At the last meeting, I reminded y'all that before Ekko went back to the voters for the second time, there was a meeting at the historic courthouse where it was decided that rule changes that had been planned to take place prior to the vote.
It was recommended they not take place prior to the vote because the voters may not vote for Echo. Thus, the voters were deceived. The voters were going based on what they knew the program to be at the time. And there was planned rule
changes. I'll reiterate that it was said, don't make the rule changes. They may not vote in favor of ECO. Some of those rule changes took place after the fact. So this the voters were deceived which is extremely wrong
in my book. So the voters were also told that the projects that we would be having it was preached there would be legacy projects, generational projects. At the last meeting I brought that up
and I mentioned Spec Martin Stadium and several other facilities that were built well before I was even born that are still here today. And that's legacy. That's generational to me. So there was some push back at the last meeting that
uh it was said that that was never mentioned when Ekko was being pushed back to the voters. The generational the legacy that was mentioned at the last meeting that that was not verbiage that was used. Well, I want you to hear the verbiage
that was used. These are legacy projects that we, me, everybody who's involved in have left for the next generation. These are legacy projects. These are legacy projects. These are legacy projects.
I don't bring false information to you. I don't pull information out of my rear end. I only speak the truth as I know it and as I saw it. And I was a little bit upset last meeting when that push back occurred because the fact is is we were
sold on legacy projects. We were sold on generational projects. 20 years is not legacy projects. 40 years is more towards legacy projects. As I mentioned, there's parks
still around today that I'm 60 years old that were there when I was a child. That's legacy projects. I beg you to revert your vote for the recommendation to pull change contracts that are
already made. These con people sign these contracts. I beg you to revert that vote back to the contracts they originally signed and I know you can't change what has already been approved for 20 years. I understand that. That's
a contract. However, we can move the 20 back to 30 or 40. So, we have legacy projects that we were promised. Promised. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chester. Okay. Has everybody had a chance to read
the minutes of July 10th? And if so, do we have a motion to approve? I'll make a motion we approve the minutes to July 10th as submitted. Second. Okay, that was John and Tom made the second. All those in favor.
Any opposed? Same sign. Motion carries. Okay. Oh, sorry. Sabrina Slack, assistant county attorney. We need to recognize that. That was a full vote as Miss Drago is now present. Okay. She was for the roll call. Sorry.
Pat Drago. Right. Pat Drego has come. You got it. Hi, she's wandered in. Thank you. Okay, moving on to old business, the 2025 work plan and 2024 annual report. All right, so you might recognize that
we've seen this uh work plan and report as we uh visited this in January uh at the beginning of the year. Um it did go to council. Council did recommend uh staff to take it back to the committee
so that way uh the new appointed members of our board, Tom, Gerald, Leah, and Doug uh could see the the work plan uh add comments um for that work plan and annual report and for us to bring it back to council. So that's why it sits
back in front of you today. I mean, so the work plan is set, right? It's it's the 2025 work plan. We have two months left of 2025. So the 2026 work plan will come to you guys in January. Um so that way the new members
can have input on the 2026 work plan. So um you know staff would say let's just keep the work plan as is where this is the last meeting. Yes, I'll make that motion. I All right, moving on to new business. Um
so at the last meeting uh you guys directed staff to bring back information um on the restrictive covenants. So, a part of your packet today is the memo that was sent out that's part of the agenda that gives a rundown of the background as well as the evolution of
the covenant periods, what they were um from 2000 to 2020 and then how we got to the 20-year covenants uh starting in uh 2021 grant cycle. So, those dates are there. Um
there's also the current portfolio status of what grants follow under the 20, 30 or 40 years. So currently we have 305 total echo projects. 52 of those projects are 20 years. Eight of those
restricted covenants have expired. So on the left side in your notebook is the list of the A projects that have expired as well as the uh 121 projects that are either 30 or 40 years. So there's 59
projects that are 30. There's 62 projects that are 40 years and then there's 132 projects that do not have covenants. So currently, um, you guys made a motion on June 26 that staff will present your
recommendation, um, to retroactively apply the 20-year time limit time limits to all Echo grants to the council. So that is the train that is moving forward um, as of the last meeting, but I wanted to give you guys the impact of what
would happen if we were to do that. So the immediate effects would be 21 projects would be released 100 contracts would have to be amended, you know, redone and reut through the uh the clerk of courts. So
So that's kind of where we're at today. Yes, sir. Can you tell me just as the the new fight here that's just new to this why the 30 and 40 years were originally established? Why was there a designation set up for 2030 and 40? I mean we've
heard the word generational. We've heard the word legacy but from the standpoint of the structure of the organization at the time why were 30 and 40 established? So when the program was implemented and voted on back in 2000, there were three
different tiered structures at that time set that came out of the vote then ballot, right? That was just in our rules, right? Okay. That's what that's what the citizens voted on. No. No. Okay. So the ballot came out and then there had to be some sort of rules in place.
So we established a guide book. So the guide book was established with three tiers from 2000 to 2013. We had three different tiered structures. So if it was a 20, it was decided upon if it was a restoration, it would be 20 years. If
it was an expansion or an addition or improvement, it would be a 30-year project. If it was a new construction, it would be a 40year. So that was the status for those projects from 2000 to 2013. And then and do more.
Sorry. And then as the program started to evolve in 2014, there was uh discussion about getting rid of 20-year covenants and just making 30 and 40 years. So that happened uh
from 2014 to 2019. And then in 2020 when the program was reauthorized, all grants went to 20 years. And Daniel, if I may, just to answer your question, Doug, it was it was not in the ballot language, but it's in the guide book, which is a policy direction
approved by council. Got it. Got it. I understand that. Thank you. I want to make sure I understand what you're on the second page. That's the 21 of 121 projects. Okay. And that has a restrictive covenant end date. Is that
the current end date or is that the end date that would would be if we went to the 20 years? That is the current end date of of those 21 projects now. So, for instance, that first one has an end date of 2032
because it was a 30-year grant. It it would actually expire. It would have expired in 2022. Okay. So all of the each one of these 21 projects have would be released from any covenant from the first grant, but I'm
looking at a number of them and we've given them second grants, etc. So I want to make sure of this list of 21. Would they be removed from all covenants? We would retro retroactively move them to 20 years and they would be released. Yes.
Okay. And but some of these, as I said, we've since done more echo grants. Yeah. So remember those those are different grants and different restrictive covenants. So for instance, uh Atlantic Center of the Arts, that's the first one that's on there, right?
They have other grants with us as well. So if they got a grant in 2009, that restrictive covenant would be 20, 30, or 40 years depending on what it was at that time. So when I'm looking at this list because I recognize a number of the projects I'm like all right little
theater of Newurn Beach wasn't the expansion would be removed but what we did with the uh screen would still be a restrictive covenant. Correct. So I'm looking at this list that really doesn't tell me
on the individual facilities the spe a specific covenant or related to a grant it would be released but there may be new layers of covenants and restrictions that are not reported here. Am I correct? That's correct.
Okay. I'm looking at Reed Canal Park. Okay. I'm just thinking of the different ones that we have visited. So that that re that was foot loose and fancy free. They're not going to go sell recal park. No, because they have a grant with us for their last 2023 or 2024 project.
That was for phase one, right? I I understand. I'm just trying to look and see. Okay. I can tell. I'm I don't know where I go from here, but that's okay. Thank you. Actually, I do. Um, can you explain the
exempt projects? There's whatund and something 21 or something that are so the exempt projects there's 132 of them. Those would be your county projects like the direct county expenditure projects don't have a restrictive covenant. There would also
be uh projects that are on state or federal lands. Uh trails master plan projects are also exempt. And then any special agreements if we have like an interlocal agreement with the city which there's only one and that is for Andy
Romano Park and with the uh city of Orman Beach. So we have different rules for different people. The county doesn't have to have a covenant and yet any of these other people who apply for grants could be
rest have a 20 30 or 40year restrictive covenant on their grant. Sabrina Slack assistant county attorney. There are constitutional and legal prohibitions from leaning uh state and county owned properties. So legally we can't have a restrictive covenant
against the the restrictive covenants are against uh lands owned by private entities 501c3s. The same um things would not apply to government-owned properties because there are prohibitions against leaning government property. So when we do
government programs um the the government is there for the benefit of the people. So to put a restrictive covenant on there wouldn't be in keeping with it. Now those programs are obviously uh still geared toward things
that the government has in place um for the longevity. There's interlocal agreements um memorandums of understanding those types of agreements are used instead of restrictive covenants. So restrictive covenants are for uh private entities. There are other
things that are used for government entities. So that's there is the distinction. So yes, there are different rules. So but there are rules. Thank you for clarifying. There are different rules. Does that does that also impact? We we get a lot of grant requests from cities.
