back to county council

 
Charter Review Commission Minutes county logo
Sept. 6, 2005 

REVISED MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 6, 2005

CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

Charter Review Commission Chair William Scovell convened the meeting at 5:30 p.m.  in the Training Rooms of the Thomas C. Kelly Administration Center, 123 West Indiana Avenue, DeLand, Florida.  The following members were present:  Chair Scovell, Vice-Chair John Graham, T. Wayne Bailey, Joseph Benedict, Clarence Davenport, Patricia Drago, Alex Ford, Richard Gunter, Peter Heebner, Charles Matousek, Tom McClelland, Patricia Northey, Ezell Reaves and Glenn Storch.  Member P. T. Fleuchaus was an excused absence.  Also present were County Attorney Dan Eckert, Assistant to the County Manager Betty Holness, Assistant County Attorney Rick Karl, Government Relations Manager Dona DeMarsh, Administrative Aide Camilla Grasso, members of the press and 12 members of the public.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The first order of business was approval of the minutes of the Organizational Meeting of August 8 and the Listening Sessions of August 17, 22, 23 and 29, 2005.  Dr. Bailey moved approval of all the minutes and Mr. Heebner seconded the motion.  As a point of record, Ms. Holness interjected that in the second paragraph on the third page of the minutes of the August 17 Listening Session, the verbiage had been changed to more accurately reflect the actual record. She stated that in the future, any changes to the minutes would be done within the meeting – not prior to. The motion carried unanimously.

DISCUSSION OF RULES OF PROCEDURE
Dr. Bailey then moved to adopt the 1995-1996 Rules of Procedure (the Rules), as the present Charter Review Commission might want to update them on the basis of its proceedings.  Mr. Heebner seconded the motion.  Dr. Bailey then stated there were two areas needing clarification.  One was the reference to the Secretary, a position that was inserted in the Review process at a time when the Charter Review Commission operated aloof from the County, and he suggested as an amendment that language be inserted designating Ms. Holness to fulfill those duties.  The second area had to do with the meeting place for the Commission meetings, but Dr. Bailey wished to defer that topic until after ascertaining unanimous consent to designate Ms. Holness’ position as fulfilling the duties of the Secretary.  There was no dissent to the amended motion. 

Dr. Bailey then stated the regular place of meetings needed discussion, and added it would be necessary to keep in mind equality in location as much as possible and holding the meetings in public buildings that had accommodations for disability access.  Chair Scovell brought up the possibility of meeting at either the Sheriff’s or Fire Department’s facilities on Indian Lake Road, as it was a central location.  Mr. Storch felt that the location was so remote it would discourage attendance by the public.  Mr. Matousek agreed with Mr. Storch, citing personal experience, and both members said they would favor meetings that alternated from the east to the west sides of the County.  Chair Scovell then suggested the VOTRAN facility.  Mr. McClelland also cited similar personal experience with the Indian Lake Road facility, stated VOTRAN would be a better location and agreed with the east-west meeting alternation.  Ms. Northey stated the Training Rooms were fine for west side meetings and VOTRAN was fine for east side meetings.  Dr. Bailey mentioned the possibility of Daytona Beach Community College and noted that Daytona Beach International Airport charged for parking.  Ms. Drago felt that if the monthly meetings were scheduled far enough in advance to reserve the locations on both sides of the County, it would indicate the Commission was trying to be as available as possible to the public. 

Member Reaves asked for clarification on the number of unexcused absences that would be allowed.  After some discussion among the Commission members, Chair Scovell called for a motion and Ms. Northey moved that three unexcused absences replace the two absences currently stated in the Policy on Attendance in the Rules.  Mr. Storch seconded the motion, which carried 13-1, with one member dissenting.  Ms. Drago wished to clarify for the record that absences at the Listening Sessions did not count toward the allowable total and was told by Chair Scovell that was correct.

Mr. McClelland stated that in Rule 9, Quorum, the second sentence should read, “A majority of study committee members or other committees’ members shall constitute a quorum.”  Chair Scovell suggested, “A majority of members of study committees or other committees shall constitute a quorum.” as a simpler rewording.  Dr. Bailey noted that the language stemmed from previous Charter Review Commissions that had called in technical advisory personnel.  Chair Scovell stated that such advisory persons were not voting members of the committees, adding that a quorum would be a majority of members of the currently seated Charter Review Commission who were on the various committees, and asked that the record reflect same. 

Mr. Matousek stated that Rule 2, Item 4, “The exact way the presenter would like the Charter article rewritten.” might need language added to include additions or deletions to the Charter article, adding that it was a matter of semantics.  Chair Scovell felt that rewriting would include both crossing out or adding to language.  He then called for a vote on Dr. Bailey’s motion, which passed unanimously. 

