Charter Review Commission  Minutes
April 10, 2006

Handouts
The Volusia Growth Management Commission's voting records of public hearings  held in the last five years. This document is in Adobe pdf format . You will need the Acrobat reader to view it. If you do not have the Acrobat reader, you may download one here for free.

Comments by Joe Jaynes

CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Charter Review Commission Chair William Scovell called the meeting to order at Daytona Beach Community College, Building 110, Room 112. The time was 5:37 p.m. The following members were present: Chair William Scovell, Vice-Chair John Graham and Members Tom McClelland, Pete Heebner, Joe Benedict, Charles Matousek, Patricia Northey, Patricia Drago, Rich Gunter, Ezell Reaves, Clarence Davenport, Alex Ford, Glen Storch and Dr. Bud Fluechaus. Dr. T. Wayne Bailey was unable to attend. Also in attendance were Betty Holness, Assistant to the County Manager, Dan Eckert, County Attorney, Rick Karl, Assistant County Attorney, and Jamie Seaman, Deputy County Attorney. There were approximately 20 members of the public present.  

APPROVAL OF COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Dr. Fleuchaus made a motion to approve a revised version of the February 13, 2006 meeting minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Davenport, and unanimously carried by the full Charter Review Commission. The Commission did not approve the minutes from March 13, 2006 since corrections need to be made.  

DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE CHARTER AMENDMENTS REGARDING SMART GROWTH
Mr. Scovell began the discussion by stating that the Commission finds itself in a dilemma. The Commission has been unable to complete deliberation on one of the key recommendations offered by the Volusia Smart Growth Implementation Committee, which was to replace or modify the current structure of the Volusia Growth Management Commission to allow elected officials to sit on the board.   

Mr. Scovell stated that the Commission Members received a memorandum from Mr. Eckert, County Attorney, outlining the statutory limitations on allowing an elected official to serve in a dual legislative capacity during an election year. This means allowing certain officials to serve on local government boards such as the VGMC while retaining their legislative seat on the County Council.

Mrs. Northey asked if a special act of the state legislature allows local officials in Broward County to be dual office holders.  

Mr. Eckert responded by saying yes, a special act was created specifically for Broward County. This act created a second governing body called a local planning agency, but this agency only has advisory powers and no legislative powers.

Mr. Storch stated that the Volusia County Smart Growth Implementation Committee has offered a few suggestions. One solution is to have the County Council and VCOG each choose three members respectively, and the School Board choose one member to represent them on a possible board. By allowing the School Board, County Council and VCOG to select members to represent them on a potential board, this would prevent the perception of the dual office holder.

The Commission then moved to a discussion of a proposed amendment offered by the Volusia County Smart Growth Implementation Committee, (see attached) that would require local governments to amend their Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Acts to include special protections regarding the County’s environmental corridor.

Mr. Storch stated that this amendment takes the areas of the County that are designated Special Environmental Planning Districts and places them into the County’s Comprehensive Plan.

In the event a municipality annexes a section of the environmental corridor, the only way to change the density or future land use of that area would be to have the County and annexing city agree to that change.

The second part of the proposal would protect designated areas for environmental protection and allow for innovative techniques.

As a part of the proposal offered by the Volusia County Smart Growth Implementation Committee, Mr. Storch presented an amendment that would change section 202.5 of the Charter. This proposal requires the Volusia County School Board and each municipality to adopt joint planning agreements concerning such issues as potential annexation areas, coordinating school facilities planning and transportation services.

The third amendment proposed by the Smart Growth Implementation Committee would amend section 202.3 of the Charter and would create the Volusia Smart Growth Commission. This Commission would replace the Volusia Growth Management Commission. It would have the power to serve as an alternative body in a dispute resolution process in relation to conflicting Comprehensive Plan Amendments between the County and a particular municipality.

Mr. Scovell asked if the changes proposed by Mr. Storch require a Charter amendment or could they be enacted by enforcing the current Charter provision. He also asked if there is any way the County Council can enact these provisions outright.

Mr. Storch responded by saying that the first amendment, along with the third amendment, do require a Charter amendment. This is because the Commission would be establishing areas in which municipalities and the County would have dual jurisdiction responsibilities, and these responsibilities need to be clarified. 