So I would assume that they are also do not come under restricted covenants. Cities are municipal corporations. So they're a little bit different than a a county is a political subdivision of the state. So it is a different type of government entity. So they are a
municipal corporation which and and don't don't I don't have all of the uh answers for municipal corporations right now. So but the question but the cities we cannot hold them to a restricted covenant or we can or whatever you want to call it
the with a city you would do a memorandum of understanding or that the type of contracts that go between counties and cities are memorandums of understanding typically. So that's the type of agreement we would do. Is that legally binding? Can you bind them to that or is it just we agree to do this but unless either one of us
change our mind down the road? A memorandum of understanding can be enforced through a writandamus but I don't think you want me to go into all of the ins and outs of enforcing through writable. You know just like uh with a restrictive covenant uh if a 501c3 didn't honor that
I would have to go to the circuit court and get a court order to enforce that. They're the same, but just different uh legal mechanisms for enforcement. I just think we should have consistent rules across whether it's public or private. Um because it does get kind of
complicated sometimes. It it Well, I guess if you go to law school and twist your mind, they are consistent in my mind. So, uh, but but you would it's just again it is um they're enforceable just through
different avenues and different uh legal constructs, but they're both enforceable. They're just different types of of uh entities that require different types of legal matters to enforce them. So, you know, again, you'd have to go to law school and twist your
mind to really see it the way I do. Any other questions? And uh Doug, um I want to go back and this is a question I guess I should have asked unreflection uh of of this issue now from the original time we voted on this
and as Miss Nory is the one that made the the motion for the to remove the 40 and take it back. I just like to know the purpose of that. What was what was the intention to to be accomplished by by doing that other than taking 40 restrictions off? What was the what was the purpose of of the motion that
originally got us here? Pat, you want to answer that? Make it so that it was the same pretty much that that it wasn't I mean, I didn't see what the recent applications made them different that they would from the previous
applications. We have a history of people taking care of the of their echo grants that so felt like, okay, we're going to do new ones for 20 years. Let's go back and give that same
opportunity to those who had already received money because they're taking care of the property to make it more fair. Make more fair. Yeah. And also probably to encourage maybe more applicants. Yeah.
As an organizational kind of person, my mind works that way. I I like the idea of what the original covenant periods were intended for. restoration 20 years, expansion 30 years, new construction 40. I think that's a legitimate way to divide it. And you say make it fair, but
it's not really fair because we're talking about different aspects of construction or function of an operation. So I think that you know that's one of the things that I probably didn't understand as well when I voted originally uh and why now I would say that again I remain I remain staunchly
committed to the idea that that these things these covenants should remain 40 30 and 20. Having known that and knowing knowing parliamentary procedure as I do uh I believe it is not appropriate for me to offer another motion similar to
what I did before on a motion that has already failed. I don't think I have the ability to offer a motion that would that would do the same thing that a failed motion had already been voted on by. So my question really ends up being how do we go about putting to the board
if you've had a chance to now take the information that Daniel's given you. How do we go about putting a motion in in place that allows the board to v vote again on remaining keeping the covenants at 40 and 30? I can make a motion, right? But I mean like I said I think
parliamentary procedure indicates that if a motion has been made and failed it cannot be redone. Is that correct? That is that is uh correct that a you can't keep bringing back a failed motion every time. So um you can reconsider
actions that have been taken um and repropose a different action um but you can't keep bringing back the same motion that has has failed uh in prior meetings. Uh and just to correct what uh Miss Hively pointed out, we do have the cities uh execute the
restrictive covenants and they have not had any issue doing that through. So the county does not the cities do. So thank you. What Drego I have two I guess two questions. First of all, I guess when I voted for
that, I thought I was I didn't really realize that it was going to be retroactive. I thought that we were going with 20 years for covenants going forward. And that was my own ignorance, okay, as to the implications of what we were. And I'm so I just wanted to say
that, you know, I felt like we were going with 20 years covenants and the projects that we were going forward and it would be a but I did not know we were going to go back and make it retroactive. That's just my own ignorance. And when I look at the ones, I'm looking at the list with the the
projects with a 40-year covenant and I I go down the list and most of these are I don't think are in any risk, but I would say that when I looked at Lilian Place and the Hotchkas Mather historic home, those are two beautiful properties. They
were direct county expenditures. Okay, they have the 40-year covenant. And yet I would say that those two parcels be before between now and 2050 and now and 203 would be at risk of being disposed of
without this covenant and not coming back. I just know the parcels. So I want to point that out and and just say, you know, so if we went to 20 years, it would make the Lilian place be 2030
and the historic the Hoskus house would be 2033. That's just around the corner. And I want to is there a way to have made the 20-year covenant change just prospectively and
not retroactively? One of the problems I understand it is that this train is already moving to the county council as far as that goes. Right. So what act if we take action here today for instance if I propose a motion that says that we current that we leave all
current covenants as they are and on an ongoing basis a go forward basis we now go to 20 years for the future. Would that be something that would interfere with what's going toward the county? Well um I can answer that. All current U
grants since the 2020 election are already 20 years. So everything going forward is already 20. Okay. Doesn't matter the type, right? Yes. It's the it's the retroactivity that I think Yeah. Okay. at Nory. Um and I understand what you're saying,
but the truth of it is if Hotka House or Lilian Place sold, they would still be responsible for paying back. They don't get they don't get away without paying back. Correct. Because they're still under the covenant.
Thank you for clarifying that. Okay. We've had that happen. Gerald. Yes. I got to after looking at this and thinking about like Doug, it kind of caught me without really thinking at it. And after looking at it, the 40year or the the new projects as I look at what's been approved and and how they get
going, sometimes it's four or five years before that project's completed on new construction from the time we award the grant to time that I mean it can be up to that long. No. So they several years. Okay. Maybe not five, but it can be several years. They have two years to finish. If it's a
standard grant, they have two years to finish the project. A new project from the time they start to the time they finish it. Correct. They can get a one-year extension from staff if they were to run into any construction hiccups, but three
years for a standard grant would be the max time you could get. Four years for an exceptional grant because exceptional grants have a three-year timeline. So once that grant is approved, their timeline starts fine. On new construction, sometimes, you know, the 20-year to me is is really
kind of short. uh it needs to be longer if it's going to be a new construction uh or some type of a new project like that because like I say some of the big ones it's not totally I don't think it's completely done. Maybe it is but uh nonetheless uh that's the issue that I kind of had is that going from the 40 to
the 20 it doesn't set real real well with me either. I'd like to have it a little bit longer than that. Some of them are fine with 20, but uh you know like I kind of agree with Doug. I kind of like the way it was. I thought it worked pretty well and in retrospect and and uh you know I could make the motion
to go back to the as it was before if if that would work to be uh a uh a another failed motion or whatever you want to make it from someone else. But I would move that we would go back to the 40 30 and 20-year covenant restrictions as it
was prior to the vote in what was it June or July. Do we have a second? I'll second. However, it it appears to me that based on what you're telling me, the only action that we have available to us right now is to
appeal to our assigning council member to vote no when this comes before the council. Now, it hasn't it hasn't come before the council yet. I looked at the agenda yesterday. It was not on yesterday's agenda. When you originally we talked about it, you said it probably be October or so before it gets there. Yeah. So, the plan is for we wanted to
bring you guys the information first, right? And then the plan is to take it in November. Okay. So, I I I look at at the restrictions that we have to us right now as being the only thing we have is to appeal to our council member to vote no on it, get it turned down,
and and then we can either we can either go forward from there or or do something new. But I don't think we have anything in our hands available to us except to appeal to our council member. Would that be accurate? No. You you could make a new motion to make a different recommendation to the council. Okay.