DISCUSSION OF MEETING DATES
Chair Scovell noted that a tentative schedule of regular monthly Commission meetings and locations had been drawn up which called for the meetings to convene on the first Tuesday of the month, and, beginning in October, to alternate between the VOTRAN facility in South Daytona and the Kelly Administrative Center’s Training Rooms in DeLand.  It was determined that the second and fourth Mondays of the month were the only nights with no government commission meetings and after some discussion, Mr. McClelland moved to set the Charter Review Commission monthly meetings for the second Monday of the month at 5:30 p.m.  Mr. Davenport seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

DISCUSSION OF SUBCOMMITTEES
Chair Scovell stated that issues brought up at the Listening Sessions had been broken down into the general areas of Government Structure, Intergovernmental Relationships, and Growth Management, and asked the Commission members for input on anything else they would like to consider.  Dr. Bailey noted that one of the tasks of the Commission was to review County Ordinances.  Discussion regarding both Charter review and Ordinance review ensued among the Commission members.  Several members expressed concern over the Commission’s ability to review both the entire Charter and all County Ordinances by August 2006, when its final recommendations had to be presented to the County Council.  Member Gunter noted that in Section 1303 of the County Charter, the Commission was specifically charged with reviewing both the Charter and Ordinances of the County.  He suggested that during the Review process, the Commission go over the list of Ordinances and pick out which ones needed discussion and recommendations made on them.   *He also wished to emphasize that the Commission go over the entire Charter.  There was no specific requirement set so far in the Rules of Procedure that the Commission do so.  He thought it essential that the Commission should not simply pick specific items which it thought important for possible amendment recommendation to the County Council, but that it review the entire Charter.*  Mr. Storch agreed, stating that there could be specific ordinances directly related to Commission-recommended Charter changes that would need to be addressed.  Discussion then followed regarding the three general subcommittees that had been identified.  Mr. Matousek felt the Government Structure subcommittee could stand alone and asked about the possibility of combining the other two.  Chair Scovell felt both Intergovernmental Relationships and Growth Management would both have a very large scope.  He added that perhaps in the Growth Management area the Commission should operate as a “committee of the whole” with certain areas assigned to subcommittees of that body, and urged the Commission members to read the Volusia Smart Growth Implementation Committee’s final report.

Dr. Bailey said that one of the issues that arose during one of the Listening Sessions was the intergovernmental relationship between the counties and the public school system.  He requested that the Commission ask the County Attorney’s office to research that area because constitutionally there was no direct connection between the two, as the schools operated as districts and the counties operated in a separate fashion.  It was his understanding that there had been some court cases that defined that relationship, and if it were possible to engineer through the Charter a closer liaison between county government and the school system, he felt that would be one of the areas that the Intergovernmental Relationships committee would want to study.  Mr. Eckert stated that his office would supply whatever the Commission needed.  Ms. Drago felt that while the Smart Growth report was important, it was also important to remember the Commission’s main objective was review of the Charter and the Smart Growth report was one of the elements to be taken into consideration as that process was carried out.  She also said that, regarding Intergovernmental Relationships, the idea of the authority between the County and the cities had recurred during the Listening Sessions and might need to be examined.

Mr. Benedict felt the areas of storm water, Volusia Growth Management Commission, the beach, ambulatory transportation, eminent domain and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) concerns might need study.  Ms. Northey felt the subject of urban service areas was more of a Growth Management issue than an Intergovernmental Relationships one.  Mr. McClelland felt that water would cover a broad range of subcommittee discussions, that ADA concerns might need specific scrutiny and should fall under Structure of Government and agreed with Ms. Northey about the placement of urban service areas.  He added that the Charter Review Commission had the responsibility and obligation to try to remove politics from the issues it would be discussing.

Chair Scovell advised the members that, based on their discussion, a revised list of subcommittees would be sent to them.  He asked them to contact Ms. Holness with their choices in order of preference.  Mr. Reaves asked that the list identify the items the subcommittees would be covering.  Chair Scovell noted that the assignment of items to the subcommittees did not necessarily mean that something would come out of the work of the subcommittees and be placed on the ballot, because the entire Commission had to approve the items recommended for the ballot.  He added that discussions on all the topics would be refined down to those items that fell under the Commission’s purview within the Charter and under State law. 

Dr. Bailey noted that most of the items on the list of proposed subcommittees connected in some way with Growth Management, Intergovernmental Relationships and Government Structure, adding that coordination and communication among the subcommittees would be critical to the Commission’s success.  Chair Scovell agreed, and urged the Commission members to contact Ms. Holness as quickly as possible with their subcommittee preferences.  Dr. Bailey suggested that Chair Scovell ask the editorial management of the two daily newspapers to give high priority to the Charter Review Process and perhaps assign reporters to follow the workings of the Commission as well as the subcommittees.  Chair Scovell agreed to do so and emphasized the importance of the Commission members reading the Smart Growth report and the Volusia County Council’s Fiscal Year 2005 Goals report.

Mr. Matousek asked Chair Scovell to clarify that consensus had been reached that the Growth Management subcommittee would be treated as a “committee of the whole” and that all Commission members would serve on it.  Chair Scovell replied that he had suggested it and there had been no objection, adding that there would be subcommittees of that group.  Discussion then took place about having members of the community participate in the subcommittee meetings.  Chair Scovell stated there was no limit to citizens’ involvement in the subcommittee meetings and added he expected each subcommittee to bring in outside resource persons in an advisory capacity.

Ms. Drago stated that Clay Henderson had asked to be placed on a Commission meeting agenda in order to present recommendations from the Smart Growth Implementation Committee, and asked when that might take place.  Chair Scovell replied it would take place at the next regular Commission meeting on October 10th.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REMARKS
Chair Scovell called on Leigh Matusick.  She felt two issues were critical.  The first was school concurrency, especially in the area of overcrowding.  She stated that Palm Beach and Orange Counties had already set policy in place to deal with the issue and urged the Commission to take steps to do the same for Volusia County as soon as possible.

Her second topic was municipal service districts (unincorporated county).  She stated that the cities’ standards were different from the County’s standards.  She felt if County property near a city was to be developed there should be some type of overlay process whereby the County would have to examine existing city ordinances governing land use regulation.

After some general discussion by Commission members on the two topics, the meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.

* Revision to minutes.

back to charter review main page

back to county council

Comments or questions?
E-mail the