Charter Review Commission  Minutes
May 8, 2006

Handouts
Proposed amendments to the Volusia County Charter.
March 1, 2006
April 10, 2006
Aidan Magee
Volusia Flagler Environmental Action Committee, Inc.
The Smart Growth Fraud

These documents are in Adobe pdf format . You will need the Acrobat reader to view them. If you do not have the Acrobat reader, you may download one here for free.

CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL
Charter Review Commission Chair William Scovell convened the meeting at 5:33 p.m. in the Training Rooms of the Thomas C. Kelly Administration Center at 123 West Indiana Avenue, DeLand Florida. The following members were present: Chair William Scovell, T. Wayne Bailey, Joseph Benedict, Patricia Drago, Dr. Bud Fleuchaus, Alex Ford, Richard Gunter, Pete Heebner, Charles Matousek, Tom McClelland, Patricia Northey and Clarence Davenport. Glenn Storch and Vice-Chair John Graham were unable to attend. Also present were Dan Eckert, County Attorney, Betty Holness, Assistant to the County Manager, and Phillip Laurien, Executive Director of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council. There were approximately 15 members of the public present.

APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 13, 2006 MEETING MINUTES
Dr. Bailey made a motion to approve the minutes from the Charter Review Commission meeting of March 13, 2006. Dr. Fleuchaus seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

APPROVAL OF APRIL 10, 2006 MEETING MINUTES
Mr. McClelland made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 10, 2006 Charter Review Commission meeting. Mr. Davenport seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

DISCUSSION OF SMART GROWTH TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGNS
Mr. Scovell invited Mr. Phil Laurien, Executive Director of East Central Florida Regional Planning Council to begin his presentation. Mr. Laurien’s presentation compared the development of traditional neighborhoods to those in various parts of the southeast region. In explaining the history of traditional neighborhood development, Mr. Laurien stated that there are two basic concepts. One is urban design, which is the original basis of neighborhood design, and the other is rural design, which is based around conservation and subdivisions.

Mr. Laurien stated the central point in creating traditional neighborhood designs was to have a mixture of uses within walking distance of each other in compact neighborhoods. Mr. Laurien said that the distinguishing characteristics of traditional urban neighborhood designs are formal. They have a dense core, mixed uses and strict guidelines for architectural and material use, plus common open spaces.

Mr. Laurien said that the oldest cities in Florida were St. Augustine, and Pensacola, which are both traditional urban neighborhood designs. This is because they were grids with a formal design and public buildings around a square.

Mr. Laurien discussed the history of design in neighborhood subdivisions. He said that the architectural design of subdivisions were the first real break away from the grid model of design. The designs of the original subdivisions were linear streets with a curve that was situated around a flood plain.

Mr. Laurien said the one common characteristic between the urban neighborhood design and the design of subdivisions is that both have large open spaces around them. He noted that there are also conservation subdivisions in which Volusia County could still attract low-density populations while still maintaining open spaces by building compact designs. This is a technique of smart growth.

Mr. Laurien said the key attributes of traditional neighborhood design are the following:

• Formal design
• Rich architectural detail
• Dense core
• Mixed uses
• Strict architectural guidelines          
• Grid streets

Mr. Laurien stated that the designers and architects Volusia County has chosen to build new neighborhoods will build two types: Low density conservation style neighborhoods that are beneficial to agriculture, or subdivision style, which is seen in suburban areas and has the characteristics of being high density and suitable for transportation use.

Mr. Laurien discussed various communities throughout the southeast region beginning with Celebration, Florida. According to Mr. Laurien, the community of Celebration is not a traditional neighborhood design. This is because Celebration does not have adequate sidewalks to connect the residents to the surrounding communities.

Mr. Laurien noted that designers and architects now are using older traditional techniques in the development of neighborhoods. These  include:

• Street trees
• Sidewalks
• Curbs and gutters
• Wrought iron fencing
• Shallow setbacks
• The massing of two-stories
• Front porches

Mr. Laurien stated that designers of both schools of design encounter the problem of imitations of their models, which can lead to confusion over whether the design is authentic.

Mr. Laurien stated that the essential tools used to build traditional neighborhood designs are the following:

• Form based codes using pattern books
• Formal designs for urban areas
• High quality rendering

Mr. Laurien said if a community wants to have high-density areas, it is an issue of local choice. Therefore, the community will have to calibrate a threshold for density and other issues pertaining to the construction of the neighborhood. The community then must deal with the cost and benefits of such construction.

Mr. McClelland asked how Volusia County could apply these principles when dealing with property that has already been developed or when the property has aged substantially and is no longer eligible for development.

Mr. Laurien responded that redevelopment is an area in which Volusia County could remove what is there and refurbish the area by applying these principles. Despite this fact, it would have to be the choice of the community to conduct the redevelopment process.

