Charter Review Commission  Minutes
Aug. 16, 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.

Charter Review Commission Public Hearing

Call to Order
County Chair Frank Bruno called the public hearing to order at the Port Orange City Commission Chambers, 1000 City Center Circle, on Wednesday, Aug. 16, 2006. He thanked Joie Alexander, At-large member and County Council Vice Chair, Art Giles, representative for District 2, Carl Persis, representative for District 4, and Bill Long, representative for District 5 for being in attendance. He called on County Attorney Dan Eckert to address the specifics of the public hearing. 

Overview of the Charter Review Process
Mr. Eckert stated the Charter provided for a review process once every ten years by a 15 member Charter Review Commission. He thanked the Commission members for all their hard work. The CRC received and made recommendations for change and six Charter amendments had been proposed. He noted the changes made by the CRC will be placed on the ballot unaltered by the County Council members. He also mentioned the Charter requires there to be no less than three public hearings which explain the recommended changes made by the CRC. This meeting was the last of the three mandatory hearings. Mr. Eckert noted there would be two additional hearings. He added that the CRC was, in effect, dissolved, and thus no changes to the amendments could be made. 

Mr. Eckert said the County Chair had requested he clarify some aspects of the proposed Water Plan Amendment. He stated the Charter does not address service transfer, so a water plan could not mandate the transfer of municipal utilities to the County. Mr. Eckert added in some cases, the Charter allows County ordinances to override those of municipalities, and the Water Plan Amendment utilizes this power. 

Chair Bruno reminded everyone that the amendments would formally be placed on the ballot on August 17, 2006 at 9:25 a.m. 

Discussion of Charter Amendments
Chair Bruno thanked Mr. Eckert for his explanations and called upon CRC Chair Bill Scovell to present the proposed charter amendments. 

Chair Scovell recognized and thanked the members of the CRC who were present, including: Rich Gunter, Tom McClelland, Alex Ford, Pat Drago, Glenn Storch, Charles Matousek, Bud Fleuchaus, and Ezell Reaves. He stated the CRC had held several listening sessions in the infancy in the process, and the listening sessions or one of the regular CRC meetings was the time for the public to address their concerns to the CRC.

Chair Scovell said the public hearings were for explanatory purposes. He asked Ms. Drago to give a brief explanation of the School Planning Amendment. 

Ms. Drago said the authority for land use lies with the County and the authority for education lies with the School Board. She mentioned the amendment is written referencing a home rule Charter County’s right to plan in such a way. Ms. Drago said this was a necessary step to prevent schools from being surprised with a flood of students, thus impairing their ability to serve the community. She concluded by stating that schools are an essential part of any community, and for that reason, must be involved in the early planning process.  Doing so will be much better for all parties involved. 

Chair Scovell thanked Ms. Drago and requested Mr. McClelland present the Water Plan Amendment. 

Mr. McClelland stated his Subcommittee investigated all manner of ways to improve infrastructure. The Subcommittee initially was going to reinstate the Water Policy Review Commission, but the full CRC decided to go another direction. Mr. McClelland said the amendment required the County Council to adopt a resolution which would create a countywide water plan that would protect the entire Volusian aquifer, deal with well location, and decide where municipal and County systems should be expanded. He stressed the plan was simply a tool for planning and did not allow for usurpation of control of water systems by the County. Mr. McClelland concluded by saying the plan was in response to concerns that were voiced in listening sessions and at various Subcommittee meetings. 

Chair Scovell thanked Mr. McClelland and asked Mr. Ford to present the amendments dealing with comprehensive planning and the new dispute resolution board. 

Mr. Ford began by stating the Subcommittee he chaired examined what some would call abusive annexation. Mr. Ford explained that under current law, when a city annexes land, it has complete control over the area. He said if the amendment was passed, in the designated areas within the Natural Resource Management Area (NRMA) boundaries, the County’s comprehensive plan would remain until a time period of ten years past the point of annexation, a Joint Planning Agreement with the County was formed, or the County Council signed off on the municipality’s plan for the annexed land. In the latter case, the city would not be able to change the area’s comprehensive plan without County Council approval. Mr. Ford noted the area protected was much greater then Map A, and that several communities had to be legally defined within. In conclusion, he stated the timeframe was set to avoid legal loopholes and allow time for the CRC to reconvene. 