Because it hasn't gone to council yet. So your recommendation still sort of hanging out there in the air. So in my second stance. Okay. Any other discussion? Ju just for the record, I I asked for more information as well last time and
my thought was the I hate to use the word ignorance as Pat used, but I'm glad I appreciate what we've done. I I share your ignorance. I had the same thing about the retroactivity. Okay. So that was my stance on this uh that after as they say in you know on the sports
field after further review over the last month looking at the information that was given my mind started to change as well. So, we we have a bunch of different thoughts here, but I think we're all going in the same direction. And knowing that the TW that the that
the ongoing ones are 20, I think solves a lot of it for me that we're just talking about what's already in place on for going forward. They're 20s. They're all 20s anyway. which that raises issue because we're now asking I understand what
you're saying but we're applying different standards to different organizations different agencies by having them out of balance. That was all I was trying to do is get them into balance. If we're to do 20 years, do 20
years. If we're if if we're going to do a bifurcated system, then why aren't we doing the same bifurcated? Why aren't we doing the same for those that have come this last 20 years? I mean, what was the reason that you all went to 20 years? Was it
because it was simpler? What must there have been a reason? No. So before the program was uh reauthorized in in 2020 staff made a recommendation to move the grants to 20 years all grants right the program got reauthor there was no vote that was done
the program was then reauthorized in November of 2020 then uh during that next once the program got reauthorized we then had new members were appointed and then staff had listening sessions with the advisory committee as well as
council. During those uh listening sessions in the joint workshop from council, the committee in July 22nd of 2021 unanimously adopted the 20-year covenants that went to council on August 17th of 2021. And then that's how we got
to the 20-year grants moving forward. All of them. All of them. Correct. But we kept the same rules in place for all the grants previously from 2020 backwards. Doug, and and my statement to that would be
and counter to Miss uh Nory's comment. You got in and you knew what you were getting when you got in. So those of the under 20, under 30 and 40 right now, they knew they were 30 and 40 when they got in. Uh I I see no reason to have to bring them, you know, to change, you
know, in the middle of the of the game. You know, we're saying we're changing the middle of the game. Granted, it may be favorable to them, but we're changing. They got in understanding what the rules were. Let them let's go forward and let's go forward now. Anybody coming in new gets 20 and we're we're good to go. I'm I'm fine with with
that. As you know, just my my final word, it really doesn't make a lot of difference in the fact that they have to keep their standards up. They have to pay back the grant. whether it's a 20-year grant or a 40-year grant, they're going to have to pay that grant back if they if they don't live up to what they said they
were going to do. So, Drago, I just want to say that I thank you, John, for asking for this further information. I may still be ignorant, but I don't know that I'm ignorant. So, and I think the assurance that the
grants would be paid back. I could if I looked at something being sold. I I am hap I'm content with the motion that we already approved. So, I just wanted to go on record. I will not vote for the motion that's on the floor. Any other discussion motion on the
floor? We we still don't have a level playing field because we're talking about everything from 20 20 forward is 20 years awful lot of 20s in that sense. However, the the new grants are still not playing by the same rules that the
original grants played by. So if you really wanted to level the playing field, you would want to change it so that the new grants have to apply to the original 20, 30, 40 years that we have traditionally done. Uh right now we're just having conversation that's not
going to go anywhere. If we're still going to stick with 20 years at the end of the conversation. So if you really want to accomplish something, you go back to the original things. That's just my two cents. Okay. Any more discussion about the
motion on the floor? [Laughter] Gerald, you made the motion. The motion was that we basically go back the way we were doing it before with the 20 30 and and 40 year rule. We're we're not going to change anything. It's worked well for for 20 years. Uh Gerald made it so he could
motion has to be different. It's not that it somebody new can't just make the same motion. It has to be different. Correct. I mean I think that's what I heard you say. the so essentially
Robert's rules uh you can't like you said you can't just the same person can't keep coming and making the same motion but like a motion for reconsideration has to be done in the same meeting a subsequent meeting the same matter can be reraised
and reconsidered it's not the same person that we have yes Okay. Any more discussion before we take a vote? Let's hear it. Okay. So, once again, the motion on the floor is is to revert back to the the method that
we did before with the 20, 30, and 40year time references as has been done in the past. Clarification for existing uh covenants for the existing for sure for the existing covenants. But but I'd like to even redress going forward. I still think new construction
20 years is too too short a time. So, we either can redress that in this motion or we can bring another motion up on that. If we're going to stay with the 20 years for everybody going forward, then I want to readress that also. But on existing projects, certainly uh the 20 and 30 and 40 years, if you want to make
that motion specific to those projects, I'm fine with that. Okay. Any more discussion? All those in favor of the motion say I. I. Any opposed say I. I so voice vote
four. No, you have you can need a voice roll call vote. Just two two points of order before we go. Can we restate exactly what the motion is we're voting on because there was there was some confusion about uh whether or not it was an amended motion
or whether it was the original motion. Well, this one would be on the ex on on the past projects. Okay. We would revert back to what was in their contractual agreements. Does that sound correct? Yes. I just want to make sure that's the motion that we're voting on. This will be on the on what's already
been approved for the 20, 30, and 40year projects. Okay. Oh, and um I'm sorry. Before you vote, Daniel keeps reminding me because you made a motion and you had a discussion, a public comment is allowed on any things that you make a motion on. Mr.
Chester uh has requested to speak on this item. So, and it's a three minute just Mrs. Drago had spoke about I did.
Oh, Mr. Drago had spoke about the the money and getting grants pulled back and it was said that even if you changed if you didn't change it, they would still have to pay the money
back. That's not true because if you pull it from say a 40-year grant to a 20-year grant, some of them are going to go away. They could sell those facilities. We just had that the Dutton House. The only reason that we were able to pull the money back. We the county
was able to pull the money back for the Dutton House was because there was still a covenant. They were still within the the the 40 years or 30 years. That's why they were able to pull the money back. The other one was the Dam Museum. They were able to pull the money back from
there because it was still within the covenant. So, it's and even the city of Lake Helen, by the way, had to pay back $154,000 because they didn't live up to their obligations of a grant. So, the cities
do have to pay back the money. So understand that if you change this from 40 to 20 or 30 to 20, they can sell those buildings once they're out of the covenant. They can do what they want with those buildings and
not reimburse the county, reimburse the taxpayers. Y'all are here to protect the taxpayers. So, I beg you to please vote to revert it back to the way it's supposed to be with their original agreements. They they agreed to it. They
signed it. And remember, we were sold on legacy projects. 20 years is not legacy. And we certainly don't want taxpayer funds going to help build facilities that then in just 20 years can be sold
and somebody profit from the taxpayers's money. 20 years is such a short amount of time. Y'all think about 20 years, especially the older we get. It seems like yesterday. So, I beg you, please vote in favor of
returning the existing grants to what their original contracts were that they signed. They knew what they were getting into. And then, yes, please have another conversation, even if it's at a later date, about reverting the current 20
years, not for existing contracts. They have to stay in place. But for future contracts, let's go back to what the citizens knew was in place when they voted. Daniel said that the rules were recommended prior to the citizens
voting. See, even though it may not have been in the language, ballot language, it's what the citizens knew was occurring. Let's not deceive the citizens. Let's think about them and the voters and legacy. Um, Reggie Williams.
Morning. Uh, on the restrictive coing issue, I just want to tell you the experience of a small organization. Um because the with the uh I'm with the African-American Museum of Arts here in
the land and we build a amphitheater. It has a 40-year restrictive covenant on it. Uh we don't have an issue with the 40 the 40 years. We just we are completing an existing uh expansion of
the museum that has a 20-year restrictive covenant uh on it. And based on the motion, I'm not sure what the effect would be on the covenant that we have in place for the for the expansion.
Uh so that would be one question. The the other issue is that being a small organization, you know, the 40 years does create some issues because like we need to uh make some improvements to our amphitheater, but we can't borrow money
because of that restrictive covenant. And so that becomes a you know a problem you know for us. And even with the expansion that we are doing uh or finishing up now uh in that because of the the payment structure that exists
you have to pay in order to draw down from the echo grant. We could not borrow because of the restrictive covenant that was placed on the building upfront. We could not borrow monies to uh help with the cash flow uh in order to make
this project work. Fortunately, we had a contractor that worked with us and we had a donor that stepped forward and worked with us also. Had we not had that, uh it would have been impossible for us to even meet the three-year requirement, you know, in in this this
program. So all I'm saying is that um what's in place I think you know we we accept what's in place move forward you know but you know jockeying back and forth you know from one to the other you know the rules
should be the rules so that when we sign these uh covenants if it's 20 years it's 20 years if it's you know 40 it's 40 and and and leave it be because it does create especially for small organization it does create issues uh for doing
things long term, especially when you've got a 40-year, you know, covenant on your property. Thank you, Dad. Question. Um, question for staff. Um,
is Mr. Chester's is Mr. Chester correct? Does the does the covenant does the um does the conclusion of a covenant um relieve the grant repayment requirement? So if we took the grants from 40 to 20
and they suddenly they're they're out of their their covenant. Um does does that relieve them of their requirement to pay and does this does a covenant expiration release the grantee from payment of their of their obligation to echo?
That would be a correct statement because I I see the covenants and and I understand what Mr. Williams just said there, but I see the covenants as a method of protecting the taxpayers. And I understand that there's there's going to be some some pain to some of the
smaller organizations, but we're here and those things are put in place to protect the taxpayers's interests. Um, and you know, because you might have smaller organizations that go out and overextend their credit, go out of business, and now they're not paying anybody back. So, I I think the
covenants are are in place are good to be there, you know, for the protection of the taxpayer. Anyone else? Sabrina Slack, uh, sorry, just one thing to clarify before you vote. Uh I is is
the motion to replace the current recommendation is that part of the motion to replace the current recommendation to council and that only this recommendation would go forward in November. Let's try to keep it simple. Let's take
this motion and make it for the past projects. What's already been approved? Right. So, my question is, you previously recommended that they all be reduced. That motion passed and it's it's a recommendation going forward to council in November. What I wanted to
clarify before you voted was is this current action to replace that past action? Well, I would want to make sure we understand that. prepared to make that second motion that would address that going forward. But right now, because there has been a lot of questions and a lot of issues, I
wanted to make it simple and just do it retroactively or for the projects that have already been approved. So, whoever agreed to whatever they've agreed to stays in place if it's a 20, 30, or 40-year covenant. That is my motion. Thank you for clarifying. Sorry to interrupt. No problem.
