Item Q03BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: 1 /19/2011 Division: County Attorney
Bulk Item: Yes No xxx Staff Contact Person/Phone #: Bob Shillinger, 292-3470
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion of charter government and possible direction to staff
regarding steps, in any, to be taken.
ITEM BACKGROUND: See attached memo and background materials.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: None,
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: None,
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: None. However, there are four potential outcomes of the
discussion:
Option 1—take no further action.
Option 2 — research specific questions as directed by the Commission and report back later.
Option 3 —direct staff to draft resolution creating charter commission
Option 4 —direct staff to draft a charter ordinance
TOTAL COST: unknown INDIRECT COST: unknown BUDGETED: no
COST TO COUNTY: unknown SOURCE OF S: general fund and possible donations
REVENUE PRODUCING: possibly AMOUNT PER MONTH unknown YEAR unknown
APPROVED BY: County Atty _ OMB/Purchasing Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included xxx Not Required
DISPOSITION:
Revised 1 /09
AGENDA ITEM #
OUNTY o MONROE
KEY WEST FLORIDA 33040
(305) 294-4641
mill
Suzanne A. Hutton, County Attorney**
Robert B. Shillinger, Chief Assistant County Attorney
Pedro J. Mercado, Assistant County Attorney * *
Susan M. Grimsley, Assistant County Attorney * *
Natileene W. Cassel, Assistant County Attorney
Cynthia L. Hall, Assistant County Attorney
Christine Limbert-Barrows, Assistant County Attorney
Derek V. Howard, Assistant County Attorney
Lisa Granger, Assistant County Attorney
* * Board Certified in City, County & Local Govt. Law
Memo
To: Mayor and Commissioners
Thru: Suzanne Hutton, County Attorney
From: Bob Shillinger
Chief Assistant County Attorney
Date: January 4, 2011
re: Charter Government 101
INTRODUCTION
BOARD OF COUNTY
Mayor Heather Carruthers, District 3
Mayor Pro Tem David Rice, District 4
Kim Wigington, District 1
George Neugent, District 2
Sylvia 1. Murphy, District 5
Office of the County Attorney
1111 12th Street, Suite 408
Key West, FL 33040
(305) 292-3470 — Phone
(305) 292-3516 — Fax
The defeat of Amendment 4 during the November 2010 election despite
garnering a majority of votes in Monroe County, combined with the new Governor's
statements that suggest a future loosening of state oversight of development by the
Department of Community Affairs, has kindled an interest in adopting measures that
could make it more difficult for a simple majority of the Commission to enact sweeping
changes to the County's comprehensive plan. One such mechanism would be a
county charter that includes provisions requiring voter approval before any changes to
the comprehensive plan could be implemented.
I
This memo is intended to provide an introduction to charter government by
outlining the charter process, the differences between charter and non -charter counties,
and the options to be considered should the charter process go forward. Additional
background information has been collected from various sources including the Florida
Association of Counties. Of particular note is a chapter from the Florida County
Government Guide on the structure of county government, which was written by Aubrey
Jewett, a political science professor at UCF. A series of charts summarizing how other
charter counties have addressed various issues has also been included. The FAC
website also includes a link' to all 20 county charters should you desire to read further.
Information has been provided from Escambia County which recently went
through an effort to consolidate their government functions with those of Pensacola and
another city in that county. Information from St. Johns County has also been provided
as that county recently considered but did not adopt a charter.
Florida's 67 counties fall into one of two general categories: charter and non -
charter .2 The non -charter form of county government is the default version of local
government established by the State Constitution. The essential difference between a
charter and non -charter county is that a charter county enjoys all the powers of local
government not pre-empted by state law whereas a non -charter county must look for
the authority to act in state law. In other words, charter counties already possess all
powers of local governance not pre-empted by the state whereas non -charter counties
1 http://www.fl-counties.com/Pages/About Floridas Counties/Charter County Information.aspx
2 Article VIII, § 1 of the State Constitution authorizes both charter and non -charter counties, so any use of
the term "constitutional" to distinguish a non -charter form of county government from a charter county is
misleading.
2
can only act if the Legislature has authorized them to act. Some key examples of this
distinction will be discussed below.
In the words of the Fifth District Court of Appeal, under Article VIII, § 1(a) of
Florida's Constitution, "the state is divided into political subdivisions called counties, ...
so that much of the state's "police power' can be controlled and exercised at the
community level. Generally, the constitution provides for non -charter counties, which
are permitted to exercise only those powers expressly authorized by the Legislature
through general or special laws, Article VIII, § 1(f), Florida Constitution, and charter
counties, which are broadly granted 'all powers of local self-government' not
inconsistent with general or special law." Article VIII, § 1(g)3.
To date, 20 of Florida's 67 counties have adopted charters. Of those 20, 18
have populations larger than Monroe. Columbia (69,000) and Wakulla (33,000) are the
two charter counties that have populations which are smaller than Monroe (73,000).
Historically, larger counties have adopted charters. Of the 14 most populous
counties in Florida, 13 are charter counties. According to the Census Bureau's
population estimates of July 1, 2009, 74.47% of Floridians (13,806,121 of 18,537,969)
live in a charter county. Charter counties average 690,306 residents; non -charter
counties average 100,677. However, that trend appears to have shifted during the last
decade since both Wakulla and Columbia counties adopted charters since 2002.
THE CHARTER PROCESS
There are generally three methods by which a county can propose a charter for
consideration by the voters. First, a charter commission can be created either by
3 Demings v. Orange County Citizens Review Board, 15 So.3d 604, 606 (Fla. 51h DCA 2009).
3
resolution of the County Commission or upon receipt of a petition of at least fifteen
percent of the registered voters in the County. Second, the County Commission can
adopt a proposed charter by ordinance and submit it to the voters for approval. Finally,
the Legislature can create a charter commission to pursue consolidation of county
government with at least one municipality. Regardless of the option chosen, final
approval of a charter rests with the voters through a binding referendum.
Option 1 — Charter Commission
Under F.S. 125.60 through 125.64, counties are authorized to create charter
commissions to draft proposed charters. The charter commission may be created in
one of two ways: by resolution of the BOCC or by citizens' initiative via petition. F.S.
125.61(1).
To become effective, a citizens' petition to the county commission must be
signed by at least fifteen percent of the qualified electors in the county. F.S. 125.61(1).
The charter commission must be appointed within 30 days upon adoption of such a
resolution or presentation of a citizens' petition. Id.
Charter commission members shall be appointed by the BOCC unless the
citizen's petition directs that the County's Legislative delegation make the
appointments. F.S. 125.61(2). The charter commission must contain 11, 13, or 15
members. Id. County commissioners and members of the Florida Legislature are not
eligible to serve on a charter commission. Id.
4 The statute does not address how the delegation shall resolve conflicts among itself if it cannot agree on
committee members.
4
A local citizen has launched a petition drive calling on the County's legislative
delegation, i.e., Representative Ron Saunders and Senator Larcenia Bullard, to form a
charter commission. While F.S. 125.61(1) is silent on the issue of the date when the
number of registered voters are measured so as to establish the threshold number of
signatures required in order for the petition drive to be successful, general election law
principles would measure the number of voters eligible to vote in the last general
election. The Supervisor of Elections Office reports that the number of eligible voters
for the November 2010 election was 51,261. Accordingly, a charter commission would
have to be created if 7,690 registered voters sign petitions calling for its creation,
assuming the last general election date is the operative date for establishing the
threshold.
The statute sets forth the organizational requirements of the charter commission.