In regards to the second provision, which addresses Joint Planning Agreements between the School Board and municipalities, Mr. Storch believes that these issues can be dealt with individually. Since the County is trying to incorporate provisions of Senate Bill 360 to require concurrency standards, it would be prudent of the Commission to offer Charter recommendations.

Mr. Scovell stated that the Commission can facilitate and encourage the County and municipalities to enter into such agreements. He asked what would occur if both parties do not agree.

Mr. Eckert responded by saying that the County Council already has the enforcement authority to create environmental protection districts. Consequently, it does not require a Charter amendment. Mr. Eckert continued that in regards to the second amendment offered by Mr. Storch concerning Joint Planning Agreements, it does not require an enforcement mechanism.

Mr. Eckert stated that the notion of the County’s Comprehensive Plan being enforced after annexation has occurred would require a Charter amendment.

Mr. Eckert cautioned the Commission that the third provision of the Volusia County Smart Growth Implementation Committee recommendation would be in effect after either the County or the city adopts the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.

Mr. Eckert further stated that creating a body that would require an agreement as apart of a process of conflict resolution when dealing with issues of Smart Growth will diminish the County Council’s prerogatives in this area.

Mr. McClelland asked if there should be an alternative structure that places the Charter into compliance with Senate Bill 360 if these provisions offered by the Volusia County Smart Growth Implementation Committee fail to pass when they are voted on by the public.

Mr. Storch, along with Mr. Eckert, stated that it is not a question of whether the Charter complies with Senate Bill 360; rather it is a question of whether certain structural inefficiencies are prohibiting the County from being in compliance. Mr. Storch added that if these provisions fail before the public, then the County would have the same structural difficulties it has now.

Mr. McClelland asked what would occur if a group of cities see these provisions as an encroachment on their ability to create their own Comprehensive Plan, and campaign against the County.

Mr. Storch responded by saying that he appreciates Mr. McClelland’s concerns over the political implications of these provisions. In his view, there is a hunger for local government action on growth management issues. This is because there is a sense that the current structure is not adequately addressing the issues on continuous growth.

Mr. Storch further stated that the proposals offered by the Volusia Smart Growth Implementation Committee would foster coordination and require the cities and County to work together in preserving certain areas of the County’s environmental core.

Mr. Storch stated that one of the goals of the Volusia Smart Growth Implementation Commission was to avoid having centralized planning. In the event a city annexes territory that is a part of the environmental core, joint planning takes place between the two parties and the County has to agree before the Comprehensive Plan Agreement is finalized. Mr. Storch went on to say that under this proposed structure, it would allow for greater consensus building.

Mr. Eckert then gave a brief overview of what degree of authority the County Council has in relation to the enforcement of the various amendments that are offered by the Volusia County Smart Growth Implementation Committee. Mr. Eckert said that in relation to amendment one, it addresses land as it comes into a municipality and discusses the County Council’s authority in annexed territories.

According to Mr. Eckert, proposed amendments two and three are external to the cities and deal with lands that are situated in unincorporated areas. Mr. Eckert further stated that the last sentence in amendment one concerns itself with lands that are internal to the cities.

The Commission moved on to discussing language offered by Mr. Eckert (see attached) that would require the County’s Future Land Use Amendment to control annexed lands.

Mr. Heebner asked if the language offered by Mr. Eckert were accepted, would it eliminate the VGMC.

Mr. Eckert stated that there is no underlying assumption in the language that requires that the VGMC be voided. He went on to say that the language could allow the VGMC to have a wider scope in dealing with lands not within a city’s Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Eckert stated that the language he drafted allows for the County’s Future Land-Use Map to be used as a directional tool in the future development of unincorporated areas.

Mr. Storch stated that the Volusia County Smart Growth Implementation Committee had two primary concerns with the language offered by Mr. Eckert. One concern is that it puts the County in control of the direction of any future development of an annexed territory. Consequently, this ostracizes cities from the process, which could damage the consensus building approach, which is necessary.

Secondly, he cautioned the Commission that the County is not the only entity that has an interest in the process. The County Council may have alternative approaches to development, which could lead to conflict between the County, the developing entity and the cities.

Mr. Ford asked if the County would still be allowed to amend its Comprehensive Plan unilaterally prior to a city annexing territory.

Mr. Eckert and Mr. Storch answered in the affirmative. The County’s Future Land-Use Plan would control the degree to which annexation could occur. The County would be allowed to change its Comprehensive Plan prior to allowing a city to annex a particular territory.