Roll call vote. So now if we vote again. Okay. Gosh. Reggie Santilly. Oh, I'm sorry. Reggie Santilly. Yes. Pat Drago. No. Gerald Feeser.
Yes. Tom Leutka. Yes. John Maluso. Yes. Pat Nory. Jay Pendergast. Yes. Doug Pettit. Yes.
Motion passes. Now, going forward, we obviously have a lot of mixed feelings here on this board and we do have a recommendation going forward to council. Now, we can either choose to re let that stay in place and let the council figure it out or we can
not do anything and or we can make a third mo or make a motion to resend that. And going forward, we would also have a a a 20, 30, and 40-year covenant. Um I before I would make a motion, is there any discussion or anybody have any
feelings strongly one way or the other on which direction we should go? I would certainly listen for it. If it's uh if everybody's very content with staying with the 20 years for everybody, then I'll be quiet and we'll move on to the next agenda. But if not, then uh I have no problem making another motion if
there seems to be sufficient support for it. Any discussion? Pat Drago. I just want to say that when I look at the list and I think about the types of projects that we approve and I think about expansions or side acquisitions, you know, 40 years is a
awful long time and so much can change. Thinking about the taxpayer and the taxpayer, we want to move these things forward. We want to improve our community and but I don't think we want to burden.
That's my concern. I believe that 20 years is responsible. 20 years is a responsible time. If you got a mortgage on a house, you get it maybe for 30 years. You're right. But you you know 20 years is a responsible
time. Most of these are public agencies, but the ones that we have that are if they're small, 40 years is is forever. That's eons because you can, you know, and I and that would preclude some of
those actions. And then you look at so the uh the governments, the nonprofits, etc. I believe 20 years is sufficient uh burden to to make sure that the taxpayer gets the projects that they
want with this funds and that um and and and that makes it so that people can cons can responsibly apply. So thank you. Any other discussion patent worthy?
Okay. I guess my only issue I I the 20 new construction at 20 years to me is is if we keep that in place I will predict that 20 years from now we will not have a valu uh echo program. I think the
voters will say, you know, you're not really committing it, especially if we start seeing some of these projects going by the wayside that were funded and their covenants expire and changes are made. Um, I think we need to look a little bit further out and uh I would
would support going at least on new construction to some work time greater than than 20 years. But if you know, if we don't really have good consensus, we'll let the council sort it out. question. We have how many projects that we have
done since the beginning? Uh we are currently at 319 projects. How many of those have we had come back to us? I think Lake Helen, how many projects have been rescended?
Um Ashlin, can you pull up the uh dashboard, please? That dashboard pretty fantastic. Yeah, thank you. The dashboard is much better. And just so to clarify so you guys know, um the what's in the memo is 305
projects. There's 319 projects now because I just added the 2026 DCE projects into the plan. So that's why you'll see a difference in the numbers. I off the top of your head off I don't want to I'm not I would say I would say about 10 would
I was going to say I don't 10 to 15 yeah so it hasn't been 10% of the projects then so I'll clarify it is 30 it looks like 30 is that 30 up there so we have 30 rescended projects now that all
necessarily won't mean that all of those paid us back those could grants as well that didn't make it through the cycle or they decided to pull back on their own. As far as payback of grants, it would probably project. Yeah. Okay.
Yep. So, as far as payback, I think we're at the four to six range of actually grants that have paid us back. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? I I go back to the comment that I made earlier about protecting the c the the citizens and
the residents, the taxpayers money. Um we you know I understand that we want to improve our community, but I don't think we want everybody applying for an echo grant because there are going to be some people that just will not be able to fulfill their obligation. And I think that the the I think I thought the three
tier program 20 30 40 was reasonable given what what you said about new construction taking five seven eight years to get completed and now you've got to get a history of of moving forward with it. So you know I'm a person that believes that we should have we stayed with a three tier system 20 30
40 um just because again I think it goes to the two things. One is that the idea of a legacy project, you know, if you look at anthropology and sociology, they generally consider 20 25 years generational and anything beyond that would be I think considered legacy. So
40 years is a ter using the term legacy is is appropriate I think because it's something that's going to be here for like you know as Mr. as Mr. Chester said the parks that were here when he was a child are now still here. And I think that's what the ultimate goal of ECHKO
is. Whatever we decide to invest in or whatever we decide to use taxpayer money in is long-term and lasting at Drago. I think that even when I look at this list of projects, even when a covenant expires, they're not going away. Think
about the parks that we saw that was before Echo even. They're not going away. What we're doing is we're putting a 40-year burden on some applicants. Let's just say I'm thinking about some applicants that we're going to do an expansion of new construction such as
Mr. Williams spoke about. 40 years is a long time for a board like that to have a covenant that also is on their books and restricts them as they go forward doing business. to me uh it's not going away and certainly w
if something's going away you're going to know it with less than 20 years. So I mean if it's that shaky an entity so I I continue to support the 20 year. Thank you. Anyone else?
Jay, you're just thinking Gerald did you want to make that motion? You know, I I uh I I don't support 20 for all of them. I I just think it's it's too short on some of the projects. I think the short ones and like you say, the s whatever you call the term for the
the big the big jobs where we give out a lot more money. What what's the term? What do we call those? Uh those are exceptional projects. Exceptional projects. So, exceptional project, you're good with having 20 years on it. If some were spending millions of dollars on an what is what can we spend up to one point uh 2.5 million
$2.5 million that in 20 years they could walk away with that money in their pocket. I I have an issue with that and so it should be longer and whether we want to you know start nitpicking or or go back so I say I'm good with going
back to the 20 30 and 40 year deal. If I thought there was support I'd make a motion. I don't feel the support right now. Um but uh I think uh exceptional projects in 20 years it' make me really think twice about before I vote for spending a whole lot of money on
anybody. Um if I may just to provide the committee with some more information for decision- making. Um we are going to be discussing the strategic plan soon going forward. Um and there's some information in in that that may help you with some
of your decision- making. set the committee's realm with what you want to do, but um we do have some additional information that uh you may want to hear. And that's next on the agenda. So maybe we'll just move ahead toward that.
I agree. Let's move. We made a motion a few meetings ago where we changed it at the end of the meeting. May do the same thing today. So let's move on. Okay. All right. Nick's going to introduce this next item. All right. So the strategic plan is something we've we've been working on
all year. Uh we've had a consultant put this plan together. They're in the final stages now of compiling all the information from the the surveys, the interviews, the design sprints. All that has been compiled into one report that's going to be presented to council.
We don't have the final draft of that. They're still working on that with the uh the data and the rationale. But what we do have for you today is a summary of what they have provided us um for consideration for review. Um Daniel will go through that they have recommended
goals and strategies. Um now these are just recommendations from the consultant. You know council will review these and make a decision um on these requests. Um but Daniel's going to go over them with you today. And uh we welcome uh any comments. Any comments
that are presented by the committee today, we will provide to council when that's presented. Not yet. That plan is not ready. Yeah. Yes. But what you do have in front of you today is uh as part of the agenda packet, you'll see um we have there's
five pages with the goals. There's five goals. Those goals are marketing and engagement, application and grant terms, direct county expenditures, program infrastructure, and advisory uh committee. Daniel, real quick, sorry, just just to clarify the what's presented to you
today is not going to change between now and council. The goals and strategies that is the same. So, what I was talking about was the details of the rationale, the data graphs, the charts that would accompany it. Yeah. So within each uh goal there is
strategies in each goal. Um there's 30 total strategies. So what we'd like to do today is go over each uh specific goal. We'll do one goal at a time and then ask for your guys uh feedback or
comments so we can tag those along with ours when we present it to county council in November. Question. Yes, sir. Will we see a copy of the strategic plan in its completed form before it goes to council? Absolutely. Yep.
Yep. As soon as we as soon as they send over that final presentation which will have the rationale, the data points, the exact timelines of everything, we will make sure to share that with you guys as well as council right away.
