Charter Review Commission  Minutes
Aug. 28, 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 Member Pete Heebner called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. in the Deltona City Commission Chambers. The following members were present: Pete Heebner, Dr. T. Wayne Bailey, Tom McClelland, Rich Gunter, Patricia Northey, Glenn Storch, Bo Davenport, Charles Matousek and Ezell Reaves. 

Also present were Joie Alexander, County Council Vice-Chair, Rick Karl Assistant County Attorney, Betty Holness Assistant to the County Manager, and Mike Thompson, City Manager of Deltona.

The following Commission Members were unable to attend: Chair Bill Scovell, Vice-Chair John Graham, Patricia Drago, Alex Ford, Dr. Bud Fleuchaus, and Joe Benedict.

Mr. Heebner invited Mr. Karl to provide a brief overview of the Charter Review Process and the purpose of the evening’s public hearing.

Mr. Karl stated that the evening’s public hearing represents an informal meeting of the Volusia County Charter Review Commission (CRC).

Mr. Karl stated that there is no formal action that can be taken by the Commission since it has already fulfilled its mandate and has dissolved. He added that the Volusia County Home Rule Charter mandates that a maximum of three public hearings be held.

Mr. Karl said the purpose of the evening’s public hearing is to discuss with the public the intent behind the six proposed Charter Amendments and 14 management recommendations. An additional function of the public hearings is to receive any thoughts or comments that the public may have regarding the proposed Charter Amendments.

Mr. Karl stated that the County Council has called for the inclusion of these amendments and management recommendations to be placed on the ballot for consideration of the voters of Volusia County on November 7, 2006.

Review of Proposed Charter Amendments
Mr. Heebner invited Ezell Reaves, who was a member of the Integrating Economic Development and Education Subcommittee, to provide a synopsis of the first Charter Amendment, which concerns School Planning within the comprehensive Planning Process. 

Mr. Reaves stated that the intent of the amendment is to allow the School Board to participate in the planning stages of a Comprehensive Planning Amendment or rezoning that might influence Public School Capacity Requirements. He added that the School Planning Amendment would also adhere to Senate Bill 360, which requires school Concurrency Standards to be in place prior to development.  The Amendment would not in any way intrude on the city’s Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Heebner then introduced Mr. McClelland, who was Chair of the Infrastructure Needs of Smart Growth Subcommittee, to present a brief presentation of the second Charter Amendment, which discusses the implementation of a countywide water plan.

Mr. McClelland said his Subcommittee heard testimony and gathered information during the past year concerning the infrastructure requirements of the County. The most significant issue to come out of the deliberations of the Subcommittee was a water plan.

Mr. McClelland stated that coupled with the issue of water, the Subcommittee discussed the nexus water planning and sustainable growth. Based on the evidence provided, the citizens of Volusia County stand in favor of implementing a countywide Water Plan. The proposed Charter Amendment would direct the County Council by ordinance to develop a countywide Water Plan. This plan would prevail over any Municipal Comprehensive Plan or ordinance.

Mr. McClelland said the intent of this amendment is to reform current water management plans, which are believed to be inadequate. In addition, this amendment would encourage regional planning and protection.

Mr. McClelland articulated the point that the amendment does not direct the County to become a water service provider or operator of water facilities. Rather, this amendment calls for the development of a countywide master plan and the preservation and protection of the County’s only water aquifer.  

Mr. McClelland stated that this amendment would also insure that water resources remain available through protection, conservation and proper management mechanisms.

Mr. McClelland emphasized that under this amendment, the County does not have the authority to commandeer any of the municipality’s water facilities. The purpose of this amendment is to insure the protection of the aquifer and to provide for the equitable distribution of water resources.

Mr. Heebner called upon Mr. Storch, who was a member of the Protecting the Environmental Core Subcommittee.

Mr. Storch stated that the concept behind the Comprehensive Planning Amendment was for the County to encourage Joint Planning Agreements. Under this amendment, the County would delineate a Comprehensive Planning District. These Special Planning Districts would be in place to protect the environmentally sensitive areas of the County.

These districts would encompass the Natural Resource Management Area (NRMA) and include historic areas such as Hontoon Island, Osteen and the Glenwood area. 

In the event that the County and the municipalities are unable to reach an accord, the County’s Comprehensive plan would supersede any Municipal Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Storch stated that the County’s Comprehensive Plan would also govern over any potential annexation by the cities or municipalities within the Comprehensive Planning Districts if an agreement cannot be reached.

Mr. Storch added that if an agreement is reached and a municipality proceeds to annex territory within those areas the County’s Comprehensive Plan would not supersede due to the fact both parties have reached an agreement.

