Introduction
History and Duties
Alachua County's Home Rule Charter was approved by the electorate and became effective on January 1, 1987. The Alachua County Charter provides for establishment of a Charter Review Commission (hereafter referred to as CRC) and specifies that this group is to be convened by the Board of County Commissioners. The CRC is charged with the periodic review of the Home Rule Charter, with the intent of allowing citizen input and direction for the government of the county. The CRC is one of several methods that issues can be placed on the ballot to change County government. The CRC has no power to change taxes, influence municipalities or change the powers, duties, compensation, and method of payment of state and County officers.
Member Selection Process
At its July 27, 1999 meeting, the Alachua County Commission empaneled the CRC based upon Section 4.2.B of the Home Rule Charter, which specifies that "a charter review commission consisting of not less than 11 nor more than 15 electors of the county shall be appointed by the board of county commissioners at least 12 months before the general election occurring in 1990 and at least 12 months before the general election occurring ten years thereafter to review the home rule charter and propose any amendments or revisions". Sixty-eight applicants were considered and 14 appointments were made. The first organizational meeting was conducted on August 20, 1999 and a Chair(Janet Wootten) and a Vice-Chair (Jimmy Massey) were selected.
Study Methodology
The CRC began its work by receiving a presentation from the County's legal staff on the extent of the CRC's authority, the Sunshine Law, financial disclosure and the practical/legal matters related to charter amendments. It was suggested that the CRC appoint an independent counsel to
greater assist the CRC with understanding the extent of its authority. Professor Joe Little (University of Florida Law School and an expert in Constitutional law) and Jon Mills (who was the Chair of the Florida Constitutional Revision Commission) were invited to be guest speakers.
The CRC was advised that it is limited in its work because it can not propose any changes to taxes, does not have the power to influence municipalities nor can the CRC change the powers, duties, compensation and method of payment of state and county officers fixed by law. These limits were based upon the Florida constitution and Florida Statutes.
According to Professor Little, the CRC is authorized to propose changes related to the following:
Professor Little also recommended that the CRC consider hiring an independent counsel to assist with the CRC's work. Based upon continued concerns by CRC members, the decision was made to hire independent counsel. The Alachua County Attorney identified attorneys who were interested in serving as the CRC's independent counsel.
Letters of interest were solicited from various attorneys and presentations were received from Patrice Boyes, Jim Konish, John McPherson, George Nickerson and Jonathan Wershow. Based upon the ranking, George Nickerson was selected as the CRC's independent counsel. The scope of services for the independent counsel includes assisting the CRC with developing its study parameters and drafting ballot language.
Jon Mills provided his presentation on the work of the Constitutional Revision Commission body. The presentation addressed this Commission's appointment process, voting, drafting ballot language, and outlining the pros/cons of issues.
The CRC's work consisted of the following three phases:
1. Exploratory
2. Draft language; and
3. Public promotions.
The Exploratory Phase
The various components of the exploratory phase included attending various city/county commission meetings, conducting community meetings, soliciting input from citizens via print media and email, receiving presentations from elected officials and various experts; and reviewing Charters from other County governments (e.g. Broward, Orange, and Volusia).
As a component of the exploratory phase, members of the CRC attended the City Commission meetings of the following municipalities:
1. Alachua;
2. Archer;
3. Gainesville;
4. Hawthorne
5. High Springs;
6. Lacrosse;
7. Micanopy;
8. Newberry; and
9. Waldo.
Members of the CRC attended these meetings to obtain input from elected officials and citizens regarding any suggestions that they may have for the CRC's work. Some of the suggestions which were received included the need for single-member districts, reducing County Commission salaries, term limits, campaign financing and residency requirements for County Commissioners.
Additionally, input was received from the Alachua County Commission. Suggestions included residency requirements and having a short list for issues which may be placed on the ballot.
