Grant application information

ECHO Advisory Committee

Volusia ECHO Advisory Board Meeting
June 23, 2004
MINUTES
County Council Chambers
DeLand, FL

I. Call To Order, Roll Call, Introductory Remarks

Chair Matousek called the June 23, 2004, ECHO Advisory Committee meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. and welcomed the Advisory Committee members and the public. Chair Matousek asked staff to take the roll. A quorum was present with 7 members in attendance.

II. Board Comments

Chair Matousek noted that Don Smith had resigned from the committee.
Gary Libby asked if it was planned to make the resignation letter a part of the Board’s record and if not, he moved that it be read into the record.

Chair Matousek stated he had received an email and asked Mr. Gummey if an email could be considered an official form of resignation?

Frank Gummey stated that it could be taken as a communication of resignation and he assumed it would be on the next Council agenda for a replacement to be found.

Gary Libby requested that at that time, the Board send a letter of thanks to Mr. Smith noting how important his participation had been to the Board.

Chair Matousek agreed with Mr. Libby’s comments.

III. Approval of May 12, 2004 Minutes

Chair Matousek asked for a motion on the May 12, 2004 Minutes and asked if there were any corrections or additions?

Gary Libby moved to accept the May 12, 2004 Minutes.

Linda Hargreaves seconded the motion.

Chair Matousek stated he believed Holli Vanater of the Gillespie Museum of Minerals had spoken during the public participation session of the meeting but did not see it documented in the minutes.

Staff indicated that the tape of the meeting would be reviewed and if Ms. Vanater had spoken during the meeting, her comments would be added to the minutes. (7/1/04 update-staff determined that Ms. Vanater had not spoken at the May 12, 2004 meeting.)

Chair Matousek called for approval of the minutes, amended with comments by Ms. Vanater.

The motion carried unanimously.

IV. Staff Report

Review of ECHO Projects Quarterly Report

Chair Matousek asked Margaret Hodge to give the Board the current status of ECHO projects as noted in the June 8, 2004 Quarterly Report.

Margaret Hodge advised the Board that a number of projects were wrapping up. She explained that those with a “complete” notation on the report meant that the ECHO portion of the project was complete and not necessarily that the public had access to the project. Ms. Hodge further noted that it might also mean that the final requirements report and sign have not yet been met so 10% of the project funds have been retained until such time that they are complete. She commented that within the next 6-8 months several projects will be finished, with Ponce Inlet having an opening celebration on August 14, 2004, Lake Monroe opening on July 24, 2004 and the Museum of Arts and Sciences opening was in the planning stages but no date had yet been set.

Gary Libby offered that a “soft” opening is planned for August with the official opening in November. Mr. Libby noted that he believed that the $500,000 listed on the report for grant 02-17, Museum of Arts and Sciences was actually $450,000 due to the 10% being retained, to which Ms. Hodge concurred.

Chair Matousek asked Ms. Hodge to explain the issue of the 10% retainage.

Review of ECHO Projects Quarterly Report

Margaret Hodge explained that it was part of the application process and 10% is retained every time a reimbursement request is paid. At the end of the process the grantee sends a summary final report with a letter requesting the 10%, which works as a guarantee that the work is complete as required.

Linda Hargreaves noted that it appeared that a number of the projects were running behind and inquired if there was indication from the grantees as to what was happening?
Margaret Hodge explained that all projects running behind schedule had legitimate reasons for so doing.

Gary Libby asked if there was an update on the 2003/2004 grants, in particular, one for the Tuscawilla Skateboard Park in Daytona Beach?

Margaret Hodge stated that she had not officially heard from the City but there had been an indication from the City that they are having a problem finding an alternative location for the park and may not take the grant. She believed that it would go to the City Commission at the end of the month. If they did not take the grant, the Board could then go to the County Council to request that the funds be allocated for the balance of BCC Performing Arts Center with the remainder going to Hollyland Park.

Gary Libby suggested that there should be a time certain period beyond the awarding of the grant for a decision to be made.

Margaret Hodge explained that when the grant was awarded, the City indicated it would be three months before they would be able to respond. She noted she had contacted Holly Hill and Bethune-Cookman College to see if the projects were moving forward to which she was assured that they were.

Chair Matousek inquired if Holly Hill had been notified that they could be a recipient of a grant?

Margaret Hodge stated she had unofficially contacted them but had advised them that there was no guarantee the grant would be awarded.

Gary Libby stated that unofficially, he was of the impression that the City of Daytona Beach had identified an alternative location and asked if would be up to the Board to review a revised application?

