Charter Review Commission  Minutes
March 13, 2006

Handout

Summary identifying which sections of the Charter were referred for further discussion.

CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Chair, William Scovell, called the Charter Review Commission meeting to order at 5:38 p.m. in Training Room 1 of the Thomas C. Kelly Administration Building at 123 West Indiana Avenue, DeLand Florida. The following members were present: Chair, William Scovell, Vice-Chair John Graham, Joe Benedict, Ezell Reaves, Patricia Drago, Patricia Northey, Pete Heebner, Rich Gunter, Dr. Bud Fleuchaus, Charles Matousek, and Dr. T. Wayne Bailey. Also present were Daniel Eckert, County Attorney, Betty Holness, Assistant to the County Manager, Prashant Patel, Intern in the County Managers Office, Mark Rakowski, Chair of the Volusia County Growth Management Commission, other VGMC members were also present. There were approximately twenty members of the public present. Also attending was Lloyd Flanagan Sr. to discuss Smart Growth. Commission members Clarence Davenport, Glen Storch, Alex Ford, and Tom McClelland were unable to attend.  

APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 13, 2006 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
The first order of business was to approve the minutes from the February 13, 2006 regular meeting. A motion was made by Pete Heebner to approve the minutes, and Joe Benedict seconded it. The entire Charter Review Commission carried the motion unanimously.

DISCUSSION ON THE VOLUSIA COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION (VGMC)
Mr. Scovell invited Mr. Rakowski, Chairman of VGMC, to begin the discussion. Mr. Rakowski began by saying that he recognizes the tension that exists between the citizens of Volusia County and the VGMC. This tension exists because Volusia County citizens are disappointed in the VGMC’s effort to contain the continuous expansion and growth. Mr. Rakowski stated that there is a misconception within the public about the role of the VGMC.

According to Mr. Rakowski, the public believes that the VGMC can override decisions made by public officials in regards to changes made in Comprehensive Plan Agreements. Mr. Rakowski stated that the purpose of the Growth Management Commission is not to overrule local officials. Instead, the purpose of the VGMC is to coordinate planning agreements between different jurisdictions. The VGMC also determines whether an amendment to a City’s Comprehensive Plan adversely impacts another City.

Mr. Rakowski added that the VGMC has a very narrow focus in determining the impact that Plan Amendments could have on other areas. He stated that the Commission has six criteria that they use in determining the influences of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. If an amendment does not affect another jurisdiction, it is generally approved.  

According to Mr. Rakowski, the VGMC is a mechanism that facilitates the ability of different jurisdictions to discuss how amendments to their Comprehensive Plans influence their decisions on Smart Growth.

Mr. Rakowski stated that prior to the existence of the VGMC, there was no organization within County Government that promoted the coordination between different jurisdictions, in regards to Comprehensive Plan Amendments. He said that by allowing coordination to take place, Volusia County avoids legal disputes that may take place.

Mr. Rakowski stressed to the Commission that now is not the time to eliminate coordination between jurisdictions. In his opinion, the County needs the VGMC to deal with the inevitable increase in growth that is going to occur in the future.

Mr. Rakowski went on to say that often when a City is not present during a VGMC meeting the City’s vote is considered a no-vote, which can have a great influence on the outcome of the vote. Mr. Rakowski further sated that there has been criticism over the size and function of the board. Many people have advocated for a smaller board, which is comprised of important professions in Volusia County, along with members of the community.

Mr. Rakowski invited Tom Cloud, with GrayRobinson, P.A. who is the General Counsel for VGMC), to add his thoughts on the VGMC. He began his presentation by giving a brief historical overview of the origins of the VGMC.

Mr. Cloud stated that the Florida Department of Community Affairs, which created the VGMC, did not want to create another governmental bureaucracy. Therefore, the VGMC focused on intergovernmental issues. These issues were concerned with mitigating the impingement of Comprehensive Plan Amendments on other municipalities.

Mr. Cloud stressed that there is still a need for intergovernmental coordination between the Cities and the County. Due to the fact Cities are growing at a greater frequency, there is going to be extensive conflict between cities over potential service areas. He also stated that coordination is going to be needed in order to protect sensitive environmental lands.

Mr. Cloud reiterated the point that the VGMC is misunderstood. He stated that the public perceives the VGMC as being equivalent to the Department of Community Affairs. Mr. Cloud also stated that there is a false view among the public that the VGMC never prohibits an amendment from passing, and that they have allowed unlimited urban sprawl to occur.