F.S. 125.62(1). The statute also authorizes the expenditure of public funds and the
employment of staff, consultants and experts to assist the commission in its duties. F.S.
125.62(2). Donations from public and private entities to help offset those expenses are
authorized. Id.
To date, no studies have been found which indicate the operational costs of
charter commissions. While it may be possible to garner that information through public
records requests for counties that have gone through the process, such an effort would
likely require the expenditure of funds. Therefore, no such efforts will be made by staff
unless directed by the Commission. Given the unique issues associated with each
community's efforts to convert to charter government, it is questionable whether such
data would be a useful guide for what the charter commission expenses would be in
Monroe County.
Adopting a charter via a charter commission is not a quick process. The statute
imposes a requirement upon that panel to "conduct a comprehensive study of the
operation of county government and of the ways in which the conduct of county
government might be improved or reorganized." F.S. 125.63. The statute contemplates
that the charter commission will present a proposed charter in draft form to the county
commission within 18 months from the date of its first meeting unless that time period
has been extended by resolution of the BOCC. Id. After the draft is presented to the
BOCC, the charter commission must hold three public hearings spaced between 10 and
20 days from each other to accept public comment on the proposed charter. Id. At the
final public hearing, the charter commission shall vote on a final version of the proposed
charter and forward that document to the BOCC so the BOCC may call a referendum of
the voters for consideration. Id. Upon receipt of the proposed charter from the charter
commission, the BOCC is obligated to schedule a special election that must be held
between 45 and 90 days after the date when the BOCC receives the proposed charter.
F.S. 125.64(1).
Neither the BOCC nor the leaders of the citizens' petition drive will control what
elements are included in a charter proposed under this option as that decision rests with
the appointed members of the charter commission. In other words, once the "charter
commission fuse is lit" by either the BOCC or fifteen percent of county electors, those
appointed to serve on the charter commission will decide what to include in the charter.
To be sure, the BOCC and the petition drive leaders may have input, but the final
R
decision on what to include in the final draft will rest with members of the charter
commission.
Ultimate approval of the charter commission's work product rests with the voters.
If approved by a simple majority vote of the electors, the charter shall take effect on the
following January 1st or upon such time as the charter provides. F.S. 125.64(2). After
adoption, the charter may only be amended or repealed by referendum. Id. If rejected
by the voters, no new charter referendum may be held during the next two years. F.S.
125.64(3). Upon acceptance or rejection of the charter by the voters, the charter
commission will be dissolved and all property of the charter commission will become
property of the county by operation of law. F.S. 125.64(4).
Option 2. Charter by Ordinance.
Florida law also authorizes county commissions to propose their own charters,
which must be proposed by ordinance and approved by the voters through a
referendum. See, F.S. 125.82. Under this option, there would be no charter
commission to formally vet the proposed charter other than the BOCC commission
through its normal legislative process. Under this option, the BOCC would be able to
exercise greater control over the expenses associated with the process as well as
complete control over the text of the document submitted to the voters for consideration.
Additionally, there are no strict time limits under this option so it would be
possible to wait beyond the 90 day period that is required under the "charter
commission" option before scheduling the referendum. Under the "charter by
ordinance" option, it is therefore possible to schedule the referendum on the proposed
charter at the next regularly scheduled election instead of having to call a special
election. See, F.S. 125.82(1). The ability to avoid holding acounty-wide special
election represents a savings of approximately $165,000.00 to the general fund,
according to estimates provided by the Supervisor of Elections office.
Option 3 — Municipal Consolidation
The third method for adopting a charter is through the process of consolidation
with at least one municipality. See, Article VIII, § 3 of Florida Constitution (1968). In
1936, the Florida Constitution of 1885 was amended to create a provision establishing a
process whereby Monroe County and the City of Key West could be consolidated. That
provision is currently found at Article VIII, section 10 of the 1968 Constitution.
Consolidation could be pursued with one or more of the other municipalities under
Article VIII, § 3, not just Key West.
Consolidation with a municipality requires the Legislature to create a charter
commission. Escambia County is the most recent county to consider consolidation but
that effort stalled in early 2010. According to the staff analysis for House Bill 1431
(2009), which created the Escambia County Charter Commission, "[n]o successful
consolidation activity in Florida has occurred since the consolidation of Duval County
and the City of Jacksonville in 1967." See Staff Analysis for H 1431, p. 5. According to
that report, voters have rejected consolidation efforts 15 times since the consolidation of
Duval County and the City of Jacksonville in 1967. Additionally, consolidation efforts in
six counties, other than Escambia, have stopped short of the ballot during that same
time period. Id.
8
Given the difficulties involved in consolidation in other communities as well as the
geography and history of Monroe County, this option seems the least likely to be
invoked. Accordingly, no further analysis will be done on this option unless directed to
do so by the BOCC.
CHARTER POWERS CREATED BY STATE LAW
State law vests charter counties with certain powers simply because of their
status as charter counties. The two most noteworthy are the power to recall officials
elected under the charter and the power to levy certain taxes.
Under F.S. 101.361(11) & (12), a county commissioner elected by a charter
county can be recalled regardless of whether the charter authorizes a recall or not. The
Legislature has spelled out the process for recall elections and the charter cannot
deviate from that process. By its terms, the statute is limited to the governing body of
the charter county so other charter officers would not be subject to recall under the
statute.5 Should the charter abolish a constitutional office and replace it with a charter
office, the charter would have to provide for the recall of the charter office holder.
As the FAC chart indicates, recalls have only occurred in one of the twenty
charter counties. However, recalls have occurred multiple times in Miami -Dade County
including one that is in process now. Additionally, recalls have happened in various
cities, which by law must operate under a charter.
5 In 1983, the Fourth District Court of Appeals held that a prior version of this statute was to be narrowly
construed. Ellison v. Galt, 435 So.2d 407 (Fla. 41h DCA 1983). It does not appear that the Legislature has amended
the statute since to provide for a broader construction. Thus, if the charter establishes charter officers other than
commissioners, the charter also has to provide for their recall.
9
In addition to recall elections, charter counties have the power to levy municipal
utility taxes under F.S. 166.231 and transportation taxes under F.S. 212.055. Under
F.S. 166.231, a charter county "may levy a tax on the purchase of electricity, metered
natural gas, liquefied gas either metered or bottled, manufactured gas either metered or
bottled, and water service." In short, "charter counties are deemed to be equivalent to
municipalities" under the Florida Constitution, at least as to the ability to levy taxes. See
Stork v. Bellsouth Corp., 847 So.2d 1098, 1099 (Fla. 4t" DCA 2003).
OPTIONAL CHARTER PROVISIONS
As the Florida Association of Counties' chart comparing the provisions of the 20
different charter counties indicates, the scope and treatment of subjects covered in
charters differ from county to county. Generally, however, the main issues to be
decided when proposing a charter include whether:
a) the Constitutional Officers remain independent as set forth in Article VIII
or are some or all of the positions abolished and the respective functions
transferred to new Charter Officers whose duties, qualifications, and
independence are spelled out in the Charter;
b) county ordinances preempt municipal ordinances, or whether the cities
maintain the ability to "opt out" of some or all county ordinances;
c) county commissioners are elected in single member or at -large districts
or some combination thereof;
10
d) there are specific requirements, limitations, or conditions placed upon
those running for and/or holding charter offices such as term limits, campaign
finance limits, and partisan or non -partisan elections;
e) citizens can initiate changes to the charter and county code via the
initiative process and if so, whether that power is limited with respect to any
particular subject matter;
and
f) there will be a residency requirement for some or all appointed officers;
g) there will be different requirements for municipal annexation than
provided for under state law.