Margaret Hodge explained that the City would go to the County Council with the revised location and the Council would decide whether to accept it or not.

V. Board Discussion

Review of Revenue Projections through 2021 dated 6/25/04:

Chair Matousek brought to the attention of the Board that the projections indicate a great deal more money than previously expected will be available for grants, placing more importance on what the Board does. Previously the projections had been for $100M in 2003 and when voters approved the program the projection was $80M and projection is now at just under $125M.
Review of County Council Meeting May 20 & June 3, 2004

Chair Matousek reviewed the results of the May 20 Workshop held with the County Council commenting that the issues were the revised language for the trails and the eligibility requirements regarding 501(c)(3) organizations. The Chair explained that there was no discussion on the trails issue and was approved however, on a 7-0 vote, the Council did not approve the changes to the 501(c)(3) eligibility requirements.

Gary Libby inquired of Frank Gummey if the County Council meeting was in fact a workshop?

Frank Gummey stated that it was part of a regular County Council meeting.

Gary Libby inquired that, if an issue was voted on at an official County Council meeting, and then revisited at the next meeting, was it not a legal requirement to put the issue on the agenda?

Frank Gummey stated that it was not.

Chair Matousek reviewed the June 3rd, 2004 County Council meeting during which he noted he had not been present. At the meeting, the Council voted to allocate $1M of ECHO funds annually to the County approved Trails Master Plan program. The Chair stated his belief that the Council was aware of the Board’s position and opened the meeting up to the Board’s discussion.

Gary Libby inquired of Frank Gummey if, as a member of the Board or as a citizen, he could request any and all public information of any exchange between staff and members of the County Council during the two weeks between May 20th and June 3 and if he could, he was so doing.

Frank Gummey commented that as a citizen he had the ability to request public documents but did not see it as within the mission of the Committee.

Stuart Sixma inquired when the minutes from the June 3rd meeting would be published?

Frank Gummey commented he believed that the minutes could be listened to via a recording online but that the written minutes don’t become available for a number of weeks after a meeting.

Review of County Council Meeting May 20 & June 3, 2004

Gary Libby asked Frank Gummey, who was at the June 3rd meeting, to share his perception of the change in the County Council position.

Frank Gummey explained he presumed that upon further thought, some members of the County Council saw a need to move the Trails Master Plan forward and saw that as an appropriate way to do it.

Gary Libby inquired if Frank Gummey had been involved in conversation with any members of the County Council about this change of heart?

Frank Gummey stated “None whatsoever.”

Jack Wiles commented that he was surprised by the decision and had sent emails to the County Council expressing his displeasure and believes that as a result, the Board could not exercise its’ mandate the way the voter’s intended.

Chair Matousek advised the Board that he would, as their Chairman, share with the Council their concerns at the County Council’s July 8th meeting.

Linda Hargreaves inquired if the official wording of what was passed was available so she could see what direction it gives to the Board?

Frank Gummey stated he did not have the exact wording but offered his characterization of it as the Council having allocated $1M a year for the Trails Master Plan program but to his memory there was no indication in the discussion or the motion of parameters of how it should be implemented.

Gary Libby inquired if staff had developed any guidelines?

Chair Matousek stated that the Board had not received any direction on how the program is supposed to work and suggested staff come up with a plan and the Board proceed on that.

Gary Libby inquired of Frank Gummey what the procedure would be for citizens who perceive this to be a taking of the $1M, to bring a redefinition of the ECHO funds back to the voters?

Frank Gummey explained that what occurred with ECHO was a referendum on a bond issue, authorizing the County to issue bonds paid for by ad valorem taxation of .2 mill over 20 years but that has not occurred with ECHO and the authorization provided by voters has not been utilized. He commented he has never researched how it could be repealed. Mr. Gummey further explained that the County Charter does not have a provision where actions of the Council are subject to initiative process. It does, however, have a provision allowing for petitioning to amend the charter that could be crafted to address this in some manner. He elaborated that the charter does not deal with individual actions but is the constitutional framework for the government.

Review of County Council Meeting May 20 & June 3, 2004

Gary Libby inquired what other options might be available?

Frank Gummey stated that the traditional way, in a representative democracy, is through the election of representatives.

Gary Libby asked if recall was an option?

Frank Gummey thought that the current members’ terms would expire before such an action could be taken.

Review of Guides-Not-For-Profit

Chair Matousek commented that Council knew the position of the Committee, that the granting of ECHO funds should be a competitive process, but ultimately it is the Council’s decision. The Chair directed the Board to address specifics of the ECHO documents regarding the changes as result of the set aside and asked Margaret Hodge to review the relevant portions of the guides with the Board.