Mr. Cloud ended his presentation by cautioning the commission that if they create an alternative body with increased authority without representation from the cities they will be violating Federal Law. Mr. Cloud also added that the Charter Commission must be mindful of the Constitutional limitations set by the state legislature in the configuration of the Volusia Growth Management Commission.

Mr. Scovell stated that there has not been a reduction in litigation after such cases as the Lefler decision in regards to annexation. He asked for a comparison of the amount of litigation that has taken place within Volusia County as it compares to the amount of litigation within other counties.

Mr. Cloud responded by stating, VGMC has no constitutional authority to limit the amount of annexation litigations that take place within Volusia County. He said that in comparing the rate of litigation in other counties to Volusia, Volusia County has a considerably lower rate of litigation compared to such Counties as Flagler and Polk.

Mrs. Northey asked is it accurate to say that if a representative from a City or County does not attend a meeting of the VGMC, then their vote is nullified.

Mr. Chipok responded that in order for a motion to pass at a VGMC meeting, members must achieve a majority of the weighted vote of a quorum. The weighted vote of a City or municipality is based upon the population of a City that is a member of the VGMC. The weighted vote of the Cities is then measured against the weighted vote of the total Commission. If a majority of the weighted vote is reached then the motion is passed.

Mr. Heebner asked is there a process for appealing a decision by the VGMC that approved a Comprehensive Plan amendment.

Mr. Cloud responded that there has been one challenge to a decision made by the VGMC. He stated further that the VGMC has mechanisms in place to review small-plan agreements, and capital investment improvements. The assessments of these programs are done on a cursory review, and follow state guidelines.

Mr. Heebner asked could there be any change to the Charter that would improve contiguity and the operation of the VGMC.

Mr. Cloud stated he would like the Charter to include language pertaining to providing more funding and guidelines for Sector Plans. Sector Plans are plans for development that are dictated by the Department of Community Affairs who wish to see longer and more sustained development.

Dr. Bailey asked if the VGMC approves its own budget by a two-thirds vote of the Commission.

Mr. Cloud stated that it is true that the VGMC approves its own budget. The County Manager forwards the budget to the County Council it is subject to change, and then sent for approval to the County Council. Consequently, the VGMC’s budget does not necessarily reflect the appropriated amount that is desired by the VGMC.

Dr. Bailey said that the VGMC has the power to insist that they receive a higher appropriated budget from the County Council. The VGMC was  envisioned to become an independent agency free from the directions of local government.

Dr. Bailey later asked is there any way that the Charter can help the VGMC shift its paradigm from one of focusing on consistency of growth management to one dealing with implementing consistency standards as a part of growth management.

Mr. Cloud responded by saying that in every Comprehensive Plan there are requirements to provide services to areas. Therefore, the VGMC is using elements of concurrency when evaluating that element of the plan. However, the VGMC does not examine concurrency standards as being a separate issue that is independent of the comprehensive plan amendment.

Dr. Bailey asked could the VGMC be an instrument for the application of concurrency standards as it pertains to education.   

Mr. Cloud responded by stating that existing legislation already provides local governments the authority to use concurrency as a process in public schools. He stated that in Senate Bill 360 local governments are required to use concurrency in schools, depending upon the jurisdiction. Volusia County will be able to apply concurrency standards in schools as it pertains to the services provided in the schools.

Mr. Matousek asked, is it correct to assume that there is a perception among the public that the VGMC is closed to the public and given its current structure, only government entities have access to the VGMC. He went on to ask is it also true that the only time the general public can come before the VGMC is when they have a legitimate grievance to a Comprehensive Plan Agreement.

Mr. Cloud responded by stating that this is an incorrect assumption and that the VGMC meetings are open to the public. He stated that his   law firm makes determinations on behalf of the VGMC as to the public’s legal standing.  Mr. Cloud also noted that the VGMC provides a public notice of meetings in order to encourage public participation.

Mrs. Drago asked what would occur at a VGMC meeting if a majority of the weighted vote were absent.

Mr. Chipok responded that they would not have the necessary quorum needed if a majority of the weighted vote was absent or majority of persons were absent.

Mr. Benedict stated that having personal experience with the VGMC by being its first Chairman, and the VGMC was modeled after the Pinellas County Growth Management Commission, which encouraged the entire Comprehensive Plan to go before the Committee. He believes that the VGMC has not preformed the task that it was intended to do and questioned whether it should continue. He asked what percentage of the entire Comprehensive Plan Amendments goes before an open public hearing.

