Charter Review Commission  Minutes
July 24, 2006

CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Chair Bill Scovell called the meeting to order at 5:39 p.m. in the Volusia Room of Daytona Beach International Airport, 700 Catalina Dr., Daytona Beach. The following members were present: Chair Scovell, Dr. T. Wayne Bailey, Dr. Bud Fleuchaus, Patricia Drago, Patricia Northey, Alex Ford, Rich Gunter, Pete Heebner, Ezell Reaves, Joe Benedict, and Glenn Storch. Commission Members Tom McClelland, Charles Matousek, Clarence Davenport, and Vice-Chair John Graham were unable to attend.

Also in attendance were Dan Eckert, County Attorney; Jamie Seaman, Assistant County Attorney, Rick Karl, Assistant County Attorney, County Council Member Jack Hayman, Mary Swiderski, the Volusia Council of Governments (VCOG), Laura Bounds, the Volusia County Sheriff’s Office, and Rosemarie Gore, Judy Moore, and Sandra Horikami with the Volusia County League of Women Voters. There were approximately 35 members of the public present.

APPROVAL OF JULY 10, 2006 MEETING MINUTES
Dr. Bailey made a motion to approve the minutes from the July 10, 2006 Charter Review Commission (CRC) meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Benedict and unanimously approved.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Joe Bourassa, Daytona Beach, spoke on the issue of water usage. Mr. Bourassa stated that the County has to do away with the Water Authority of Volusia and move to an alternative entity.

He advised the Commission that it must seek to encourage the public to become active on this issue by educating them on the potential dangers of a water shortage.

Mr. Bourassa stated the County Council must take into account the economic implications of any potential change to the County’s Charter.

Clay Henderson Daytona Beach, advised the CRC on how to proceed with the remaining time of the Charter review process.

Mr. Henderson believes the CRC has formulated a viable package to present to the County Council and the public on how to manage Smart Growth.

Regarding the implementation of a Growth Management Dispute Resolution Commission, Mr. Henderson stated that the Volusia Smart Growth Implementation Committee sought to create an alternative board that would resolve Growth Management disputes.

Mr. Henderson advised the Commission where to place certain amendments on the voting ballot that would go before the public in the November election. He said there should be a maximum of five, ballot initiatives to go before the public. Mr. Henderson added that if there are too many ballot initiatives, voters might become “ballot fatigued” which would cause them to vote against important initiatives.

Mr. Henderson said the CRC should place their best ballot initiatives first on the ballot, including the Charter amendments concerning schools, the comprehensive planning process and the creation of a countywide master water plan.  

He added that the CRC should position the Charter amendment dealing with an increase in County Council compensation last on the ballot to ensure passage.

Ken Russell, Ponce Inlet, spoke on the proposed Comprehensive Planning Amendment that been recommended by the Protecting the Environmental Core Subcommittee.   He said he has concerns over the intent of the Subcommittee to allow the next CRC to extend the ten-year provision if it is deemed ineffective.

Mr. Russell questioned how the public would become aware that this provision is not working. He believes the question of knowing when the provision is not working would be difficult because of the annexation occurring three to four years prior to the adoption of the amendment. Therefore, a subsequent CRC may not have the opportunity to test whether the ten-year provision is effective.

In Mr. Russell’s opinion, the public will witness environmentally sensitive land being developed and will know if this provision is effective.

Wilma Allen is the Post Master of Glenwood and is representing the Glenwood Civic Association. Ms. Allen stated that Glenwood is 271 years old and has never been recognized as a community. She recognizes that there is an existing problem with water in the Glenwood area and believes that this issue will eventually rectify itself.

Ms. Allen said the citizens of Glenwood will respect any decision that the CRC makes regarding its status and request to leave Glenwood as a whole community.

Jim Cameron, Vice-President of the Daytona Beach/Halifax Chamber of Commerce, said his organization believes that the ten-year provision in the Comprehensive Planning Amendment is a viable compromise. He said the Chamber agrees with the concept for a Growth Management Dispute Resolution Commission and would like to see more power given to this Commission.

Regarding a reconfiguration of the County Council, Mr. Cameron said the Chamber would like to see the County Chair given additional authority and would like to have the County Council structured with five-member districts, with one At-Large County Chair and an additional At-Large Member who would become the Vice-Chair.

Mr. Cameron said his organization also is in favor of the proposed compensation amendment that was offered by the Structure of Government Subcommittee.