To provide additional opportunities for public input, three community meetings were conducted on the following dates:
1. October 13, 1999 (Millhopper Branch Library);
2. October 18, 1999 (Tower Road Branch Library); and
3. October 20, 1999 (T.B. McPherson Recreational Center).
Input which was received from citizens during these meetings included the following suggestions:
1. County environmental ordinances should prevail over municipal ordinances;
2. A joint planning structure should be established;
3. County Commission salaries should be controlled locally; and
4. The CRC should be empaneled more frequently than every ten years.
To acquire a better understanding of the functions/operations of the constitutional offices, these elected officials were invited to provide presentations. Each Constitutional officer accepted the invitation to discuss the functions/operations of his/her office.
Because of the extensive interest in the subject of establishing single-member districts for the County, Dr. Ken Wald (University of Florida Professor and expert in this field) was invited to provide a presentation on this subject. It was explained that single member districts are physical subdivisions which are used to elect representatives. Only residents living in the district can vote and only residents living in the district can run for office. The CRC was informed that single member districts once were the most common form of election system but were attacked by reformers. The single member district voting system began a comeback in the 1960's because of legal demands (e.g. civil rights arguments) and neighborhood forces. Most communities with the population of Alachua County (100 - 500 thousand) have a mixed election system (i.e. at-large and single member district seats).
Some of the advantages of single member districts include facilitating the election of minority groups that are geographically concentrated, enabling minority groups to better elect representatives of their choosing, encouraging candidates to have direct contact with people in the district and diminishing the influence of the media. Disadvantages include diminishing the impact of minority groups, encouraging representatives to think narrowly, reducing overall voter turnout, reducing the sense of ownership and producing political paralysis.
The single member district process requires a change in the Charter, the boundaries of the district are determine via an "ordinary" piece of legislation and is done every ten years. The following criteria must be satisfied: the district must be of equal size by population at the time of the census, contiguous and compact; and must respect communities of interest. Based upon the 1993 case of Shaw -v- Reno, race can not be the predominant factor in creating districts.
Another strategy for receiving citizen input involved placing notices in the Gainesville Sun and on the CRC's website. The deadline for receiving all study issues was January 11, 2000. After compiling all of the input which had been received over a five-month period, independent counsel was requested to review and comment on the following list:
1. County ordinances prevailing over municipal ordinances;
2. County environmental ordinances prevailing over municipal ordinances;
3. Municipalities should maintain the ability to exercise home rule;
4. Flexibility to empanel the CRC more frequently than very ten years;
5. County Commission salary structure should be controlled locally;
6. Salary reduction for County Commission;
7. Establish a joint planning structure;
8. Repeal the Boundary Adjustment Act;
9. Term limits for County Commission;
10. Specify a certain amount of funding for land conservation;
11. Assess a fee for the use of all governmental resources;
12. Single member districts;
13. High costs of county-wide campaigns;
14. District residency requirement;
15. Non partisan elections for all County elected officials;
16. Limits on the autonomy of the Sheriff;
17. Fire service consolidation;
18. Review issues from the sustainability perspective;
19. Independent auditor;
20. Conflicts in Charter (glitches);
21. Campaign finance regulations
22. Special districts should have elected officials serving as governing body;
23. Annexation regulations;
24. Assure appropriate level of staffing and funding for the environmental protection office;
25. Police review board comprised of citizens and officers (Sheriff).
To facilitate the process as to the issues that would be selected to move forward to the public hearings, the following procedure was developed and approved by the CRC:
1a) The Charter Review Commission (CRC) shall compile a list of all ideas or issues submitted to the CRC through January 11, 2000. The items on this list will be the items under consideration for placement on the ballot by the CRC.
2. Narrowing the Ideas
2a) Legal review will be requested for each list item to help narrow ideas or issues on the list to those which are within the purview of the CRC .
2b) CRC will vote on each of the list items to determine if the item should remain on the list. An affirmative vote by more than one-half of the CRC members present at the meeting will retain an item on the list for further discussion and/or research. An affirmative vote does not necessarily imply support for or against the merits of any issue, idea or item and is solely intended to indicate an interest in further discussion or research of the item. Items that do not receive more than one-half of the votes of the CRC members present at the meeting will be removed from the list and will therefore be removed from consideration by the CRC as a potential ballot item.