The courts have weighed in on some of these issues. See, e.g., Browning v.
Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections, 968 So.2d 637 (Fla. 2007); Cook v. Jacksonville,
823 So.2d 86 (Fla. 2002); Broward County v. Ft. Lauderdale, 480 So.2d 631 (Fla.
1985); Demings v. Orange County Citizens Review Board, 15 So.3d 604 (Fla. 41" DCA
2009); Elected County Mayor Political Committee, Inc. v. Shirk, 939 So.2d 1267 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2008); Pinellas County v. City of Largo, 964 So.2d 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); and
Seminole County v. City of Winter Springs, 935 So.2d 521 (Fla. 51" DCA 2006). The
most controversial of these issues will be addressed below.
Constitutional Officers
In "charter counties, the electorate has an option of either maintaining these
independent constitutional offices or abolishing them and transferring their
responsibilities to the board of the charter county or to local offices created by the
11
charter. [Art. VIII, § 1(d)] However, the constitution does not allow for the piecemeal
transfer of responsibilities from an independent constitutional officer." Demings, 15
So.3d at 606. In other words, if the drafters of a charter wish to modify or alter the
election criteria and/or duties for any of the five constitutional officers, the proposed
charter would have to completely eliminate the constitutional office and assign those
duties to an entity created under the charter.
The decision to replace a constitutional officer with a charter officer is not
irrevocable. In 1996, Orange County voters re-established three of its constitutional
offices four years after voting to create charter offices. See, § 703, Orange County
Charter; see also, Demings, 15 So.3d at 606.
As the FAC comparative chart reveals, some counties have replaced
constitutional officers with charter officers but others have not. Others, such as Miami -
Dade and Osceola counties, have abolished some constitutional offices and transferred
their duties to departments subordinate to the County Commission or County
Administrator. Because the issue of infringing on the independence of constitutional
officers has proven so controversial, some counties have left those offices untouched in
their original "starter charters", only to return to the issue during the charter review
and/or amendment process.
While it is important to note that the materials being put forth by the citizens'
group advocating charter government lobby for leaving the constitutional officers as they
are now, there is no guarantee that the charter commission appointed by the Legislative
delegation will ultimately include such a provision in the charter. As mentioned above,
the proposed charter that is ultimately submitted to the voters for consideration will be
12
the work product of the charter commission, not the Legislators or County
Commissioners appointing members to that panel or the citizens' group advocating for
charter government through the petition process.
Municipal Pre-emption
A second optional provision that may prove controversial is whether County
ordinances will pre-empt those adopted by municipalities located within the county. In a
non -charter county, a county may enact ordinances having county -wide application
provided that the ordinance is not in conflict with general or special law6, but that
ordinance is not effective within a municipality if the municipality adopts an ordinance in
conflict with the county ordinance. See, Art. VI11, § 1(f). However, in a charter county,
the "charter shall provide which shall prevail in the event of conflict between county and
municipal ordinances." Art. Vill, § 1(g). It is not necessarily an "all or nothing"
proposition because some county charters limit the subject matter in which the County
code prevails over municipal ordinances, while others permit the County to set the
minimum standards for a particular subject matter but allow the cities to have stricter
rules.
Not surprisingly, this issue has led to litigation between cities and counties over
the interpretation of the relevant charter's pre-emption provision. See, e.g., Seminole
County v. City of Winter Springs, 935 So.2d 521; and Broward County v. Ft. Lauderdale,
480 So.2d 631.
6 An example of a state general law that prohibits a county from adopting an ordinance that is effective county -wide
would be F. S. 163.3171(1)&(2), which limits a county's ability to regulate zoning within the territorial limits of a
municipality.
13
Qualifications and Limits for Candidates and Officers
A charter can impose additional qualifications or limits on candidates for office
and official holders elected to positions created under a charter that are different than in
a non -charter county. The key issue here is whether the office in question is created by
the charter or by the State Constitution. A county charter cannot alter the requirements
office set forth in the State Constitution for a constitutional office but it can set its own
requirements for charter offices.
For example, county charters can impose term limits on charter officers, but not
on constitutional officers left unaffected by the charter. See, Cook, 823 So.2d 86. In
that case, the Supreme Court struck down term limits for constitutional officers in Duval
County ("the Consolidated City of Jacksonville") and Pinellas County since the
respective charters left the constitutional officers in place and did not replace them with
charter officers. Had the relevant offices been created under the charter, the term limit
provisions would have been upheld.
In Volusia County v. Quinn, the Fifth District upheld a charter provision requiring
certain charter officers to run in non -partisan as opposed to partisan elections. 700
So.2d 474 (Fla. 5t" DCA 1997). Several counties have adopted charter provisions
making certain charter offices non -partisan. A similar provision could be included for
county commissioners.
The Leon County Charter expressly limits the amount that can be donated to a
candidate for any County office to $250 per election. This provision was adopted in
November 2010 so it remains to be seen if it will sustain any court challenges.
14
Citizen's Initiative and Binding Referendums
Citizens in non -charter counties do not have the ability to bypass their elected
county commissions and place items on the ballot for consideration of the voters in a
binding referendum. In short, the State Constitution vests the legislative power in a
non -charter county with the County Commission and state law does not contain a
provision which authorizes a County to adopt an ordinance or otherwise delegate that
legislative power to the electorate. In fact, in the absence of specific statutory authority,
the Commission can only seek input from county voters through a non -binding
referendum as provided for at F.S. 125.01(1)(y).
County charters may include a citizens' initiative provision, but one is not
required. As the FAC materials make clear, this issue has been addressed in a variety
of methods by the 20 charter counties. If such a provision is to be included, issues to
be addressed include the threshold number of petitioners necessary to trigger the
provision; whether any time limits have been imposed on gathering signatures on
petitions; and whether the BOCC must act on the petition or hold a referendum within a
certain period of time or, alternatively, whether the referendum can wait until the next
county -wide general election. Given the expense associated with holding a county -wide
special election, this latter issue could have significant financial repercussions.
MANDATORY CHARTER PROVISIONS
State law requires that charters contain certain provisions regarding a) the
process of amending and revising the charter; b) requirements for holding elective
charter office; c) determining vacancies in charter office positions; d) salaries for charter
15
officers; e) the transfer of functions from non -charter government to charter government;
and f) the form of government that the county will adopt under the charter, including the
executive and legislative functions. These issues can be explored in greater depth if the
Commission desires further information.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:
The adoption of a charter could form the basis for other reforms to local
governance. For example, the charter could include a civil service mechanism to
replace the Monroe County Career Service Council, which was created by Special Act
of a the Legislature and which provides civil service type protections for most
employees of the BOCC, the FKAA, the Mosquito Control District, and Keys Energy
Services.
A charter could set forth the parameters for consolidating independent districts
such as the FKAA, Mosquito Control, and the Key Largo Wastewater Treatment District
into a more unified county government. However, since those districts are creations of
the Legislature, any consolidation of these agencies would require the approval of the
Legislature and could not be done merely by adopting a county charter or amending
one in the future.
