Charter Review Commission  Minutes
July 31, 2006

Please note: These minutes have not been approved by the Charter Review Commission and so are not official. They are presented for your information only.

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. The following members were present: Chair Scovell, Vice-Chair John Graham, Dr. T. Wayne Bailey, Dr. Bud Fleuchaus, Charles Matousek, Tom McClelland, Patricia Drago, Clarence Davenport, Alex Ford, Rich Gunter, Pete Heebner, Ezell Reaves, Joe Benedict, and Glenn Storch. Commission Member Patricia Northey was unable to attend. Also in attendance were Dan Eckert, County Attorney; Jamie Seaman, Deputy County Attorney; Mary Swiderski, the Volusia Council of Governments; Dave Byron Director of Community Information, and Rosemary Gore and Sandra Horikami representing the League of Women Voters. There were approximately 20 members of the public present.

APPROVAL OF JULY 24, 2006 MEETING MINUTES
Mr. Heebner made a motion to approve the July 24, 2006 meeting minutes, seconded by Mr. Davenport and unanimously approved. 

APPROVAL OF JULY 27, 2006 EXECUTIVE SESSION MEETING MINUTES
Mr. Heebner made a motion to approve the Executive Session Meeting Minutes, seconded by Mr. Gunter and approved unanimously.                                                                   

DISCUSSION OF INFORMAL OUTREACH TO THE COMMUNITY
Chair Scovell invited Dave Byron, Community Information Director for Volusia County, to give a brief overview of how the County will implement its outreach program concerning the Charter Review process to the public.  

Mr. Byron stated that Community Information is developing a comprehensive countywide program similar to the Volusia Forever and Volusia ECHO programs. 

This information package will consist of varying elements, such as public presentations that will include detailed information on the background and significance of the proposed amendments. 

Mr. Byron stated that one tool that will be used in this endeavor is the Volusia County website. Community Information will encourage the public to access the County website to learn about the proposed amendments and become more aware of the process.  The County website currently has on average a half-million users a month. He hopes this trend continues as the County continues through the Charter Review process.

Mr. Byron said the County will also place paid advertisements in local newspapers and doing public service announcements as Election Day nears. The primary goal of this public outreach program is to provide citizens with basic and simple information so that they can make informed decisions when they vote in November.

Mr. McClelland made a motion to have additional public hearings scheduled to include Deltona and the Edgewater/New Smyrna area. Mr. Reaves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

Mr. McClelland asked Mr. Eckert if the Charter Review Commission (CRC) could amend the Charter or provide an additional management recommendation that would direct the County Council to schedule additional hearings.

Mr. Eckert said in his opinion, the County Council would not be opposed to providing additional hearings. But, he does not believe these additional hearings can be completed before the August 17, 2006 deadline. He said the CRC is asking the County Council to hold additional meetings subsequent to the August 17, 2006 deadline after the election has been called. This goes beyond the guidelines in the Charter, which dictates a maximum of three public hearings. 

DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF DRAFT FINAL REPORT
Mr. Scovell began the discussion by stating that its purpose was to edit and add language that the CRC deemed appropriate to the Final Report. 

Mr. Ford stated that he was concerned that certain language articulated in the Executive Summary Section of the Final Report (see attached – pages 12-19), did not adequately express the intent of the Commission. He said the language in this section could express a false perception to the public that Smart Growth is mutually beneficial and could have only positive outcomes. There must be a balance articulated between the positive and negative aspects of Smart Growth. 

Mr. Ford said he believes the provisions that discuss the Natural Resources Management Area (NRMA) should emphasize areas that are greater in size than the Environmental Corridor because the NRMA areas do not just include the Environmental Corridor. He asked for the last line of the second paragraph on page 16 of the Executive Summary, regarding the date of June 15, 2006, where any agreement concerning a Comprehensive Plan Amendment could be agreed upon, but would not be covered by the amendment offered by the Protecting the Environmental Core Subcommittee.  

Dr. Bailey asked if the implications of this change were that the County’s Comprehensive Plan, written at the time of the annexation, would not govern the annexed area.

Mr. Ford responded that the County would have continuous jurisdiction to amend its Comprehensive Plan, but if the future land use map pertaining to that annexed area were changed, the County’s Comprehensive Plan would not govern.  

Dr. Bailey asked if the essence of the amendment is to allow for the County’s Comprehensive Plan to govern until such a time the County amends its Comprehensive Plan or allows an agreement to occur between the County’s and the cities within a 10-year period.  

