Charter Review Commission  Minutes
Oct. 10, 2005

CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Charter Review Commission Chair William Scovell called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. at Daytona Beach Community College, Bldg. 110, Room 112, Daytona Beach, Florida.  The following members were present:  Chair Scovell, T. Wayne Bailey, Joseph Benedict, Clarence Davenport, Patricia Drago, Richard Gunter, Peter Heebner, Tom McClelland, Patricia Northey, Ezell Reaves, P.T. Fleuchaus and Glenn Storch.  Vice-Chair John Graham and Members Alex Ford and Charles Matousek were excused absences.  Also present were County Attorney Dan Eckert, Assistant to the County Manager Betty Holness, Staff Photographer Jeff Crumbley, Administrative Aide Camilla Grasso, members of the press and approximately 45 members of the public.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The first order of business was approval of the minutes of the Listening Session of August 31, the regular Commission Meeting of September 6, and the Executive Committee Meeting of September 26.  Dr. Bailey moved approval of all the minutes and Mr. Davenport seconded the motion.  Mr. Gunter had an addition to the minutes of September 6, page 3, under Discussion of Subcommittees, where he was quoted as saying the Commission should go over the list of Ordinances.  He stated that section was correct as far as it went, but was only part of his discussion.  Mr. Gunter wanted to emphasize that the Charter Commission should go over the entire Charter, and this task should not given as a subcommittee responsibility.  He thought it was essential that the Commission should not pick specific items which it thought important for possible amendment recommendation to the County Council, but that it was important to review the entire Charter.  The motion for approval with Mr. Gunter’s amendments carried unanimously.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SMART GROWTH IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE’S FINAL REPORT:
Chair Scovell then moved to the next order of business, recommendations from the Smart Growth Implementation Committee (SGIC).  He called on Clay Henderson, a member of the Committee.  Mr. Henderson introduced Rafael Montalvo, a facilitator for the SGIC’s process, who gave some background information.  He stated the Committee’s work had followed a year of Smart Growth Summits organized by the Volusia County Association for Responsible Development (VCARD), with support from a broad range of interested parties throughout the County.   Those summits, held from 2003-2004, explored a range of concepts and their applicability to Volusia County.  By the end of the summit sessions, there was extensive support for more specific discussion of how to relate those ideas directly to Volusia County, and the SGIC was formed for that purpose.  It was jointly sponsored by the County, the cities, the School Board, VCARD, homebuilders, landowners and many other entities which were deeply interested in implementing the Smart Growth concept in Volusia County.  The SGIC met from 2004-2005 and also formed subcommittees to look more closely into details.  The overall goal was to seek a strong consensus and support, and it was felt the effort was a great success.    

Mr. Montalvo turned the floor over to Mr. Henderson for the substance of the recommendations.  He stated the whole Smart Growth process had been about reaching consensus on a wide range of issues.  Mr. Henderson’s distributed copies of his PowerPoint presentation which is available online at www:volusia.org/countycouncil/charter.  He stated the Smart Growth basic principle was the concept of outcomes as opposed to process, especially in such areas as sprawl, environmental protection, compact and walkable cities and economy.  Whereas Growth Management focused on stacking process upon process, Smart Growth focused on outcomes, such as vision, incentives and future community design, all of which made up a better approach to growth, he said.

Mr. Henderson spoke of the Florida State Legislature’s passage of Senate Bill 360 (SB 360), which changed the approach to Growth Management and imposed additional duties on the cities, but also granted rewards to communities that adopted vision and service areas, and worked with the School District to implement concurrency.  More decisions could then be made at a local level and there would be less control at the State level by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). 

Mr. Henderson added that there were a number of Smart Growth key recommendations, beginning with Environmental Core Protection, which he stated was a fundamental Charter issue.  Two maps were developed as part of the recommendations on this issue.  The first, Map A, depicted the environmental core to be protected and it should be adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Heightening environmental standards and freezing densities as part of the protection plan were areas that fell under the Charter.

Mr. Henderson stated the second part of the plan was working with the cities to direct development to the proper areas. He introduced Mayor Fred Costello of Ormond Beach to deliver this segment of the presentation.  Mayor Costello stated he wished to stress the phrase “land use, not jurisdiction” just as Mr. Henderson had stressed “outcome, not process.”  He showed a slide of Map B, which depicted sensitive areas which could potentially be served by Urban Service Areas.  In short, he said that land on Map A needed to be saved, and some land on Map B could possibly be saved.   Map B would be divided into primary and secondary districts.  Land marked primarily for development would be in the Primary Service Area and land meant secondarily for development would be in the Secondary Service Area.  He said his group wanted the Charter to dictate, in the case of land annexed by a governmental jurisdiction, that the land use would survive the annexation.  He added that not only did the Committee want each parcel of land in either a Primary or Secondary Service Area but also to have only one Service Provider.  The Committee was also recommending that the Volusia Council of Governments (VCOG) be named the facilitator for this process, with no decision-making power.

