Charter Review Commission
MinutesJune 26, 2006 Handouts
Documents marked with aare in the Adobe pdf format. You will need the Acrobat reader to view them. If you do not have the Acrobat reader, you may download one here for free.
Image files of Natural Resource Management Area (NRMA)
Map #1
Map #2
Section 202.3 Comprehensive Planning
Charter Amendment Comp Plan (revised)
Council salaries
School Planning 2
Structure of Government Subcommittee
Water Plan Ballot 2
Meeting the Infrastructure Needs of Smart Growth recommendation (resources)
Meeting the Infrastructure Needs of Smart Growth recommendation (sales tax)
Meeting the Infrastructure Needs of Smart Growth recommendation (Votran)
League of Women Voters letter to Protecting the Environmental Core Subcommittee
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Charter Review Commission (CRC) Chair Bill Scovell called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in Training Room 1 at the Thomas C. Kelly Administration Center, 123 West Indiana Avenue in DeLand, Florida. The following members were present, Chair Bill Scovell, Vice-Chair John Graham, Pete Heebner, Charles Matousek, Patricia Drago, Patricia Northey, Joe Benedict, Alex Ford, Glenn Storch, Clarence Davenport, Ezell Reaves, Dr. T. Wayne Bailey, Dr. Bud Fleuchaus, Rich Gunter and Tom McClelland. Also attending were Betty Holness, Assistant to the County Manager, Dan Eckert County Attorney, Jamie Seaman Assistant County Attorney, Rick Karl Assistant County Attorney, Mike Dyer and Prashant Patel, Intern for County Manager’s Office. There were approximately 52 members of the public present.APPROVAL OF JUNE 12, 2006 CHARTER REVIEW MEETING MINUTES
Ms. Drago sought to correct a misstatement on page 18 of the minutes that stated that the School District would have the authority to approve the proposed amendment. This statement should be corrected to express that the School District would certify that capacity is available and that this certification would be the basis of municipal and County approval of the Comprehensive Plan changes.Mr. Heebner made a motion to approve the revised minutes of the June 12, 2006 Charter Review Commission meeting. Mr. Davenport seconded the motion.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Joe Bourassa, Daytona Beach, spoke for the consolidation of Volusia County’s water utilities to become a part of one single governmental agency. He stated that one way the County can accomplish this goal is by initiating an interim committee that would examine other initiatives that were established by various water utilities. If the County takes these steps, it would lead to efficiency in the distribution of water resources, which would ensure a decrease in the consumption of water. This type of consolidation could also contribute to lower water rates.Frank Dragoun, DeBary, spoke about the Water Authority of Volusia (WAV). He stated that in his opinion, WAV is not functioning properly. This is primarily because the structure of the organization makes it difficult to generate a consensus among the political representatives that serve on its Board. He stated that there also exist structural inefficiencies in WAV. Mr. Bergone suggested that the CRC abolish WAV and replace it with a water resource department, headed by a director that reports to the County Council. This type of an arrangement would entail the County diversifying itself of all water arrangements between itself and the local water supplier. He also suggested that the Volusia Growth Management Commission (VGMC) be eliminated and does not believe the organization is equitable.
Ken Russell, Ponce Inlet, stated that he believes there are two essential flaws in the amendments proposed by the Protecting the Environmental Core Subcommittee regarding annexation. First, is that the protection area may become invalid by a Council action. Second, as it pertains to the ten-year negotiating period, he thinks that the County is placing a majority of the protection responsibility in private hands. The areas that are protected under the Natural Resource Management Area (NRMA) can be changed easily, by the passage of an ordinance or an action taken by the County Council.
Mr. Russell stated that the individuals who participate in these ten-year negotiations have a substantial obligation to serve the financial interests of those they represent. Therefore, the County has a responsibility to not allow these individuals to become stewards of our environmental interests. He said the Subcommittee should investigate areas that have a similar provision.
Joe Stich, New Smyrna Beach, stated that he believes Smart Growth is unconstitutional due to the fact the government has the authority to rescind the property rights of its citizens. He stated that the state of Oregon tried to implement similar Smart Growth policies as it pertains to private property and it was defeated in the courts. The state of Oregon passed a law that stipulates County and State Governments cannot restrict the use of private property through the ordinance process without just compensation.
Jim Russell, New Smyrna Beach, agrees that the County must protect its environmental core, but has concerns that the ten-year provision offered by the Protecting the Environmental Core Subcommittee might not be as effective as the Subcommittee had intended. He stated that this provision may have unintended consequences. Mr. Russell encouraged the CRC to erase the ten-year provision from the proposal.
