Charter Review Commission  Minutes
Dec. 12, 2005

CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Charter Review Commission Chair William Scovell convened the meeting at 5:40 p.m.  in the Training Rooms of the Thomas C. Kelly Administration Center, 123 W. Indiana Ave, DeLand, Florida.  The following members were present:  Chair Scovell, T. Wayne Bailey, Joseph Benedict, Clarence Davenport, Patricia Drago, P. T. Fleuchaus, Alex Ford, Richard Gunter, Peter Heebner, Charles Matousek, Tom McClelland, Patricia Northey, Ezell Reaves and Glenn Storch.  Vice-Chair John Graham was an excused absence.  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 31 members of the public. 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The first order of business was approval of the minutes of the regular Commission Meeting of November 14^th.  Dr. Bailey moved approval of all the minutes and Mr. Davenport seconded the motion. 

PANEL DISCUSSION BY CITIES ON SMART GROWTH

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CHARTER REVIEW ISSUES
Mayor Bob Apgar of DeLand spoke first.  He stated the previous week the DeLand City Commission formally endorsed the Smart Growth Initiative Final Report with some recommendations, which he outlined:  1.) Before its adoption, Map B needed to be reviewed by neighboring jurisdictions to reach agreement on its existing and proposed land uses.  2.) Since the report suggested there should be a primary service provider for water and sewer and an area so designated, the City felt when the service provider was a municipality the designated district ought to also be the starting point for the municipality’s annexation area.  3.) Since several municipalities already had approved water and sewer service area agreements, either with the County as DeLand did or through State Statute assignment, those agreements should designate each city’s primary service area and also be the origin for proposed implementation of the report. The City did not feel the report recognized those agreements.  4.) The Implementation Committee, as the decision-making body, should be expanded and have requirements of geographic representation, citizen involvement and rotation of members.  5.) The report stated in the case of annexation within the “areas of influence” there would be an agreement on land use between the two jurisdictions involved.  Otherwise, County land use would prevail.  The City’s concern was if the densities and intensities of use would be sufficient to support urbanized development, especially in a rural area situated within an urban service area.

Discussion followed among the Charter Review Commission members, Mayor Apgar and Mayor Fred Costello of Ormond Beach regarding aspects of Mayor Apgar’s presentation.  Mayor Costello’s recollection was that anything outside the existing city limits that fell within the future “areas of influence” or potential future annexation areas would need the approval of both parties so the city involved could not infringe on County residents’ rights or vice-versa.  He added that if it made good sense from the land use point of view then all parties involved would want to do that, because the Smart Growth idea was to get away from the idea of annexation.  Mayor Apgar replied that the point he was trying to make was in determining the decision-making process in both land uses, if it were agreed one was to be in an urbanized area there needed to be at least the presumption of an urbanized land use.

Mr. Storch was concerned that a double process (County and city) could increase the barrier to good planning and growth.  More discussion followed regarding zoning classifications and compatible land uses with adjoining neighbors’ zonings and their existing land uses.

Mr. McClelland asked about annexation creating greater densities and thereby adding to sprawl as opposed to the development of cluster communities, as favored in the report.  Mayor Apgar used the Greater DeLand Act, a special act of the legislature some 30 years back, as an example.  It defined an area reserved to become part of DeLand.  He added although many people felt at the time the city would never expand that far, it had done just that.  He felt if the boundaries and service areas were set from the beginning with the long-term goal of “growing smart”, hopefully one would be able to look back in 20 years and say the goal had been reached.

More discussion followed about guidelines for responsible growth, high density and sprawl.  Mayor Apgar noted that the concept of bringing higher densities to DeLand, Orange City, Ormond Beach and possibly other cities did not correspond with the existing character of those communities.  Mayor Costello reminded everyone the concepts were to deal with land use, not jurisdiction.  He felt the hardest hurdle to overcome was to convince the cities to accept the transfer of density into the cities in order to preserve the rural core.

Mr. McClelland stated it was important not to overlook the issue of the property owner who wanted to develop his or her property and how to allow that while preserving the rural core, corridors and so forth.  Another point that needed addressing was that of where the money would come from to purchase properties so preservation could take place.  Mr. Storch replied that creating incentives for property owners to cluster their properties and literally donate large sections of green area to encourage rural community expansion was one of the key elements of Smart Growth.

Chair Scovell said he had recently seen a map of Orlando and felt it was a disaster, with little bits, pieces and fingers of unincorporated parcels scattered throughout the city.  He said he was in favor of compact growth and did not want to see the same in Volusia County.  Mayor Costello stated it would take the County and whatever city was involved to agree to change the land use.  For example, if a city wanted to undertake a development project some miles outside its border, even though it was in the city’s service area and future annexation area the County could refuse to agree until the city had developed parcels closer in, which would make for compact development.  If the city did not agree the matter would be turned over to the Growth Management Commission for resolution.