Additionally, a charter could provide for a different mechanism for delivery of
services currently being provided by the County in one form or another. For example,
the charter could create a charter office of County Prosecutor, elected by the voters and
charged with enforcing the County Code. Currently, the county code is enforced in a
16
variety of ways. Animal control violations are prosecuted by the animal control
contractors who may employ a lawyer of the contractor's choosing. Often the
contractors have been assisted by attorneys volunteering their time. Second, civil and
administrative violations of the County Code are prosecuted through the Code
Compliance Department and the County Attorney's office. Finally, the State Attorney
prosecutes criminal violations of the County Code. Some or all of these functions could
be consolidated into a charter office. This example has been included for illustrative
purposes only, to highlight the possibilities that a charter creates, not to suggest that the
current service providers are lacking in any way or to advocate for the creation of such
an office.
The foregoing examples would be subjects for consideration by a charter
commission. Whether any of these examples are worthy of being included within a
charter is a matter far beyond the scope of this memo.
CONCLUSION
Becoming a charter county represents a fundamental paradigm shift in local
governance. The process can be expensive and time consuming, especially if the
decision is made to appoint a charter commission. The Commission and ultimately the
voters will have to decide whether the perceived benefits of a charter outweigh the costs
associated with seeking one.
17
Attachments
Charts prepared by CAY using 2009 Census estimates highlighting the
populations of charter and non --charter counties.
a. Florida Counties sorted by population
b. Florida Counties sorted alphabetically
2. Florida Association of Counties materials
a. Basic Differences Between Charter & Non -Charter Counties
b. Florida Charter Counties, one sheet overview
c. Detailed comparison of Charter Counties by topic
i. Legislative Body
ii. Constitutional Officers
iii. Executive Branch/County Executive/Manager
iv. County Attorney
v. Pre-emption of Municipal Ordinances
A. Ethics and Elections
vii. Recall Elections Held
viii. Initiatives and County Ordinances
ix. Amending Charter by Petition
x. Amending Charter by Charter Review Commission
A. Amending Charter by County Commission
d. County Government Structure in Florida by Aubrey Jewett
3. Escambia County Materials
a. Background memo
b. January 8, 2010 news article Government Consolidation Plan Hits
Roadblock: Escambia Withdraws Support for 2010 Mote
c. House Bill 1431 Staff Analysis on Escambia Consolidation Bill
d . Taxes in Florida Medium -Sized Charter and Non -charter Counties,
by Wynn Teasley and Donald Steacy, University of West Florida.
4. St. Johns County Materials
a. Background memo
b. Comparison chart
Part One
A comparison of Florida counties by Population
Charter & Non -charter counties
Sorted by Population & Alphabetically
0 CD
LO
:3
L)
o
la-
CD
�7i
0 0
0
0 0
XC _ *MMM:E-qMKDDOMCC-OmDr-r-
OD:cu cDCL m co a OD � 0 — 5 (D p a- �
0 0 0 17) La
0 0 0 0
C 0s
m
C)D --; W f o w o o w Ln N CT? A) -A Lfl o I C='I .1� .Q .Q .� W --; C7 .J 1 '
-.4 a) a) "'1 co LJ1 fD -" w .1� � -� 'Ln '"'1 � OD .Q N L� L� .d o � -� � w Ln LJ1 CD C0 N LSi COCO CD M OD Cr) LO � C" C3 W � CC .� L,�i 1 -.s Lei W -aCO CO
W .Q '�J '�J M M C='I CT? Cif o Lfl --; Cf? LJ1 .Q f i .� �� CM C7 Lam? (.
CD
Z
0
0
C
0
a
L�
m 0
�3
0
CO)
o �
CL
CD !�
C7 1 CL
CD 3 0 �
;3. o (D f c
0
77
�. M,
rn r
CD
• P
0
z
N
T :c 0
cr
M o M
o
0 c 0
Z. U C
0 o
0 0
c �
q
T O T m<
0 w
3� o
� CD-4
x4c c,�o
o �
�.-
0 c
0 IM U)
CL
0 0
c
0
o
0�
C
v�
C C
-00
C7
q
C.
c
co
CD
m
0
CL
0)
0
CD
CO
0
CD
o c.
cr
o �
rn�
Ali
0
m
0
0
c
. A .,._a
% • t •
► o Cf? Lfl LTA Lfl 14'f L� CT? L '1 -� Lei L� C7D CAD Cx? N Lam? C7 Cf? L7�'1 W �t Cf? CAD -A lk6 Cf? -A C� w C='I
lam► t ti • t ♦ ♦ • ti ♦ a ♦ t ti • ♦ ♦ ♦ ti % t • ♦ • • • ♦ % ♦ a • t • • t3? J5. L�7 W �. CD W .� W OD �J f J LT1 LT1 L -� i a) Lrl j (.n .CL �t .� f %j W �t -�
w " � "'� .d CD C7 �Ti Lfl L7 o Cf? .d L %) Cif -A � -+ CD ' � W L n 4 Lam? CT? LTI C n LTI to Q?
I o L�7 C7 C70 W I C7 Lfl .Q LT1 J '�4 -A (.0 L o 00 _ f' .nL .Q Q) cy) W L% '.J 1o, w
GD � m W —L w w '�! w �i -A -A -A -A 1ki -A w M -L W m —� .1I m Cx? W I'V m PO .L.
CD n
c�
C
CO)
-r
0
0
OD
0
3
CD
0
a
6�
0
core
U
O
c
Q)
m
0
m �■
0 CL
0
5 1 0
m �"♦"
0
CD
■iw
lb
wr
M m
CD0
cm ... CD
m 0
m 0)
< En 2-0-0 00000 z it
00 0 CD ;r M M M 0
CL 0 co 0 00 0 0
0 ,•� 0 p3 PO 00 � p� p� c rz-� w❑ � 0� 0
10 j= CDc� Im 0 c � � �0(3 � o
0 to p C p p
0
c c
ma
co
al
Part Two
Materials Prepared by Florida Association of Counties
a. Basic Differences Between Charter & Non -Charter Counties
C
0
�
[D
@ 9
n CD
�' C
r-4• reel-
M
[D
CD
Cl)U
U a
— sr
o �v
�
C
� C
CD
Cl) �
0
:3C 0
0
CD
u,
o N
r0
r -%
C �
[D
0
0
`�
�' 0
00.0
:3
0
r*
0o
r*
��
C
C
°(n �
COD
�
o
f-ob
CD
reel,C
.,.
C
V.-P. C
(�
Q
[�
[D r* CD
CD.
CD
.�,
co
SI)
: C 3
3
°
C
CD
so
CL
reel,3
=r
—'
p
�D
cn
Z'
C
�
0
rrt
0
CD �3
0
•91)
�. 3 a
0
CD
0
�•
0
0
0
C
'M�ffiffi
cD
C
a-
U3
- ,..�
M3
0.
��
••.
.•.
•••
♦••
.•.
�0
0-0
00
0
00
w 0
�0
w q
�-00
D C
C
C
C
^,-0 C
Dee
1w 0
0
��
u,
ch
—a0
�=
m�
��
(nreet
CD
CD
c
:3•
cC
a
CD
�
reeve 0
=r
o c
�
c0
�
cv
°00
ov
C
�
�o
C
�-m
CD �
3
CD
r„♦
ao
o C
0
0
C9 3
IW �
— ,._.
�.�
o
�
reete.
(6�C/3
CD
-�
3
'a a
Be C
m C
`�
m m
a 0
�'
,
�0
3
CD
0
Cn CD
�
� � a
.�.
—
C
C
�
CD C
[Dcr
@
e
fn CD
'
�i1 2
0 reel- 0
0 =r
C ._.
