike out), in the draft
application for 2003, the language regarding the mini and max grant
categories so as not to confuse the applicants. Since that time, he
stated that he had an opportunity to visit with the members of the
County Council who would like the board to decide, as a group, whether
or not to recommend that the County Council reconsider the maxi grant
possibility, knowing now the strictures that are included in the grant
program and what it takes to go to a maxi grant, 7 of 9 votes of the
ECHO Advisory Board (absolute ¾ majority vote) and the super majority
(6 of 7) votes of the County Council to move it forward. Chair Libby
then asked for the board’s current opinion on this issue.
Mr. Schleicher -
stated that he felt more comfortable since the board had gone through a
grant application process and knew more how it worked, and that he would
like to see the board reconsider its prohibition on the small and
exceptional projects. He stated that there was a potential for
exceptional projects that truly would have a big enough affect on this
County and the people in it and that the board needed to seriously
consider, and more so request, the County Council consider the ability
for this board and for them to put in place an exceptional project.
Ms. Cobean
– stated that before she considered this further, she wasn’t sure
what the criteria was for an exceptional project and wanted some
criteria formulated and guidelines that would determine an exceptional
project. She stated that she thought it should be budget size, quality
of life based and must make a strong case for how it is going to change
the face of Volusia County. "What would the board think an
exceptional project should do?" She stated that she would have a
hard time voting to consider going beyond the cap, not knowing a
specific answer to what an exceptional project "is." On the
mini grant, she voiced concern that the application process was so
arduous for such a small dollar amount and wanted to know if the (mini
grant) application would be less complex. She stated that she was happy
to hear that the County Council may be willing to reconsider its stand
on the exceptional and mini grants, but that she had listened over the
internet to the June 6, 2002, County Council meeting when Chair Libby
and Ms. Hodge were discussing the ECHO issues and thought the Council
sounded pretty adamant about not funding exceptional projects during GY
2003 because it was concerned about spreading the money throughout
Volusia County. She stated that before the board considered a vote on
this issue that she would like to hear from some applicants that would
be applying for the exceptional and mini grants.
Chair Libby - asked
the board to consider criteria for exceptional projects. Ms. Cobean
wanted to know if there would be a limit on the number of exceptional
projects that an applicant could submit. Chair Libby stated that was an
issue that would be addressed at a later date.
Mr. Matousek – wanted
to know how an exceptional project would be defined and was concerned
how it would work. He stated that he felt it might be opening
"Pandora’s box." He requested definitions and a criteria for
exceptional projects. Regarding the mini grant, he stated that he was
okay with it and felt that the application was complicated and would be
cleaned up and a little more simplified for GY 2003.
Ms. Hagstrom
– concerned that the cap on the super grant might go too high.
Ms. Williams
– suggested that super grant projects might be scheduled every six
years, and not every year.
Chair Libby -
stated, "if you look at last year’s performance and current
guidelines, you realize and see the hesitancy that the County Council
had to move on the super grant. Its desire was to see the grants-in-aid
funds moved throughout the County to as many organizations as
possible." He stated that another factor had been missed –
limiting the number of applications that an organization could submit
and that maybe the number of applications per applicant should be
limited, which would allow and make it easier to move into the super
category. He stated, "an unlimited number of applications (per
applicant) couldn’t be allowed if the super grant category was to be
used."
Ms. Hodge -
explained the reason they did not limit the number of projects per
applicant in 2002, and reminded the board that the County Council had
recommended that the board not limit the number of projects. She
stated that several applicants may have put all of their eggs in
one basket in 2002 and lost out on getting grant funds because the
project they selected did not rank high with the ECHO board. Ms. Hodge
emphasized that the wider the selection, the better the possibility the
board could come up with a good ECHO project and just because an
organization submitted five (5) projects didn’t mean that they would
score well.
Chair Libby
- questioned whether or not the board was interested in sending back to
the County Council, for its consideration a question regarding
reinstating the super grant and limiting the number of applications an
organization may submit for GY 2003. He asked the board for feedback on
the question.
Ms. Cobean
– stated that as it stands now, the board, at the direction of the
County Council, was to not consider the super or exceptional projects
for GY 2003 cycle, but to possibly revisit them at some point later on
down the road.
