Charter Review Commission  Minutes
Aug. 14, 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
County Chair Bruno called the hearing to order at the Ormond Beach City Commission Chambers, 22 S. Beach Street, Ormond Beach.  He thanked Joie Alexander, At-large member and County Council Vice Chair, Dwight Lewis, representative for District 1, Art Giles, representative for District 2, Jack Hayman, representative for District 3, Carl Persis, representative for District 4, and Bill Long, representative for District 5, for being in attendance. He called upon County Attorney Dan Eckert to address the specifics of the public hearing.

Mr. Eckert stated the Charter provided for a decennial review process. The Charter Review Commission (CRC) received and made recommendations for change. Mr. Eckert noted the changes made by the CRC will be placed on the ballot unaltered by the County Council members.  The Charter requires there to be no less than three public hearings which explain the recommended changes made by the CRC.

Mr. Eckert said the County Chair had requested he clarify some aspects of the proposed water plan amendment. He stated the Charter does not address service transfer, therefore a water plan could not mandate the transfer of municipal utilities to the County.

Review of Proposed Charter Amendments
County Chair Bruno thanked Mr. Eckert for his explanations and called upon CRC Chair Bill Scovell to present the proposed Charter amendments.

Chair Scovell recognized and thanked the members of the CRC who were present. The members in attendance were: Rich Gunter, Tom McClelland, Alex Ford, Pat Drago, Bo Davenport, Pete Heebner, Glenn Storch, Charles Matousek, Bud Fleuchaus, and Ezell Reaves. Mr. Scovell also thanked the staff from the County Manager’s and County Attorney’s offices for all their hard work. He asked Ms. Drago to give a brief explanation of the school planning amendment.

Ms. Drago said the authority for land use lies with the County and that of education with the School Board. The idea for the school planning amendment came out of the Smart Growth Committee’s recommendations. Ms. Drago said this was a necessary step to prevent schools from being surprised with a flood of students, thus impairing their ability to serve the community. Ms. Drago stated schools are an essential part of any community and for that reason must be involved in the early planning process.

Chair Scovell thanked Ms. Drago. He requested Mr. McClelland present the water plan amendment.

Mr. McClelland stated his Subcommittee investigated all manner of ways to improve infrastructure. Only Volusia County Government has the ability to oversee the entire County, therefore it made sense for the community to take a holistic approach in protecting a resource such as water. Mr. McClelland said the amendment required the County Council to adopt a resolution which would create a countywide water plan that would protect the entire Volusian aquifer, deal with well locations, and decide where municipal and County systems should be expanded. He stressed the plan was simply a tool for planning and did not allow for usurpation of control of water systems by the County. Mr. McClelland said the plan was in response to concerns that were voiced in listening sessions and at various Subcommittee meetings.

Chair Scovell thanked Mr. McClelland and asked Mr. Ford to present the amendments dealing with comprehensive planning and the new dispute resolution board.

Mr. Ford explained that under current law, when a city annexes land, it has complete control over the area. He said if the amendment was passed,  in the designated areas, the County’s comprehensive plan would remain until ten years past the point of annexation had transpired, a Joint Planning Agreement with the County was formed, or the County Council signed off on the municipality’s plan for the annexed land. In the latter case, the city would not be able to change the area’s comprehensive plan without County Council approval. Mr. Storch added that the idea behind the amendment was to build consensus. He said the Ormond Crossings project was an example of what can be accomplished when cities and the County work in harmony. Mr. Storch said the idea is to form more Joint Planning Agreements, and the ten year time period was a way of giving a time frame for these agreements to be completed. Mr. Ford concluded the amendment would give the County Council oversight that currently does not exist.

Mr. Ford said the Volusia Growth Management Dispute Resolution Commission amendment would serve two purposes. The first would be to abolish the Volusia Growth Management Commission. Mr. Ford stated the reasoning for disbanding the VGMC was due to the emergence of DCA oversight and the prior amendment. The second part of the amendment would create a nonbinding arbitration board comprised of appointees who could not be elected officials or agency employees. The board would give recommendations which would be transferred to the disputing agents. Mr. Ford stated the recommendation was an important factor as in most mediation, no final solution is offered. Mr. Storch added that 20 years ago, the VGMC was an essential piece of the process, but it has outlived much of its usefulness as other entities perform many of its functions.

Chair Scovell thanked Mr. Ford and Mr. Storch for their input on the amendments. He called on Mr. Matousek to present the amendments dealing with the Vice-Chair position on the County Council and County Council compensation.

Mr. Matousek said the current, At-large position held no special powers on the County Council. Yet recently, the County Chair had been made an At-large position. Mr. Matousek stated the idea behind the Vice-Chair amendment was to create cohesiveness with the County Chair.

Under the compensation amendment, the County Chair would be paid 100% of the state prescribed funds for a County Commissioner, up from 60%, while other Council members would be paid 65%, up from 50%. Mr. Matousek said that while the County Chair position is not listed as full time, it realistically has become that. Another issue Mr. Matousek raised was that the Charter does not provide for reimbursement of in-county expenses, thus the best way to deal with the issue was simply to raise the Council members income. Mr. Matousek stated that members of the public expect Council members to attend many social functions throughout the County and the increase appeared reasonable. Mr. Ford added that the Council members, other than the Chair, are still 35% under the amount prescribed County Commissioners be paid.

Mr. Scovell thanked Mr. Matousek for his presentation of the amendments and said the CRC was now prepared to take questions.

Public Participation
County Chair Bruno opened the floor to members of the public with questions or comments about the previously discussed Charter amendments. County Chair Bruno called Roy Walters forward. 