Margaret Hodge directed the Board to the text contained on Page 3, #3 of the guides which reflects the language addressing the direction given by the County Council at the May 20th workshop regarding 501(c)(3) s that do not meet the 2 year requirement and now asks them to demonstrate a significant length of time of operation in Volusia County.

APPLICANT ELIGIBILITY

APPLICANT ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS To be eligible to apply for a Volusia ECHO Program grant, a Not-For-Profit applicant must meet the following criteria:

The Not For Profit corporation must possess a 501(c)(3) determination for a minimum of two years prior to the deadline of the ECHO application OR provide sufficient evidence of being incorporated in the State of Florida with its principal office within Volusia County for a minimum of 10 years and provide the organization’s most recent five years of audited annual financial statements with Management Letters.

Review of Guides-Not-For-Profit

Chair Matousek called for a motion to accept the language.

Gary Libby moved to accept the language.

Linda Hargreaves seconded the motion.

Chair Matousek called for discussion.

Gary Libby expressed the opinion that they were entering an area of relativity and would be back at it in the future when an organization had only nine years of incorporation in the County, indicating that it was bad public policy.

Judson Woods concurred with Mr. Libby’s comments.

Chair Matousek asked for further discussion, hearing none he called for a vote.

The motion carried unanimously.

Margaret Hodge directed the Board to the language on Page 18, 1.4, b) of the guides that asks for evidence demonstrating the length of time a 501(c)(3) has been organized in Volusia County.

1.4 IRS STATUS LETTER & UNIFORM BUSINESS REPORT (Not-For-Profit only):

1. IRS 501(c)(3) Status
   1. Insert the official IRS letter granting Not-For-Profit 501(c)(3) status. The letter must demonstrate a minimum of two years of 501(c)(3) status, incorporated in the State of Florida and identify your organization’s current address and the date the status was granted OR
   2. Insert the official IRS letter granting 501(c)(3) status and insert sufficient evidence demonstrating the organization has operated its principal office in Volusia County for a minimum of ten years, and provide one copy in the original application of the Independent Certified Audits and Management Letters of the organization’s Annual Financial Statements for the most recent five years prior to the application deadline. Provide a paragraph in all copies of the application stating that the five audited annual financial statements and management letters were provided in the Original Application.

Review of Guides-Not-For-Profit

Chair Matousek asked for a motion to accept the language.
Jack Wiles so moved.
Peter Matulis seconded the motion.
Chair Matousek asked for discussion on the motion.
Gary Libby stated that it was bad public policy.
Chair Matousek asked for further discussion, hearing none, he called for a vote.
The motion carried unanimously.
Review of Guides-Trails

Chair Matousek asked Margaret Hodge to review those areas of the guides that address the provisions for the trails.

Gary Libby asked to comment before the details of the guide were discussed. Mr. Libby expressed the opinion that the County Council intended the set aside of the $1M for use exclusively for County projects and not for municipalities or for 501(c)(3)’s. He further explained that because the language addressing the trails had been added by the Board at the behest of the County to accommodate their trails program, he suggested that testimony from the municipalities should be heard by the Board to determine whether or not the current language addressed their needs.

Linda Hargreaves commented that the Board did not know what the intention of the County Council was and should not assume anything other than what they know.

Gary Libby stated that they did know that it was for the County’s Master Trails program.

Frank Gummey clarified that the funds were for Volusia County’s Master Plan for Trails and that it includes those trails that would run through both unincorporated and municipal areas of the County.

Gary Libby inquired if the Board should assume that the money would be used by all organizations wanting to build a trail?

Frank Gummey stated that he did not think that could be assumed.

Chair Matousek commented that there were a lot of questions and suggested that they hold a workshop with someone from the County’s trails program.

Review of Guides-Trails

Margaret Hodge referred back to Mr. Libby’s comment concerning the language added to accommodate the County’s trails program. She explained that it was done because of the direction given to her by the Board to go to the person who runs the trails program and develop language that would keep the program competitive and that it was not under the direction of County staff or County Council. She advised that the current objective is how to move forward, so that the majority of projects (which generally are not trails projects) can come forward and keep the process moving.

Chair Matousek commented that the challenge for the day was to decide what to do with the language addressing the County’s Trails Master Plan.

Gary Libby stated that he would like to move that any language addressing the County’s trails program be stricken at such time it is determined that the $1M will be used only for County projects and keep the door open for municipalities and others that may come forward with a trails project.