Mr. Ford responded that the existing language expresses a false perception which is legally prohibited, that allows the County to freeze a Municipal Comprehensive Plan.  

Regarding the provision concerning compensation for County Council Members on page 19 of the Executive Summary Report, Mr. Ford advised the Commission that it would be prudent to eliminate references to the Chair being a full-time position when no consensus had been reached on that question.  

Mr. McClelland said that the last line concerning the implementation of a countywide water plan, (page 17 of the Executive Summary), the CRC had agreed to take out the second reference to a countywide ordinance. 

Dr. Bailey stated that he believes that there is value in keeping some modified version of the language that Mr. Ford has amended. He believes that the original language provides a detailed analysis that would help citizens and civic groups attain a better understanding of the amendments.  

Mr. Ford stated that he was willing to withdraw the deletions and revisions he submitted on pages 12, 13, 14 in the draft Final Report.  

Mr. Ford asked for the deletion of the reference that the voters have spoken on the issue of growth management.  He said he finds the references to the citizens having spoken on the issue objectionable, and the references that they are looking to local government to solve these issues unnecessary. In his opinion, Volusia County residents are looking for both municipal and County governments to provide solutions. These references are found on page 14 of the Executive Summary Section of the Final Report.  He also asked for revisions to be made in the first paragraph on page 15, which deletes the entire first paragraph with the exception of the first sentence.  

Mr. Ford made a motion to accept the revisions as they pertains to the two references stated above, seconded by Dr. Fleuchaus and unanimously approved by the CRC. 

Mr. Ford asked for a motion to delete the six assumptions that were identified regarding the areas in which the County Council, along with the cities, have the authority to limit urban sprawl in the conclusion on page 15 of the Executive Summary Report. 

Mr. McClelland made a motion to delete the references from the Executive Summary Report, seconed by Mr. Storch and unanimously approved by the CRC.

Mr. Ford sought to include language stating, “Also, it encompasses lands greater in size than the Environmental Core” in the first paragraph of page 16 of the Executive Summary Report.

Mr. McClelland made the motion to insert the revised language in the first paragraph of page 16, seconded by Mr. Gunter and approved unanimously by the CRC. 

Mr. Matousek asked for clarification on the overall intent of the revised language.  

Mr. Ford responded that the Subcommittee reached a consensus that the NRMA area did not encompass the entire environmental corridor of the County. In addition, it was believed to be necessary to add additional areas that would be covered by NRMA protection.  Therefore, the language was intentionally included to articulate to the public that the NRMA areas did not exclude certain territories from protection and that it does not constitute being the Environmental Corridor.   

Mr. Ford asked for the last line of the first paragraph on page 16 to be read as follows: “The Charter Review Commission felt that the County Council could solve this difference as they have the power to reduce the size of the NRMA boundary by Comprehensive Plan Amendment.” This change will supplant the previous language that stated, “The Charter Review Commission felt that the County Council could solve this difference as they have the power to contract the NRMA boundary by Comprehensive Plan Amendment.” 

Mr. Heebner made a motion to approve the inclusion of the revised language of the last line of the first paragraph on page 16 of the Executive Summary Report, seconded by Mr. Gunter and unanimously approved by the CRC.

Discussion began on a possible revision of the third paragraph on page 16 of the Executive Summary Report. 

Mr. Ford stated that the intent of this paragraph was to convey the point that the Charter Review Commission felt it was important to encourage and foster the development of Joint Planning Agreements. He believes that this paragraph expresses the opposite intent of the Charter Review Commission. 

Mr. McClelland made a request to insert the word “is” in the last line of the third paragraph on page 16 of the Executive Summary Report. The paragraph will now read as follows, “The intent of the recommendation is to encourage Joint Planning Agreements between the County and the cities, putting pressure on both entities to work cooperatively.” 

Mr. Ford then made a motion to insert the revised language offered by Mr. McClelland into the last line of the third paragraph on page 16 of the Executive Summary Report. 

Ms. Drago seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.   

The Charter Review Commission moved to revise the language of the last line of the first paragraph on page 17 of the Executive Summary Report. 

Mr. Gunter stated that the sentence is incomplete and he understood it to read as follows, “to approve a city’s development plan or if there is an amendment to the County’s Comprehensive Plan.”  