Mr. Cloud responded by stating the average percentage of Comprehensive Plan Amendments that go before a public hearing is about 10%.

Mr. Chipok stated that the VGMC receives fifty to sixty applications a year to amend their comprehensive plans. They approximately hold five hearings a year.

Mr. Benedict stated that the current VGMC has run its course. Volusia 

County must look for an alternative structure to comply with requirements of Senate Bill 360. This is necessary because the current format is not addressing the requirements under the legislation.

Mrs. Northey asked Mr. Chipok to explain the process that is involved when objections to Comprehensive Plan Amendments come before the VGMC.   

Mr. Chipok stated there are three steps to this process. The first step is to see if any neighboring jurisdictions have concerns with the Comprehensive Plan amendment, then the VGMC automatically proceeds to a public hearing. The second step in this process is that the organization must put an advertisement in local newspapers. Following 21 days after the advertisement was published, any individual of the public who has concerns can request a public hearing. Step three, if any member of the VGMC staff has any concerns about outstanding issues then they too can ask for a public hearing.

Mr. Chipok stated that in the case of a dispute that exists between a City that has applied for an amendment to their Comprehensive Plan and an outside jurisdiction, VGMC staff meets with the two parties to mediate an agreement. If there are no objections to the agreement, then it does not rise to the level of the Commission.

DISCUSSION ON UNRECORDED SUBDIVISIONS; PLANNING FOR SMART GROWTH
Lloyd Flanagan: Mr. Flanagan gave a brief historical overview of unrecorded subdivisions and the negative impact that they are having on Smart Growth. Mr. Flanagan stated that at the current time many individuals who own this type of land cannot approach their land due to limited access. In order to remedy this problem, many land owners want to have paved roads built that go through other landowner’s property, and the environmental corridor.

Mr. Flanagan went on to offer recommendations on how the County can resolve this issue.

• Create rigid county development codes to prevent non-sustainable development.
• Create a county development program that would inform landowners of the land development codes and zoning laws that they are required to abide by if they own property in Volusia County.
• Create a similar program to the one in place in Flagler County which initiated the Municipal Service Taxing Unit, where every lot of an unrecorded subdivision would be taxed, and the revenues that would come from the taxing unit would be used to build infrastructure.   

Mr. Scovell asked Mr. Eckert to offer his thoughts on Mr. Flanagan’s presentation.

Mr. Eckert stated that Mr. Flanagan’s primary concern is the issue of vested rights. Mr. Eckert stated that Mr. Flanagan is expressing the point that the county should not amend its land development codes to allow development in areas, which has not been subjected to development in the past.

Mr. Eckert went on to advise the Charter Review Commission that they could address this issue through a management recommendation that would come out of the Ordinance Review and Management Recommendations Subcommittee.

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
Ordinance Review and Management Recommendations Subcommittee: Chair, John Graham, stated that the subcommittee has been discussing the issue of unrecorded subdivisions at great length. Subcommittee member Glen Storch has developed recommendations for the subcommittee. It is the hope of Mr. Graham that these recommendations will turn into possible Charter recommendations.

Infrastructure Needs and Smart Growth Subcommittee: Subcommittee member Joe Benedict stated that the Infrastructure Needs and Smart Growth Subcommittee will be completing its work and offering recommendations to the full Charter Review Commission. Mr. Benedict said that he is unaware of any potential Charter recommendations.

Intergovernmental Relationships Subcommittee: Chair, Joe Benedict, stated that the subcommittee’s next meeting will be discussing the issue of Special Districts that were previously eliminated. County Attorney, Dan Eckert will be present to offer his thoughts on the issue. Mr. Eckert will offer any recommendations he may have to the subcommittee.

Protecting the Environmental Core Subcommittee: Subcommittee member Joe Benedict stated, due to conflicting schedules, the subcommittee has been unable to develop recommendations. The subcommittee does plans to meet next week.

Structure of Government Subcommittee: Chair, Dr. T. Wayne Bailey stated that the subcommittee has heard from John Wesley White, representative of the International City/County Managers Association. The discussion focused on the conception and roll of the Elected Chair. The subcommittee will proceed by discussing the sections of the Charter that were assigned to them and offer potential recommendations. Finally, Dr. Bailey stated that they will be meeting with the Elected Department Heads at their next meeting to discuss their role within local government.