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
Structure of Government Subcommittee: Chair T. Wayne Bailey said there are two issues in front of the CRC that were deferred at the last CRC meeting. These are the configuration of the County Council to a six-member body with five-districts and one At-Large Chair and compensation for the County Chair and the County Council Members.

There was a brief discussion by the CRC on providing the County Chair with a veto authority.

Dr. Bailey stated that it was the intent of the Structure of Government Subcommittee to still affirm its original recommendation for a possible restructuring to a six-member County Council. However, the Subcommittee offered a substitute recommendation for a County Council that would consist of five District Members with one At-Large Chair and the second At-Large Position being an elected Vice-Chair.

In conjunction with this proposal, the salary structure would be 100% of state guidelines for the County Chair, 80% for the second At-Large/Vice Chair position and 65% for the District Members.

Dr. Fleuchaus said the difficulty he perceives is fulfilling the vision that the County had for the At-Large County Chair, which is to enhance the position by providing the Chair with more authority. 

Mr. Ford said in his opinion, the current structure with the At-Large Chair needs time to develop and function. He does not think enough time has passed to assess whether the system is broken.

Mr. Storch said if the CRC eliminates the second At-Large Seat, it is reducing the number of candidates voters can directly select for the County Council. He said if any significant changes are made to the County Council structure, it could cause the Council to become more divisive and polarized.

Mr. Scovell called for a vote on the adoption of a restructuring of the County Council to a five-member District System and one At-Large County Chair. The motion failed by a vote of seven against, four in favor and one abstaining.

The CRC moved to discussing adequate salary and compensation.  Dr. Bailey said the Subcommittee has brought a substitute motion to the CRC that the previous recommendation be amended to express the intent that there be a 100% compensation rate dictated by state guidelines for the County Chair, 80% compensation rate for the new Vice-Chair position and 65% for District Representatives.

Dr. Bailey made a motion to discuss the substitute amendment, seconded by Mr. Heebner and approved by the CRC.  

Dr. Bailey said the entire Structure of Government Subcommittee felt that there must be an adequate compensation rate paid to the County Council. This is based on increasing expenses that come with serving the citizens of Volusia County.

Dr. Bailey said the Subcommittee was able to reach a majority view that the position of County Chair is a full-time position and is warranted a 100% compensation rate.

Mr. Reaves said he was the only Subcommittee member to dissent on the 100% compensation for the Chair. He believes this function is still part-time.

Mr. Benedict said he had trouble elevating the second At-Large Position to the role of Vice Chair and compensating the Vice Chair at a higher rate when the Vice Chair is accomplishing the same functions as District Members.

Dr. Bailey stated that one of the reasons for the high compensation rate was to attract quality representation to local government. The consequence of not adequately compensating future candidates would be that the County Council and the citizens of Volusia County would receive a lower quality of governance.

Dr. Fleuchaus asked what would occur if the Chair were unable to perform his/her duties or became incapacitated.  He also asked who would become Chair in such a scenario and who has the authority to select the replacement.

County Attorney Dan Eckert responded that the Volusia County Charter defers to the inherent authority provided to the state governor to choose a County Chair in the case of vacancy or disability.

Mr. Scovell called for a vote on the division of compensation between the Chair, the second At-Large who would be Vice-Chair and the District Members.

The vote failed with six members opposed, four members in favor and one member abstaining.

Mr. Heebner made a motion to amend the Charter language to state that the Chair would receive a compensation level of 100% of state guidelines and District Members would receive 65% of state guidelines. Dr. Bailey seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

Chair Scovell called for a vote on providing the County Chair with a 100% compensation rate and 65% for the District Members.  The motion passed by a vote of nine members in favor, one opposed and one member abstaining.

Dr. Bailey made a motion to bring up for discussion a potential Charter amendment to designate the second At-Large Position as the Vice-Chair of the County Council. Mr. Heebner seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously.

PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL CORE SUBCOMMITTEE 
Before Mr. Ford spoke, Mr. Eckert stated that he has presented a correction in the Comprehensive Planning Amendment regarding the City of Osteen’s legal description which includes the map that was presented to the CRC.

Mr. Ford stated that Mr. Storch and Ms. Northey expressed the concern that the ten-year provision would allow negotiations to occur between the cities and County regarding annexations in or around the Natural Resource Management Area (NRMA), but it would not pass.

Mr. Storch said the ten-year provision is suitable but as the CRC process has proceeded, he has seen great opposition to this provision. He advocated for an additional five years to be added to the provision so if there is a problem, the succeeding CRC could deal with any issue that may arise.