Mr. Gunter read the completed paragraph which is to be inserted as follows, “an exception was made that the Comprehensive Plan would yield supremacy over an annexed property when the city and the County have an existing Joint Planning Agreement or when the County has approved a city’s development plan or there is an amendment to the County’s Comprehensive Plan.” 

Mr. Storch said he believes that the phrase stating, “that parcel of land” should be included after Comprehensive Plan since there could be many amendments during the Comprehensive Planning Process that may not affect an individual parcel of land.  

Mr. Gunter made a motion to insert the amended language in the last sentence of the first paragraph on page 17 of the Executive Summary Report. 

Mr. Ford seconded the motion, which was passed unanimously by the Charter Review Commission.  

Mr. Ford said that the Charter Review Commission seeks to strike the first sentence on the second paragraph of page 17, which states, “to aid in the creation of Joint Planning Agreements the Charter Review Commission crafted language so that any agreements currently in existence or being developed would remain valid.” 

The Charter Review Commission reverted to discussing the second paragraph on page 16 of the Executive Summary Report dealing with the implementation of Joint Planning Agreements by June 15, 2006.  

Mr. Ford stated that the Commission’s intent was not to directly affect the validity of these agreements, but one of the provisions is to seek the creation of Joint Planning Agreements after June 15, 2006. 

Mr. Storch stated that existing Joint Planning Agreements were ones negotiated prior to June 15 and they would not have any significant influence on this provision. 

Mr. Eckert stated that the agreements would not be made invalid, and it would not satisfy the requirements of the Charter Amendment. 

Mr. Ford moved on to discussing the second paragraph on page 17, which discusses the creation of a Volusia Growth Management Dispute Resolution Commission as a replacement for the Volusia Growth Management Commission. 

Mr. Ford inserted a fifth sentence in the paragraph that discusses the purpose of this new Volusia Growth Management Dispute Resolution Commission. The language states, “The Commission may be utilized by local governments to resolve disputes regarding Comprehensive Planning prior to seeking other remedies provided by law. Local governments may utilize the Commission to resolve service area annexation and other issues.” 

Mr. McClelland stated that the Charter Review Commission should also delete that last sentence of the second paragraph on page 17 and offer amended language that states, “The County Council voted to support the dissolution the VGMC.”  

Mr. Ford made a motion to discuss the amended language stated above as the fifth sentence in the second paragraph on page 17 of the Executive Summary Report.  Also, Mr. Ford sought to include the revised language which would replace the last sentence of the second paragraph on page 17 offered by Mr. McClelland.  

Dr. Bailey stated that it is expressed in the Charter that the County Council does not have the authority to abolish the VGMC. 

Mr. Ford amended his motion to express that the County Council voted for the dissolution of the VGMC, while still including the deletion of the last sentence of that paragraph. 

Mr. McClelland seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.

The Charter Review Commission then discussed the third paragraph on page 18 of the Executive Summary Report. This paragraph discusses an ordinance implementation by the County Council to enforce the School Board Amendment regarding Comprehensive Planning re-zoning or residential density.

Mr. Ford stated that the Charter Review Commission intended to incorporate the existing Charter language on this matter rather than having new language written over the extension where it might be applicable in regards to timing and construction of schools to deal with capacity concerns.

Mr. Ford stated that the previous interpretation of the amendment was based upon what the amendment might achieve.

Ms. Drago made the motion to insert the existing Charter language on this matter regarding timing and construction of adequate public schools.

Mr. Heebner seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.

Ms. Dragop stated that she is also seeking one additional change to the language in the draft of the Executive Summary Report, the section that discusses the School Board Comprehensive Planning Amendment. This change would be implemented at the bottom of the second paragraph where it states, “This amendment would give school official more time to plan for facilities” would be changed to “This amendment would give more time to school officials and local governments to plan for facilities.” 

Ms. Drago stated that the insertion of this language is needed to express the necessity for the School Board and local governments to come together and begin planning at an earlier stage in the Comprehensive Planning process rather than when development begins.

The Charter Review Commission voted unanimously to insert existing Charter language within the amendment discussing an adequate time-period to allow for the construction of schools.

The Charter Review Commission moved to discussing the issue of compensation for County Council Members, which is situated in the first paragraph on page 19 of the Executive Summary Report.

Mr. Ford sought to eliminate the last two lines of the paragraph, which stated, “It was determined, the cost of holding the office of County Council Member is becoming prohibitive. The Charter Review Commission believed that additional compensation was needed to encourage future candidates.”