Mayor Costello spoke on the Keystone Recommendations for the Charter: VCOG as the facilitating body; densities frozen within Map A lands; establishment of Primary and Secondary Service Areas and Providers; joint visions for areas of influence and the reconstitution of the Volusia Growth Management Commission (VGMC) as a decision-making body made up of three County Council members acceptable to VCOG, three VCOG members acceptable to the County Council and one member from the School Board.

Mr. Henderson went through the points of the Smart Growth Toolbox slide.  He stressed the importance of the continued existence of rural lands and agriculture as well as the concept of integrating Smart Growth with the education process, and introduced Candace Lankford, Chair of the School Board.  She spoke about how much work had gone into building a consensus and recapped some of the actions that had helped to bring it about:  passage of the School District Impact Fee Ordinance by the County Council; passage of Policy 613 by the School Board, whereby the cities would understand the impact of development on area schools and passage of Senate Bill 360, which made school districts part of county infrastructure for the first time.  She spoke of proportional share mitigation and also emphasized the cumulative effect of smaller developments.

Mr. Henderson gave the example of Palm Beach County, Florida, which in 2004 defined an area it wanted to protect, called the “unincorporated protection area”, and amended its Charter to stipulate that a supermajority vote of the County Commission would be necessary for any voluntary annexation within that area.  He then reviewed the SGIC’s three main Charter recommendations: freezing densities within Map A lands; establishing Primary and Secondary Service Areas and Providers, as well as Joint Visions and Areas of Influence and changing the structure of the VCMG to be made of elected officials from the County, Cities and School Board, serving as a binding arbitrator regarding items from the two foregoing Recommendations.

GENERAL DISCUSSION
Mr. Gunter asked about the thinking behind the SGIC wanting to have the VCMG set up as recommended instead of having the County Council act in that capacity.  Mr. Henderson replied it was to achieve a collaborative effort, even forcing cooperation, if necessary.  Mayor Costello added that when all jurisdictions were involved, good land use decisions would result.  Upon another question from Mr. Gunter, Mr. Henderson explained that the service to the Primary and Secondary Service Areas would mainly be water and sewer in nature, as they were key issues in managed growth.

Ms. Northey expressed concern that the members of the restructured VCMG would continually and unconditionally approve each other’s proposals, as had been done in the past.  Mayor Costello replied that since the three city representatives and three County Council members would have to be acceptable to each other, he did not foresee that happening.  Discussion ensued about the possibility of weighted voting and the VCOG members on the VCMG being able to veto any number of County Council members. Dr. Bailey stated that, if the Commission decided to pursue the VCMG recommendation, very clear language would need to be put into the amendment to resolve the issue.   Mr. McClelland remarked that the current environmental protection section of the Charter had only been invoked once since its incorporation into that document. He wondered if future County Council members would be able to do so again, especially in light of the pressure that would be put on them by builders, landowners, developers and others.  Mr. Henderson felt there would be a public groundswell for the necessary protective action to be taken.

Mr. Heebner asked about Maps A and B being incorporated into some type of land use enactment, and Mr. Henderson stated it was the SGIC’s recommendation that the concept would become part of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.  Mr. Heebner also noted that the current VCMG had a weighted vote capability and questioned its benefit.  Mayor Costello stated that the proposed VCMG would not have that power.

Discussion followed concerning the Primary and Secondary Service Areas and Maps A and B.  Mayor Costello said the SGIC’s vision was that Map A would be in the Charter, but the areas of influence and Primary and Secondary Service Areas would not be in the Charter.  They would be agreed upon among the County and the municipalities, which was when VCOG would facilitate the negotiations, which could be protracted.  If no consensus could be reached among the governmental bodies, the matter would then be referred to the reconstituted VCMG as the final decision-making body.

Mr. Storch felt the overall concepts that the SGIC was recommending needed to be looked at, such as what the vision was for Volusia County in 20 years.  He added that, to a large extent, the vision was to try to preserve huge areas of green space at the present time.  Therefore, a great deal of what Smart Growth was doing was creating incentives to do the right thing, i.e., incentives to cluster, have large green spaces next to roadways and have habitat corridors that would connect throughout the entire County.  Mayor Costello stated he felt the biggest argument would come from the cities, which would have increased densities because the Smart Growth concepts were aimed at directing development to the urban areas and away from the rural core.

Ms. Drago asked for clarification concerning recommending a Charter amendment to protect lands in Map A and direct development elsewhere vs. the time frame involved in the development and adoption of Map A by the County Council.  She was concerned about having a Charter amendment before the public in November, 2006 with a map yet to be decided.  Mr. Henderson stated that if the County defined an area in some special way, the Charter Review Commission could reference that in the Charter.  He felt the map would ultimately be approved by the County Council.  

Mr. Heebner felt the new VGMC would need to be in place first so there would be an arbitrator in case of contention between the County and a city over the city’s designated area of influence.