2c) In depth discussion and/or research will occur for each of the items on the list. The discussions of these items must be individually listed on the agenda of a CRC meeting which is published at least seven (7) days prior to that CRC meeting.
2d) CRC members may propose ballot items that address one or more of the list items. A proposed ballot item does not need to contain proper legal language or intended final wording but should clearly identify the idea, concept, points and intended position on the issue(s) it addresses.
3. Selection of Proposed Ballot Items to Present at Public Hearings
3a) A list of the proposed ballot items from step 2d will be presented to each CRC member along with the complete text of each of the proposed items.
3b) The CRC will vote as follows to determine which ballot item proposals it will pursue.
3b.1) a weighted vote will be taken to determine a ranked list of the proposed items. Each CRC member will be given 100 votes that they can assign in any amount to one or more of the proposed items. The total of all CRC votes cast to each item will determine the ranking of the items. The item with the most votes will be ranked highest.
3b.2) the CRC will then vote on each individual item on the ranked list, beginning with the highest ranked item, to decide if that item will be selected. An affirmative vote by more than one-half of the total membership of the CRC will select an item for placement on the ballot and referral to the public hearings.
3b.3) following the vote on each proposed item, the CRC will then vote to determine if it
will continue the selection process. In the event that multiple proposed items share
the same ranking, each item within the same ranking will be voted upon according to
step 3b.2 before the vote on whether or not to continue the selection process is held.
An affirmative vote by more than one-half of the total membership of the CRC will
allow the CRC to then vote on the next highest ranking item on the list according to
procedure step 3b.2. A vote of one-half or less of the total membership of the CRC
will end the selection process.
It is the intent of procedure in step 3b to provide a means for the CRC to limit the number of ballot items being referred to the public hearings while, at the same time, insuring that those items of greatest interest to the CRC have a prioritized opportunity to be one of the limited, selected ballot items. This procedure gives the CRC the flexibility to determine where the limit on the number of selected items will be drawn and with the knowledge of which items have and have yet to be selected.
3c) The selected ballot items will be forwarded to legal staff for proper crafting of "final-draft" ballot language.
3d) The CRC will hold a final vote on each of the selected ballot items to accept the "final-draft" ballot language and forward the item onto the public hearings. A vote of more than one-half of the CRC membership present at the meeting will adopt the final-draft ballot language and forward the item to the public hearings. The CRC may also vote by more than one-half of the CRC to return an item to legal staff for modification to its language and the item would then return to the CRC for another vote as described in step 3d.
4. Final Submission of Ballot Items
Following three (3) properly noticed public hearing, the CRC will hold a final vote on each of the intended ballot items and any amendments or changes that are proposed as a result of the public hearings. A vote of more than one-half of the total membership of the CRC will forward the item for ballot submission.
1. County ordinances prevailing over municipal ordinances;
2. County environmental ordinances prevailing over municipal ordinances;
3. Flexibility to empanel the CRC more frequently then every ten years;
4. County Commission salary structure should be controlled locally;
5. Establish a joint planning structure;
6. Assess a fee for the use of all governmental resources;
7. Single member districts;
8. Independent auditor; and
9. conflicts in Charter (glitches).
The CRC received a presentation and a staff report on joint planning models. The staff report outlined various local governments (e.g Broward, Charlotte/Meckenberg, Hillsborough and Volusia Counties) joint planning structures. This information also included funding, duties, decision-making authority and issues. Alachua County's current joint planning activities with the City of Gainesville were also outlined.
A presentation was received from the City of Gainesville Auditor regarding the independent auditor issue. The City Auditor's role and responsibilities were explained. These responsibilities include providing operational auditing and compliance review. According to the Gainesville City Auditor, the Auditor's goal is to ensure that the internal controls are implemented. The CRC was also provided with statistical data regarding auditors in county government across Florida.
