Charter Review Commission  Minutes
July 27, 2006

Executive Committee
Call to order/ Roll Call        
The meeting was called to order at 5:31 p.m. by Chair Bill Scovell in the Training Rooms of the TCK Administration Center, 123 W. Indiana Ave., DeLand. Executive Committee members Pat Drago, John Graham, Joe Benedict, Wayne Bailey, Tom McClelland and Alex Ford were in attendance. Also present were Betty Holness and Evan Weaver with the County Manager’s Office; Dan Eckert, County Attorney and Sandra Horikami, Judy Moore and Rosemarie Gore with the League of Women Voters.

Discussion of Proposed Charter Amendments
Chair Scovell asked if there were any issues with the language on the first amendment, School Planning. Mr. Eckert pointed out he had placed the amendment language first, then the ballot language for each of the amendments. Mr. Ford asked if the word “shall” should be used in the ballot language in the context it is used in the amendment language. Mr. Eckert said he believed the ballot language was a fair summary of the amendment. Mr. Ford said he was comfortable with this explanation.

Chair Scovell raised the issue of the second amendment, which pertained to water planning. Dr. Bailey asked if the amendment made it clear that implementation must follow the plan. Mr. Eckert said he believed the plan would rely on constitutional authority and Statute 163. He said the plan could have a facility and regulatory aspect to it, but not a service transfer provision. Mr. Ford noted that the current language did not explicitly limit the County Council from becoming involved with current water authorities or operational facilities. Ms. Drago pointed out the language was meant to be broad and Mr. Eckert added the context was not meant to be limiting.

Mr. McClelland said it was never the Meeting the Infrastructure Needs of Smart Growth Subcommittee’s intent to create a water authority. Rather, it was simply to preserve the aquifer and address water concerns heard from citizens. Ms. Drago said with the new language, the Council would have the power to address many of the issues which had plagued the Water Authority of Volusia (WAV).

Mr. Ford said whether it was the intent or not, the current language gave the Council broad powers, which would essentially, make it the overriding authority, by the creation of ordinances on water within the County. He asked Mr. McClelland to list the water management concerns he had heard from the community. Mr. McClelland said the issues were: Having a large enough water supply to support population growth, drought prevention, providing uniform water service throughout the County and a general dissatisfaction with the current state of water management leading to the desire for a local authority.

Mr. Graham said he had an issue with the amendment language which read “To obtain the benefits of.” He suggested “For the Purpose of.” Ms. Drago moved the language be amended and Dr. Bailey seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of the amendment, with Mr. Ford abstaining.

Chair Scovell brought the Committee’s attention to the Comprehensive Planning Amendment. He said the County Council may be providing its own amendment language on the ballot and he was considering withdrawing the CRC’s language. Mr. McClelland stated the CRC was an independent body and therefore should not alter or remove its recommendation, especially since the Committee did not know the exact language the Council would be proposing. He said if the Committee endorses the language, it can do so during the public meetings and information sessions. Ms. Drago agreed.

Mr. Graham asked for an explanation on the amendment language which referred to previous or subsequent annexation. Mr. Ford said this only applied to property which had been annexed by a municipality but had not been placed under a municipal Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Drago said it was simply clarifying that land annexed, but still under the purview of the County Comprehensive Plan would be subject to the amendment changes. Mr. Graham believed the amendment to be heavy-handed in favor of the County. Mr. Ford pointed out there were many who felt the plan did not go far enough.

Chair Scovell asked the Committee to address the fourth amendment dealing with the creation of a dispute resolution board. Mr. McClelland asked if the Charter could require cities to come before the dispute resolution board. Mr. Eckert responded they could not. Mr. Graham asked if the dispute resolution’s recommendations could be made binding. Mr. Eckert said he did not believe the authority currently existed. Mr. McClelland moved the language in Section 1313 be changed to read “The commission may be utilized.” Mr. Ford seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. Mr. Eckert requested editorial power to remove the word “the” in the same sentence and the ability to redraft the ballot language accordingly. Mr. Ford moved for approval and Chair Scovell granted the authority to Mr. Eckert.

Chair Scovell asked discussion was needed on the fifth amendment, which dealt with the creation of an elected Vice Chair. There was no discussion on the issue.

Chair Scovell asked the Committee to discuss the final amendment, which pertained to a salary increase for the County Council Members. Mr. Ford asked if there was any way to simplify the language. Mr. Eckert said he had wrestled with the issue, but the ballot language must show change from the existing Charter language. As there were no changes to the ballot language, it was accepted as presented.

Discussion of the Final Report
Chair Scovell asked the Committee members to review the Final Report draft and to report their findings at the next full Charter Review Commission meeting on July 31, 2006. Mr. McClelland noted there was an error in his Subcommittee’s section as the water plan amendment was absent and the water policy board amendment was in its place.

Discussion on Format of Public Hearings
Chair Scovell said the County Council would run the public hearings, but the Chair had requested the Charter Review Commission members to do so instead. Mr. Eckert noted this was not legally possible. Chair Scovell said he would be attending the meetings and encouraged the rest of the Executive Committee to do the same. Mrs. Holness added the staff was currently working with Mr. Byron to create an information package for the public, which would detail the thought process behind the amendments. She added they also would be creating a Speakers Bureau comprised of Committee members to talk to groups who requested additional information.

Adjournment
Chair Scovell adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m.

back to charter review main page

back to county council

Comments or questions?
E-mail the