0
Can
3
�
�o
� cD �
a -,
0
0-
as'
CL
m
a%<
W
ic
0
OD
n
x
n
X Go
my
Xn
zv
D =n
z M
Om
z 7°
m
=n
nm
CO)
ED
mm
0
cZZ
m
b. Florida Charter Counties, one sheet overview
o c0D 0 o "D m 4 Q�� � 2 0 0 0 0
3 @ F m n : � ° y c� � ° c
c y sn ° 3, o =- ?
CDm mo CA CD C]
n a. c °
� CD =
Cif
C+►7
Cis
co
N
rV
j
•p•
N
_a
p0
j
CA
ru
C
ru
OD
OD
cv
rn
0
0•4
-�
cv
co
0
rn
(n 4*
Co
OD
Cis
V
M
Cis
CV
f V
Cn
fV
V
Cis
�
�
Cis
N V
41h,
.&
C
�►
C
W
w
41h,
CO
j
C
Cn
OO
W
co
C
W
co
N
W
Q
co
co
CO
W
0)
V
j
CO
C
Cis
W
V
W
�I
W
M
Cis
y
C7
In
0 C7]
co j
j
j
�
i
j
j
j
i
-L
N
-L
j j
C
O
CO
co
V
—;
co
W
CO
co
V
j
co
co
OD
co
CO
C7
co
OD
Cis
to
W
CV
co
Co
CD
co
Cn
�I
C
Q
CV
co
Co
0
co
W
W
co
0)
OD
C
O
rV
co
co
j
co
OD
0)
co
y
Cif
co co
co OD
A V
N C4 w
C y � �i W � j w �ii 1 V j
Cif
3
•Y•
a
C7�
Cis
os
Cis
-�
3
x�
•Y•
a
!yam
N,
�
cn
!J1
rr
p�
�
N,
co
j
�'
/�
•Y•
a'
!�
/�
m
a
3
/■x
irf.
C
44-
CA
cn
�•
co
!CA
V/
��
to
�RWtt
Vim,
we
to
cn
(n.
to
W
o.
3
cA•
0
o
x
C
a
3
to
0
a
3,
Vl
0
a
3
in
o
o.
3,
co
o
a
3
cA
0
a
3=
co
0
o
0
x
c
0.
3,
cA
0
o.
3
to
0
a
3
to
0
o
A
c
C,
o.
3
cn
0
3
w
a
3
cn
o
a
3
cn
o
a
3
cn
N
0
m
3
cn
N
o
d
�
�
0
�
co
mcD
C
o
a
o
�
:3co
co
C
o-
�'
d
�
0
�
:3
co
Mo
o
=
:3c
co
C7
Q.
o
0
'0
o
=
�
CD
Q.
y'
0
o
:3
0
o
�
�
co
o
o
�
�
co
CD
C
o•
m
.�
w
cn
°
:3o
cD
C
mM
a
a:
�
.0
C
CA
a
C
CA
co.
o.
o
?
to
0
0
yCD
o
:3
0
o
y
o
0
o
y
N
o
y
CA
o
o
N
y
y
o°
y
o
0
_0
m N
jos o
Co
`v ,0, N*i
y
coa
n
ID �.
3
I° Ra
a
�a
c
qc
0
0
0
ou c
f
m
a
mn
v
0
CD
tr
0
0
ao
c. i. Charter Counties: Legislative Bodies
r
r
M
=
v
0
0
--
0
=
o
:r
a
Cr
Cr
�.
C
CL
0
cc
CA)
cn
to
to
to
CA
5%e of Commission
CA
+
1
❑
G?
N
0
N
Cc)
._.
0
--•
Vi
•
C]
fV
r
W
cr
v Cat
n'
N
�.
��,
m
r
How Elected
^
N
03
r-.
>
W
ca
CD
^
.
�
1�3
�
(p
`'
N
y
CD
N
C]
tD
M w
z
z
CO)
3
0
Cn
1
'g
COO
partisan Election -
w
o X
N
M
�.
CD
�.
v
(D
CD
Y11V
CD
o
-
V
LV)
e
C
Z3
w
4�6
�
r
o
4'
4�-
.a
.a
Length of Term
CO
Cn
Cn
.-.
N
.�
Cn
w
N
...
CD
o•
CD
CA
CD
CO)z
Term Limitation
M
0
�
Cn
0
m
�
�
w
a
K) -- i
=
CD_
5
Adjustments to
�j,
CA =
^
T
CM
0
�-►
�
rCt
�
C
�
Salary
N
yr
�
v
N
0
v
❑
C)
�D7
�
-�
'�
Separates
�, •�
`M
IQ
CA
`�
CM�
�
`�'
C
CMLegislative
&
Nbo
as
�
Executive Functions
CM
z
z
-C
-�
N
Now%
CM
z
Specf�es Nvn-
Interference Clause
CM;
CM N)
CM
CM
'�
-C
�;
to
A�Irn I nlstra'l ve Carle
CD
M
a
rn
�v
v
tV
)
Required
CO
^
CM
CM
"C
o
CM
MN
Recall
v
K)
•..•
G7
OD
.�
C
v
Q.
Ot
a
cCnD
�a
3
Cr
M
0
M
p
0
°
D
°
CD
0
-4
cn
CM
CM
Size of Commission
CD
U)
�.
Q
n-
Cn
I
D
(a
n
0
C:t
o
.�
Flow Elected
0
co
ca y
C° I
CD
(a-,
CD
C
CM
N
ca
0
v �
w o
CM
M
ca''
CM
CD
�
C
"'.
►
=r1<
CO)
5V'�n
Ch
.-.
�
U_i
N
Cn
j �- o
Cn
Z
,
cv
co`
�'
y
--•
PaMsan Election -
2.0 0 c�
�.
o=
5
a
YIN
CD
ju
go -
�
CM
CM
o
CIO•
CO)
N
N
�+
Length of Term
rn
M
n
own
-
-
--
N
o
�
N
�
N
CD I
CD�
IM
...
z
cos
`
--►
toCa
0
Term Limitation
:
a;
m
0)
._..
0
?
0
(
Cn
D
m
Cn
0
(
c�v
CD
Cv
�
Adjustments to
CM
CM
W
N
o
w
�
�.
�
w
�
Salary
in
W
...
N
'
.
0
C7
CD
�
Cn
`�
Separates
o
�
`°'
� v
�;
;
_�
Legislative &
OD
Executive Functions
0
CO)
CM
cos
z
CO)
o
Specifies Non-
CA)N
interference Clause
o
CM
w
N
a
�
°
�
Adnn�nis trd11@ Code
iu
o
�°
M
G7
w
v
CD
toiu
Reed
co
...
`�
--
--
--
m
`..
Cn
°°)
CO)
CO)
Reca
-.
►
G)
c. ii. Charter counties: Constitutional Officers
=
0
0
0
0
>
co
...
:r
0
Cr
�.
°-
w
z
z
z
^-
z
Affects Status of
�
o
w
(n
Elected Consft .onal
w
CD
Officers
-0
m0-0
C7 �
x
m
0
cvo0
o8 3co
cp
3
❑
0• �D
CD
0
aa• [n
o W a
'`' o
c -`'
z
°
?
0,
Describe Change
�
0-
�. m
�
m
�cn
0�
a
o
0
m
24
>
2
-4
w
0
(1)
_
--
0
o
7rnCD
a
-
to 0
0) Q
�
-
m
r
■Y CD
^
3
"
Does Charter Provide
_.
CO,
_.
COD
^.
w
=
_ .