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
Ordinance Review and Management Recommendations Subcommittee
The Ordinance Review and Management Recommendations Subcommittee report was not given since Chair John Graham and Vice-Chair Glenn Storch were unable to attend. 

INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS and SMART GROWTH SUBCOMMITTEE
Chair Tom McClelland discussed a proposed amendment (see attached) offered by the Infrastructure Needs and Smart Growth Subcommittee. Mr. McClelland said this amendment is under revision. He stated that his subcommittee has been discussing the issue of the half-cent sales tax that would be concurrent with the removal of the five-cent gas tax. 

Mr. McClelland said that based on surveys conducted by staff, the public does not seem to be concerned with roads and transportation issues.  The members of the Charter Review Commission encouraged the Subcommittee to continue its discussion related to the half-cent sales tax. 

In regards to the reenactment of Charter Section 1313, this would reinstate the Water Policy Review Commission. The reenactment of this section would assist in the development of a proposal for a special act of the legislature to create a Water Authority in Volusia County. In addition, it would develop legislative language to address this in a referendum if the County is unsuccessful in obtaining a Special Act.  

Mr. McClelland stated that at the time the Subcommittee was deliberating on these proposals, there were serious concerns that WAV (Water Authority of Volusia) could be potentially eliminated if the master plan had not been approved.  

Mr. McClelland said if WAV were eliminated, the recommendation offered by the subcommittee would supplant WAV. Since the master plan was approved and WAV is still a functioning entity, the Subcommittee will have to deliberate further on this issue and has no recommendations at this time. 

Dr. Bailey encouraged Mr. McClelland and his Subcommittee to go forward and ask the State Legislature for a Special Act. He feels that  the only mechanism that can bring water management within the control of County government is a Special Act. 

Ms. Drago asked if the Subcommittee has taken into account alternative means for generating revenue in regards to the construction of infrastructure due to fiscal constraints. 

Mr. McClelland responded that one of the avenues taken to alleviate this problem was the half-cent sales tax. He said if the County maintains the same distribution formula for the sales tax as it does with the gas tax, it would benefit both the County and the municipalities. 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONSHIPS SUBCOMMITTEE
Chair Joe Benedict stated that the Intergovernmental Relationships Subcommittee is developing possible management recommendations and has nothing to discuss at this time.

STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT
Dr. Wayne Bailey, Chair, stated that the Subcommittee has continued its work on two key issues, which are county redistricting and the reconfiguration of the County Council. He said that the Subcommittee has tentatively agreed on restructuring the County Council to a five-member district system with one At-Large County Chair.

Dr. Bailey said there would need to be more public participation on this issue and the subcommittee will be discussing other issues and offering recommendations, such as an increase in compensation for Council Members and the County Chair.

Mr. Benedict asked if the Subcommittee has considered enhancing the duties of the Chair.

Dr. Bailey stated that the administrative duties of the Chair would not change as stated in the current Charter. The Subcommittee felt that the Chair’s duties should not be in conflict with the non-interference clause in the County Charter.

Dr. Bailey added that the Subcommittee agreed that in the case of a tie, the Chair’s vote would have to be on the prevailing side in order for the motion to pass. This tool would enhance the Chair’s role within the County Council.

Mr. McClelland asked in regards to staff support to the Chair, was the Subcommittee considering providing the Chair with more personnel. He asked if the added staff support would be outside the control of the County Manager.

Dr. Bailey responded that in his opinion, the proposed changes are reaffirming the unitary concept of hiring and firing. Dr. Bailey stated that if the Commission wishes to give the Council Members the authority to hire and to fire their own staff, the County would be moving away from the Council/Manager form of government.

Dr. Bailey stated that the Subcommittee is also considering the elimination of the second At-Large seat. He stated that this would occur gradually at the end of the next ten-year census (2010). Currently, the School Board has five member districts. The purpose for this restructuring would provide an equal number of districts between the School Board and the County Council.

Mr. Ford said that he does believe there is some merit in allowing Council Members to have their own staff. He stated that individual staff for Council Members is required primarily because they need assistance in serving their constituents. At the same time, it is appropriate for members to call on individuals they can trust to serve them.

Mr. Scovell said the County Council could appropriate extra funds within the County budget for providing for additional staff support. In his view, the Charter Review Commission does not need to submit a recommendation or make any changes to the Charter regarding this matter.

Ms. Northey shared the concerns of Mr. Ford and added that in her opinion, Council Members cannot receive any administrative support without the consent of the County Manager. She said the County Manager defines the role of the individual. Ms. Northey stated that she believes the individual Council Members seek to have autonomy in defining the role for their staff members.

Ms. Northey said that she is concerned about the reconfiguration of the County Council to a five and one structure. In her opinion, it will be dependent upon how redistricting is formatted to ensure equitable representation.