David Santiago, Vice-Mayor of Deltona, spoke on the brief history of the delineation of NRMA areas. He stated that when the NRMA areas were created, there were special concessions made to allow cities without borders to facilitate transition growth. However, Deltona was not a city at this time, therefore there was no one who could argue on its behalf. Mr. Santiago said there is no scientific method that offers a guideline for the NRMA areas. He believes the NRMA areas should be redrawn out of special consideration for the city of Deltona since other cities have been given the same consideration.
Roland Blossom, City Attorney for Deltona, said he was present to argue for a redrawing of the NRMA line. Mr. Blossom stated that the residential development in West Volusia has allowed for further transitional development to occur. At the time, the NRMA area was delineated to protect the environmental corridor, which was situated in the area of Deltona that subsequently became the city of Deltona.
Mr. Blossom believes that this NRMA territory essentially has prevented development from occurring in the prescribed area. He is asking the CRC to consider the consequences of the comprehensive planning agreement and its impact on the development of cities. Mr. Blossom asked the CRC to consider an alternative delineation of the NRMA area, showing this on a map. This map with the redrawn NRMA line is intended to protect not only areas that are unincorporated, but also areas that are brought into the City which are considered vital and sustainable.
Mr. Blossom said sustainability is connected to the municipality’s ability to provide services and support infrastructure. In the last four years, Deltona has experienced an 80% increase in residential development. This development is important because it generates revenue into the City’s tax base. He cautioned the CRC that residential development cannot be the only mechanisms by which the City sustains itself. Therefore, the City will need to annex contiguous territory to induce more development that is commercial in nature.
In light of the responsibility that is placed on the Cities, Mr. Blossom asked the CRC to consider the alternative amendment, which was offered by the City of Deltona.
This new language would provide for the protection of environmentally sensitive areas countywide while still recognizing the sustainability responsibilities of certain municipalities. This language would also allow for the creation of special planning districts that does not include the identified areas for voluntary annexation that are specified under municipal ordinance or resolution of the City of Deltona.
Mr. Blossom asked the CRC to clarify the last line of the amendment that requires County Council consent, unless an agreement satisfies this provision of the amendment. He also wanted clarification on whether this provision was applicable to all future annexations that are countywide. He stated that it was the intent of the Subcommittee not to have this provision applied countywide, but only to the NRMA areas.
Judy Moore, President of the League of Women Voters, read a letter (see attached) stating that the League has reservations about the comprehensive planning amendment that has been offered by the Protecting the Environmental Core Subcommittee. She stated that the organization is concerned about the ten-year provision of the proposed amendment concerning comprehensive plans.
Ms. Moore believes that this provision lacks three key principles: Long range planning, stewardship and conservation. In regards to replacing the VGMC, Ms. Moore said that creating an alternative body that only calls for a non-binding agreement between disputing parties will not bring the coordination that is necessary to resolve such disputes.
Dennis Mulder, Mayor of Deltona, said that he recognizes the need for environmental protection. He asked the CRC to give the city of Deltona greater consideration in the Joint-Planning Agreement process, despite Deltona’s geographical location.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS SUBCOMMITTEE: Chair Tom McClelland said at the last CRC meeting, the Subcommittee submitted three management recommendations and eliminated the Charter amendment concerning the creation of a Volusia County Water Policy Board.He submitted a revised recommendation concerning the creation of a Water Policy Review Board and a Charter amendment that would provide for the creation of a County water plan (see attached).
Mr. McClelland said the proposal is the result of the concerns brought up by other CRC members regarding reinstating the Water Policy Review Commission. The new language being proposed would be governed by Section 202 of the Charter, which deals with the responsibilities of the County.
Mr. Heebner asked what entity would make the judgment that a municipal ordinance conflicts with a County comprehensive plan, since certain municipalities have stricter ordinances than the County.
Mr. Scovell added that under the Water Provision of the Charter, which is Section 202.4, the County Council has a responsibility to protect the aquifers in the County.
Ms. Seaman said that the State Constitution of Florida states that the Charter will dictate under what parameters a municipal ordinance can override a County ordinance. Ms. Seaman stated that if the County wishes for the County ordinance to prevail it must be clearly stated in that particular provision.