Mr. Matousek advised his fellow Commission Members that the rational behind seeking such an increase in compensation was that the County Charter  prohibited the reimbursement of in-county expenses for County Council Members. Therefore, the Structure of Government Subcommittee found it justified to approve the compensation rate.

Mr. Matousek made a motion to include the justification behind an increase in salary for members of the County Council in the first paragraph of page 19.

Dr. Bailey seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

Mr. Ford moved to discuss possible revisions in the Protecting the Environmental Core Subcommittee’s final report.

Mr. Ford sought changes in the third paragraph of the first page of the Subcommittee report, which should be read as follows, “Through the discussions with these officials and members of the public, the Subcommittee drafted two proposed Charter Amendments. The first dealt with strengthening the County Council’s ability to control development within the NRMA and certain identified unincorporated communities.”

Dr. Bailey advised that the acronym for NRMA should be spelled out in its entirety and the acronym placed in parenthesis.

Mr. Ford made a motion to approve the amended language to be included in the third paragraph of the first page of the Protecting the Environmental Core Subcommittee’s report. This will include the suggestions made by Dr. Bailey.

Mr. Heebner seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.

Mr. Ford discussed possible revisions on the second page of the Protecting the Environmental Core Subcommittee’s report. In the first paragraph, Mr. Ford would like it to express the point that the Charter Review Commission was unable to come to  a consensus on a proper definition for the NRMA area.

In regards to the last line of the second paragraph, Mr. Ford sought to replace the word “reduce” with the word contract. The sentence would now read, “The Charter Review Commission felt that the County Council could solve this difference as they have the power to contract the size of the NRMA boundary by Comprehensive Plan Amendment.”

Mr. Ford made a motion to insert the revised language in the second paragraph to be placed in the last line in the paragraph.

Mr. Ford moved to discussing the fourth paragraph on the second page of the report. Mr. Ford believes that the previous first sentence of the paragraph before it was amended is appropriate. Therefore, he is seeking to revert to that previous sentence.

Regarding the second sentence of the paragraph, Mr. Ford is seeking it to reflect that the County’s Comprehensive Plan at the time of an annexation be given primacy until such a time where it could be rewritten after negotiations have occurred between the County and the cities.

Despite this fact, the Subcommittee could not express this point due to legal concerns in its Subcommittee Report.

Mr. Ford stated that the intent of the Subcommittee was to include language in its Final Report to express the County’s Comprehensive Plan would have primacy until such a time when negotiations could occur between the cities and County.

Mr. Scovell asked Mr. Ford to read the language of that section of the report that dealt with this issue.

Mr. Ford read the revised language, which states, “Lastly, as a point of fairness to the municipalities to annex a parcel of land inside the Planning District Boundary, the Subcommittee decided that the Comprehensive Plan as it was written at the time of annexation would govern the parcel. However, due to concerns expressed by the County Attorney, a fourth event was added that could trigger the loss of the County’s Comprehensive Plan supremacy.

Mr. Ford stated that this language does not include all four possible events, which would give the County’s Comprehensive Plan supremacy.

Mr. McClelland made a motion to allow Mr. Ford to revise the language to include all four possible events where the County’s Comprehensive plan would have supremacy.

Mr. Scovell seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

Mr. McClelland stated that he has heard concerns from members of the public that the title of the Meeting the Infrastructure Needs of Smart Growth Subcommittee does not adequately reflect the work done by the Subcommittee.

Mr. McClelland believed this to be the case, since Smart Growth is a universal concept whose issues are always changing. As a result, Mr. McClelland sought to change the title of the Subcommittee to Meeting the Infrastructure Needs of the County.

Mr. Scovell made a motion to change the title of the Meeting the Infrastructure Needs of Smart Growth Subcommittee to Meeting the Infrastructure Needs of the County Subcommittee. The motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Heebner stated that there is interest on behalf of the County Council to have an unlimited amount of time to negotiate the protection of environmentally sensitive lands to be included under the NRMA protection.

Mr. Heebner stated that there was a sentiment among the County Council Members that the ten-year provision is too short of a time to conduct negotiations.

Mr. Heebner stated that there was a concern that if the Charter Review Commission did not extend the time period for negotiations the County Council would place an amendment on the ballot simultaneously with the one that was agreed upon by the Charter Review Commission.