Mr. McClelland said he is concerned that providing individual Council Members with personal assistants might lead to aides interfering in operational matters, which are the responsibility of the County Manager. Mr. McClelland was troubled that this could cause an imbalance in the County Manager from of government.

PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL CORE SUBCOMMITTEE
Chair, Alex Ford offered a management recommendation concerning natural resources planning areas. This plan would change the natural resources management line found on the County’s Comprehensive Plan to the natural resources planning boundary. This boundary would include territory that has already been annexed by a municipality that is still operating under the County’s Comprehensive Plan.  

Secondly, it would allow the County’s Comprehensive Plan to govern any future annexation in those areas for a period of ten years from the date of the annexation until such a time that an inter-local planning agreement could be introduced, or until the municipality revives consent on any future annexation from the County Council.  

Dr. Fleuchaus asked what areas of the Comprehensive Plan protect natural resources.  

Mr. Ford and Mr. Scovell responded that there are sections of the Comprehensive Plan that protect sensitive regions. The section of the Comprehensive Plan that is concerned with this issue is called the Natural Resources Management Area or “NRMA.” Mr. Scovell requested that Ms. Holness write an outline on the function of NRMA so that the entire Commission can review it thoroughly. 

Mr. Heebner asked if the process relies upon the quality and structure of the Comprehensive Plan.  

Mr. Ford said the core principle of this recommendation is the Comprehensive Plan and its subsequent adoption. Despite this fact, once the comprehensive plan is amended or adopted by the municipality in a future annexation, the County may not continuously change the Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to an annexed property. 

INTEGRATING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION SUBCOMMITTEE
Chair Patricia Drago offered a charter amendment that had been previously approved by the School Board. This proposal would amend the comprehensive planning process to allow school density requirements to be taken into account prior to any future annexation or rezoning. This proposal would allow school capacity requirements be considered in the early stages of development in conjunction with the school concurrency standards that are articulated within Senate Bill 360. Ms. Drago stated that the Subcommittee would take action on this amendment at its next meeting. 

Mr. Ford said there are many factors that have not been taken into account in regards to the implementation of this amendment. He said many local community institutions might resist this amendment because of its possible impact. 

Mr. Ford continued that in a Comprehensive Plan, you do not know how many units are going to be required. Sometimes the number of units varies based on the size of the land. 

Dr. Bailey asked if Orange County developed a structure in which their amendment deals with both city and county development. 

Ms. Drago said the amendment that was passed in 2004 in Orange County dealt particularly with that issue. This is because certain cities in Orange County did not adopt the Martinez Doctrine regarding development in unincorporated areas. Ms. Drago said she believes that the Volusia County proposal will not be as inflexible towards the cities as the Orange County Amendment is. 

Mr. Ford asked if the intent of Ms. Drago’s proposal is to create a countywide standard or dictate what that standard will be. 

Ms. Drago responded that the intent would be to allow for countywide implementation of school capacity enhancement with data provided by the School Board. 

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Alden McGee, from the Volusia/Flagler Action Committee, spoke about the Volusia County Growth Management Commission and Smart Growth.  Mr. McGee stated that there is a problem facing Volusia County. He is concerned that the Cities are gaining too much authority in determining how to proceed with Smart Growth. 

Mr. McGee said in his opinion, Volusia County’s approach to Smart Growth is inappropriate. He believes the School Board should remain a non-voting member of the Volusia County Growth Management Commission. He said the School Board is a service-oriented agency and not a policy-making board. 

In regards to the Cities, Mr. McGee stated that municipalities are not bound to protect our environment. Instead, that responsibility should be in the hands of our County Council.

Mr. McGee concluded that Smart Growth is choices made by the community of Volusia County, seeking to curtail growth instead of expanding it.

Norman Erickson, DeBary, posed questions to the Charter Review Commission regarding the Charter Review Process. He asked what occurs after the recommendations are sent to the County Council.

Mr. Scovell said there are two types of recommendations. One is a management recommendation, which can be sent to the County Council for adoption or rejection. The second is an amendment to the County’s Charter, which, if approved by the full Charter Review Commission, will go on the ballot as a part of a referendum to be voted on by the public in November, 2006.

Mr. Erickson asked if the County prohibits growth on the grounds of population density and traffic congestion.

Mr. Scovell said the County has the ability to prohibit growth through the Smart Growth process by making amendments to potential developing projects.

Leonard Marks spoke about the gas tax and growth. He does not feel that the gas tax would adequately serve the citizens of Volusia County. Mr. Marks think that the gas tax is unequal in its proportion. He suggested that the Commission add a half-cent on the sales tax and slow growth. Mr. Marks said he believes growth brings unnecessary hazards.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. The next Charter Review Commission meeting will be held June 12, 2006 in the Training Rooms of the Thomas C. Kelly Administrative Building, 123 West Indiana Ave., DeLand.

 

back to charter review main page

back to county council

Comments or questions?
E-mail the