Final Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Final Report Columbia County Charter Commission September 5, 2002 CONTENTS Introduction 3 Commission Membership 4 Rules of the Charter Commission 5 Issues Considered 6 Policy Changes of Final Charter 11 Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners Appendix A establishing the Columbia County Charter Commission Agendas and Minutes of the Charter Commission Appendix B Proposed Columbia County Charter Appendix C Resolution of the Charter Commission Transmitting the Appendix D Charter to the County Commission 2 INTRODUCTION This Report is submitted as part of the work of the Columbia County Charter Commission. The Charter Commission was established by resolution of the Columbia County Board of County Commissioners in 2001 pursuant to Part II of Chapter 125, Florida Statutes. The 15-member Charter Commission operated independently of county government. Its mission was to study the operation of county government and the ways in which it might be improved or reorganized, and to develop a proposed charter to be submitted for public referendum. After their appointment, the Charter Commission conducted an organizational meeting to select a chair and vice-chair. The Commission subsequently adopted operating rules and a budget. They also identified issues to be examined and adopted a work plan to study issues, take public testimony and make recommendations to the public for policies to be included in the proposed charter. The Charter Commission conducted 19 meetings and hearings to receive testimony from members of the public, civic leaders and local government officials. Members of the Charter Commission devoted over 700 hours of personal time in attending meetings, receiving testimony, debating policy options and drafting the charter. They served without compensation. Three public hearings were held and extensive public notices were provided for the hearings. 3 COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP The Columbia County Charter Commission was composed of the following individuals: Thomas Brown, Chair Michael Null, Vice Chair Emory Laverne Bailey Richard R. Bicknell Audrey Bullard1 Mario A. Coppock Ozell Graham Leandra Johnson2 Seeber R. Johnson Wilson Edsel Parker James L. Poole, Jr. David N. Rountree Wilton Terrell Delton Turberville Ray Walker Richard Weizenecker, MD Staff Kurt Spitzer of KSA Governmental Consultants, Tallahassee, provided consulting services for the Charter Commission. Legal Counsel was Allen Watts, of Cobb and Cole, Daytona Beach. 1 Appointed June 20, 2002. 2 Resigned April 14, 2002. 4 RULES OF THE CHARTER COMMISSION During the early stages of the Charter Commission's work, it adopted Roberts Rules of Order to govern its meetings and decision processes. However, the Charter Commission voted to impose additional requirements on itself as relates to other operating procedures. The Commission decided to require an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of its membership present at a meeting for final adoption of recommendations. Recommendations that changed current practice in Columbia County government would therefore require a two-thirds vote. If a two-thirds vote could not be obtained, then the current practice in Columbia County would be retained in the charter. 5 ISSUES CONSIDERED Early in the process, staff provided the Charter Commission with a summary overview of each of the possible revisions to service delivery mechanisms or changes to county structure that were available via a charter form of government. The Commission discussed each option and thereafter decided whether the subject deserved further consideration. Issues identified for further discussion were included in a "Decision Agenda." Items identified for inclusion in the Decision Agenda were added to the remaining balance of the Charter Commission schedule and more detailed briefing documents were prepared by staff for the review and consideration of the Charter Commission. 1. Charter Review and Amendment Process - The composition of and frequency with which a Charter Review Commission is constituted within the charter. Amendments to the charter proposed by the Board of County Commissioners. Amendments to the charter proposed by the electorate via a petition process. 2. Constitutional Officers - The offices of the Sheriff, Tax Collector, Property Appraiser, Supervisor of Elections and Clerk of the Court. Alternatives to the way in which the offices and officers are structured and budgeted, their services are delivered and how they interact with the Board of County Commissioners. Policy on salaries, recall and non partisan elections. 6 3. County Attorney - Whether the County Attorney should be hired/fired by the Board of County Commissioners. (Columbia remains the only county in the State of Florida that selects its chief legal advisor by direct vote of the electorate.) 4. County Departments - The initial departments that should be specified in the charter and policy on hiring and termination of department heads. 5. County Manager - The Board of County Commissioners has adopted the County Administrator form of government by ordinance, although that can be changed at any time. The county manager form of government may be required by the charter itself and may be repealed only by vote of the electorate. 6. Countywide Ordinances - Whether the charter should provide that ordinances adopted by the County Commission may set policy throughout the entire county. The subject matters (if any) in which county policy should prevail over municipal ordinances and whether municipal ordinances can be more stringent than those of the county. 7. Elected County Chairman or Executive - Whether the charter should specify that the voters of Columbia County directly elect the head of the administrative branch. 8. Functional Consolidation - Whether the authority to administer certain departments or programs should be transferred from municipal government to the county. 7 9. Ordinances by Citizen Initiative - The methods by which the electorate may propose ordinances by petition. The degree to which limitations are placed on ordinances proposed by such means. The percentage of electors required to sign a petition in order for such ordinances to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners or the public on the ballot. 10. Partisan Elections - Whether the members of the County Commission or the Constitutional Officers should be elected on a partisan or a non-partisan basis. 11. Planning Powers - Whether the charter should provide for a more extensive planning process on a countywide basis. 12. Recall - Should statutory policy on recall be made applicable to the other elected county (Constitutional) officers, in addition to County Commissioners? 13. Residency - Commissioners are currently required to live in their district when holding office. Charters may provide that they are required to live in their district at the time of qualifying to run for office. 14. Salaries - A population driven formula established by state law currently sets Salaries of the County Commission and County Constitutional Officers. Charter may prescribe alternative systems for setting salaries. 8 15. Term Length - County Commissioners' terms are currently four years long. Charters may provide for alternatives to the typical length of a term of office. 16. Term Limits - Limitations on the number of consecutive times a County Commissioner may run for re-election to his or her seat on the County Commission. 17. Utility Tax - Whether to limit the power of the Board of County Commission to impose the "utility" or public service tax in the unincorporated area of the county. The question of the districting methodology and number of County Commissioners was also discussed but not added to the Decision Agenda. The Board of County Commissioners currently consists of five Commissioners elected from single-member districts. While charters can provide for different numbers of Commissioners and a wide variety of districting schemes, the system in Columbia is the result of an order from the federal court. Changing the system would require revisiting the Order. The Commission felt that there was not sufficient time to pursue consideration of alternatives. However, if the voters adopt the charter, alternatives could be considered at a later date. After discussion and debate, hearing testimony at numerous public meetings and three public hearings, the Charter Commission voted to retain much of the current structure and policies that currently exist in Columbia County government. 9 There were several reasons for retaining current practice. Generally, some members of the Charter Commission felt that current practice was sound and not in need of change. In other cases, while there may have been majority support for change in current practice, there was not support of a "super-majority" (i.e. 2/3 majority) as required by the Charter Commission's operating rules. Finally, many Charter Commissioners recognized that adopting the charter itself is a major step toward further examination and possible review at a later date. The Charter Commission intentionally required the first Charter Review Commission to begin its work in 2005, thereby assuring a comprehensive review after the full impact of the charter is realized but well before the normal 10-year cycle for regular reviews. 10 POLICY CHANGES OF FINAL CHARTER The final document adopted by the Charter Commission contains several revisions to current practice: 1. County Commission - The Charter retains a five-member Board of County Commissioners elected from single-member districts.