Mr. Storch said there are exceptions where this can occur. The first is if the County Council has consented to the annexation by a municipality of a particular area. The second is if an agreement can be reached between the two parties within a ten-year period after the annexation has occurred concerning a protected area. This is whether there is a provision within the County’s Comprehensive Plan for a particular territory that the municipalities seek to annex.

Mr. Storch stated that this amendment is offered with the intent to seek a balance between the County’s interests and that of the cities within the Special Planning Districts.

Mr. Storch then spoke on the fourth Charter Amendment, which calls for the abolishment of the Volusia Growth Management Commission. In its place, the County would create the Volusia Smart Growth Dispute Resolution Commission.

Mr. Storch said the CRC heard many complaints over the effectiveness of the VGMC. There is a feeling among the public that the VGMC has outlived it usefulness, since it was created to resolve disputes between County and City Comprehensive Plans. This role has been taken over by the Department of Community Affairs, and the public has a desire to reform or replace the body.

The Volusia Smart Growth Dispute Resolution Commission would offer non-binding recommendations as a way to resolve the matter. These actions are similar to a legal mediation, where in the end the Volusia Smart Growth Dispute Resolution Commission will issue a report. After this report is given to the cities and the County, they will decide whether to follow the body’s recommendations.

Mr. Heebner called on Dr. Bailey to summarize Charter Amendments five and six, which respectively deal with the creation of a Vice-Chair of the County Council and the issue of compensation of County Council Members.

Regarding Amendment five, Dr. Bailey stated that it was the opinion of the CRC that since the position of County Council Chair has been made an at large position, a logical connection to this was to make the second At-Large position Vice-Chair of the County Council.

Dr. Bailey stated that since the At-Large Position is voted on countywide, which requires large sums of money to run and an expansive election strategy, the CRC felt that it was appropriate to distinguish that position form the other Council members who are voted on by districts.

Regarding Amendment 6, Dr. Bailey stated that the Volusia County Charter prohibits the reimbursement of County Council Members for in-County expenses. Therefore, in order to deal with the issues of compensation, it was the intent of the CRC that the compensation level Council Members be increased to take into account the expenses each Council Member accrues while serving the public.

Dr. Bailey stated that a member of the County Council would be compensated at the level of 65% dictated by State Guidelines, while the new Vice-Chair of the County Council would be compensated at the level of 80% as dictated by State Guidelines.  The Chair of the County Council would be compensated at the level of 100% of state guidelines.

Public Participation
Jack Hoyt stated that his purpose for speaking was to request clarification on how much construction would be required before the application for development could be approved.

Mr. Hoyt said that the City Attorney of Deltona said that construction had to be completed before an application could be approved.

Mr. Reaves stated that it was the intent of the CRC to include the schools within the planning process at the beginning of the planning stages of development, rather than the development stages. The benefits of such procedures allow determinations to be made about whether a potential development will cause school overcrowding in the beginning stages.

Mr. Reaves added that the essence of this amendment is a joint planning venture between the school, the developer and the County to set guidelines to meet capacity requirements while at the same time complying with Senate Bill 360.

Dr. Bailey added that the development decisions will not be placed in the hands of the individual developer, but remain the prerogative of the County and the Cities.

The next participant was Steve Thompson, the City Manager of Deltona.

Mr. Thompson stated that the City of Deltona will oppose Amendment Two concerning the establishment of a countywide water plan and Amendment Three regarding the Comprehensive Planning Districts. In the terms of the establishment of a countywide water plan, Mr. Thompson said that a majority of the opposition to the amendments lie in the implementation of the amendment.

Mr. Thompson stated that the Water Plan might affect the compact growth patterns of water utilities, which are primarily the jurisdiction of the cities. He said that other cities within the County believe that the Water Authority of Volusia (WAV) is the correct mechanism to remedy utility difficulties.

Mr. Thompson added that despite the criticism, he believes the cities are working in a collaborative manner to resolve these issues. He said the City of Deltona opposes the third Charter Amendment concerning Comprehensive Plans because the amendment would usurp the city’s ability to resolve outstanding issues from when it was not a city.

Comments by Charter Review Commission Members
Mr. McClelland commented on the issue of the establishment of a countywide water plan. He stated that at the time the CRC took its final vote on this matter, four cities announced their intention to succeed from WAV. Subsequent to their decision to adopt a countywide water plan, these four cities now seek to be associated with WAV. Therefore, in his opinion the CRC accomplished its goal.

Mr. Storch moved to discuss the alternative Charter Amendment offered by the County Council concerning the issue of comprehensive planning.