Chair Libby
- responded that he had posed the question to the County Council of the
intent to bring the exceptional (super) and mini grant categories back
for the Council to entertain every year and its reply was
"yes."
Ms. Cobean
- questioned whether or not there was a real sense of urgency that the
board gets this issue resolved "today" or did the board have
some reasonable time to consider what the criteria would be and what the
implications were. She stated, "that all conversations to the
public, from the County Council so far, was that there would be a cap
and that the exceptional and mini projects would not be categories for
GY 2003." She stated that the public needed ample public
participation time if the board was considering changing the criteria
for GY 2003.
Chair Libby
- stated that the board did not have the ability to make changes, only
recommendations to the County Council for its reconsideration of the
issue and opened the floor up for public participation.
Mr. Matousek
– stated "we need to be very careful on what we are doing and not
put ourselves in a box. One issue that needs improving on is the ability
to put some leverage on the grant dollars. If a super project had extra
leverage, possibly a 3:1 match, and brought this much new money, then
that is huge and extra leverage." He stated that in that scenario,
it would have his support.
Chair Libby - proceeded
with public participation.
John C. Adams, Chairman
Lively Arts Center’s Board of Directors
- stated that he was concerned about the County Council’s recent
decision limiting the grant award to $1,500,000 over three years. He
stated that his understanding when this was originally proposed was a
one (1) year limit, but in future years super projects of an exceptional
nature would be considered and funded if they made sense to the board
and to the County. He submitted that the Lively Arts Center was such a
project and needed the support of the ECHO Board and the County Council
to make this level of support available to the center to make this
project a reality and asked for the ECHO Board to be an advocate to the
County Council for this project.
Chair Libby -
stated, "right now the amount allowed by the board and the County
Council is $1,500,000 over five years (could be in three, four or five)
and when we went out and beat the bushes to the voters to pass this
initiative, the maximum was $200,000-$300,000 grant per organization,
per year, was what was shared with the public, going to $500,000 was a
huge leap on part of the County Council and now we are looking for the
Council to take another leap of faith."
Ms. Hagstrom -
stated that she didn’t think any of them objected to revisiting this
issue at a future time, but questioned whether the Chair was going to
take action "today."
Chair Libby - replied
"no."
Ms. Hagstrom -
stated that the Council had already said no for this year and that it
was closed and could be looked at during the next grant cycle (2004).
Chair Libby -
replied, "yes and no." "Yes, I hadn’t planned on taking
any action today and no, it isn’t closed for this year and that the
board would prepare a draft of the recommended changes for the County
Council for its final adoption or rejection."
Ms. Cobean – stated
that she was pleased that the Lively Arts Center was here and prepared
to make a competent presentation, but that she hadn’t seen anyone else
in the audience asked to comment during the public participation time.
Chair Libby replied that anyone could participate. Ms. Cobean -
questioned how many other non-profits "are here today" and
prepared to make a presentation or County or Municipality, "the
only one I heard from today was the Lively Arts." Chair Libby -
stated that all the ECHO Advisory Board meetings were opened to the
public and he encouraged their participation.
Monso Tatum, Pioneer Arts
Settlement - stated that he
thought that the Lively Arts Center was a good example of what would be
an exceptional project and that they should have been involved earlier
in the process (stages) and maybe the ECHO funds could have been set
aside for exceptional projects and thought the cap could be raised. He
stated that "a lot of organizations didn’t have a presentation
ready for today because they didn’t consider it appropriate, but that
they certainly had one but were not ready to spring it on the public or
get on a soap box right now." He stated that he thought the Lively
Arts Center should be considered as an exceptional project.
Ms. Hodge - questioned
if there was consideration by the board, a majority of the board, at
this time to move forward with the exceptional project category and if
there was not a majority, further discussion many not be required. Chair
Libby asked the board for feedback.
Mr. Wiles – stated
that he thought there were too many unanswered questions at this point,
but that the exceptional project category may be worthwhile to consider,
but that there were too many holes in the process for him to vote on it
today.
Ms. Hodge
– stated that the board was on a time schedule (December 6, 2002 final
grant application deadline) and that this was a critical issue for the
board and questioned how it would make decisions regarding the
exceptional project category, and did it want a sub-committee to bring
back recommendations at the next meeting or how was it to be handled?