Dr. Bailey noted that one of the early principles of the Charter Review Commission was its decision not to try to resolve public policy issues but to create a framework where they could be resolved.  He felt the Charter Review Commission would be better suited to creating the process by which land use maps could be added to the Charter.  As clarification, Mr. Henderson stated the recommendation was not to put the map in the Charter, but to give the County Council the authority to adopt a map into the Charter that would survive annexation, thereby being a process that focused on an outcome.  Mr. Storch added that course of action had been done previously when the Minimum Environmental Standards were adopted by the County and the cities followed suit, a process which resulted in an outcome.

Some discussion ensued regarding the time frame in question for the ballot in November, 2006.  Dr. Bailey asked Mayor Costello if there were some recommendation the Commission could make to the County and cities while it considered the series of proposals in question.  Mayor Costello felt that once the Commission indicated it was interested in pursuing some sort of Smart Growth enabling legislation, it should inform the County Council that it would not finish with the process until November, 2006 and encourage the Council to take certain steps in the interim.  In the meantime, he and other mayors would address all the members of VCOG and strongly urge them to voluntarily adopt the same action before the November election.

Dr. Bailey remarked on the importance of the Smart Growth effort and asked if a motion summarizing Mayor Costello’s standpoint should be made. Ms. Lankford pledged countywide support from the School Board.  Chair Scovell requested Dr. Bailey withdraw his suggestion until the Subcommittees had some meetings and give at least 30 days for the Commission to consider the issues.  Dr. Bailey agreed to do so but cautioned that the County was in the middle of a “growth bubble” and the Committee should be able to come up with something to give the County Council before its November 10^th Smart Growth Workshop.  Chair Scovell felt that might be a little hasty without further consideration.  Mr. McClelland noted the next full Commission meeting was November 14^th, after the County Council Workshop, and suggested a special Commission meeting be called prior to the first of November for the sole purpose of discussing the SGIC’s proposal.

Mr. Heebner and Mr. Storch felt the impact of the Commission announcing its intentions needed to be considered, especially in terms of sudden activity towards annexation because of potential land use restrictions and reductions.  Mr. Storch added the whole concept of the Smart Growth initiative was to develop consensus among all parties and the last time Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) issues were addressed, it caused a “land rush” of annexations, exactly opposite of what was intended.

Dr. Fleuchaus also felt the issues needed more study and taking action at that particular time was premature.   Dr. Bailey clarified that he was not proposing that the Commission approve the SGIC’s proposals at that time, but was suggesting the County Council be made aware the Commission was in the process of studying these recommendations.

Mr. Henderson stated the SGIC was not asking the Charter Review Commission to take any action at that time.  He noted the first step would be to determine what County staff would be recommending to the County Council in terms of what the matrix would be—what staff thought it could accomplish, what the cities would have to do, and to identify the Charter issues.

Dr. Bailey asked Chair Scovell to meet with County Chair Bruno and share information related to this discussion and the issues addressed.  Chair Scovell replied that he would be attending the County Council’s Smart Growth Workshop on November 10^th and would give a synopsis of the day’s proceedings.

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
Mr. Storch, Vice-Chair of the Ordinance Review and Management Recommendations Subcommittee, stated his group was studying a number of issues. They were: 1) the County Budget/Planning Process; 2) ordinances related to growth—environmental, water and storm water, infrastructure, etc.; 3) ordinances relating to special taxing districts; and  4) election of Council members and elected department heads, with exploration of the possibility of an election style which would eliminate run-off elections and the VGMC’s consistency certification rules.  He noted the last item could become void in the event the structure of that body changed.

Mr. McClelland, Chair of the Meeting the Infrastructure Needs of Smart Growth Subcommittee said the primary issue his group was addressing was water.  He added that they had invited the Bruce Mowry, Director of the Water Authority of Volusia (WAV) and Ann Moore from the St. Johns River Water Management District to their next subcommittee meeting. Later, they would be inviting City Managers and/or City and County utilities directors to discuss issues such as the Primary and Secondary Service Areas.  He noted that Mr. Davenport had been elected Vice-Chair of the subcommittee, and stated the second issue his subcommittee would address was the roads and their related aspects, such as bike paths, sidewalks, and biking and hiking trails.  Time permitting, his group plans to study schools, parks and recreation as a part of infrastructure.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Chair Scovell called on Eric West, who had two issues to discuss. The first issue related to annexation.  He suggested the Charter be amended to read no annexation, voluntary or otherwise, could take place unless it was absolutely necessary for a city to expand and the city wishing to annex could prove it already had the necessary infrastructure in place to support that course of action.

His second issue related to the SGIC’s recommendation to have VCOG as the arbitrator in disputes between the County and Cities over land use.  He did not think elected officials should be in such a position, and felt such a body should be made up of various members of the public (business, environmental communities, etc.), or the decision should be made by a vote of the people living in the area involved.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for discussion, the meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.

back to charter review main page

back to county council

Comments or questions?
E-mail the