;,
_.
m
for Recall of Elected
Officials
(D
w
j
m
w
o
Cm
s° `o
School Board
cv
• o
i
--
Q
(D
0
0
CD
M
�
o
C
CL
`
3'
0
z
-C
-�
Affects Status of
A
`
CM
r__''
CM
_�
A
tea
Elected Constitutional
i
W
�
w
W
i
dicers
o
(D
C�
�� 0 =r
�
CI)
m
i m
cw
01
M >
0CD0
Q-
°•
m
CD
CD ° 0
0
o
0
Cn
v ��
� M
m
rn
O
(D
I
> >
0
(0)
v o w
CL
M =t
w a
�
�; m � °
x
N
�
'r`'!;'
Describe Change
�
v
CD
�0
�'rn0
y�
-q
-�
-.. 0(D
0
=
z
�z
0
z
.�
Q
>
_ CD
� � � CD
0 C)
�
?-
`y �. o
M �
(n
fl7
0oM
o
us
us
CO)
�n
[n
Does Charter Provide
ca
CDIM
CO
for Recall of Elected
Officials
School Board
1
<
V)
U)
ID
Z
�
�
-�
�
A ffects Status of
.�
'
Cm
o
CO)
j
Elected Constitutional
j
1
Officers
`
m
r
Q
�3
z
Via°
m
c�
Qo v
�'�
0
�
o 0_
Cl)~
o
z
a
CD
M w
-�
� 2,
Describe Change
o°o
.�0o
�'
— o
0
z
OM
C'0
/(/D�
VI
� r
o nrn�
r
C.) -
•
m o o
0-o
0
mn
0o
mn
r
_
CD
CD
Cn
CD
Doers Charter Provide
ca
CD
for Recall of Elected
'.
..'
�.
Officials
School Board
c. iii. Charter Counties: Executive Branch/County Executive/Manager
0
0
A
n
0
�
�-
A
D
�v
�
>
>
>
>
>
N-D
w
> o
A --•
N-0
w 0 -
-a
0
'0
0
13
0
Selection of
,�.
?.
�.
.....
3•
County Executive
=CL
x
�a
CD
,�
a
Q
'
�►
CO)
o
CO
5; o.
w
�
w o.
Method of
•
`D
�.
Appointment
.p.
N
N -�-+s
=r
CD
A.
Z"''50
Method of
�.
`
N
�.
�,
�•
Termination
N
Z=Q
m
Nm
w �
cn
cn
with or VWhout
a=r D
=r
n v
-n
CD_
�
Cause
rn
i 1
-
--
�+
o ><
rn
� C
CA)�=
Terms/Conditions
rn
,
�
of Employment
=
o
0
(
f
z
0
N
CO) C]
C7
0
0
0
m
w 0)
Q �
Powers and Duties
r.r •"
1
10
1
Q
a
Z
a
300"%
to
a
N 3
w •
ov
w �-
av
00
�-
N r�
w c-
Appointment of
o�n'
�>
-o
y
-�
-v
�>
-v
Dept. Heads
i
C
C
�
C
3
w
w =
��
=•
Termination of
a)
c;,•
.�
Dept. Heads
N CD zz
N .
o
0
CO)
rn
ca �,:
N
^ m
w ;
cn
_
�-.
m?
With or Without
^
m O
°° D
Cause
N1
ns"
r
r
=
D
0
0
1
3
CD
a
Cr
�
—3
c
0
D
0
rIr
W
M
Selection of
o
o
o
j
1
o �•
o (D
�'
County Executive
CD
n
CL
a
r.
CM
W m.
�
• c
t
Method of
^
> 0
CA
v
CDpP
00 0
Appointment
•
CD
Mcv
CD
CD 0
N CD
Method of
cv
y 0'
-,
w
CO,
_
Termina0m
^
s
� cc1V
""�
[c W
CO�
`m
CO) m
�n
m
With or bout
w
-�
CD
i m
��
CD
Cause
M
0
� C
M
CD
0
g-
Cn
coy 5
Terme/Conditiior�s
X M
---
CD
z
v
N
�.
w �
of Employment
0
c
.-..
0
CD
0 .
r
z
0
?
`K47)
CI)
cn
?
y
CD
(
w
Powers and Dunes
�
; (a
CD
Co
MEO
CDQ
�0 X
Q
a
3
CD
�
3
�
w
a.
�a
3
�•
Appoinbitent of
o
ti
�•
�•
--- �
>
j
Dept Heads
p
0
O
0
0
_
w
Q
��
a
=3
Q
=
0.
!W =•
ti
1
Termination of
CA
_.
Dept. Heads
0
1
0
0
0
1
� o
-- 0
m
_
m
u ,!
�!
�:
(D
0)
" -0 CD
�
With or Without
w =r
(
w
w CD
CO)
CD
0
ov
Cause
v
V
v
�
p
O
ic
....
0
CD
O
(D
.e .
0
G
0
a
�
o
iu o
o
w�
CO)CD
Selection of
?.
" 0
0
County Executive
CID%�
a
y
m
3—
M •
0•
�.
CID
cID
cD
Method of
CID0CL
Appointment
`
CL
3 N
�CD
4 tD
co
CA
Met -hod of
_�
Termination
CnCn
u3
CnWith
—
or Without
>
>
Cause
C rn
� rn
O
(
Terms/Condfons
M
of Employment
C Z
0
?
N
0
C�
Powers and Dunes
t7 CD
[D
tD
CID
(D
a 3
C'
>
>
0 oo
a
�. �.
�
3
0 a -Appointment
I
of
00
5t
a
a
o
Dept Hears
CD0
CL
0
0
y
0 0� y
a
3
L
3
io
Termination of
�7 p' C
�, ov
3.
W �•
`'C
0
C
o
Dept Heads
� to CID
� @
o
cn
N m
With or Without
_
3
�•
°° (D
Cause
N
C
CO)
CO)
o�
o
o
o
_
.-. �
CO)
A)
w0
_.
.-. 'a
v
-o
v _.
w a
-- -v
;u o
_0
o
Selection of
_
v►
�
`+
_
`� :3
°' _.
_
_.
County Executive
Q
(D
CL��
(D
Q
CD
Q
Cn
CI]
40k-
[%]�
8
N '4" B tD �.
co v
I�od of
i
Appointment
o o
3
�-
[n
Cn
�.
N (op o
r�
o3
N (op o .
Method of
�•
r„F
o = N �,,
W !„*
& 5' Z
Termination
"AftRft
CO
R3
Cn
Cn
M
�
Co
With or bout
M
�
i
" y D
CD
Cause
rn
= rn
0
0
0
o
Cn
CO
Cn
�
TermsfCondfons
m �
M rn
CD
CD
ro
of Employment
oa
z
0
Izr
--
ov
G 0
zr
CA 0)
�si
D3
Nju0
�
Powers and Duties
Q
>
CL
CL
a
CD
ti CL
cr CL►4ppoi
ntment of
,
`~off
.
W -
v>
-n m
N>
�.
Dept. Heads
CM
M
CL
Cn
Cn
CL
3
O.
co 3
CL
,-,3
0•
�•
�
,� o`o
in
..... T
Termination of
Cz
Dept Heads
0
-a
o
Mrmfob
rn
�•
Cn
rnrm0b
�
CD
_.
(D
VVIth or Without
?.
�
CD�;
Cause
c. iv. County Attorney
0
�A
E
C
cr
per
=
pt
?
o_
[n
c
�.co
o
(D o
�
o
�
�'
(D
?.
-
vs
[n
of
cm
W
CIO0
N
N
cv)
Appointment
��
N
W
�
� i
►�
W
W
:
oCA —1
.�
0
.�
o
0
v
�
O
j
_
►
j
[n
22
o`
(
0'
to
--
CD
-. �
o
�
.�.