The Clerk to the County Commission provided input to the CRC regarding creating an independent auditor position reporting directly to the County Commission. It envisioned that this auditor would be responsible for conducting performance audits for those operational departments which are under the purview of the County Commission. The independent auditor may also conduct performance audits for each Constitutional Officer provided that there is agreement between the County Commission and the Constitutional Officer that such audit will be performed.
After additional discussions and guidance from legal counsel on these issues, the CRC implemented its voting process. Based upon the voting results, the following are the issues which will be considered during the three public hearings:
Draft Language Phase
The proposed Charter amendment language submitted by Counsel was reviewed by the CRC. The language for each amendment follows:
1) COUNTY ORDINANCES PREVAILING OVER MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES -
Municipal ordinances shall prevail over county ordinances to the extent of any conflict. However, a County ordinance shall prevail over municipal ordinances whenever the County shall set minimum standards for the purpose of protecting the environment by prohibiting or regulating air or water pollution. In the event a County ordinance and a municipal ordinance shall cover the same subject matter without conflict, both the municipal ordinance and the County ordinance shall be effective, each being deemed supplemental, one to the other.
2) INDEPENDENT AUDITOR - New Section 2.3(C).Sec. 2.3. Executive Branch
(C) Commission auditor. The board of county commissioners may select a commission auditor who shall serve at the pleasure of the board. The commission auditor shall report directly to the board of county commissioners. The commission auditor shall conduct performance audits of county departments, and county boards and agencies as specified by county ordinance. The commission auditor may conduct performance audits for an elected county constitutional officer with approval from the board of county commissioners and the elected county constitutional officer. To the extent performance auditing is deemed to be within the constitutional duties of the clerk of the circuit court, this provision is intended to transfer performance auditing responsibility for county departments, and county boards and agencies to the commission auditor. This provision shall not be construed in a manner that interferes with the remaining duties of the clerk of the circuit court as ex officio clerk of the board of county commissioners, auditor, recorder and custodian of county funds.
3) FREQUENCY OF EMPANELING CRC - Amendment to Section 4.2
Sec. 4.2. Home rule charter amendments.
(B) Amendments and revision by charter review commission.
(1) A charter review commission consisting of not less than eleven (11) nor more than fifteen (15) electors of the county shall be appointed by the board of county commissioners at least twelve (12) months but not more than eighteen (18) months before the general election occurring in 1990 and at least twelve (12) months but not more than eighteen (18) months before the general election occurring every ten (10) years thereafter, to review the home rule charter and propose any amendments or revisions which may be advisable for placement on the general election ballot. No member of the state legislature or the board of county commissioners shall be a member of the charter review commission. Vacancies shall be filled within thirty (30) days in the same manner as the original appointments.
(6) If it does not submit any proposed charter amendments or revisions to the board of county commissioners at least ninety (90) days prior to the general election, the charter review commission shall be automatically dissolved. Otherwise the charter review commission shall be automatically dissolved on the date of such general election. Upon dissolution of the charter review commission, all property of the charter review commission shall thereupon become the property of the county.
4) COMMISSION RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS - Amendment to Section 2.2
Sec. 2.2. Legislative Branch
(A) The County Commission. The governing body of the county shall be a board of county commissioners composed of five (5) members serving staggered terms of four (4) years. There shall be one (1) commissioner for each of the five (5) county commission districts established pursuant to general law and they shall be elected on a countywide basis by the electors of the county. During the term of office each commissioner shall reside in the district from which such commissioner ran for office, provided that any commissioner who is removed from a district by redistricting may continue to serve during the balance of the term of office.
5) JOINT PLANNING STRUCTURE - New Section 1.5 (Land Use Planning)
Each municipality shall be responsible for land use planning within its respective boundaries and the county shall be responsible for land use planning in the unincorporated area. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the county and any municipality may enter into an interlocal agreement to provide for joint planning in portions of the unincorporated area adjacent to such municipality or in portions of the area within such municipality.