Mr. Heebner stated that the consequences of such action would be that it would create confusion in the minds of the voters and place ambiguous language in the Charter.

Mr. Heebner stated that his intent was to receive the thoughts of his fellow Commission members on whether it would be prudent to reconsider the ten-year provision.

Mr. Scovell stated that he does not feel it is appropriate to revisit this issue since the decision has already been reached. Mr. Scovell added that it is in the County Council’s authority to place an additional amendment on the ballot if it wishes to do so.

Mr. Scovell stated he has articulated to the County Council that he believes it is inappropriate to place simultaneous amendments before the public but the Council is in its rights to do so if they wish.

Mr. Ford said that under the procedural rules that are being followed by the Charter Review Commission, Mr. Heebner should have the privilege to make a motion to reconsider.    

Mr. Heebner stated that he believes it is the responsibility of the Charter Review Commission to make a decision on this issue whether they seek to have a duplicate amendment on the ballot or to decide to give both the County Council and the municipalities an unlimited amount of time to negotiate.

Mr. Heebner made a motion to discuss the possible reconsideration of the previous vote of the Charter Review Commission, which allowed the County Comprehensive Plan to govern for a period of ten-years after which it would have to negotiate a time-period with the cities.

Mr. McClelland seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

Mr. Ford stated that the Charter Review Commission was appointed to provide the best possible recommendations to the Charter. He believes the Commission should not be doing responsibilities other then what they were mandated to do.

Mr. Ford continued he believed that it will send a bad message if the voters perceive that the Charter Review Commission was forced to change its recommendation by the County Council.

Mr. Storch stated that he believes that the Charter Review Commission should reconsider this issue, since he holds the opinion that if the voters have two competing Charter Amendments, the message that the Commission would be sending to the voters would be lost. 

Mr. Storch stated that it is pivotal that the Charter Review Commission discuss possible alternatives to the length of time in which the parties can negotiate and the issues associated with that length of time.

Mr. Storch stated that since the issue of Comprehensive Planning is complex, it is important not to have competing amendments since the voters might reject both proposals out of confusion and a possible misunderstanding of the intent of the amendment.

Therefore, he believes that it is better for the ballot to state that regardless of a time-period, the next Charter Review Commission will revisit this issue.

Mr. Gunter stated that he believes that the existing ten-year provision is appropriate since it put pressure on all three parties, the city, the County, and the landowner to protect the territories and the environmentally sensitive areas that are being annexed into the NRMA or its periphery.

Dr. Bailey stated that it is inappropriate to convey the message to the voting public that the Charter Review Commission would be insensitive to the issue of growth management when the members agreed it was the most important issue they faced when the Commission commenced to do its work.

Mr. Benedict stated that the Protecting the Environmental Core Subcommittee has placed enough safeguards within the Comprehensive Planning Amendment and the ten-year provision to allow for the next Charter Review Commission to reconsider the issue.

Mr. Benedict is concerned that if the Charter Review Commission decided to extend the time-period, the County Council will become involved in increasing litigation over the individuals’ personal property.

Ms. Drago stated that in her opinion, if the Charter Review Commission does not set a suitable period and allow cities to align themselves against the provision, then the Charter Review Commission would be defeating the purpose of the amendment, which was to facilitate the creation of Joint Planning Agreements.

Mr. McClelland stated that one of his primary concerns regarding the ten-year provision was the confidence that Charter Review Commission placed in all three parties’ ability to come together.

Mr. McClelland further stated that one example where it was anticipated that parties would come together and negotiate was the Water Authority of Volusia. WAV was supposed to be a platform where individual cities could negotiate inter-local agreements with the County on how to better distribute water resources throughout the County. WAV has since failed and is now dissolving.

Dr. Fleuchaus called the question on the motion to reconsider the ten-year provision of the Comprehensive Plan. The motion to reconsider failed by a vote of ten members opposed and four members in favor.

Dr. Bailey stated that at the August 10, 2006 Public Hearing, the Charter Review Commission should enact a resolution that supports all of the Charter Amendments and management recommendations sponsored by the Commission.

Dr. Bailey made a motion to enact such a resolution. Mr. McClelland seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

Dr. Bailey made a motion for the County Staff who assisted in the Charter Review process to be recognized by the County Council in the form of a proclamation. Mr. Heebner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

ADJOURNMENT
The Charter Review Commission adjourned at 7:24 p.m.

back to charter review main page

back to county council

Comments or questions?
E-mail the