Mr. Ford suggested that the County should develop a system, in which certain annexed lands have been designated city lands, and the city Comprehensive Plan Agreement supersedes the County and any territory beyond that is considered County jurisdiction.

Mr. Eckert reiterated that there is no provision in the Charter that prohibits the notion of joint planning agreements, between the County and certain cities. However he cautioned the Commission that organizations such as the proposed Volusia Smart Growth Commission usurp the County Council’s authority in the decision-making process regarding annexation in unincorporated areas in the County.

Mr. Storch stated that there is one way to secure a boundary that would delineate between County jurisdiction and city jurisdiction. The point of this is to have urban growth boundaries become environmental planning districts which would require dual approval if they wish to become annexed.

Mr. Graham asked if a city annexes territory that is within County lines, does the planning responsibility then transfer to that particular city.

Ms. Seaman added that ultimately, a city has the power to determine the land use of that property and amend its Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Graham stated that the amendments offered by the Volusia Smart Growth Implementation Committee would change the process from which it is currently structured to require a dual control of territory when a city annexes a County territory that is situated in environmentally sensitive areas.

Mr. Gunter stated that one of his primary concerns is the interest of the property owner, because in his opinion, the property owner will be the one stakeholder in the process that will be the most affected.

Mr. Storch stated that the property owner would make a determination on how that property will be developed. He will then present it to both County and city for approval, and then subsequently the city will approve the plan with County Council concurrence.

Mr. Eckert stated that there are two policy choices in front of the Commission. The first choice is to choose a plan similar to the Smart Growth Implementation Committee amendments, which allows cities to adopt their own standards of concurrency in regards to future land-use amendments and Comprehensive Plan Amendments, or to have countywide Comprehensive Plan Amendments that are congruent with a future land-use plan in application to unincorporated areas.

Mr. Benedict stated that he believes there should be a joint resolution agreed upon by the County and cities, documenting a methodical and concise process on how to proceed with issues regarding different Comprehensive Plan Amendments.

Mr. Scovell stated that this issue will be sent back to the Protecting the Environmental Core Subcommittee where it will be further discussed in consultation with the County Attorney.

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
Ordinance Review and Management Recommendations Subcommittee: Chair John Graham introduced a Management Recommendation that would improve the County’s budget process. This motion calls for a programmatic review process and a greater involvement of the County Council in the development of policy. This recommendation would also create a five-year strategic plan process that would follow budgetary guidelines. This five-year budget process would include performance measurements and life cycle costs. This recommendation also has a provision that would allow for the consideration of a two-year budget cycle.  

Mr. Scovell stated that the Commission would take the recommendation under advisement for action at the next Charter Review Commission session. 

Meeting the Infrastructure Needs of Smart Growth Subcommittee: Chair Tom McClelland stated that the subcommittee is still in the process of developing possible Charter recommendations for the following issues: To reinstate Section 1313 of the Volusia County Charter which created a Water Policy Review Commission that would review, on a continuing basis, the status of water throughout the County. He stated that the subcommittee supports the creation of a ½-cent sales tax, which would replace the five-cent gas tax implemented by the County. The subcommittee is considering recommending that 1/16 of the ½-cent sales tax will be used to fund off beach parking, land acquisition and development.  

Mr. McClelland stated that the County should record the beginning and completion of the projects that would be the result of the proceeds of the sales tax, and allow VOTRAN to become a non-voting member in the development review process of Volusia County’s municipalities through interlocal agreements. This would allow VOTRAN to plan for future projects. 

Intergovernmental Relationships Subcommittee: Chair Joe Benedict stated that the subcommittee will begin its formal review process after hearing from the County Attorney and the group will offer potential recommendations at next month’s meeting. 

Structure of Government Subcommittee: Speaking on behalf of Dr. Bailey, subcommittee member Charles Matousek stated that the subcommittee has no recommendations to present at this time. The group is continuing to discuss possible changes to the County’s district system, and enhancing the powers of the County Chair. One of the powers that the subcommittee is considering giving the County Chair is a veto authority, which could then be overridden by a super-majority vote of the County Council. Mr. Matousek went on to say that the subcommittee is examining a latent increase in compensation for both the County Chair and members of the County Council. Finally, Mr. Matousek stated that the subcommittee is considering the implications of eliminating the second At-Large seat on the County Council. 