Chair Libby
suggested having the board make a list of recommendations regarding the
super and mini grants to be brought back to the July 24, 2002, advisory
board meeting.
Ms. Hagstrom moved to
have the ECHO Advisory Board make no recommendation to the County
Council for the addition of the super and mini grants for grant cycle
2003. Ms. Williams seconded the motion.
Chair Libby called for discussion. Mr. Schleicher stated that he saw no
reason to wait another year to have an exceptional project category if
it was well defined and well funded. Ms. Cobean stated that she thought
that this had huge implications and was a time sensitive issue and
wanted to ensure that the board was fully prepared and that until she
has had a chance to look at all of the issues wouldn’t be prepared to
vote. Ms. Cobean asked Chair Libby
to call for a question on the motion. Chair Libby asked for a roll call
vote. The motion passed 4-3
Ms. Cobean – Yes
Ms. Hagstrom – Yes
Mr. Wiles – Yes
Vice-Chair Williams – Yes
Mr. Matousek – No
Mr. Schleicher – No
Chair Libby – No
Update on cash match -
whether it was going to be 25 percent or 50 percent– Ms. Hodge stated
that she had listened to the Council meeting of June 6, 2002, and stated
that she had posed 25 percent of the cash as match, but that Chair Libby
had identified the cash match as being 25 percent of the "total
project" so as the Council voted on his language, it would appear
that the Council did vote that 25 percent of the total project needed to
be cash (or 50 per cent of the match).
Chair Libby
opened the floor up for public participation.
Stuart Buchanan, City of
Daytona Beach – questioned
whether or not a signed contract from the State would be sufficient to
show proof of the cash match. Chair Libby replied, "yes."
Monso Tatum, Pioneer Arts
Settlement – stated that he was
still confused on the language that the County Council voted on
regarding the cash match requirement. He said the newspapers had
published something totally different than what he had heard at the
meeting. Chair Libby and Ms. Hodge explained that the Council was very
clear on what it had voted on – 25 percent of the project had to be
cash match (new cash).
- Old Business:
Ms. Hodge proceeded to
discuss the updates and revisions as follows:
Draft Application review -
The deleted items:
Page 20
- Equipment as Match - eliminated the line re 10% cap on
playground equipment but will ask Linda Hargreaves to revisit her
reasoning at their next meeting. She was absent at the June 26, 2002,
meeting. After much discussion, Chair Libby asked for a motion
to delete Funding of
playground equipment is restricted to 10% of the total grant request
amount. ECHO will only fund permanently installed type equipment. Mr.
Wiles made the motion and Mr. Schleicher seconded. The motion passed
unanimously.
Page 21
– strike the word vegetation
Pages 22, 24 & 26
- All reference to providing 3 quotes for in-kind services over $1,000
is out. Chair Libby asked for a motion to delete: The
applicant must list three bids for each In-Kind service or product over
$1,000 in value to support the determined fair in-kind value. The list
must include the name of the donor, the city where the donor resides,
the service product, the price and date the price was given. Ms.
Hagstrom made the motion and Mr. Matousek seconded. The motion passed
unanimously.
Page 25 – Signs that are required by
the Grant Agreement - (2) replace
the word bronze with "of
appropriate material."
Unencumbered cash means:.
This section is changing to add that a
Not-For-Profit may also use its organizational Minutes guaranteeing the
match as well as any government body.
REQUIRED unencumbered Cash on Hand (1 b):
Chair Libby asked for a motion to
strike the following language: (This does not exempt the applicant from
having additional funds available in order to comply with the
"reimbursement" policy of this grant and maintaining the 1:1
ratio of match/ECHO expenditures.) Ms. Hagstrom made the motion and Mr.
Matousek seconded. The motion passed 6-1 (Ms. Williams – no)
(c) Irrevocable pledges
- edited as follows: – Irrevocable pledged dollars may be used for the
unencumbered cash match for the purpose of this application but must be
provided to the applicant prior to the Grant Panel Review process
BALANCE OF MATCH:
Insert language requiring that the applicant provide a list of pledged
dollars, the source(s) of the pledges, the date the pledge will be
received and must clearly identify this list as being irrevocable
pledges.
When the application
discusses a resolution or minutes as documentation of cash match, the
words "will provide" replace "may elect."