Mr. Storch said Volusia County was different from Orlando in that it had two urban centers, the east side and the west side, which meant there was no single area in which to centralize growth.  Also, if the idea was to encourage the large landowners in the center of the County to cluster, it would create green areas between the centralized core and the cluster areas.  He added the whole concept was to create such green areas between the clusters.  Everything would not be centralized to a single urban area; there would be towns, hamlets and villages with green areas in between them as opposed to ranchettes and subdivisions, which was the sprawl Smart Growth was trying to avoid.  He said centralization of water and sewer in the cluster areas as opposed to having a series of single-family septic tanks and wells would also be desirable.

Ms. Drago wanted to make sure she understood that even though development might be out in the County, a higher density might end up being put into place in the form of incremental development in order to make the project economically feasible.  Mayor Apgar agreed that was one of his points.

Mary Swiderski, Director of Volusia Council of Governments (VCOG), spoke on behalf of Mayor Greg Northrup of Daytona Beach Shores to say the city had passed a Resolution endorsing the Smart Growth Implementation Committee Report.

Mr. McClelland asked how the proposed development west of I-95 and south of S.R. 442, about 4 miles west of the developed area of Edgewater, fit in with the concept of Smart Growth.  Mr. Storch replied the parcel, through annexation, had been in the city of Edgewater for about 10 years and did have water and sewer in place.  He added one of the reasons that parcel was looked on favorably by the County as opposed to the Leffler piece was because of the existing water and sewer availability.

After some further discussion regarding municipal annexation boundaries, rural land stewardship, transfer of development rights and urban services areas, Mayor Ted Erwin of Orange City spoke.  He said within the next 10 years the population of Volusia County would be over 700,000 people and it was important to keep in mind how to handle a population that large.  He stated although the Orange City Council had endorsed the Smart Growth Report, it had also identified two main areas where there would be problems connected with urban population influx, density and infrastructure.  He said Orange City had been fortunate over the last 10-12 years in that most of its growth was of a commercial type and residential growth had picked up only within the last four to five years.  He felt the city currently had approximately 11,000 residents.  Staff felt the city would probably end up with about 16,000 residents before it was built out.  Mayor Erwin said the city did have a designated growth area, would be planning to annex 600 or 700 acres south of S.R. 472 and had reached an agreement with the County for water services for the locale.  He added that was the extent to which the City wished to expand.  He also felt if densities increased and growth was directed to the urban areas, the city would need support in acquiring the infrastructure necessary to support that growth; it should not be solely the city’s burden to provide such infrastructure.

Concerning other issues, Mayor Erwin spoke of the necessity for school, transportation and water concurrency, all of which were discussed in the Smart Growth Report.  He also felt another of the things that would be necessary was going to more mixed use in land designations in order to get the most out of the land still available for development.  As far as replacing the Growth Management Commission with a “resolution committee” was concerned, he felt the seated Commission should not be dismantled, but redirected and restructured.  He also felt the make-up of the proposed new committee (three elected officials from the County, three elected officials from among the cities and one elected School Board member) could easily end up with serious conflict of interest issues and the committee should be expanded to nine members rather than seven, with two members from the general public added.

Discussion of Mayor Erwin’s remarks followed, largely concerning the funding source for assisting the cities with infrastructure, especially road maintenance, which would be needed due to expanded growth.  Planning ahead for concurrency needs and enhancing the quality of life were also discussed.

City Manager Ken Parker of Port Orange then spoke about the Growth Management Commission (GMC).  He believed it could be a workable entity.  He had attended a meeting of the last Charter Review Commission when the creation of the GMC was discussed, and he felt the original framers of the GMC had envisioned it as a citizen-appointed committee.  Over time the “professionalization” of the group became evident (professional planners and so forth which represented various entities.  He added the members sometimes began to see themselves as representing a political entity rather than the County as a whole.  He felt the GMC did need to be examined and restructured but that it had been a viable, working group within Volusia County.  He also thought the Charter Review Commission should study exactly what the GMC was and was not charged with.

He also thought there might be a challenge with the Smart Growth Initiative in that citizens had “bought into” one concept, that of large lots in single-family subdivisions, and now the speculation was about changing that concept.  He stated the citizens did not want to live in high-density types of neighborhoods, or possibly even clustered communities.  Some property owners would feel they had property entitlement rights, and that would need to be addressed as well.

