Charter Review Commission  Minutes
Aug. 21, 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
Charter Review Commission (CRC) Chair Bill Scovell called the hearing to order at 6:04 p.m. at the Brannon Center 105 South Riverside Drive, New Smyrna Beach. The following members were present: Bill Scovell, Ezell Reaves, Pat Drago, Dr. Bud Fleuchaus, Pete Heebner, Rich Gunter and Charles Matousek. Also in attendance were Council Member Jack Hayman representing District 3, At-Large Council Member Joie Alexander, Betty Holness, Assistant to the County Manager and Rick Karl, Assistant County Attorney. Commission Members John Graham, Alex Ford, Glenn Storch, Tom McClelland, Patricia Northey, Bo Davenport, Joe Benedict and Dr. T. Wayne Bailey were unable to attend.

Chair Scovell invited Mr. Karl to give a brief explanation of the work that has been done by the CRC and how the public hearings will proceed.

Mr. Karl said Volusia County’s home rule Charter requires a maximum of three public hearings.  The CRC has spent the last year conducting hearings to assess the state of Volusia County Government. As a result, the CRC has proposed six Charter Amendments and 14 management recommendations.

Mr. Karl said that the CRC has achieved its mandate and the purpose of the meeting is to discuss the recommendations at length with the public. The proposed Charter Amendments cannot be changed and on August 17, 2006, the County Council called for the inclusion of these amendments to be placed on the ballot for the upcoming November 7, 2006 election.  

Review of Proposed Charter Amendments
Chair Scovell invited Ms. Drago to provide an explanation of the first Charter Amendment to go on the ballot regarding School Planning.

Ms. Drago stated that the purpose of the amendment is to require municipal governments and local officials to take the issues of School Planning into consideration when pondering a possible amendment to their Comprehensive Plans or a rezoning.  

Ms. Drago stated that if this first amendment passes it would read as follows: “that no amendment to the Comprehensive Plan or rezoning that increases residential density may be effective only if adequate public schools can be timely planned and constructed to serve the projected increase in student population, and that such ordinance shall prevail over any conflicting municipal comprehensive plan, ordinance, or resolution.” 

Ms. Drago said this amendment would allow a potential developer or applicant who is considering a rezoning to the land use of a piece of property to negotiate with the School Board on how School Capacity issues will be dealt with. The School Board provides both the County and the municipality a five-year projection report as a part of this amendment concerning the construction and capacity of school facilities. 

Ms. Drago noted that this amendment would allow for the co-location for schools and parks and for communities to be planned with appropriate land-use.  

Chair Scovell said that the second amendment was concerned with the implementation of a countywide water plan. It was determined that the County does not have an existing water plan that encompass such issues as the recharge and hydration of water. He added that there are many issues regarding the protection of the County’s aquifers that have not been developed into a comprehensive water plan for the County. 

Chair Scovell said that this water plan would allow the County Council to make decisions for the construction of reservoirs and the distribution for stormwater. This amendment will reinforce the County Council’s ability to regulate the reuse of water.  

He stated that the provisions in the amendment are necessary to provide for the preservation of the county’s aquifer. This amendment does not interfere with the municipalities’ retail water sales.  

Chair Scovell invited Mr. Gunter to explain Charter Amendment 3 concerning comprehensive planning districts.  

Mr. Gunter stated that the amendment would designate that the Volusia County Charter be amended to create Comprehensive Planning Districts. Further, this amendment would allow the County’s Comprehensive Plan to prevail over a conflicting municipal plan or ordinance within the planning district. 

Mr. Gunter said that the County’s Comprehensive Plan would prevail for a period of ten-years at the time of annexation. 

This provision would allow the County’s Comprehensive Plan to prevail over certain districts, which comprised the Natural Resource Management Area (NRMA) and the communities of Enterprise, Hontoon Island, Glenwood and the Osteen areas. 

The amendment is intended to protect large sections in the central parts of the County. Mr. Gunter added that the intent of the amendment is to encourage the County, the landowner and the developer to come together to negotiate a Joint Planning Agreement. 

Mr. Gunter stated that an additional intent of the amendment is to incorporate the entire Smart Growth plan, without abridging the authority of the County or the cities when an annexation does occur. 

Mr. Scovell asked Mr. Gunter to continue discussing the fourth Charter amendment, which calls for the abolishment of the Volusia Growth Management Commission (VGMC). 