Mr. Walters said he thought the ten year plan aspect of the comprehensive amendment should be changed to 12 years. His reasoning was that with 12 years, the CRC would have the ability to reconvene. 

Sandra Walters was the next public participant. Ms. Walters said she did not believe the comprehensive planning and dispute resolution amendments would work together. She stated that the VGMC currently must approve changes to a city’s comprehensive plan, but that would not be the case if the VGMC was abolished. Ms. Walters added her recent experience with the VGMC had changed her opinion of it and she now found the VGMC open to public participation. She stressed that control should be kept local and not forwarded to the state. Ms. Walters said that not all areas should be open for planning and some should be preserved, no matter the cost. Because the amendments did not accomplish this, she must ask the public not to vote for them. 

Jim Cameron from the Daytona Beach Chamber of Commerce said the Chamber supported all of the amendments except for one. He said the Chamber could not reach a consensus and therefore had no opinion on the school planning amendment. Mr. Cameron thanked everyone for their hard work and congratulated them on the amendments they had produced. 

Chair Bruno called upon Ann Smith, Voter Service Chair for the League of Women Voters, who stated that League members had attended virtually all of the CRC meetings and its Subcommittee meetings. She said the League had outlined four areas of need within the County: Control growth, manage water resources, the need for a stronger chair, and greater cooperation between cities and the County. Ms. Smith said the League had written letters in support of the school planning and water plan amendments, which could be viewed on the League’s website. Ms. Smith said there were questions on the comprehensive planning and Vice Chair amendments, which is why the League chose not to write a letter of support. 

Fred Costello, Mayor of Ormond Beach, said he was disappointed that not many Smart Growth recommendations were placed on the ballot. Mr. Costello added he did not believe the cities would be in favor of the amendments except for compensation. The municipalities would probably ask the County Council to craft new language to place on a later ballot. Mr. Costello stated cities should have oversight of the County in planning if the County is going to have power over the cities, and there should be no time limit on future annexation areas. Arbitration should be made mandatory, even if it required a local bill from the state. Mr. Costello’s concluded that municipalities should designate where schools are positioned, not the School Board. 

County Chair Bruno called upon Ed Kelley, who said Council members compensation should be bumped up to 75%. The Water Authority of Volusia (WAV) has done a good job trying to go forward, and he is not sure what would become of it under a water plan. Mr. Kelley was unsure if it was wise to give the County control over well locations. He also had the same concerns as the mayor over school planning and thought the comprehensive planning amendment gave the County too much power. He also questioned the need for a Vice Chair. 

Lucille Bornmann was said there should be unification and cost cutting because schools were too expensive. Ms. Bornmann added that developers should donate land for schools at the very least. The water plan would be difficult to pass, as water was the largest money maker for cities and the comprehensive planning amendment was too confusing. Mrs. Bornmann found the comprehensive planning amendment to be a drastic change and one that pointed towards a countywide city.  

County Chair Bruno called John Bornmann, who said the County Council members should only be compensated by using the cost of living index. Mr. Bornmann said the County needed to cut costs, and if the Council members expected retirees to pay their wages, their increases should be based on the same scale as everyone else. 

Charles Cuidera was the final public participant to speak at the meeting. Mr. Cuidera asked if the details of the dispute resolution board will be worked out by the Council and if the public will be allowed input. He expressed his disappointment over the want for autonomy by the County and municipality governments. In order to preserve the environment, it cannot be fragmented. He said he would like to see a preservation plan built upon science that went along with the habitat corridor concept.  

County Chair Bruno stated Mr. Cuidera marked the end of public participation and turned the meeting back over to Chair Scovell. 

Charter Review Commission Response to the Public
Chair Scovell stated that there is a lot of misunderstanding about the ten year amendment. He said that there would sufficient time for the CRC, a citizens group, or the County Council to convene and make changes before the ten year limit would expire. Chair Scovell added that three cities and the County currently act similarly to what is proposed in the amendment. 

Mr. Heebner, speaking on city and County relationships, said the goal of the CRC was to create a structure which would work no matter what type of leadership is in place in the County and cities. He said the Chair and Vice-Chair terms were staggered and that the amount of increase in compensation was miniscule in comparison to other aspects of County expenditures. 

Mr. McClelland encouraged people to look over the CRC’s final report. He pointed out that while the CRC appreciated public comments, the amendments could not be altered at this point. Mr. Gunter noted that the amendments and the management recommendations are presented in the report. 

Mr. Storch said what the CRC had worked on, in relation to Smart Growth, were issues that could not be dealt with by either the County staff or the County Council. He added the current problem was a lack of implantation of Smart Growth by the County. He pointed out that under current regulations, every piece of property in the County could be parceled into small lots. The only way to solve the issue is through joint planning agreements which agree on preservation areas. Mr. Storch agreed with Mr. Cuidera on the necessity of a region-wide approach to environmental protection, but noted a mechanism was needed to obtain such a goal. He said he believed the comprehensive planning amendment would be a start as it included 450,000-plus acres. Mr. Storch concluded that while CRC would have liked to put more “teeth” in the arbitration board, the CRC did as much as was legally permissible. 

Mr. Matousek stated that if the amendments do no pass, things will remain at the status quo. He emphasized the amendments improve the current situation so people should carefully consider voting down the amendments and “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” 

Chair Scovell thanked everyone for attending

Adjournment
County Chair Bruno reminded everyone the final report could be found online at www.Volusia.org and the next hearing was on August 16, 2006 at 6 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m.

back to charter review main page

back to county council

Comments or questions?
E-mail the