So, goal one was marketing engagement. Um, this was to expand public awareness and and participation. So basically what I provided you guys is the strategy, the objective, the current timeline that's in place, uh the key
performance metrics that are uh designed for each strategy and objective, and then there's a status column that kind of shows you guys where the echo staff is at in the process with some of those things. If it's blank, it's because we haven't we don't have a status update
for that particular uh strategy that they're trying to implement. But the good news is a lot of the stuff that they've brought up, especially in this marketing piece, right? Um because we've been talking about marketing since the beginning of the year. Um a lot of those things, a lot of these things were already moving
forward with um so if there's specific things that you guys want to talk about, goal one, uh now's the time. I'm not going to go into each specific strategy one by one, um but they're here on the screen. Yes, sir. the the and
just popping this up about the ocean center. You know, you're going to put a kiosk in there. Uh do do you get a lot of walk-in traffic to the to the ocean center or are you just trying to uh reach those people there for another event and hopefully they will walk over to your kiosk and check out Echo? We do get some traffic in there. Yeah,
the Echo Gallery is there. Um so that is one of our project so to the public. Yeah. So it was just a general idea to say where in the county specifically can we put an interactive kiosk um ocean center and the airport were two places
where high traffic volume comes in. The goal is to you know get a kiosk that is kind of has the transparency dashboard and people can kind of scroll and look and say oh what projects are near me. So it'll be very interactivebased. Um Nick and myself just went to
conference and we saw some of these kiosks. So, they were really, really cool. What does something like that cost? A kiosk? Um, we're still in the I would say probably with the data that they would use is a couple thousand dollars and then the the
actual kiosk will probably be upwards of seven to 10 probably. I I I don't know how interactive you were planning to make them. How how with computer screens? We haven't got there yet, but that's kind of one of our strategies. Gerald, they can range. Oh, sorry, Pat. Could we consider Sunreil stations as
well when we're talking about places where people can look? Um I heard I heard two places on the east side, but I heard no places on the west side and they would be and actually don't we do something similar in like at Deerry Hall
now and preserve there's is that what you're talking about something like that? Yeah, that idea is out there. Um, to answer Gerald's question, it it depends on the level of technology we want to go with. I mean, you can get as fancy as videos and touchscreen.
Um, you can get you can have audio with it. Um, there's different levels of kiosk we're going to be looking at to see what we can provide to fit our I would rather be expansive on locations than then, you know, narrow those
locations. I think there that's important that people know that stuff is out there. Yeah, those were just two that were identified by them as a recommendation. We have an echo committee for the arts at the ocean center. Correct.
Yeah. Like for replacement pieces and for consideration because for art and public places, if I recall about two and about $250,000 was that the number into the ocean center for the echo gallery when the
ocean center was being built. So could just when you get a chance confirm that number for me. Yes. Pat I go. When I look at the marketing I know that when we've looked at some of the grant applications one of the things we've looked at was their marketing plan. And
oftentimes we found that that was lacking. And I wondered, not that we have it as a requirement, but if we could provide our grant applicants with a model or hints on that, it might be helpful because they have so much outreach in the community that if they
knew kind of what we might be looking for and a metric to me to gauge success that that would be a helpful piece on that. Okay. Um, just for clarity, trying to keep track so far for staff to make sure we get all these right. So we we have a
recommendation for you know expanded kiosk locations for interactive kiosk and your recommendation it it was more of a gu a guideline or an offering for and the grant application process because right now we asked them
for their marketing plan and we might have a model or a thread connecting to what we're doing so that we could I think we have found some of those lacking and that the traffic count and some of really want was was peace meal.
So I think if there was a way to help that aspect would be good. Okay. Thank you Doug. Um item number six conduct regular countywide surveys. This whole thing was created through surveys that were conducted on through
the county website through a link. Right. Was there a control mechanism on that survey to to be sure that people didn't repeatedly answer the survey or survey more than once there there was I don't have the details from the consultant but I do know that
they used some of that through their technology I'm going to my my statement would be that for a countywide survey like that I think it has to have a control mechanism to be legitimate so you don't have somebody with a a legit you know with special interest telling all their people to get on there and
answer as many time we do that with voting for athlete of the week at high school tell all the kids get on there and vote as many times you can you know every hour you know. So, but this this is carries far more weight than that and I think what needs to be legitimate. So, I would just say on that countywide surveys item that we be sure to to
conduct it in a controlled meth method, you know, that that's conducive with with you know that kind of that kind of survey. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments, suggestions? All right. Moving into goal two, which was application and grant terms. So this
is to streamline and modernize the grant process currently. So one of the things Pat that you just touched on is uh if we look at 2.2 um about uh marketing business plan and
feasibility study. Um so there's their recommendation is to replace those uh plan requirements with specific questions moving forward. and and I was suggesting maybe a model because I think we have some of our smaller applicants
may not be skilled with that and that's where we I think we've seen weakness with some of our applicants in that area I support sustainability through investment income. What does that mean? I understand sustainability, but I'm not sure what investment income. What does
that mean? Make more money. So, this is to look at um one of the recommendations that they made was for us to look at uh urgent capital repairs um to fund those with our investment
income that our portfolio makes um in Echko. That's a that's a big thing for us to discuss at some point. I mean that we've talked about maintenance and how and capital and repairs. So having that in there. So this would be for example on the interest earned by the assets by
the the interest earned on our ad valorum taxes that's in our portfolio. We get a certain amount depending on how well our portfolio does in that given year. We could make anywhere from $50,000 to I'm just making these numbers $200,000 in a
year. Right. Right. So, we would look at that investment income and use those use those dollars not to be determined each year on specific urgent capital needs for the program. That's a whole another program. Okay. Thank you.
Right. And I I'll remind that I'll remind the committee the these are the the broad strategies and objectives. you know, when we get into the details, you know, if council passes them, when we get really get into the weeds of how we're going to implement them, that's
where we'll get into the details. So, these urgent capital repairs, they're not going to go through the grant cycle or or are they going through a grant cycle? I mean, it seems like if it's urgent, they're not waiting until
December to fill out a form. So, how I would like to see more clarification on what a urgent repair is. Okay. I said that's that's another discussion. Jay,
any other questions, comments? Any comments about increasing the over grant award overall grant award? Are we onorthy? Are we on three or we still on two? We're still on two. Oh. Oh, that's three. And I did want to say that I really am
pleased that I see a 2.3 create planning design tier for nonprofits so that we can go ahead and that was one of the things I that has been my favorite issue from the beginning. Thank you. Moving on. Move. Nothing else on two.
Okay. All right. Next is uh direct county expenditures uh to enhance transparency and accountability um with the direct county expenditure. Oh, there are six uh strategies for this specific goal.
Oh, I'm sorry, Paty. Yeah, thank you. Um I'm I'm curious why unless I missed it but we have forever been criticized about the uh the
application process for the outside projects and here we're require streamlined application for DCE projects two-page submission. So yes, so um that was recommended um by
them, but also during our last audit, one of the auditors request was for us to create a DCE handbook policies and procedures for the DCE projects. So we are also and we're in the process of
doing that now, but our plan is to also have the direct county expenditures fill out an application as well with some information. So that way we have documentation of projects being submitted into the plan.
That application would be less than what we would anticipate from cities or from not for profits. Does that Yes. Yeah. It will be shorter than those, but it'll be more than you currently see. And when we do the direct county expenditure review, you'll see
those applications in that process. And who would make those applications? You you guys are Yeah. Yep. I've already started working on creating an application. Um I I'm still having a hard time getting my hand around this my head
around this DCE. We require cities if they want to do a park, they put up some money, we put up some money. The county, do you if you bring something for a direct county expenditure, are you strictly only using the echo funds for that or are you bringing money out of parks and
recreation or somewhere to also do a matching grant? Um it's it is matching funds are not required but are preferred. So we do so we do take you know matching funds from parks or park impact fees or we use beach management
fund if it's a cultural uh coastal project uh the Doris Leaper project we're using park impact fees to fund uh that. So, and then those projects do become because again I'm new, haven't been through the cycle yet since we do the DCE. We vote them up or down like all
the other projects also or is this something you say, "Hey, we're going to spend the money on." No, you guys just review the DCE plan that comes to you. Okay. No recommendation. Yeah. Pardon? No recommendation. There is We make no recommendation. Correct. You guys just review the plan.
So, they basically uh what happens is they submit projects into their capital 5-year CIP plan. We go through the the the CIP plan and we look for projects that could possibly fit echo guidelines
and purpose, right? So then we say, "Okay, we'll take that project, put it into the direct county expenditure plan, and then we ask, you know, we'll meet with parks and we'll say, can we use park impact fees to help fund some of this as well?" And then we'll use match
money for that specific project. So, we have a re I mean, I have a real issue. What's to keep us I mean I have no problem with with you guys or any of us here, but what's to keep us from down the road to do like we did with the lottery and say, "Well, we're just going to supplement what we used to put in parks and recreation. We're going to
pull it out of Echo and we're going to and and so over time, we just see this to become a a a another county fund to spend as they see fit without guidance from ECHKO." I mean, am I I When did this come in play? Because I was on Echko a long time ago to do this.
Yeah. The direct county expenditure uh has been a part of echo. Um there was a resolution that was put in um very early on um you know the years. Do you want me to save you slack assistant county attorney? So echo was
created by a referendum to the voters and echo is funded through um advalorum taxation. So it's a tax. So the funds that come through a tax can only be spent on the source of the tax.