[n
_.
rn
_.
ui
_.
Method of
cm
�'
cm�'
CO)
"I
w
�
o
>
>
Termination
�
.
w
-.-
�
0
rn �
w
Cl
0
v
c
Z
`
�►
��
rn
m
m
m
o
CD
rn
0
�
rn
CO)o
W rn
�
VWth or W thvut
X
z
0
0
CD o
v
� v
1%
�
�
°;
Cause
p.�.
1
_
w
L/
1
w
1 V
�t
L+;
C)
c
C]
c
G
C�
0
c
o
cn
`�
G �
do—% (D
—
c
,�
_. _
' :3
cn
y
CD
cn
Appointment of
v
N
v
C7
�'
�D•
Asst. County
.-,
v
_
'0
�o
0
��
Q
o
�.
AttC�Tne S
y
C7
0
C]
_
0
C
C
0�
0
cn
us
v
�Si
(n
o
[n
cn
cn
CD
Term nation of
0
CD
Asst, County
..}
..CD
.
o
CD
.�
...�
.-..
...♦
Attorneys
CD
CO)
C7
v
0
C
to
CO)
19
zi
-v
0
0
C
�y
�
iD
U)
�,-
o
o
ov
°
CD
�*
C
0
0
�.
o
o
o
o.
0
C7
�-
—
a
_-�
0
0
0
0
0
C7
C7
''
�
Method of
cm
Appointment
..a
`'.
F
0
A�Att
12�
`�
cn
co
°
°
U)
0)
us
Method of
�
�'
�
�°
�v
Termination
erm
o
p
z
I
I
I
�
l
m
Cn
cn
r-*.
—
--
—
With or bout
z
(D
CDCD
M
--
._
>
>
—
>
Cause
rn
.�
0
0
�
°
� �
o
-0 C7
0
co
co
--
us
>
o 0
=
0 �
m
Appointment of
co
.�-+.
ro'
:3.
c��
c��
-- 1
�
ov
Asst. County
Attorneys
CA Ca
W [n
OF-44
0 CD
CD �
c
(D
cn
`C
>
CD
(D
(n
cn
Termination of
cv
o
cv
cv
cn
Asst. County
�.
�.
Attorneys
V
c. v. Pre-emption of Municipal ordinances
3 cr 9 91 :r
�.. 0 3 D C
Ocr
00
C. _
CD =
C v D C Co �_ 0 c m� C c—
D 0 0 0 3 p C7 v � �, �• � cz n �' �• C7 � n C7 � C7 � [D
poic
--• --•
y v oEms �000 .-.Q 4) vD (4 0 0 0 v �'. �� o
CL
o y v � 0 o
0 C7 r�CC, -0 0 cD CD N 0 0= C [� �- ,� 0 p D p
r
CD CD
0 CD cn zt =7 0 7o 'D
�D �D 0 5@ =- D M D CD p D C C7 C
D C C p C rD C C cn C CD C Q
3 o .�. � � RIB cn n�. sv o � su � �. p CO
��� �.��� 3���"`"� CD ��v —fin n ��pCv
C CD
S' �► 3 cL C ro- CID =r CD
'� '� r•.• C ca CD C = z
,�. -- . r*
p Cr � � � `�'C ° Q� 0 �a =r 0 �3 0
'w�(a w& ��� cr0� a�-1CD � 0.3����M
....
CD 3 C�Z (a�-3 � � o -� �z
� _Mosi. �D p CD n
`'C 0 D CD I'ft. D m D D Oa C Z
rn y D CD [� N > D Q o a >
� �.�-Q �o� v cr.
CD CDC c
CD
��co
ff- �u vm CD v�7-0 vo
Q Q �C '=� o p -pa. Z
ca
CD CD 0
t7 [� 0 cQ jw
Z; �.
o
CD CD �� 2. !Ij Q 3 a D
C) CD g
���� CD CL03 n a�,sZc� 0 :0, CD
0
0
c C`"� �c.3 y 0r'(n - c
CL Are,
o co
r
�. � Q � D Ca !�D � [If � � rt. Q
� �? a—
"o
CD ,� Rol
fly = �. 1. �, w b =
cD CD
=�0 wcD �� 0:33�
LA.cn CD N v o� o�v.�
m CD
Se in Cf)
CD 0)n CL cn a
c � �- C o CD Q'
- � 0 o
n �
033o0oao.�--� o o��^.-..
�m•�CD �scoCD�oo-*�'����?�ra�oZ'.��
o -1 m -.@- 0 c rr 8 m ca CL 0 :3
0 CD CL
.�CD CD :3 i
•0 co 03 =r 0 m 0
aoD o Z3 �
rCD 3 - � � -o° to 3 � `r-l. 0 0 :3 crones rya CD 0
CD -1 CD CD may' 'o -' ~ _ CD �
w 3=c ��(nCD cn �++b0 co
cn .4 C o �i ip 0 [�. `C p. � y 0 3 � . to �
CL0) S. �`� tea„ --CD con �•� c° c�'v -*'�
CD N ��� ? ono QCD .� �(h 0 8(Q(Q o o -1 '0 — 3-0 (4 J=. 3�cg o
cn — j CD o -p = CD 01 CD --• CD Q)
cr
3�3 0- ten 2 CD �.�' a� �
CL
con .2 n' Q CD CD rya > > P-4- :, CD 5 C z
CD 3 a CD - " M CD CD 5 � = CD � � � � � CD r.-CLL 0 Cl) � X
0 0 g 0 x 0 :3
o_• CD
CP �-0 CD D� �, o X
• ( CD
QACD ' -CD m r N FL 0 3
C�
p 'z
-h :) 0 @ ,., =r CD Q. 3 m
CL
1 0 Cp in a ? i7 x Cr �-f• to �..'
o CD 3 C�, o Q .�. w CI1 CD `'C � '� Q z
0 5• CD -a 2 �. CD cn o -. yrolob
CD n
CD
���_
o0�CD°�' Cl)P-4- § vm&
@&*z0 ' CD 0m
o
fly ' —' o lw
� r.+. [D = 1 w — o m o 0 m 0 0 _� CD �' .4
CD
CD a CD �u Ca ,. Q `h �• �. 0. 0 cn �. 00
I CA
~':O rwr
D m CD CDCa SCDc
Cc cg cn cv , * o o a p 3 ;; �- cn
�- CD 0
ao
.cD D C.*0 Is ftfte W, S
o CD 0. = 'o
-0%< � o cn o n C7
3 cn' — �' -. �., n Ca a fi �n, c 3
m CD
cn c D' �. N. o to CD •c b 3 'rt o 0 ::)
CD
CDCD0 Cl
CD CD ti
20:3 o 'a - N�oC - M 0)�aft-ft r-?c^'' a' � �� =r
0
0 0
CD
o,..F3�CD CD n•C oflia� �•�CD
CD CO 0 CD Ep�< r 0
� �� �Co
o�
o• � :3 0 Q 0 S � W 3 fli � � o � 0) N � fi y s CD � ;2 � � 3
2 CD=0 CD� o D� Q c ca CD CD
fft&
0 � � Q 3 0 m z 3
.� o �* cD � Co �, i7CZ. CD CD C 3
- - `
I"CDy
o
X c
c co
CO)
3
�•
a
cv
CO)
o
o
a
0)D CL0o•
c.0 ca
0t0
G5�U mo
o
c
K-'
�C70
�
c
=�a
0
:3
CD
%Now D C
oc
�CD7
n = CD , �--,.