Jack Wiles commented that 25 – 30% of the ECHO budget had been identified for use already and believed that the County would work with the municipalities to lay out a plan and that the $1M was enough money set aside for the trails program and did not want to see additional dollars set aside for them.

Linda Hargreaves concurred with Mr. Wiles’s comments and noted that they now have a very plugged in value for trails and a plan should be made so that municipalities can share that money with the County.

Margaret Hodge reminded the board of the element for restoration projects on public lands in the language and asked for direction on how they would like to handle that aspect.
Gary Libby recommended that the motion would be to strike language referencing the trails but keep the language for restoration.

Frank Gummey inquired if that was a recommendation that the trails not be a competitive process?

Gary Libby stated that because of the set aside they had no option.

Frank Gummey asked if the recommendation was that the trails process not be competitive and if not, why delete reference to it from the application?

Gary Libby commented it was his firm understanding, that unless told otherwise by a knowledgeable source, how to use the $1M funding for the trails program would be an internal County staff matter.

Frank Gummey stated he knows of no one who said anything of that sort. Mr. Gummey recommended that it would be useful work for the Board to learn more about the plans for the trails program and make a recommendation on how the allocation be implemented.

Chair Matousek commented it was incumbent on the Board to take the initiative to find out how the Trails Master Plan works and make recommendations to the Council.

Jack Wiles stated that he did not understand what was competitive about the Master Plan and how in any way the Board could distinguish how best to proceed.

Chair Matousek stated that he was not in favor of deleting references to the County’s Trails Master Plan, because it was possible that a city could be an applicant for a trail within their boundaries.

Margaret Hodge elaborated that there could be a trail project from a city that is within the city’s limits but would not yet connect with any of the County’s existing trails.

Linda Hargreaves asked the Chair if his belief was that the County was asking them to set aside $1M to be used for competitive trail grants?

Chair Matousek stated it was not his belief, and that the competitive part would be when a city came forward with a project for a trail in their city that could become a part of the County’s Trails Master Plan.

Gary Libby stated that he was not in favor of incorporating the $1M set aside for the County’s Trails Master Plan as part of the ECHO program and they should jettison it from the program.

Linda Hargreaves commented that she did not have enough information to make a decision.

Jack Wiles stated that he did not know what the County Council meant and did they intend that municipalities could participate and compete for the $1M?

Frank Gummey commented that what the County Council did was say to the Board, was, that at the end of the grant cycle, they wish to see $1M of ECHO funds spent on the Trails Master Plan projects but how they get there they made no indication. Mr. Gummey further explained that Mr. Libby’s position of removing it from the Committee’s process and it be handled by Leisure Services was a legitimate approach and is one of many that could get to the Council’s direction.

Chair Matousek suggested that the Board, as a group, ask staff to work with whoever is going to administer the money and to come back to the Board with the framework of what the plan is and then to have a representative from the trails program come and answer questions from the Board.

Margaret Hodge posed a question to Mr. Gummey, if with the Board’s approval, could she go forward to the Council with language, with a caveat that says if the $1M is not kept in the competitive process then the language becomes option B. She commented that her concern is that application for non-trail projects will get delayed?

Gary Libby commented that he was not sure that there was anything the Board could do other than turn the money over to County staff.

Chair Matousek suggested that staff be asked to come back with what the plan is.

Margaret Hodge explained that the area is new to staff and did not know if answers would be available in less than a month.

Chair Matousek asked for a motion whether or not the language should be changed.

Gary Libby made a motion to strike the trails related language, assuming that the set aside has a mechanism in place to spend it.

Jack Wiles seconded the motion.

Linda Hargreaves questioned if the Board should first give the County Council their advice as an advisory board on how the $1M should be done before striking the language? She went on to say that in the spirit of cooperation they should make suggestions.

Chair Matousek agreed with Ms. Hargreaves comments.

Jack Wiles commented that if there is a plan in place, there is no need for the Board to be involved in the process.

Peter Matulis stated that the Board did not have enough information to make a decision and even if they can allocate the funds, they are still being asked to score $1M for trail projects.

Margaret Hodge noting her concern was for the projects that were non-trails, asked if there was not a way to present alternative language to the Council so they could move forward, and let the Council decide?

Gary Libby stated that he would like to assume that the $1M is gone and the Board should proceed knowing that they have the $3.5M. He noted his concern that there was not a County representative from the trails program at the meeting and that staff had no more information then the Board. He went on to say it was not the way to conduct the County’s business. Mr. Libby called for the question to eliminate the language referring to the County’s Master Trails Plan program.