Mr. Storch stated that this Charter Amendment would constitute being a seventh additional amendment that would be included on the ballot. He stated that Amendment Seven, which calls for the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan to govern all lands including unincorporated areas, would not have the necessary mechanisms in place to encourage Joint Planning Agreements.

Mr. Storch added that Amendment Seven does not significantly change or enhance the protection of the Environmental Corridor. If Amendment Seven were passed, the existing procedures would still be in place, which is the opposite intention of Amendment Three. Essentially, what would happen is each parcel of land will be analyzed on an individual basis without consultation form the cities.

Mr. Storch cautioned that the procedures outlined in Amendment Seven are not appropriate in addressing adequate planning needs.  Instead, the County should look at other mechanisms to provide incentives for working along with the cities within the planning process.

Mr. Matousek stated that he believes the CRC offered Amendment Three as a compromise. The CRC sought to protect the NRMA areas while providing lands between city jurisdiction and the NRMA areas for the purposes of allowing a Municipal Comprehensive Plan to govern.

Mr. Matousek stated that Amendment Seven does the opposite of what it is intended to do, and protect lands that should not be categorized as environmentally sensitive lands.

Mr. Matousek added that the areas that are protected under Amendment Seven should be areas were growth is encouraged.

Mr. McClelland asked what progress has been made on the effort to educate the public about the Charter initiatives.

Ms. Holness responded that she has met with David Byron, Director of Community Information for Volusia County. Mr. Byron is constructing an outreach plan to the community. She noted that all public libraries within the County have copies of the CRC’s Final Report.

Ms. Holness also added that Mr. Byron is developing information to be placed on the internet and that the final report is available online.

Mr. Heebner noted that it is going to be awkward to have two corresponding Amendments, one offered by the CRC and another offered by the County Council.

Dr. Bailey noted that in his opinion, both the County Council and the CRC are trying to accomplish the same goals. It is necessary to meet these goals to alleviate the public perception that the County is being inundated with limitless growth.

Dr. Bailey added that he believes that the citizens are out in front ahead of their public officials on the issue of growth. He noted that in previous years, there have been examples where the County has endeavored to mitigate this issue of growth and it exacerbated the issue, for example, as in the case of Urban Growth Boundaries.

Dr. Bailey concluded by stating that the citizens of the many cities of Volusia County have called on their public officials within the municipalities to find a way forward and he hopes that the work accomplished by the CRC will not be in vain.  

Mr. Matousek stated that the County Council has placed itself in an interesting position. The County Council has articulated in the past that it will conduct a broad campaign to educate the public on the Charter Amendments.

Recently, the County Council has initiated a broad campaign to encourage the public to vote against Amendments 3 and 4 and vote in favor or Amendment 7.

Another interesting aspect that Mr. Matousek noted is the opposition of the municipalities towards the Charter Amendments. He stated that the municipalities are justifying their opposition to the Charter Proposals on the basis that it intrudes on their City Home Rule Charter.

Instead, he believes that this argument should be framed as to how the Charter Amendments benefit or harm the citizens of the municipalities.  

Mr. Gunter stated that there are three possible outcomes should Amendment Seven pass. The first is that the Amendment passes and confrontation between the cities and the County continue. The second outcome is that noting occurs, which exacerbates the ongoing contention. The third outcome is adopting the proposal offered by the CRC, which promotes consultation on behalf of both parties when either the County or the Cities annexes territories.

Mr. Gunter added that the County Council does not have to take such steps as it has done. If the proposed Charter Amendment does not work, then the County Council can offer its own proposal in the upcoming years to address the issue. This option will negate any confusion that might occur on voting day.

Mr. Storch stated that since he has resided in Volusia County, there is a perception that the County is characterized by a constant discourse between the County and its municipalities. He believes that Amendment Three offers a window of opportunity to allow the County to get to a point and work effectively with its municipalities.

Mr. Storch stated that if Amendment Seven passes, all growth management issues would be determined by the County Council, which is harmful to the collaborative process and to the consensus building that is required in determining growth management issues. There are mechanisms in place at the current time, which could foster better cooperation between the cities and County in this matter.

Mr. Storch noted that the new County Manager has made strides to foster an environment of cooperation on all local government issues.

Council Member Alexander stated that the County Council appreciates the work of the CRC despite disagreements over Amendment Three.

Mr. Heebner then opened up the floor to any additional members of the public who wished to speak.

John M. Peterson stated that he has learned a good deal more by listening to the public hearing, and feels that it is appropriate that there be a proper presentation formed in a language that the citizens can understand.

Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:07 p.m.

back to charter review main page

back to county council

Comments or questions?
E-mail the