Ms. Seaman stated that the authority to establish such provisions is derived from the Florida State Constitution, Chapter 163 which specifically gives County governments the power to establish Water Plans.
Mr. Gunter stated that will have to be enforcement measures in place concerning the areas where the County’s plan is more restrictive.
Mr. McClelland said the County ordinance would deal with issues of enforcement. The responsibility to enforce the ordinance is going to take resources, and it is up to the County Council to decide how much power is going to be placed on the enforcement of the ordinance.
Ms. Northey asked what steps could the County take to insure that water resources are available for future use.
Mr. McClelland stated that resolving such a concern would require the creation of a true Water Authority, which would require directing the County Council to ask for a Special Act of the State Legislature. Mr. McClelland stated that when the Water Alliance of Volusia became the Water Authority of Volusia it was assumed that such concerns would be resolved jointly between the municipalities and the County. That has not occurred.
Mr. McClelland said there are two options in front of the Commission concerning water. The first option is to give the County primacy over planning for water issues. The second is to ask for a Special Act of the State Legislature calling for a Water Authority.
Mr. Ford asked how this proposal would affect cities that are bonded and are in debt to the County concerning the regulation of the municipalities’ ability to provide water services.
Mr. Eckert responded that if the Cities have such a concern, they can essentially challenge the implementation of the ordinance which would enforce the Charter amendment.
Mr. Ford asked if this Amendment is passed, what legal standing will the Cities have to challenge the ordinance.
Mr. Eckert stated that the Cities can challenge the ordinance if they believe it prohibits the County’s obligation to contract certain services to the municipalities.
Mr. Scovell asked if the CRC does not pass this amendment, does the County Council still have the authority to pass a water ordinance under Chapter 163.
Ms. Seaman responded that the County Council has the authority to pass a water ordinance only to the unincorporated areas of the County. Under Chapter 163, a Charter amendment would be required to make the ordinance applicable countywide.
Mr. McClelland said in reference to Mr. Ford’s concerns over the positions of the Cities in regards to bond or being in debt, any infrastructure that the city may have in its possession is just taken into account for future use as it pertains to the Water Plan Amendment.
Mr. Storch said the CRC is complicating two distinct and separate issues. One is the Water Plan, which is just a set of ideas that can be used to formulate a plan by the County Council. The second is the amendment itself.
In the absence of a future Charter amendment, Mr. Graham asked if a future referendum on a County Water Plan proposes that the Water Plan supersedes municipal Water Plans.
Mr. Eckert stated that such a scenario would be inconsistent with state law, since the Constitution requires that the Home Rule Charter of a particular County should state whether a County or municipal ordinance should prevail.
Mr. Eckert stated that due to the conflicting ideas of the Subcommittee regarding this matter, Legal staff would propose appropriate language articulating the CRC’s intent and the concept of the amendment.
Mr. McClelland made a motion to approve the concept of a County Water Plan. Mr. Ford seconded the motion. The CRC passed the concept of a County Water Plan by a vote of thirteen members in favor-two members opposed.
Mr. McClelland discussed the management recommendations presented by the Infrastructure Subcommittee. This management recommendation would create a ½-cent sales tax in conjunction with the revocation of the five cent gas tax. Additionally, 1/16 of the revenue from the sales tax would be used for off beach parking, land acquisition, construction and infrastructure needs. The purpose of the tax was not to support growth, but to support already existing infrastructure. The cost of construction is at such a high rate that already existing projects are in danger of not being completed due to insufficient revenue.
Mr. McClelland said the existing five cent gas tax generates approximately $9 million in revenue annually. The ½-cent sales tax could generate up to $40 million a year. He stated that the ½-cent sales tax would enable the County to develop suitable infrastructure in the transportation field.
Mr. Matousek stated that in his opinion, the ½-cent sales tax is premature and there are no adequate procedures in place that dictate how this tax would be used.
Mr. Scovell stated that since this is only a management recommendation to the County Council, it would be the responsibility of the County Council to develop a plan.
Mr. McClelland said his Subcommittee could include in the management recommendation that the County, along with the 17 municipalities, develop a plan on how they intend to use the ½-cent sale tax revenue.
Mr. Ford said he is ambivalent about the proposal in its current form. There is a lack of knowledge among Volusia County citizens on the implications of such a tax.
Dr. Bailey stated that other Counties have been struggling with this issue. He believes the public will agree to such a tax if it is brought up in a responsible manner. Such a tax would be valuable since it would offset the increasing amount of growth the County is witnessing.