Public Participation
Greg Bartholomew, City of
South Daytona – requested, for the purpose of submitting the
application, that the board consider allowing the "letter of
notification" by the State, stating that an award had been made and
would start to flow at a later date. Mr. Gummey stated that this would
be okay as long as it was funded.
Page 26
-
MATCH DOCUMENTATION- REQUIRED
In-Kind Services: The board asked Ms.
Hodge to make language consistent with the other sections of the grant
application. Irrevocable Pledges – add strike through language to
revised section - Unencumbered cash match must be on hand prior to the
Grant Panel Review. Balance of the match on hand prior to Notice to
Proceed.
Page 28 -
Property Appraiser value
may be used for the value of a property if the whole parcel is the
project site, and if it is a portion of a parcel, then an appraisal by a
Member of the Appraisal Institute (MAI) must be provided.
Page 29 -
Project Impact Five-year
spreadsheet will replace the ten-year spreadsheet. There will be a
minimum requirement of three measurable in Tab 5.
Page 30
–
Fiscal Stability
– (last line) remove the word review and replace with information.
TAB 5: PROJECT IMPACT/NEED
–
- Line seven – replace the word items
with goals – Line eight - replace the word elements with goals.
- Bold – Lines 1-3
- Examples
of goals requested to be given at workshops.
Page 32 –
Bold and underlined language regarding
Not-For-Profits to have a mortgage -
Michael Brothers, Museum of Arts &
Sciences Director – expressed
concern that tying up property with an additional mortgage would
limit the ability of the organizations to seek other grant agency
funding for possibly the same project.
The board expressed concern that the
mortgage requirements for the Not-for-Profits may be too restrictive and
Mr. Gummey expressed concern regarding the usage of the value given in
the grant being used as collateral in future borrowing. He questioned
whether or not the bank would be allowed to sale the property on the
Courthouse steps.
Under Restrictive Covenants
the bold and underlined language regarding a mortgage is being revisited
by the Legal staff. The board wants something less than a mortgage for
Not- For- Profits. This would not relate to Governments.
After much discussion, Mr. Wiles made
a motion to leave the language in. Motion failed for lack of a second.
Chair Libby asked for a subsequent motion. Ms. Hagstrom made a
motion to take the language out. Motion failed for lack of a second.
Chair Libby requested that Mr. Gummey come up with language in the Grant
Award Agreement that would replace the current language that is in bold
and underlined.
Page 33
–
TAB 7: AUDIT OR ATTESTATION
- remove the language and Response of the Annual
Financial Audit from the Not-For-Profit organization’s section.
NOTE: Staff is to update the ECHO
Checklist (pages 34-35) to include the changes reflected in all pages of
the application.
Page 32 – (revisited)
Chair Libby asked for a motion to
withdraw the language regarding the mortgage requirements on page 32
(Mr. Gummey is to incorporate the language in the Grant Award Agreement,
short of a mortgage.) Mr. Matousek made the motion and Mr. Schleicher
seconded. The motion was approved unanimously.
Staff Note:
The newspaper article (News Journal – June 27, 2002) was wrong. The
board is not moving forward with a limit on the number of applications
by applicant. It discussed this but did not move to add it at this
time.)
- New Business:
None discussed other than
July 10, 2002, meeting was cancelled.
Public Participation:
Mary Virginia, Museum of
Arts & Sciences, - requested that the board look at TAB 5, #2 –
page 30 - she stated that since TAB 5 was such a critical part of the
grant application and worth 45 points that the first sentence was
terribly unclear and that the remainder of # 2 was open to interruption.
Ms. Hodge recommended that new language be inserted, minimum of three
measurable goals, and stated that she would review this
section.
Ms. Cobean stated that
she would not be available for the July 24, 2002, public workshop.
Monso Tatum, Pioneer Arts
Settlement, questioned when the application would be available. Ms.
Hodge stated that a draft copy would be on the Internet by July 10,
2002.
VII. Meeting Dates:
August 14, 2002
August 28, 2002
September 11, 2002
(July 10, 2002 – cancelled)
VIII. Adjournment: 5:53
P.M.
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. Hagstrom motioned for adjournment. No one
seconded. The motion was approved unanimously.