Mr. Storch asked, due to an ensuing election year, when will the second At-Large seat be revoked, and has the subcommittee considered changing the title of the County Council to the County Commission. 

Mr. Matousek responded by saying that in regards to the restructuring of the County Council, there would have to be a transition period. The subcommittee is discussing how that transition will take place. In reference to changing the name of the County Council, Mr. Matousek responded by saying that the subcommittee is considering the issue. 

Protecting the Environmental Core Subcommittee: Chair Alex Ford stated that the subcommittee is considering language for a possible Charter Amendment that directs the County Council to examine at great length when the issue of eminent domain is allowed. Mr. Ford went on to say that the subcommittee is still discussing the following issues: The Transferring of Development Rights, the Blue Belt Ordinance, Rural and Urban Stewardship and the issues that were discussed at tonight’s meeting. 

Integrating Economic Development and Education Subcommittee: Chair Pat Drago stated that the subcommittee has reviewed the feasibility of purchasing the Fiscal Impact Analysis Model, which the County has agreed to purchase. Secondly, the group will hear from representatives from Orange County Government and the Orange County School Board regarding the issue of school density in Comprehensive Plan Amendments in conjunction with Senate Bill 360 at its next meeting.  

The subcommittee will be considering the language of possible management recommendations regarding the FIAM model and a Charter amendment requiring that school density be a key ingredient in potential Comprehensive Plan Amendments.  

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Ken Russell from Ponce Inlet discussed the issue of annexation. Mr. Russell believes there is a simpler way to look at the issue of annexation. He stated that the Commission should frame the issue in such a way that takes into account the environmental concerns of the public in regards to land usage.

He suggested that the Commission should oppose annexation of sensitive environmental areas. These areas need to be protected because they are important to the people of Volusia County historically and environmentally. They should not be placed at the mercy of developers. He went on to say that in his opinion, if there are mechanisms in place to protect and preserve these lands, that they should not prohibit a city from annexing the territory and amending its comprehensive plans.

He advised the Commission to develop land regulation mechanisms that protect strategically sensitive areas, which would require parties to negotiate a proper procedure in how to deal with the issue of annexation.

Joe Stich from Daytona Beach spoke on the proposed amendments discussed at the Charter Review Commission Meeting. Mr. Stich stated that he was concerned that the proposed amendments do not take into account the rights of the property owner. Mr. Stich said he has great misgivings about the fact that two government entities, the County and the city, can annex territory without taking into account the property owners’ rights and consent.

Mr. Stich ended his presentation by stating that he does not believe that the School Board should be involved in making policy about the annexation process. This is because he believes the primary duty of the School Board is to educate the children of Volusia County.

Jim Cameron, Vice President of Governmental Relations for the Daytona Beach and Halifax Area Chamber of Commerce, in discussing the issue of Smart Growth, believes that despite the current problems in the structure of the Volusia Growth Management Commission, it is running well. He went on to say that the creation of an alternative body would essentially be functioning in the same manner as the VGMC.

He ended his presentation by stating that a quick change to the system would be very divisive. Mr. Cameron ended his presentation by saying that changes that were stated in the Smart Growth Implementation Committee’s final report were a compromise that has caused great concern among the VGMC members.

Roland Blossom, City Attorney for the City of Deltona, spoke on the issues of growth and development. Mr. Blossom discussed his thoughts on the proposal offered by Mr. Eckert, saying that the language proposed seems to state that even if an annexation has taken place and a city has not adopted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, that the County’s Comprehensive Plan will still be in effect. This issue can become problematic.

The other issue touched upon by Mr. Blossom is the resolution process. He does not understand why it is necessary to include the Volusia County Council of Governments in the process when it is not a party that has a stake hold in the outcome. Mr. Blossom added that the disputing party might not have a representative on the body. Therefore, the body might be partial to a party that has a representative on the Commission than those who do not. Mr. Blossom suggested that the Commission be restructured and broadened to represent all citizens.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. The next Charter Review Commission Meeting will be held on May 8, 2006 at the Thomas C. Kelly Administration Center at 123 W. Indiana Avenue, in Training Room 1.

back to charter review main page

back to county council

Comments or questions?
E-mail the