Mr. McClelland said as a part of the recommendation, the County Council would be required to identify the projects that will funded by the sales and gas tax in a five year capital improvement program.
Mr. Benedict said this recommendation does not direct the County Council to implement the ½-cent sales tax, but suggests that the Council study the proposal and put it on the ballot as a potential referendum.
Mr. McClelland made a motion to approve the management recommendation proposing a ½-cent sales tax in conjunction with the revocation of the five-cent gas tax. The motion was seconded by Mr. Davenport. The motion failed by a vote of eight members against and seven members in favor.
Mr. Storch made a motion to revise the language to authorize the County Council to review the adoption of a ½-cent sales tax with all other language remaining. Mr. Heebner seconded the motion. It failed by a vote of eight members opposed and seven in favor.
Mr. McClelland presented the Subcommittee’s next management recommendation, authorizing VOTRAN to become a non-voting member in the development review process of Volusia County’s municipalities. This management recommendation would allow VOTRAN to plan for future bus service. Mr. McClelland made a motion to approve the management recommendation and Mr. Storch seconded it. The motion passed unanimously.
The Subcommittee’s final recommendation calls for the County Council to demonstrate aggressive action in regards to the disclosure of existing County projects. Mr. McClelland said this recommendation would also require the County Council to make annual reports that are open to the public on the condition of existing resources that are being used towards projects.
Mr. McClelland made a motion to discuss this recommendation, seconded by Mr. Reaves.
Mr. Gunter said he believes the County Council already has this process in place where the County Chair makes an annual report to the County’s citizens.
Mr. Scovell asked Mr. McClelland if there is any difference from what the recommendation is authorizing than to what is already in place.
Mr. McClelland said that despite the availability of project records, there is perception among the public that projects are not being completed at the rate they should be.
Mr. Scovell asked for a vote on the management recommendation that would require the County Council to develop an annual review of projects. The motion passed with 12 votes in favor and three opposing votes.
PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL CORE SUBCOMMITTEE: Chair Alex Ford stated that the purpose of his report was to receive language clarification on three issues. The first was whether special planning districts would be covered by the County’s comprehensive plan.
Second was the last sentence of the second paragraph concerning the comprehensive planning amendment that has been proposed by the subcommittee, which states “all municipal plan amendments within ten years following an annexation require County Council consent.” This sentence would be clarified to state that the rule would only apply to planning areas governed by the County’s Comprehensive Plan.
The third clarification the Subcommittee was seeking was language on the potential abolishment of the VGMC.
The ten-year provision would require the Cities and the County to come together and negotiate guidelines to annexation that may occur in environmentally sensitive areas. Mr. Ford said this provision does not rescind the County Council’s authority to protect the environment, but enhances the authority. It also does not impede on the rights of individual property owner. He added that the same procedural mechanisms would be in place for certain pieces of property. If an entity wished to annex a piece of property, it would still have to go through the County Council.
Another misconception is the type of territory that is being protected. Mr. Ford said because a territory is defined as a NRMA area does not mean it is going to be protected. This is because there is a large amount of territory that is outside of the Environmental Systems Corridor that is excluded from protection. Mr. Ford said there is already territory within the NRMA that has been developed. The protected area is intended to be transient, because it is a broader area that must be protected to maintain the character of certain communities. Therefore, the Subcommittee felt that it was appropriate to give the County Council the authority to retract the affected area.
Ms. Seaman stated that the NRMA areas were created based upon geographical distinction. These include soils, vegetation, and waterways. The NRMA line is not a transient line. Unlike the Environmental Systems Corridor, which is truly intended to be environmentally sensitive lands, the NRMA territories were designed to be buffer territories. These areas are afforded additional protection under the County’s Comprehensive Plan, according to Ms. Seaman, because they are situated around the forest territories and in environmentally sensitive lands.
Mr. Ford said the Subcommittee members want to link this section to the Charter Review process because in the event that this provision does not work, the next CRC can take up the issue within the ten-year time period. He stated that the intent of the ten-year provision was to make the Cities, the County and the landowner come together to reach an agreement.
Another item discussed was the role of the Volusia County Growth Management Commission. Mr. Ford said the Subcommittee members felt the VGMC is no longer playing a substantial role in the growth management process and that other agencies are taking its place. The Subcommittee is recommending the VGMC be replaced by a Volusia County Growth Management Dispute Resolution Commission.