Jack Wiles commented that even if the $1M is a competitive process, the County staff will have established their priorities and there was no need for the Board to judge them.

Margaret Hodge explained that County staff had no more facts than what they had already related. She went on explain that in the past she had asked the Board if they wanted a presentation on the Trails Master Plan to which they declined and if they want to reverse that decision she will arrange to have one made.

Chair Matousek called the question on the motion to strike the language relating to the County’s Trails Master Plan. A voice vote was taken after which the Chair stated that the voice vote was 4 yes, 3 no and asked that a roll call vote be taken.

Linda Hargreaves NO
Gary Libby YES
Peter Matulis YES
Stuart Sixma YES
Jack Wiles YES
Judson Woods NO
Charles Matousek NO

The motion carried 4 to 3

Gray Libby suggested it would be a good time to entertain a motion suggesting to the Council methods for them to choose from regarding the trails; 1-to reconstitute the language approved by the County Council May 20, 2004, back into the application or; 2-eliminate the language from the application.

Linda Hargreaves stated that now that they had removed all the language from the application they needed to get back together and make recommendations to the Council.

Chair Matousek asked that staff come back to them with what the plan is for the $1M and then they could make their recommendations.

Jack Wiles stated that originally the intent of the added language was to make the County’s Master Trails program competitive but the County Council has said no.

Linda Hargreaves said she believes that it can still be a competitive process.

Jack Wiles stated that he would like the Council to explain to the Board how they intended the money to be spent, whether they meant it to be allocated in a competitive manner or if it will be allocated to a plan already in place.

Chair Matousek asked if Mr. Wiles wanted to make a motion?

Jack Wiles moved to ask the County Council for clarification and to share their plan if the $1M should be allocated in a competitive nature that the Board could vote on, or, if the funds would be allocated for a specific project that already had a roadmap, and, if it was to be done in a competitive nature that municipalities could participate in as long as the trails fell within the County’s trail roadmap and ran through the municipality, then the language could be inserted back.

Gary Libby seconded the motion

Chair Matousek asked for discussion, hearing none he called for the vote.

The motion carried unanimously.

Review of Guides

Margaret Hodge asked for clarification on the historic restoration language. Ms. Hodge confirmed with the Board that their intent is to leave the language in if the trails process will be competitive for the $1M for both the County and municipalities but if it is for one project that the County already has a plan for, and then only the historic restoration language remains.

Chair Matousek reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board, noting that they would go before the County Council July 8th with the revised language. The Chair asked if there was other business.

Gary Libby requested that Ms. Hodge find out if it was the intention of the County to bond the money.

Margaret Hodge commented that it could now potentially be done, but would attempt to find out if it was a significant option, and further commented that whether or not it was, it could still be a competitive process.

Linda Hargreaves requested that the Board put on their agenda, the next time the application was reviewed, to address whether or not the land in a project has been zoned for what it is being considered for and if the architect is certified for what it is they are drawing.

Chair Matousek agreed that the Board would do so.

VI. Public Participation

Chair Matousek called for public participation.

Neil Harrington, member of the County Library Board and the S. Atlantic Redevelopment Board-Daytona Beach noted that he was at the meeting on an educational mission. He stated that he understood the way an advisory committee works but asked why the Commission had no information on the County Council’s decision and that it showed a lack of respect for the Commission. He recommended that the members of the Commission talk to their Council members and tell them that they do not like the way the issue has been handled. He further stated that he did not like the way it had been handled and intended to talk to them and that he was concerned the same thing could happen to him as a member of another board. Mr. Harrington went on to say he did not think it was the fault of the Board that they had no further information and that they had worked very hard.

Chair Matousek asked if there were further discussion. Hearing none, the Chair went on to suggest to the members of the Committee, that they communicate on a regular basis with the County Council member who appointed them.

VII. Committee – Other Business

Chair Matousek asked if there was any other business before the Board?

Jack Wiles inquired when the next meeting would be?

Margaret Hodge noted that the next scheduled meeting is July 14.

Chair Matousek recommended the Board should reserve that date in case there is information on the trails program.

Margaret Hodge asked if they wanted to meet if there was not yet significant information to share with them on the trails?

Jack Wiles commented that they would probably know by that time whether or not the Council meant for the $1M to be used in a competitive process.

Gary Libby agreed that the Committee should meet on that date.

Chair Matousek stated that they would meet on July 14 unless otherwise notified.

VIII. Adjournment

Chair Matousek adjourned the meeting at 4:40p.m.