ECHO advisory committee fails to rescind move to 20‑year grant term; requests staff report

The ECHO Advisory Committee of Volusia County voted 5-4 on a procedural motion and declined to rescind its recent recommendation that new ECHO grants run for 20 years instead of 40.

The committee's decision followed extended public comment and in-meeting debate about whether the county should restore a 40-year obligation period for ECHO grant recipients. Public commenter Keith Chester urged the committee to return to 40 years, calling 20 years "not legacy, folks" and citing prior instances where the county had clawed back funds from grant recipients that failed to meet obligations.

The vote came after legal and procedural guidance from Sabrina Slack, assistant county attorney, who explained limits on retroactively changing contract terms. Slack said adding years to an existing 20-year restrictive covenant would require agreement by the grantee: "Adding a term to a contract would require an amendment or a modification." She also warned that the committee's earlier action recommending 20 years had already been forwarded to county council: "You have already directed us to do that. So that train's left the station."

Why it matters: The ECHO program uses dedicated local funding for land conservation, parks and cultural projects. The length of a grant obligation determines how long recipients must keep a funded public benefit in place. Citizens and committee members said changing the obligation period affects taxpayer protections, the meaning of "legacy" projects and the county's ability to recover funds if a grantee fails to deliver.

Key facts and debate

- Public comment: Connie Colby and Keith Chester raised concerns about transparency and whether committee review occurred before some projects were added to county plans. Chester cited the Dutton House, saying the county had reclaimed about $230,000 after the project failed to open.

- Contract timing and obligations: Committee members asked whether the obligation period begins when a grant is awarded or when a project is complete. Staff responded the clock starts when the county council awards the grant; standard grants have two years for completion and exceptional grants have three.

- Procedural limits: Slack told the committee it can waive a condition in a contract (reducing a 40-year obligation to 20 years if it is the county's contractual term) but cannot unilaterally add years to a grantee's already-signed restrictive covenant. "The 20-year contract, there is no ability for me to add 20 years unless there's a modification or amendment between the parties," she said.

- The vote and next steps: A motion to rescind the committee's earlier action to recommend 20 years was put to a roll-call vote and failed. Committee members recorded votes during the roll call (as recorded in the meeting): Reggie Santilli (no); Pat Drago (no); Gerald Feazer (yes); Thomas Lupuca (yes); John Macaluso (no); Pat Northey (no); Jay Pendergast (no); Doug Pettit (yes); Leo Washington (yes). After the vote failed, the committee asked staff to prepare a report on the impacts of changing the term and to present that information at the next advisory committee meeting.

What was decided and what was not

- Decided: The committee did not rescind its earlier recommendation for 20-year obligations; the rescind motion failed by recorded vote.

- Not decided: The committee did not change the county's ECHO policy or retroactively alter existing contracts. Staff was directed to return with information so the committee can better understand the legal and fiscal impacts.

Context

The committee and members referenced the 2020 reauthorization of the ECHO program. Staff pointed to Resolution 2020-79 (the 2020 reauthorization) and said that, since 2020, new grants have moved to 20-year obligations. Committee members who supported reconsideration said they wanted more information on the number and status of pre-2020 grants that still operate under 30- or 40-year covenants.

The committee said it will hear a staff presentation at its next meeting that will describe which grants are under which covenants, the practical effect of switching policy for future grants, and the legal barriers to changing already-signed restrictive covenants.