The County Council would appoint three members, VCOG would appoint three and the School Board would appoint one member of this new Commission, with specific guidelines that no member would be a public official or represent a local government agency.
Mr. Matousek asked if there is a set expectation that when a territory is annexed, the County and City will naturally come together to discuss a language change to the territory or will compensation will be paid for land development rights.
Mr. Ford responded that this proposed provision does not take away the rights of any potential landowner. It reduces the incentive for the landowner to go out looking for other pieces of territory once the landowner agrees to the annexation.
Mr. Graham asked, assuming this amendment passes, would it change the annexation procedures of the land that is not included in the County’s Environmental Corridor or NRMA areas.
Mr. Ford responded that there are certain areas where the procedures would change, including some areas in the NRMA and the additional communities that exist in the NRMA areas.
Mr. Reaves asked how Senate Bill 1194 would impact this Charter Amendment.
Ms. Seaman stated that Senate Bill 1194 would facilitate potential parties, delineating a boundary of lands around the City that could be annexed.
Mr. Scovell asked if the provision in the amendment allowing the County Council to reduce the amount of land in the NRMA area creates the possibilities for interlocal agreements.
Mr. Ford said yes. The Subcommittee thought this procedure might be a more appropriate way of dealing with the amendment.
Mr. Scovell asked if this Charter amendment could be turned into a management recommendation. It was agreed to send this issue back to the Subcommittee for a possible revision and bring back to the CRC for further discussion.
Mr. Scovell stated that he thought the VGMC had the legislative authority to make decisions within certain parameters. The new Volusia Growth Management Dispute Resolution Commission would not have this authority.
Ms. Seaman said if the two parties agree to the parameters set out by the Volusia Growth Management Resolution Commission, they become the framework for an interlocal agreement, which is enforceable on both sides. They cannot be forced or bound to what both consider their legislative prerogative.
Mr. Ford made a motion to abolish the VGMC, seconded by Mr. Benedict. The motion was approved unanimously.
Mr. Ford made a motion for to adopt the recommendation for developing the Volusia County Dispute Resolution Commission, seconded by Mr. Gunter. The motion was approved by a 11-4 vote.
INTEGRATING EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE: Chair Patricia Drago introduced the revised language to the Charter amendment regarding school capacity within the Comprehensive Planning process. Ms. Drago said the purpose of the revised language was to clearly articulate the authority of the cities and County Government in their land use decisions.
Mr. McClelland made a point of order to bring this topic up for discussion since he had asked that it be tabled at the previous CRC meeting.
Ms. Drago said at the previous Subcommittee meeting, the members received a detailed analysis of the practical application of this amendment. This analysis included various topics such as population protections in certain areas, how they influence school capacity and what steps the School Board has taken to insure capacity by building new schools.
Ms. Seaman stated that one question before the CRC is how to attribute student population density to Comprehensive Plans. To alleviate this problem, the Legal staff offered language changes to the amendment that reads as follows: “that adequate public schools be timely constructed to serve a projected increase.”
She stated that this language change was necessary due to the fact that there could not be a date set that would define a student population that would be attributable to a specific land-use change.
Mr. Ford asked if the intent of the new language is to address the actual affect that the development would have on the population increase at the time the development begins.
Ms. Seaman said no. The intent of the language is to take into account the projected affect of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the potential rezoning when Senate Bill 360 comes into effect.
Mr. Ford said he is concerned that when a future land use map is developed in the in the development’s planning stages, how could a projected student population rate be determined just by looking at the density.
Ms. Seaman stated that by observing the density rates of the projected population, it allows for the School Board to determine what is attributable to a particular population set. This then allows the School Board to make accurate measurements on the projected density increase as they move through the Comprehensive Planning process, which would ultimately lead to the School Board complying with the concurrency standards set by Senate Bill 360.
Mr. Matousek asked who under the new proposal has the authority to approve such measures.
Ms. Drago stated that both the municipalities and the County have the authority to decide. The County Council will judge whether a municipality’s Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan by using school capacity as one of its main criteria. Simultaneously, the municipalities will determine the land use procedures for development, which will also consider school capacity.
Ms. Drago made a motion to approve the School Board Charter amendment concerning Comprehensive Planning and rezoning. Ms. Northey seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT SUBCOMMITTEE: Subcommittee Chair Dr. T Wayne Bailey stated that there are two prominent issues that the Structure of Government Subcommittee has been discussing. The first issue is a possible increase in compensation for County Council members and the County Chair. The second issue is a possible restructuring of government representation from its current form.