Mr. Ford said another issue that was debated was the future of the Volusia Growth Management Commission (VGMC). He said a member of the Subcommittee felt that the alternative body, the Growth Management Dispute Resolution Commission (GMDRC) would be an ineffective replacement.

Mr. Ford said the Subcommittee decided to split the planning district language from the Growth Management issues. He said the Subcommittee decided to enforce the ten-year provision by January 1, 2017. This provision accommodated any gap in time, which would be ten years after the year 2017, or ten years after an annexation has become effective.

Mr. Ford made a motion to begin discussion on the Comprehensive Planning District Amendment, seconded by Mr. Reaves and carried unanimously.

Mr. Heebner stated that when observing the ten-year provision, individual members must look to the shifting balance of power that is happening in the County with planning. He believes that if there is no arbitrary binding body, too much power will be shifted to the County. He believes a shorter period will provide some advantage to the Cities.

Mr. Storch said he is concerned that if the CRC places an unlimited amount of time to reach an agreement, this will encourage the landowners under the County’s Comprehensive Plan to build and develop ranchettes. This is the opposite of the amendment’s intent, which is to foster the creation of Joint Planning Agreements (JPAs) to protect environmentally sensitive lands.

Ms. Northey said she does not believe the ten-year provision will not pass because voters will view the provision as being allowing enough time to protect the environmentally sensitive areas.

Mr. Ford said one of the misconceptions of this amendment is the belief that the NRMA constitutes the environmental corridor. He said that by adding communities such as Glenwood and Osteen, it is the intent of the amendment to protect the outer regions of the environmental corridor. By keeping the outer regions protected, the amendment is, in essence, protecting the middle regions of the corridor, which are considered the most vulnerable to development.

Dr. Bailey said he has discussed this issue with County Chair Frank Bruno, and Mr. Bruno believes there is a propensity within the County Council to develop an amendment that would include the protection of not only the NRMA, but also the non-municipal territory of the County.

Dr. Bailey made a motion to approve a Comprehensive Planning Amendment with a 15-year time limit, seconded by Mr. Storch. The motion failed by a vote of four members in favor and seven opposed.

The CRC discussed including the communities of Osteen and Glenwood to become planning districts and a part of the amendment.

Mr. Benedict said he is very concerned that if the CRC agrees to include Glenwood and Osteen, it will be, in essence, performing a legislative act. He does not believe this is the mandate of the CRC. He made a motion to discuss deleting Glenwood and Osteen from the special interest area, seconded by Dr. Fleuchaus and carried unanimously by the CRC.

Mr. Scovell then invited Ms. Seaman to provide a brief history of how this issue arose.

Assistant County Attorney Jamie Seaman said in the presentation provided by Mr. Arrington, it was stated that the County Council sought to protect areas of special concern. Therefore, this issue was sent back to the Protecting the Environmental Core Subcommittee for further deliberation.

The Subcommittee subsequently examined the existing Comprehensive Plan and found existing areas of special concern. This consists of all rural communities, rural villages and local plans.   

The County Council is in the process of adopting a local plan for the community of Osteen.  Through various meetings with Osteen’s community leaders, the County Council was able to delineate an appropriate map of the community.

The leaders of Osteen asked the County Council to consider the area of Glenwood. Ms. Seaman stated that Glenwood was a grant from the King of Spain, is 271 years old, and consisted of two separate grants, which were eventually combined by the Glenwood family. It then subsequently became a community.

It is from this basis that the Subcommittee has created this proposal to include these areas as part of the Comprehensive Planning Amendment.

Mr. Gunter said that while deliberating the issue, the Subcommittee sought communities which they could define, while at the same time trying to be inclusive when setting the borders of protection. He said the Subcommittee wanted to provide the County Council the opportunity to reduce the territory but had no intention of expanding the territory.

To remedy Mr. Benedict’s concern over the CRC overreaching its bounds by legislating a definition for Osteen and Glenwood, the CRC could include language that the County Council would have the authority to designate these areas as special interest districts.

Mr. Storch said that if Glenwood and Osteen are excluded from Comprehensive Plan protection, a municipality could possibly annex them and change their Comprehensive Plans to fit its plan without having a County review.

Chair Scovell called for a vote on deleting Osteen and Glenwood from the special planning areas to become apart of the amendment. The motion failed by a vote of eight members opposed and four in favor.