The Public Education Phase
The CRC will be sponsoring a public awareness campaign to educate citizens on the proposed amendments. This campaign may include scheduling speaking engagements at the following:
1) presentations to civic groups;
2) presentation to neighborhood associations;
3) presentation to city commissions;
4) presentations to professional associations; and
5) other appropriate groups.
Additionally, an educational brochure may be prepared for the public distribution, information may be published, advertisements in the print media, an educational video may be prepared to be broadcast on the government channel and other appropriate mechanisms. The public awareness campaign is anticipated to occur during the period of August through October, 2000.
Public Hearings
As required by the Alachua County Charter, three public hearings were conducted on May 18, June 1 and June 15, 2000. The purpose of these hearings was to obtain public input on the proposed Charter amendments before finalizing any proposal which would be submitted to the County Commission for placement on the November 7, 2000 general election ballot.
The format of the three public hearings allowed for ample discussion by the CRC members and citizens. The public hearings were structured as follows:
1) presentation by staff;
2) comments from counsel;
3) comments from CRC members. This enabled the CRC to make any comments or clarifications to the public regarding the proposed amendments;
4) open public hearing. Citizens stated their support or disapproval of specific proposals;
5) discussion by CRC;
6) adjournment
The first public hearing was conducted on May 18, 2000. The County Attorney explained the functions of the CRC and how the charter could be amended. The hearing was recorded both by audio and video for public access television. Citizens included public officials, organizational representatives, County staff, attorneys, field experts and other concerned citizens. The diversity of attendees provided the CRC with a wide scope of input. Some citizens focused on specific language and several suggestions (i.e. enforcement) were made to enhance amendments.
At this public hearing, the CRC clarified the purpose of the public hearings in order to ensure the efficiency of the process. It was suggested that single-member districts be added as a consideration for the November ballot proposals. After extensive discussion, it was concluded that the purpose of the public hearings were to hear the public's comments on the tentative proposals.
The second public hearing was conducted on June 1, 2000. Most citizens focused on the amendment related to County environmental ordinances prevailing over municipal ordinances. Some stated that municipalities were more than capable of solving environmental issues without the County's oversight. Additionally, it was also stated that allowing the County to impose environmental laws on municipalities would eventually lead to the County imposing laws on other entities. Other citizens believed that environmental issues such as air and water are not limited to municipal borders, thus, the County should have the power to impose laws that provide for the greater good.
A point was made that the proposed responsibilities outlined in the Independent Performance Auditor amendment would conflict with the duties of the County Manager. It was stated that the proposed independent auditor's duties would be counter-productive since the County Manager had similar duties and it was the belief that the "separation of powers" clause in the Charter would be violated if an independent auditor were to be hired. Several CRC members believed that Alachua County citizens had a right to know how their government was performing; while others believed
that the County Manager should be able to perform the duties and responsibilities of this position without the proposed independent auditor.
The third public hearing was conducted on June 15, 2000. This hearing focused primarily on the amendment related to County environmental ordinances prevailing over municipal ordinances. Many comments made on the issues were similar to those of the first and second public hearing.
There was some interest to conduct a fourth public hearing but the CRC voted at its June 27, 2000 meeting against proceeding with another hearing.
Ballot Recommendations
At its June 27, 2000 regular meeting, the CRC further discussed each of the proposed amendments. A vote was taken for each proposed amendment. Consequently, the Charter Review Commission submits to the County Commission the following ballot initiatives for placement on the November 7, 2000 general election ballot:
1) County environmental ordinances prevailing over municipal ordinances;
2) County Commission district residency requirements;
3) Amendments related to when the CRC is appointed and dissolved; and
4) Joint Planning;
The ballot and proposed charter amendment language for each of the proposed initiatives follow:
ALACHUA COUNTY CHARTER AMENDMENT 1
Title: Relationship between county and municipal ordinances regulating air or water pollution
Summary: Shall the Alachua County Charter be amended to provide that both county and municipal ordinances establishing standards for protecting the environment by prohibiting or regulating air or water pollution be enforceable within the boundaries of municipalities.