So when you go back to the resolution, the resolution created echo. Echo is created in two funds. One is a DCE fund and the other is this board's fund. So the fund that this board controls is the fund where you make the recommendations to the
council. The DECe is controlled by the resolution and the resolution restricts the use of those funds by the county to the purposes set forth in the echo resolution originally. So the DCE funds are not unrestricted funds or ungoverned
funds with the county. They are specifically restricted by the resolution that create them created them and for that specific purpose under all the laws that govern tax revenues. So that's that's where the DCE funds
originate through the echo resolution. And I and I'll add the DCE runs on a on a five-year plan. So it's it's forecast out for budgeting purposes. You know, there will be money for grants. There there's not going to be an issue where DC overtakes the money that's available
for grants. What percentage are DC funds? What are what are they averaging over the last two or three years as a percentage of total echo expenditures? I'm gonna have to get back to you on that one, Gerald. Okay. Can't calculate in my head.
You're pretty good at doing that stuff. I'm surprised you surprised me finally. Okay. I I I I just I know this is a controversial has been some controversy on the DEC, but I I will tell you as one who has sat here for a long time and has
s followed this and shared the um the committee to reauthorize, I support the DCE. I I just wish that it was a little more that we were a little more involved in it. That's the only thing I would say. I think the DCE
revenues do not take away from those who have applied. Those have always come first from what I as far back as we've done DCE. I I hear your concern about the council. The council could take at this time anything that that we did. They could
take it all now. I mean, that's just what they could do. They could reduce the the ad the advorum that goes out for um collection. Um, so, so while we are I was reminded we are an advisory board
and that that's what we do. We advise, but the DCE does because it's countywide, it does cover, good example, Debury Hall, you know, I think we're using DCE funds to help do some projects. Roof. Didn't we just do the
roof at DC? I think that's what it was. Oh, we're doing some exhibits over there. Exhibits. Is that what it was? Okay. They have the DEC projects have followed the rules as far as what ECHKO can do and what Echo is. My frustration has
been that we don't really get to get much of a review of them. I I would like to see the DEC projects a little more filled out for this com this advisory board. So, but I have not seen
the DEEC projects. The um excuse me, my I had a brain surgery and my my speech is not always accurate. Um I have not
seen an abuse of DEC funds for of echo funds for DEC project for DCE projects. I guess that's what I'm trying to say. I think it's a good program and I want to continue it. I am concerned though that we have a
two-page I'm happy to see that but but I know that we've had complaints about the length of the project's application now and that seems to me to be that we ought to be able to bring those into a little more synergy
the application process. Well, and we are streamlining the regular application now. So that is it will be reduced this nice this cycle. We've done that over and over until we're I'm glad that we're doing that. But yes, it's much better than it was
from the very beginning. Right. And and I will add the when Margaret was here, it was like that. The the intent of 3.2 is to provide the committee and the public with more information on DCE projects as they come. I I think that's really critical, too.
Yeah. That people understand. I don't think you should say how many pages. It's really small font. Yeah, it may be more than two, but that was just that was the objective was to have some sort of documentation, some sort of
application on hand that we have that we can revert back to. You guys can see it and the public. Yeah. Another issue down here, the coordinate with Valuchia forever, you know, that that is a big deal in in my opinion and and I you know, a lot of the projects both in a planning process are
phenomenal. Um the the one thing that that I've had thoughts in my head about uh is that you know with forever we're buying land that can't it it's going to be natural land. You know it's fine we we can put a kiosk parking kiosk and trails but but that's really about the
extent of of a lot of capital improvements. And it reminds me back to a a story back what I call really Valuchia Forever, you know, 10, which was before Valuchia Forever 1 and two was back in Orange City back in the late 80s. And there was about, I think, 150
acres that came on the market. And we got into a big battle with with Alice Cycler and myself and some people from Orange City against Klay Henderson and some of the Envirros that wanted to keep, you know, we only want to buy, you know, swamp land and endangered land. And this is a big high sand hill down here that has really no redeeming
values. And so we we prevailed and we got it bought much to the constrnation of a lot of the environmental groups. Today it's a park. It's the uh park off of that they were finally Huh. No, not Valentine. The one out off of a
Veterans Parkway. Um what what is the name of it called? It's Emmery Bennett. I was talking about PFC Ey Bennett Park. Yeah, Emmery Bennett Park. And so, uh, even though, uh, this land buying bought the land, you know, I'm sure the county or city, I don't know who finally
developed. It's a beautiful park and and I really think we need some mechanism, some way that we can start trying to buy some of the remaining lands around here that are going to be developed as a park or an open a green space, not just a preserved, you know, wooded area. That's
wonderful. And and I fully support that, too. But but we with all the people coming in here and with our current land development regulations that really don't require developers to put in much green space anymore, it's it's imperative that we start looking ahead and trying to tie down some of these
green areas that will make ball fields and parks and different things for people to get out and run around on instead of staying on their phone all day. I don't know the mechanism or what we have in place to do that. If if does the county through their DCE can say, "Hey, here's 50 acres over here. It's a
lot of money and and but we're going to buy it for a future park that we may not develop today." Jar, I agree with you on that being members of Echko and Valuchia and we brought this up before uh on both boards and there there has to be some the synergy is there. There has to be
some proactivity from the uh from the from from county from the county or someone go after these applications because they're there. They're there and and yet there's no really leading force to go buy it. It's got to be the county to to take the lead on it and say we're going to undy this
as a park, not as a I know. But but we did that now. Now we're committing to a motocross facility in the middle conservation corridor. So there you go. Better than houses. Not much. Not much. Oh,
I I'll argue with that till the day. In my opinion, I wish instead of a motocross track, we made a big mud pit out there where all these guys got their four-wheelers can go out there and turn around because you know what? 10 years from now, if you stop it, it's going to look just like it did today. But if you put houses on it, it'll be like that for hundreds of years.
So, anything we can do with outdoor recreation that's outside the environmental confines, I think it's something we need to look at regardless of where it's at. Any other comments on goal three?
Okay, let's move on to the next page. All right, moving on to program infrastructure. Uh, this will modernize our operations and expand access. Just looking to increase the uh, you know, the capacity of the program overall.
Could you explain what the launch library based admission pass program is? I I've never heard of that. Yeah. So, they uh they they told us about this RAD pass that uh I believe
another state uses. So, they told us to look into that RAD pass. Um, but I know uh Brad and Nick have had some conversations with Lucinda at library to try to develop uh some sort of admissions pass program. Um almost like
your echo passport where they could come in and you know get you know come into the library and they could keep trying you know different projects or whatnot. So Drago I'm thinking 4.6 six is going to have a
hard time for the county council to support that. You think? Just saying. Yeah. Any other comments, questions? Okay. Goal five. All right. Goal five. Uh, echo advisory
committee strengthen governance and oversight of the echo program. I've already heard it. So, we're going to get trained. Um, that's just one of the things they're recommending is to do some sort of onboarding for new uh members, some
training, some video presentations. I know we meet we meet with you guys oneon-one before a new member comes in, but there's just so much material and so much history with Echko, so maybe we develop some sort of onboarding and training um just to help out the advisory committee moving forward.
And I could use some balance. Sabrina Slack, it's eight hours on Sunshine Law. I know. You laugh about that, but but I'm on PNZ in Deltona and I'm required to take eight hours of that. And you know who
teaches it? The attorney for for Deltona. Her father teaches that program. I just did that program. Any other comments, questions on goal five? I just want to say that I think you know
we've been waiting for a strategic plan. I think this reflects a lot of work and there are a number of components of it that I'm really pleased about particular that so thank you and let's go forward here. Staff has been working hard this year.
Absolutely. We appreciate all that you do. Thanks. Okay. Quarterly updates on echo and DCE projects. You want to pull that one up? Thanks. All right. Just a reminder that these reports are reflecting April through
June 30th. So they don't reflect the current present time, but these are the reports that were due to us uh July 15th. So as recommended previously, you guys asked us to uh create two separate pages. One for the grants and then one
for the direct county expenditure. So on this first page is the updates from the grants. Right now projects in bold are completed. The rest of the projects are still uh going through the completion process.
Any questions about a specific project? I I want to just say that I'm looking at and I know it was a difficult vote for this this uh council this advisory board on the city of Devi Alexander Island Park. I see it was a 100% design this
quarter as well as the previous quarter or almost. What kind of movement are we getting there? Because I think that one of the issues we had was that the designs were incomplete. So are the design now complete? So the design is actually at 20%.
In in zero for construction. So So the previous quarter they didn't have a report. Okay. The project wasn't a Is that Is that the first I'm talking about the city of Death Project Island Park.