Regarding infrastructure issues, he felt it was often easier to acquire the capital needed to build infrastructure than it was to acquire what was needed to maintain it.  He felt it might be a good idea to look at how the formula for the gas tax was put together and the funds distributed.   He also felt there might be a way, for those cities charging impact fees, to allow those fees to be transferred into the community to offset some of the capital costs of increasing densities.  He felt the Fair Share Agreement concept needed to be looked at to ensure that growth did pay its own way.  He stated that water and sewer issues as well as transportation issues always received a great deal of attention when infrastructure came up, but the impact on the infrastructure of parks and open spaces was important as well.  He noted that people living in rural areas would come into urban areas to use park lands, but the reverse did not hold true.  He added the Smart Growth Initiative needed to look at that.

Upon a question from Ms. Drago regarding some of the cities’ redevelopment efforts in order to support existing infrastructure, Mr. Parker replied that Daytona Beach was the only city in the County that had been able to obtain a “traffic exceptions area” permit from the State, which was a key to obtaining higher density allowances in various areas of the cities.  He added that the permit was very difficult to acquire and several other cities were in the process of applying for it as well.

Mayor Fred Costello of Ormond Beach then summed up his main Smart Growth points:  1.) only the future could be taken care of; land uses in the past could not be changed; 2.) the issue was land use not jurisdiction; 3.) concurrency was foremost; 4.) protection of private property rights was important; 5.) intergovernmental cooperation and negotiation was crucial; 6.) the existing GMC’s restructuring was necessary; 7.) redistribution of the gas tax and impact fees needed to be looked at; 8.) determination of service providers was necessary; and 9.) pursue the concept of Smart Growth paying for itself.

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
Charles Matousek, Vice-Chair of the Subcommittee on Structure of Government, said at his group’s last meeting County Chair Frank Bruno and County Manager Cindy Coto had been guest speakers, and he gave a summary of their remarks, most of which had to do with the position of Chair needing changing.

Tom McClelland, Chair of the Subcommittee on Infrastructure Needs, said the topic of his Subcommittee’s last meeting was water.  Guests were Ken Parker, City Manager Mike Abels of DeLand, and Mary Anne Connors and Gloria Marley from the County.  He gave an overview of the discussion, which concerned various problems with the Water Authority of Volusia (WAV).

Joe Benedict, Chair of the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, said his Subcommittee had not met since his last report.

Alex Ford, Chair of the Subcommittee on Protecting the Environmental Core, said his Subcommittee had been discussing the Beach and hoped to soon have a recommendation to bring back to the Commission.  He added that at the last meeting Volusia County Land Acquisition and Management Director Doug Weaver spoke about the expense of providing off-beach parking.

Pat Drago, Chair of the Subcommittee on Integrating Economic Development and Education, stated Volusia County Economic Development Director Rick Michael and retired DeLand City Manager (and current Community Development consultant for the City) Wayne Sanborn spoke at her group’s last meeting.  Mr. Michael spoke about strides made in the economic development area and about pressure in the marketplace.  Mr. Sanborn also spoke of marketplace pressures.  Their January guest would be a representative from Hank Fishkind’s office, speaking on the Fiscal Impact Analysis Model.

Glenn Storch, Vice-Chair of the Subcommittee on Ordinance Review and Management Recommendations, stated his group also had Ms. Coto as a guest speaker.  She addressed the budget process, the rise in tax revenues and the Save Our Homes issue.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Joe Stich spoke against the Smart Growth concept and bureaucracy.  He felt the size of government needed to be limited

Suzanne Steiner, a member of the GMC, spoke of some areas the Charter Review Commission could address pertaining to her organization:  1.) get the community involved in the GMC process; 2.) advertise the GMC’s meetings; 3.) the city planning board members on the GMC presented a conflict of interest; 4.) weighted voting was a bad concept; 5.) study changing the rule that if a member were absent, his or her vote on any issue was considered a “no”.  She felt the GMC could be effective, but needed more power.  It had become too professionalized and needed more everyday citizens from the community involved in its process. 

DISCUSSION BY COMMISSION OF MATTERS NOT ON AGENDA
Mr. Matousek brought up the list of the Citizen Survey Questions which the Charter Review Commission members had submitted.  Discussion as to formal approval of the list followed.  Mr. Ford made a motion that the members wishing to submit the questions to Community Information for finalizing be allowed to do so on an individual basis, but that it not be promoted as something from the Charter Review Commission itself.  Mr. McClelland seconded the motion. After some other discussion, the motion passed 12-2, with Ms. Drago and Ms. Northey dissenting.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for discussion, the meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.

back to charter review main page

back to county council

Comments or questions?
E-mail the