Regarding the Volusia Growth Management Dispute Resolution Commission, Mr. Ford said the amendment would serve two purposes. The first would be to abolish the Volusia Growth Management Commission. Mr. Ford stated the reasoning for disbanding the VGMC was due to the emergence of DCA oversight and the prior amendment. He added that the Subcommittee had heard from various sources that the VGMC had outlived its usefulness, there was too much staff control, and too little public input. The second part of the amendment would create a nonbinding arbitration board comprised of appointees who could not be elected officials or agency employees. The appointees would come from the County Council, municipal representatives to VCOG, and the School Board. The new Commission would give recommendations which would be transferred to the disputing agents. Mr. Ford stated the recommendation was an important factor as in most mediation no final solution is offered.  

Chair Scovell thanked Mr. Ford for his input on the amendments. He called on Mr. Matousek to present the amendments dealing with the Vice-Chair position on the County Council and County Council compensation. 

Mr. Matousek said the current at-large position held no special powers on the County Council, yet in 2002 an amendment was passed which made the County Chair a position elected by the public countywide. Mr. Matousek stated the idea behind the Vice-Chair was meant to create coherence with the County Chair amendment and to create more incentive to run for the seat.  

Regarding County Council Compensation, Mr. Matousek said the County Chair would be paid 100% of the state prescribed funds for a County Commissioner, up from 60%, while other Council members would be paid 65%, up from 50%. He said that while the County Chair position is not listed as full time, it realistically has become that. Another issue Mr. Matousek raised was that the Charter does not provide for reimbursement of in-County expenses. Thus, the best way to deal with the issue was simply to raise the Council members’ income. Mr. Matousek stated that members of the public expect Council members to attend many social functions throughout the County and the increase appeared reasonable. Lastly, Mr. Matousek said that the CRC did not want the cost of holding office to be preventative in any way. 

Mr. Scovell thanked Mr. Matousek for his presentation of the amendments and said the CRC was now prepared to answer questions. 

Public Participation
County Chair Bruno opened the floor to members of the public with questions or comments about the previously discussed Charter amendments. County Chair Bruno called Mike Dietch, Michael Porter, and Kathy Turner to address the CRC. 

Mr. Dietch applauded the CRC for the hard work it has done and the amendments that were produced. He pointed out the idea behind rural villages like Tomoka Farms is that they warranted special designation and protection from encroaching development. Mr. Dietch referred to a recent County survey of Tomoka Farms residents, which stated 87% of those surveyed saw the greatest worry as being annexed into the City of Port Orange. He was uncertain whether the comprehensive plan amendment went far enough to protect rural communities. As an example of how these areas are being encroached upon, he spoke of Wilbur by the Sea. Mr. Dietch said the area is serviced water and sewer by the City of Port Orange and residents there must pay 150% over what the citizens of Port Orange pay for their services. He said the City pressures the community to annex into the city through the use of tactics like exorbitant utility rates. 

Kathy Turner also spoke to the Commission about the issue of comprehensive planning. She emphasized that Joint Planning Agreements do not work because people who live on the land are not represented by either the cities or the County. Ms. Turner stated that Port Orange was currently laying water lines into the Tomoka Farms area and that she was extremely disappointed in the County for creating a Joint Planning Agreement which allowed it. 

Michael Porter questioned the status of creating an ADA advisory board. He said it would be necessary to deal with present and future discrimination as well as community planning. Mr. Porter added he had attended the listening sessions and had presented his idea to the Commission at that time. 

County Chair Bruno closed public participation and turned the meeting back over to Chair Scovell. 

Comments by Charter Review Commission Members
Chair Scovell stated the Commission had drafted a management recommendation which dealt with Mr. Porter’s ADA board. 

Mr. Ford reminded the citizens that their voice lay with their elected officials. He noted that each citizen has three elected officials with two at large members and one from their respective district. 

Mr. Storch said when working with JPAs, there are certain questions that will have to be dealt with throughout the process. Questions such as “how do we preserve map A, habitat corridors, and communities of special interest”must be addressed in the planning process. 

Mr. McClelland encouraged people to look over the CRC’s report intently. He said the reports were available in public libraries and at www.volusia.org. Mr. McClelland added that not only are the amendments presented in the report, but management recommendations and Subcommittee reports also. 

Mr. Matousek stated that if the amendments do no pass, things will remain at the status quo. He emphasized the amendments improve the current situation, so people should carefully consider voting down the amendments and “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” 

Chair Scovell thanked everyone for attending. 

Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:46 p.m.

back to charter review main page

back to county council

Comments or questions?
E-mail the