Sec. 1.04. Relation to municipal ordinances.
Municipal ordinances shall prevail over county ordinances to the extent of any conflict. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the county and a municipality enact ordinances establishing different standards for the purpose of protecting the environment by prohibiting or regulating air or water pollution, the ordinances imposing more stringent standards shall prevail to the extent of the difference and be fully enforceable within the boundaries of such municipality; however, the ordinances imposing less stringent standards shall not be deemed to conflict with ordinances imposing more stringent standards and shall also be fully enforceable within the boundaries of such municipality.
ALACHUA COUNTY CHARTER AMENDMENT 2
Title: Authorization for joint planning agreements
Summary: Shall the Alachua County Charter be amended to authorize interlocal agreements between the county and municipalities to provide for joint planning within the municipality and portions of the unincorporated area not reserved for annexation by another municipality.
1.5 Land Use Planning
Each municipality shall be responsible for land use planning within its respective boundaries and the county shall be responsible for land use planning in the unincorporated area. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the county and any municipality may enter into an interlocal agreement to provide for joint planning in portions of the unincorporated area not located within any area designated pursuant to general or special law as a reserve for annexation by another municipality or in portions of the area within such municipality.
ALACHUA COUNTY CHARTER AMENDMENT 3
Title: Appointment and dissolution of the charter review commission
Summary: Shall the Alachua County Charter be amended to provide that a charter review commission cannot be appointed earlier than 18 months prior to the general election at which amendments may be proposed and will automatically dissolve on the date of such general election.
Sec. 4.2. Home rule charter amendments.
(B) Amendments and revision by charter review commission.
(1) A charter review commission consisting of not less than eleven (11) nor more than fifteen (15) electors of the county shall be appointed by the board of county commissioners at least twelve (12) months but not more than eighteen (18) months before the general election occurring in 1990 and at least twelve (12) months but not more than eighteen (18) months before the general election occurring every ten (10) years thereafter, to review the home rule charter and propose any amendments or revisions which may be advisable for placement on the general election ballot. No member of the state legislature or the board of county commissioners shall be a member of the charter review commission. Vacancies shall be filled within thirty (30) days in the same manner as the original appointments.
(6) If it does not submit any proposed charter amendments or revisions to the board of
county commissioners at least ninety (90) days prior to the general election, the charter
review commission shall be automatically dissolved. Otherwise upon acceptance or
rejection of the proposed amendments of revisions by the electors, the charter review
commission shall be automatically dissolved on the date of such general election. Upon
dissolution of the charter review commission, all property of the charter review
commission shall thereupon become the property of the county.
ALACHUA COUNTY CHARTER AMENDMENT 4
Title: County commission district residency requirements
Summary: Shall the Alachua County Charter be amended to remove the current unenforceable requirement to reside within the district on the date of qualification.
Sec. 2.2. Legislative Branch
(A) The county commission. The governing body of the county shall be a board of county
commissioners composed of five (5) members serving staggered terms of four (4)
years. There shall be one (1) commissioner for each of the five (5) county commission
districts established pursuant to general law and they shall be elected on a countywide
basis by the electors of the county. Each candidate for the office of county
commissioner shall reside within the district from which such candidate seeks election
at the time of qualifying to run for the office, and during During the term of office each
commissioner shall reside in the district from which such commissioner ran for office,
provided that any commissioner who is removed from a district by redistricting may
continue to serve during the balance of the term of office.
Final Comments
The ballot and Charter amendment language was developed by the CRC's independent counsel and reviewed by the Alachua County Attorney. The ballot and charter amendment language for each of these ballot initiatives was approved by the CRC on July 11, 2000.
This report was amended and substantially approved at the July 11, 2000 CRC meeting. At its July 11, 2000 meeting, the CRC authorized County staff to make any amendments to finalize the report without changing the report's substance.