City of Deary 2427. Sorry, I was looking at 257. Yes. So their design uh is complete. Um the right now currently the St. John's River Water Management District has issued the necessary permits for the
uplands portion of the project and the city has initiated permitting process for structural components within the wetlands including the dock kayak launch and overlook tower. Well, they were talking about phases. Is that phase one or is that the total plan? This is this is part of the original
phase. They're in they're in the permitting stage of the original phase now. Yep. They're making progress. They're not just Okay. Thank you. Correct. And this project has to be completed, you said, within three years from the award date. That is correct. Think they'll make it.
Um, as far as what we're seeing, I I think they will. Yeah. Just one. Doug. Yeah. I'm going to circle around to a couple things here. And some of it goes back to the goal here. goal number the the information or instruction to the
county the advisory council. I'm also going to go to Miss Nory's comments earlier about we are an advisory board. So I I remain perplexed in some ways which is not um unusual for me uh on really what my duty as a board member
is. And I go to the work plan item four where it talks about the board will be periodically briefed on the progress of open projects review time extension scope changes and then I go to and I spent a lot of time in this handbook you gave me. I'm retired. I got nothing else
to do. Right. So in the in the advisory committee handbook under the section connecting with the county government, it talks there at several places about the board is responsible for assessing and voting as noted. All right. So I I wonder what are my responsibilities
to monitor the accountability and transparency of the things being presented. And I go to the spreadsheet here and I see that the spreadsheet is nice to have all that information there, but it doesn't give a lot of great detail. Uh and and you and I spoke earlier this week when we talked about
the the dashboard. Um the idea that, you know, it doesn't give detail. So where do we as board members find the information on the status of these projects? Where can we go to see what they're what where are they completing their obligations? if they're fulfilling
their reporting and performance obligations. Is that available to us anywhere? Can we go anywhere and see that? And basically, what responsibility do we have to monitor these things? Are we responsible for that or we just responsible for reviewing grants and approving them or not? So, I can definitely give you if you
guys want the quarterly reports with all the detailed information of those projects, if you guys want me to include that in here, I can do that for you. Well, I'm not looking to create extra work, but is there a link where we like if I wanted to go to like like we do on the dashboard now? We can link to something. There's a link and it goes
now my my comment to Daniel this week on the dashboard was when you link and open it up the box is so small I can't read anything. All right, that's got to come out. Yeah. So, we talked about that. But, I mean, can I go to the Valuchia Flagler YMCA Deltona athletic click on that and come up to their documents to
show okay, they were responsible for for reporting something in April. they met that requirement or they did not meet it or anything like that. Not at this time. Okay. So our our our intent is to have you know staff is responsible for the monitoring of the progress through the
projects to make sure they get completed on time. Right. But our intent is to have the availability um built in to the dashboard at some point where you can have the the most recent monitoring report of the completed project in that information. I've asked for information
like that just recently and and got it so it was accessible for me. I didn't have to keep it. I understand it maybe on the dash, but that would be a lot of work to load up all those. I mean, honestly, all I have to do is scan. We scan. They the the applicant
sends all these grants, right? They submit a quarterly report to us. They come to Jill or myself. We scan them in the file. We put them in a folder. I can I can combine them in a PDF and send them to you guys. So, you guys have send them. But it would be nice, I think, to maybe we can link them.
We can link them. Well, two two things I would ask. Number one, what are what are my responsibilities as a board member to stay on top of that or to monitor it? Uh, you know, am am I stepping out of my lane uh and asking for that kind of information?
No, but we could as staff that's our job to go and look at the compliance to make sure they're keeping up. And let me ask you this. So you say that you compliance what what kind of percentage are we getting as far as the the the the um grantees or grtors complying with their reporting
requirements? They they all have to comply. Okay. Um or it goes into a non-compliance issue to pursue that. Okay. We we have no issues with any of the projects filling out the quarterly or annual reports. Okay. All right. I mean we're on them like so the next
quarterly reports are actually due to us October 15th. We have over half of them already. Okay. Jill and myself are constantly reaching out. Hey, you guys got another week to get your reports in. Reminder, please get them into us. Um, when you're talking about over 300 projects, I can imagine if you get one
or two, remember, it's only the open projects, right, for quarterly, right? As far as annual reports, we get when that time comes in July, we get over 319 annual reports. That's my concern. And then like I said, asking whether I'm stepping out of my
lane and asking for to be able to see that or knowing and at any time you can ask me for any information on any grants and I can provide you any any type of information that you want. But we'll definitely look forward to see if there's a mechanism that maybe we can attach the last
quarterly report. So on the dashboard, if you click a a certain project, it'll show you exactly like if we were to pull up the city of Edgewater uh pickle ball courts. Go ahead and type that one on Ashlin. Type in pickle ball
and pick the uh Hawks Park one. That's crazy. That's got to be bigger. So, you know, so on the dashboard there's a picture of the actual grant, but in this pie chart right here, scroll down a little bit, Ashlin. It'll it'll see uh this is the uh percentage and
then hit the uh hit the arrow Ashlin of one of two a little bit lower. Yeah. This will show exactly what the uh design and construction percentage is. It just doesn't have that backup detail. Yeah. It's it's great information is great.
Yeah. And staff also does site visits too. Yeah. We we have to, you know, during projects that are open, we have to visit them. I mean, we're out there all the time. Um, projects that are completed, we have to visit them trianually. Um, but since I've come on,
we have visited them by annually. And I think I've visited uh I think I only have about 25 or 30 projects left that I actually have not laid my eyes on so far. So to to to conclude my part of this and
go back a little bit to the goals thing there as part of that, you know, instructing and and informing the advisory committee, maybe something in the next advisory committee handbook that talks about what our responsibilities are. You know, what what monitoring and accountability
responsibilities do we have other than just reviewing, you know, these things, you know, on an ongoing basis? Well, the monitoring falls mostly to staff. um that the guiding resolution uh spells out your your roles as advisory to the council, right,
as far as decision making, approval of applicants as they come in. Okay. Our role is to pro provide you as much information as we can so you can make the decision, right? Okay. No other questions on the regular grants, right? Okay. All right. Moving forward to the
direct county expenditure projects. So, I have a question for the motocross facility. H has the county purchased the land? The land has been acquired. Yes. Okay. They still have signs here for hunting. There is an access point for the
shooting range next door. Okay. There's an easement for that. Is that still act of the shooting range? It is. Will there be a covenant on that of 40 years or 20 years? It's county owned land. So there's no covenant on that. And my the reason I
asked that is they may find that after they're operating this, it's much more favorable to sell it from a liability standpoint. Any other questions? Okay.
Staff comments. You want to just keep the dashboard up? Can I Yeah. Can I ask I just noticed uh the Deltona Amphitheater Design and Engineering, there has been nothing it looks like done on that. Who's doing that? Are redoing that or has that been
outsourced? Uh we are working with library services. Um there Brad Library and I believe an outside consultant firm is looking into doing the actual design for that
project. There's definitely been there's definitely been some talks. There's just no design plans yet. And remember these are only through June. So there's been a lot of things happened to these things since June. Okay. You'll see that at the next report. Okay.
All right. Uh moving to uh staff comments. Uh so one thing I wanted to bring to your attention as well was that uh we also had the audit recently. The 2024 echo audit went to the council for review. Um so just bringing some some
good news from our audit here. Um they tested 16 echo projects. No compliance issues were found with any of the echo policies or procedures. Those projects are tested at random. Uh Gerald, this is a good number for you. Uh the last fiveear rolling average is now down to
complete a project 1.5 years for the last five years of projects. That's very So we're we're really doing a good job. Uh the grantees are really doing a good job of getting their projects complete. And one thing that they pointed out as well is that uh there's a strong
transparency dashboard for public visibility. This was before we've now implemented the new dashboard. So I'm excited that dashboard 2.0 is out for the public. Um we did send a press release out notifying that we had two
complimentary digital platforms to enhance the transparency and public engagement for echo in forever. Um so this is the echo dashboard. I know I sent this to you guys. it's visible to the public. So, um you can go ahead and and filter through and uh look up any
projects that you want by specific grant year or if it's a county project, if it's DCE, how much funding, how many environmental projects there are, etc., etc. So, it's a good platform to use. And Daniel, can I jump in real quick? You know, I just want to commend can and
Daniel and and Mike Richards, the two that have been working on this dashboard for a while. Um it's a big improvement over the last one. And we're we're always trying to improve the technology and the information we can get out. Uh and we try to approach this by, you know, the most common questions we get asked about projects, you know, like,
you know, how many projects are in the city of Daytona or how many are outdoor education projects or how much money was spent on outdoor education projects. This dashboard will now provide you that information once you start filtering through uh the projects you want to look for. So, uh there's a lot of uh features
in here. It's going to take a little bit to to get used to because there's so many compared to the last one, but uh we are always striving to uh improve this. Uh this is only version 2.0. So, a quick question. When when I got that, of course, I was checking my email on my
phone. And so, right away, I had to try it. And that's when I I emailed you, can I get rid of the 283 million? You know, it showed up half the phone. And and you know, and you when I go to the computer screen, it's great. But I, you know, a lot of people today get their information off their phones. Are do we are you going to do any kind
of an upgrade because all the thing that was cumbersome was just get trying to get rid of that that overblock there that took up half the screen. You couldn't really full screen the individual projects. Yeah, we're working on trying to get it. It is mobile compatible now, but we are constantly trying to improve it.