Integrating Economic Development and Education Subcommittee: Chair, Patricia Drago stated that the subcommittee has heard from various government officials that have experience in using the Fiscal Impact Analysis Model. Mrs. Drago went on to say that the subcommittee came away with the feeling that some type of FIAM model would be beneficial to Volusia County in the attempt to integrate municipal and County projects.

Mrs. Drago said that it remains unclear whether the subcommittee will offer a Charter recommendation or management recommendation to the Charter Review Commission. Mrs. Drago ended by saying at the next subcommittee meeting on March 27, 2006, the subcommittee will be hearing from representatives of the Orange County School District on the recent Orange County Charter Amendment as it relates to Senate Bill 360 and school density.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Joe Russo: Joe Russo gave a presentation that discussed the supposed water shortage within the state of Florida. Mr. Russo said that Volusia County is not experiencing a water shortage. He believes that Volusia County is using less water every year and does not need to impose a severe county ordinance on water usage. 

Jim Cameron: Vice-President of Government Relations for the Halifax Chamber of Commerce, Jim Cameron gave a presentation on the thoughts of the Halifax Chamber of Commerce on potential changes to Volusia County Government. Mr. Cameron stated that the Chamber of Commerce believes that any Charter Amendments should require 60% of the Charter Review Commission vote to pass.

In regards to growth management, the Chamber stands in favor of the proposed changes offered by the Smart Growth Committee’s report. He said that the Chamber would like to see the County along with City municipalities develop a joint vision when concerning unincorporated areas. In regards to structure of government, the Chamber believes that the Chair should be given the veto power, and supports maintaining the Council-Manager form of government.

Mr. Cameron went on to say that this potential veto authority should be allowed to be overridden by a super-majority vote of the County Council. Mr. Cameron further stated that the Chair of the County Council should have the ability to fire the County Manager and appoint potential candidates to that position. Both powers can be overruled by a super-majority vote.

In regards to the issue of redistricting, Mr. Cameron said the Chamber of Commerce is in favor of two possible changes. The first change is to have one Countywide elected Chair, with six individual districts.  The second alternative is to have a Countywide elected Chair along with two additional At-Large seats with for members being voted on by district.

Finally, the Chamber of Commerce holds the opinion that the emergency transportation system is running adequately and would like the County to develop an independent fire service.

Mrs. Northey asked why it would be necessary to give the Chair the authority to veto the entire budget, but not a line-item veto.

Mr. Cameron responded that it was the consensus of the Chamber of Commerce that the County Chair would not use the line item veto often. He then went on to say that it was agreed upon that the Chair have the necessary authority to veto the entire budget because they believed it to be a necessary function of the position. 

Sandra Walters: Ms. Walters went on to say there are three possible outcomes when an application comes before the VGMC. The outcomes are for: 1) approval, 2) disapproval, or 3) approval with conditions. Ms. Walters stated that the members of the VGMC rely on the planning firm, Miller-Sellen, to do all research for them regarding the applications presented for consideration. As a result, the Commission does not receive alternative viewpoints on issues.

Ms. Walters stated that often the VGMC rules in such a way that it fits the research given to them by Miller-Sellen, and she does not believe that this type system is beneficial to county government. The only time members of the public appear before the VGMC is if they have standing under their rules. Ms. Walters further stated that public input at VGMC meetings is minimal.

Ms. Walters ended her presentation by stating that the VGMC is drastically moving away from what its original function. She also stated that if they had the adequate time and resources to deal with these comprehensive issues, they could again be an effective body.

Suzanne Steiner:  Ms. Steiner has been a member of the VGMC for nine months. She agreed with the assessment of Ms. Walters in describing the volume of paper work that is involved in analyzing various Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Ms. Steiner went on to say that she is constantly questioning what her function is as a member of the VGMC.

Ms. Steiner stated that it was refreshing to hear counter information that was different from what staff presented to them at their November 2, 2005 meeting. Ms. Steiner said that the VGMC can play a role, but public participation is essential to it function. This is because people do care about the issues of Smart Growth and often the public is not aware that the VGMC is meeting due to the fact that paper advertisements are overlooked.

Ms. Steiner finally stated that it is because of the lack of public participation that cities have been able to easily come to agreements with the VGMC pertaining to Comprehensive Plan Amendments.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m. The next Charter Review Commission Meeting will be held on April 10, 2006 at the Daytona campus of Daytona Beach Community College in building 110, room number 112.

back to charter review main page

back to county council

Comments or questions?
E-mail the