Dr. Bailey noted that at the previous CRC meeting, members decided to increase the salary of the County Council members from 60% to 75% and increase the salary for the County Chair from 80% to 100% as dictated by State guidelines.
Dr. Bailey said he believes the CRC has accepted the idea that the County Chair is a full-time position. The Subcommittee proposed an increase in the salaries for Council member and the Chair, including reimbursement for expenses. The Subcommittee took into consideration the County Commission scale, which is used to determine the salary rate for the Council Members, and is quite low. This scale calibrates the salary for members of the County Council, which is set at less than $80,000 a year compared to the salary of the elected department officials, which is measured at being $140,000 a year.
Mr. Scovell stated that it would be prudent to let the County Council members decide for themselves what their compensation rate should be, as they set the salary of the County Chair when it was implemented.
Mr. Eckert stated that the Charter formerly provided for County Council members to be paid at the same rate as School Board members. But the State Legislature repealed that provision. Therefore, the 2002 CRC Advisory Committee had to deal with this issue. As a result, the County Council recommended to the voters the current Charter provision.
Ms. Northey said Council members and the Chair deserve an increase, but she is wary that increasing the salary rate to 75% to County Council members might cause it to be defeated. She suggested an increase of 60% to insure passage.
Mr. Storch said he is concerned that the CRC will make it difficult for individuals who do not have large sums of money to run for County Council. To assist County Council members in accomplishing their duties, he is advocating that the CRC reimburse members for in-County expenses.
Dr. Bailey said the CRC must keep in mind that the original role of the Council member in Volusia County was one of the citizen legislator. He would like to keep the role of the citizen legislator for the Council members, but recognizes that the role of the County Chair has changed to a full-time position.
Mr. Matousek said he is comfortable raising the salary rate for the County Council to 65%, which would amount to an additional $1,000 a month.
Mr. Heebner made a motion to approve the Charter amendment that would authorize the County Council members to receive a compensation rate of 65% while the County Chair would receive an increase of 100%. Mr. Storch seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 13 in favor and 2 opposed.
Discussion continued on restructuring the County Council. Dr. Bailey noted that four years ago, the interim CRC sought to change the nature of representation on the County Council by making the County Chair a countywide position. As a result, this created an imbalance.
Dr. Bailey said the reason Volusia County shifted to a seven-member body was to provide equilibrium between members who are voted at-large and members who are voted on by district. Along with having both At-Large members and district members being term limited, the rationale for running for an at-large position would have seemed undesirable.
The Subcommittee has reexamined the proposal that was rejected by the CRC, which was the creation of a six-member County Council with five district members and one At-Large member. Despite a lengthy and detailed discussion, the Subcommittee was unable to reach a consensus.
Dr. Bailey said the Subcommittee was very concerned about the second At-Large position because it costs more to run for that seat. Due to a lack of consensus on this matter, there are several options in front of the CRC: Leave the current structure intact or revert to the previous structure where the County Chair was voted on internally, with the option of re-election.
Another option would be to have the two-At-Large positions alternate being the County Chair. In the first two-years, the first At-Large member would serve as Chair and in the subsequent two-years, the second At-Large position would serve as Chair.
Dr. Bailey stated that the Subcommittee has been discussing a unique option where the County would be divided into three regional areas with two representatives from each region. This would consist of the public voting for one representative to serve the first half of a combined four-year term. A second representative will be voted on to serve the second half of that four-year term. This would combine the regional and district concepts.
Dr. Bailey stated that the dilemma for the Subcommittee is one of conception, which is that the County has moved away from a non-municipal population to one that is becoming increasingly urban. As a consequence of this residential shift, Council Members have become parochial in their governing styles, while the County still strives to maintain a global perspective.
Another result of the growing nature of municipal governments is that local government has had an increase in responsibility to coordinate and provide services to the citizens of the County.
Dr. Bailey asked the CRC to consider a structure that would contribute a holistic view of government. He said the Subcommittee is not presenting any recommendations at this time, but instead is providing options for the entire CRC to consider.
Mr. Benedict moved to reconsider the previous proposal offered by the Structure of Government Subcommittee calling for a six-member County Council. Mr. Reaves seconded the motion. The motion was adopted by a vote of eight in favor and seven opposed.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. The next CRC meeting is scheduled for 5:30 p.m., Monday, July 10, 2006 at the Thomas C. Kelly Administration Building, Training Room One.
Comments or questions?
E-mail the