Mr. Ford made a motion to adopt the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would include the ten-year provision of the NRMA area along with legal descriptions of the Glenwood and Osteen communities to be included as special interest.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Gunter and carried unanimously.

Chair Scovell called for a vote on this proposed Charter Amendment, which was unanimously approved.

Mr. Ford began discussion of the proposed Charter amendment that would create a Growth Management Dispute Resolution Commission (GMDRC) as an alternative to the current Volusia Growth Management Commission (VGMC).

Mr. Ford said the Subcommittee has received criticism because the alternative board will be advisory and not a binding commission.

Mr. Storch said the Subcommittee does have the intent of providing language that will give the GMDRC more authority so that both the municipalities and the County will follow its future decisions. He said in the current structure, both the Cities and the County are only required to meet without making any substantial decisions in a collaborative manner.

It was the intent of the Subcommittee in creating such a board to facilitate consensus among the Cities and County by requiring them to make decisions. He said that at the end of the first paragraph of the amendment, it articulates “that the Commission shall be utilized by local governments to resolve disputes regarding Comprehensive Planning prior to seeking other remedies provided by law. Local governments may use the Commission to resolve other disputes regarding service areas, annexations and other issues.”

Mr. Storch said the Subcommittee wishes to insert revised language at the end of the last paragraph in the amendment stating, “The Commission may make recommendations to the respected units of government to resolve conflict brought to it for review, or shall transmit written comments to reviewing agencies prior to the adoption of a Comprehensive Planning Amendment.”   

Mr. Ford is concerned that the first revised language is too broad and would not follow the statutory time limit requirements.

Ms. Seaman stated that under Chapter 163 of the Federal Statute concerning Comprehensive Planning, Volusia County would not have to follow such requirements since the VGMC sets guidelines for matters of consistency. In other regions of Florida, local governments would have 30 days to follow such guidelines. She added that the language Mr. Storch is proposing would require municipal governments to attend a mediation of the GMDRC for the purposes of resolving a Comprehensive Planning conflict. They still would have to reserve their conflict and argue before the state Department of Community Affairs within 30 days of meeting with the GMDRC.

Regarding the first set of revised language, Ms. Seaman stated that under Chapter 164 of the Governmental Dispute Resolution Statute, Charter Governments cannot mandate municipal governments to negotiate issues such as annexation and service areas. For this reason, the County Attorney’s Office used the “may” language instead of the “shall” language in the Comprehensive Planning language of the amendment.

Mr. Storch made a motion that Section 1313 of the County Charter be amended to include the Volusia GMDRC. He added that he would like the language to be presented in the same manner as presented by the Subcommittee and asked that the amended language be approved with the exception of the revised language as stated above in both proposals. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ford and unanimously approved.

Mr. Scovell called for a vote to adopt the amended language to be included in the Comprehensive Planning Amendment in the creation of a Volusia County GMDRC, was unanimously approved.

DISCUSSION OF ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA
Dr. Bailey made a motion for the Coordinating Committee to assemble and discuss language coordination of the proposed Charter Amendments that would be included in the final report. The motion was seconded by Mr. Heebner and unanimously approved.

Dr. Bailey asked Mr. Scovell to assume leadership after the final report has been adopted, and to assume leadership in the organization and development of an education program so that the citizens of Volusia County can become aware of the implications of the proposed amendments that they have been asked to vote on.

Dr. Bailey made a motion to ask the Chair to accept this role. The motion was seconded by Mr. Benedict and carried unanimously.

DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Scovell stated that there will be three public hearings. The first public hearing will be held on Thursday, Aug. 10 in the Council Chambers on the second floor of the Thomas C. Kelly Administration Building of 123. West Indiana Avenue.

The second public hearing will be on Monday, Aug. 14 in the City Commission Chambers of Ormond Beach.

The third public hearing will be Wednesday, Aug. 16 at the Port Orange City Commission Chambers.

Mr. Eckert stated that CRC Members are being asked to participate in the public hearings to provide background and the rationale behind the proposed amendments.

Dr. Bailey asked the County of Volusia’s Legal staff to include a brief synopsis of the amendments proposed to be included in the final report and to be posted on the County’s website.

SET AGENDA/ADJOURNMENT
The next CRC meeting will be held on July 31, 2006 in the Volusia Room of   Daytona Beach International Airport. The CRC will discuss and vote on approval of the final report.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.

back to charter review main page

back to county council

Comments or questions?
E-mail the