Mr. Gunter stated that in the place of the VGMC, the CRC has asked the voters to approve the creation of the Volusia Growth Management Dispute Resolution Commission. 

Mr. Gunter stated that the intent of this Commission is to provide recommendations that would be non-binding to end disputes regarding local planning, annexation, and service areas.  The reason behind this recommendation is that the VGMC was only designed to ensure that County and city long-term planning would not conflict in lands where they are adjacent.  

Mr. Gunter added one of the most interesting aspects of this new Commission is that it requires active input on the part of the public where the previous institution did not. 

Mr. Scovell called on Mr. Matousek to summarize Charter Amendment 5, which raises the second At-large position within the County Council to Vice Chair. 

Mr. Matousek said it was the intent of the Commission to make the Vice Chair position voted on by the citizens of the County. The CRC envisioned the new Vice Chair position as being more effective and equal in its function to that of the County Chair. 

Mr. Matousek also spoke of the sixth and final Charter Amendment. If passed, this amendment would establish an increase in compensation for the County Chair and members of the County Council. The option of raising the level of compensation for the County Council Members was taken on by the Structure of Government Subcommittee, in light of the fact that the current Charter prohibits the reimbursement of in-County expenses.  

Mr. Matousek said all seven members of the County Council are inundated with requests to make public appearances, which requires a good deal of traveling in areas of the County not in their district. It was deemed important to compensate these officials at an appropriate level.  

Mr. Matousek stated that another question that arose during the discussion of compensation is at what level should the County Chair be compensated? This question was asked due to the fact that there have been new demands placed on the Chair since it has become a countywide position. It was the opinion of the CRC that the role of the County Chair has evolved into a full time position. 

Public Participation
Joe Stitch questioned whether the language that discusses the issue of Smart Growth within the Executive Summary Report of the CRC correlates with the perception that the public has on this issue. Mr. Stich defines his own personal views of Smart Growth as being the one provided by Agenda 21. 

Mr. Stitch stated that Agenda 21 is a United Nations program that removes 50 percent of individuals from their property by local governments and their municipalities. In the opinion of Mr. Stitch, Senate Bill 360 only exacerbates the issue of Smart Growth. Mr. Stitch added that the comprehensive planning amendment is just a euphemism for an Agenda 21 program to take place at the local level.  

Mr. Stitch stated that the proposals offered by the CRC would not substantially help the public in any way. Instead, it would just add to the burocratic nature of government.  

Sharon Rich was the next public participant. Ms. Rich stated that she was concerned that there has not been enough coordination between the County and cities in preserving the County’s environmentally sensitive lands.  

 Ms. Rich said she is primarily concerned with the different intentions of the municipalities regarding the development of the environmental corridor. She shared the view that Amendment 3 might not provide the necessary protections to lands that are not fully urbanized. She believes that the County would be better able to manage the natural resources of its environment than the cities.  

Ms. Rich stated the creation of a Growth Management Dispute Resolution Commission would not function well because this commission would not have any authority to enforce its recommendations. Consequently, the interest of the cities will not be taken into account. She also added that she is concerned over what will occur after the 10-year provision has lapsed. Ms. Rich believes that developers will wait for the 10-year time period to end  to develop lands without any sufficient government oversight. 

Comments by Charter Review Commission Members    
Chair Scovell responded to Ms. Rich’s concerns by stating that the 10-year provision becomes effective on the day of annexation. He said in his opinion, developers are not going to invest money in a piece of territory that they would not be able to develop for 10 years. He added that this amendment will require the County, the City, and the developer to negotiate a suitable use for any potential piece of land. If it were decided that there is not a potential use for the land, then it would not be used.

Chair Scovell then addressed Ms. Rich’s doubt over giving expanded authority to local officials in deciding growth management issues. He noted that the citizens of Volusia County elect their local officials. Therefore, the citizens must trust their local officials to serve their best interest.

Mr. Matousek said that he has heard one particular criticism of the amendments offered by the CRC, that the recommendations are infringing on the cities’ home rule charters. Mr. Matousek noted that if these recommendations were rejected, the current structure would stay in place.

Mr. Matousek said the cities have placed themselves on a slippery slope because the cities have argued that the proposed amendments infringe on the rights provided to them by their municipal home-rule charters, while at the same time, advocating that these amendments will be beneficial to their citizens in the future.

Adjournment
Chair Scovell thanked the citizens for attending the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 6:32 p.m.  

back to charter review main page

back to county council

Comments or questions?
E-mail the