That'd be 3 version, right? But I commend you guys because it really mean it's more more vibrant, more easy to filter. So, let's let's let's play with it here. If I wanted to know how many cultural projects we had, so Ashlin
would click cultural, right? And it's going to filter it down to tell me I have 51 cultural projects in Valuchia County. The map then filters to those projects. If someone said, well, how many how many cultural projects are in the city of Daytona Beach? Then I can go
quickly up to the city up at the top filter to Daytona. Now, I can tell you the answer is there's 18 cultural projects and the money and I can filter it down as far as I want to find the answer um to the questions. Um so, it's really it's really cool. I could see
that 17 of those projects are completed. There's one in progress. And then if you wanted to search for one on the left, you can. If you wanted to click one of the dots, it'll take you to that specific project for more detail. And then Ashlin can hit the the corner button um to reset and then we can go
back to the beginning and start all over and search for our next answer or next you know whatever question pops up. So say just a comment to what to what Gerald was saying. I use my iPad a lot and my phone. I
hardly ever use my desktop anymore. So I know that you can develop to be app specific to one of those ways of doing it and that he's right. It is hard on on this you almost give up at least I do.
So, I would say if we can make an app that is specific to iPad or or to a or to telephone because it is hard when you're especially when you're old and your eyes are old. We we'll welcome any feedback from
committee members on any issues we may have. We have a really good uh GIS team that works on this. I will say this is a GISbased product, not an app-based product. So, there are limitations for that. Oh, well that's interesting. Yeah. Okay. It works best on a uh desktop or
So you're not looking at an app, but we've come a long way in making it mobile compatible. So we will take feedback and look at features to see if we can improve that. Yes, it was. Well, that makes sense then. Yeah. But yeah, yeah, we we we put a lot of time into
this. I mean, Jill must have spent hours upon hours compiling all the pictures and putting all the data into a spreadsheet. And Mike Richards uh spent a lot of time on this. He did a really really good job. So, and for uh for John and Gerald, we we're
making an improvement very similar to the Volution Forever dashboard already in the works. Um just two real quick things that we've already talked about the size of that that block when it comes up with the AVA. I think it's great to have it. I think it's very interest, you know, just
I think very beneficial to have it just like see that block. And the other thing I would recommend on this is an old guy thing. The the font color uh down there where you've got the list of the of the projects, you know, for an old guy that has a hard
time seeing sometimes that lighter font on the lighter background, maybe look at going to a darker blue or something like that. That just I like the idea that you've blocked off the ones that are complete. Yeah, that that helps out a lot. But I just like to see that a little. I think the the gold or brown
font color is difficult to read. Yeah. For old eyes. If I take my glasses off, I can't even see it. Yeah. Okay. It needs to be bolded or something. Thank you. Okay. Okay. We're going to go through for um advisory committee.
I wasn't I wasn't done yet. I was I wasn't Oh, I'm sorry. One more, Richie. One more. I'm sorry. Moving on from the dashboard and on to the micro site. All right. So Ash is going to pull up the micro site. So this is part of our
marketing initiative, right? Um so this is the new site that has gone live. It's explore echo forever.com. So on here, this is where we're creating some synergy with um Echo and forever. So um a nice layout here. If I wanted to find
out more information about I'll just pick environmental. Um, this will highlight, you know, some nice pictures of some of the environmental projects throughout the county. And then we give a quick little project summary of the echo cate or of the environmental category. And then the
plan is to do a spotlight on a specific project quarterly. For this, you know, for this quarter, we chosen the marine discovery center, but this will give people a little snippet of some of the projects. They can learn more, take them to a different site. Um and then below
there is an interactive map as well that shows the projects for this specific category. Um there's also a page for Valuchia Forever if you wanted to see the different preserves. So this is only going to be echo projects or Valuchia
Forever preserves. Okay. The other cool thing about this site is in the corner um as you could see a lot of sites now have chat bots. Well, we also have a chatbot on this site. He's named or he or she is named Echo Explorer. So, it'll
talk to you. So, the goal of this is to have mothers, fathers, grandparents, aunts, uncles go on here and ask it specific questions. You know, if they wanted to find out about a certain project or if they're in so for instance, we'll just say uh
looking for a project in Port Orange. Ashlin's our tester. Black where the echo explorer on your screen. Just press where show request speaker. It'll turn it off. No, the other one. No, that's press that one again. Press
that one again. Oh, high controls. There you go. Ask a question. Yeah. You saw how quick I was, right? So remember these are, you know, these
this this is being trained in the background. So the more staff has played with it and the more the public starts to use it, it becomes smarter, right? It's that that AI revolution that the whole world is going moving towards, right? But so Ashlin said, "What kind of
projects are in Port Orange?" and it'll specifically identify cultural projects. As you scroll down, it tells you about some outdoor projects. And like I said, all of these are echo projects that people can go and visit. Um,
type in what about a splash pad? So, bam. I I I've saw those, but I I really wanted to take my son or daughter to a splash pad and it shoots and says, "Yes, Port Orange has a splash pad at Riverwalk Park, you know." So,
Ashley, go back to the main page for a second, would you? And scroll down where you got the four items across. Yeah, right there. Click the learn more on the cultural. No, cultural. That's environmental.
That's what happened last night. the cultural coming up to environmental because that's why I want you to do it. Okay. Yeah, it wasn't like that. But there's a link in there somewhere. We'll fix the link. It's not right. Yeah. I think we've gotten rid of culture.
Yeah. You know, in a second I for a second when I saw I go, did they really do that? I mean, no, I'll get that. They I'll get them to fix that. But yeah, and I promise it's it was there. We're not
going to do that anymore. There's some information on Valuchia Forever on here as well. Yeah. So, there's the Valia Forever. You guys have really worked hard on all this. Thank you. Great job. It looks good. Yeah. And then the last thing I just wanted to add, there's the news and
announcements as well up at the top, Ashlin. So, that way I can provide people with, you know, any of the press releases or any updates on on current projects as well. So, Um Daniel, I'll add some additional
additional synergy that's that's coming to the division. Uh that just started in October. So it's fairly new is the explore program is now in the resource stewardship division. Oh, good. So we'll be utilizing Echo and Valuchia Forever. Um probably even more than we
have in the past in that program. That's our public outreach and education arm for the county for outdoor projects. Great. Um, and then lastly, I sent you guys an email yesterday uh about Edgewater Pickle Ball uh grand opening of that project is uh November 5th at
10:00 a.m. And that's all I have for staff comments today. Thank you, Dan. Okay, now for advisory committee comments. Gerald Yeah, the staff staff's presentation was
great and you you answered my question from a couple of months ago when city of Port Orange wanted to know exactly what had been done by Echo in the uh uh in the past and you told me it it's coming.
It's coming and Jill Jill said the same thing. So, uh, that that really went over well and it's a great job on the websites. Thank you. I echo that. I think staff has done a tremendous job this year with Echo and we appreciate it.
Pat, I want Yeah, I want to echo the comments as well. staff dashboard really impressive enough that I could work it and I think that
first time on that. Oh my gosh. I think everything that Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I I I will add my my thanks
to staff for all the changes that have been made. You all have done great work with that. I I do have one question based on uh conversation that was the council on Mon Tuesday. They they meet on Tuesday. Um Ekko's name was was on
the lips of council member Jake Johansson. Do we know what that means? Do we have any idea whether we're changing the application based on their conversation? Whether there is something that we need to be prepared for? Not at this time. That just happened on
Tuesday. So, I don't have any additional information for you on that. Uh, no comment. we asked you to come back for more information and I appreciate the work that's been going on not only on the dashboard and everything else but bringing back like I you know you you
inform me and I like that that idea that I can develop and mature as a member of the board. That being said you know I I come to these and I talk to friends and they go what are you doing tomorrow morning? Oh, I got an echo board meeting and then you know they screw their faces up and go why are you doing that? I just
wish more residents and citizens of the of the county would understand the importance of being on these boards. We're the taxpayers. We're the people that are fun funding the money and we need to be here and and I know there's a lot of other boards that don't get filled out, but I would encourage the taxpayers who are watching us on
streaming right now to encourage their friends to get involved in in your county government. Thank you and appreciate what you did. I never make the motion because I never make the motion. I got no one else to hang around with. So, I get to hang around with you guys. My god,
it is cold in here. It's cold. It's cold as heck.