NQ
.�Z��XQ-C'
r
�
CD 1
o
0 08
_
c
-c
Uf
Ln?
�CnD ,0
0
0N0
•
m
oo�E
oc�aoCD
Crcr
cn
CD Co
i.� o
C7
CL CD — • cc, -1 o- m „
CD co
C ca o-C
�m
�•
o tn,�
c
o o �o ?moo
LU ,•= -p 0= Q �•
CD CO
o
3 m
w
—
o= a o 0 0 c
cn
a
� D D
716 C
=r CD
C? o
_ "
0 CD
co
%ftwor
1 L= .. -�
c
c CD
:3
m 0 CD M M 0 S. 0
n CD `V
=
z
n .-.. co)
v
y = N
C
-
=� C
_
....
^
�.: CD x -a Q ZI CD a 3
? CD
c. o r.t. -�+ cfl c
--•1
m
c�vCn aQ�cw�
o --
y
cncD
,--� ,--� C o � cc
.-.°o,�c��r�oc
2.
�°
CA -� Q �. CD =rc
CD
CD XC
�'�
m ? 5 ? Q C
Ln 0 0 •
•,�*
a���rnY
a. o (D
=r
vCD��'M�`�'--'HOC'
°' 3 CL ,c u,
�
�
.�n3`oc�t,in
c �- c p a
�rn�
-o
�, �.
c0 3� .cD0
�• -a c c =� Q m CD rN-r
a
Z;o
crcD -..3 -0
0 CD m
�cED
CDv
maw'
0CD"-'�_oCo�2o
-
CD Q '"F m ,��, CD
Q cn
`'C 0 CD
_
CD o tD ? �. M �P-0- CD" �
r
C� CD p} Q
? -o cn �. CD cr
C••
o
w? 0
�, a ..-�.
cn a CD C?
� �• 0 CD CC o' c �"
c�`
m
3-Q�,3%C
o a o �• 3•
3 ...,.
�,�o
c
���o��,�.w...
a w 3 a cn .� 0
�QM
a�—�•-•a
CD n c•
�, p
CD 3
�a8m�
CD � •oOD O
CA CD a o o c.cti
a CL'
c 0 M o
00
3��=�,30
� �
3CL x< �:3
Q. N � � Q � Cp
"
�_'
�
c ca• CAD
c -1 =. CL CD ID CD
Q) Cc Q Q a
c CD C' 5 � _
�'D -4CD O.�0) -&
/���.
cn fl] rmobV=!
CD
r o
0)
o_
Q 2 —1a) CA
—"
�'
? o— CD
�,
f4<
o�
0 c =5 m
_CD
,
to C
Q� Qn :
QCA
o a.
c
_ fly
cn w
cn
= 3 Co c
�� r �-0 C
c .�.
0�
c
Q��
0) 0)
m � -n 6 C
2. =r
coa--� o�
`�ca
a m0
�•�r cameo
CD
�•—�.� a.3
o
�n
0 _
? n o cD a
a= AL a
ip tD y •�.
o' �'
C
n-
Z=
0 � Q .2 n Cr
0) •p Cv � !D
0 U w
CD CL
�
y
cn
0
ca)x
CD
Cl
a
�
P}:3
CD6 fly
CD
�
C
cn — o Q
c. vi. Ethics and Elections
0 �` E
=
v 0
0
0
0
0
Cr
rIr
n
?
a
0
c
=r
.-.. z
v '
Cr
CD �
CD
co .-
�- s
M
Co
o
UA
0
rn
? `-' -
Cp fV-
Campaign n Finance
rn
0 (D
(A.
.--
Regulation
--I
-D Cr
C
(A =
' p,
>
Z
roob
3
o
•
A
C7
rn
r'
y
rn
0
Cr
CO)
COroth 1.
°
z
z
z
z
-
z
z
County cs
0.
Commission
� N
[D
y
�
CO
N
.
z
z
Local Code of
.�
o
CA)m
"'
�,
Ethics
Local Elections
Cateda/Procedures
o C)
" � o
o�
Campaign Finance
Regulation
M
�
0
ca
z
v
M
M
Iz
ca
County Ethics
ComrnkWon
Local Code of
i
Q Ethics
i
Local Elections
Criteria/Procedures
c. vii. Recall Elections Held
c. viii. Initiatives and County Ordinances
=
o
n
w
a
Cr
0
Cr
CL
A)
to
M
�!?
�
Q
N
i
C)
�
CO)
y
% of Registered
ca
0)
.�
CM
N
Electors Required on
v
=
Petition
Cn
3
o
`a' i
wa
C
Nrn
a
o
N oo
Co
Q
0 .
�+
a
Time Limitation to
.
v
�.
°
w
_
Gather Signatures
Z
,
toN
�
CA
M
.-
0
a
m
a
.�
N CA
N
v
D?
NCD
v
Time Limit for County
o
^ Cz
ou
Q
�'
_ Q
Commission to Take
A
'
'""
y
w `�
cn
�
cry
.�
w y
Action
m
%moo2
N
N
C7
...
0
G)
m
v
�!?
N @
as
N
CD �
�
CM
-� �
if Referendum is
m
m
CD
�.
CF)%
-� m
N ---
^ m
--
m
W -
p !]
m
= M
Re wired it I be
0
o
--
N
-- cv
^w co
n
scheduled at:
.-.
o
o'
?
:3
0
X
v
(n
CO)
CO)
u}
Cl)
CD
a
CD
D
CD
�'
CD
(D
HS
(D
'
0
rn
CD
CD
c�o CD
w
o CD
�
Llrnitation -
on Sua�eCt
CD
Matter far Initiative
=r
�
?
=r
Petitions
(D
rn
CD
CD
cD
M
CO
CJ?CO2N
C!)
CD
..
�o•
A pprova1 as to Form
.
,
�
_
_
.,
o
o
r
rFm
20
0(D 0
CD
"�
�■
a
0
/ry'
`Y
0
0)
w
CD
�.
C
0
y
j
�
CO)�'
CO
% of Registered
co
CA0
CM
CO
Electors Required on
--
-
-
i
--
-
PeWon
V
i
V
n
[n
N OD
^ CO
ODW
�
o
RRy�
ii�I
�
0
^ CD
Time Limitation toCD
..i
cD
cv
= a
o ci
Gather Signatures
M
y
r►
Cn
--�
0
M
.4
w
o
vs
a
z
a
Cn
W-.
o
w
G'
o
w
�
cry
Time Limit for Coun t]I
0
�,
_ C
�
.�
y
=
Commission to Take
*
CO)
(A)y
Action
..
Q(A
A3
N
.
D
.,.
�
CA)
�.
`.
X
tD
CD
c
M
:3
G3
v
cn' m z
G)
G)
N
0CD °
5-
CD, @
-1
if Referendum i s
= m
0 5.
0
�'= �' o
% M
= m
Required it will be
0
='
o
c (D
�.
°°
to +'.
� �,
M
o
w cD
�
scheduled at
�
z
�na
o'
Co0 c�
(D oD
o
o
-
-�
M
�
a:
�• � o
o
i
v
V+
V,
z
>
(D
0
CO
*0
V J
-0
CO
'D
V J
"0
U)
-0
z
M
o
o
cD
CD
—,
rn
CO)
e�:4y-'
(CD
//�M CO
//�.{{�iiC:c
M
CM~'
Limitation on Submit
0
� Be
a,
�
5
N
=
flatter for 1�1�ve
0
� 0
`0
0
� n
i c,
Petitions
c�v
`♦
DO
m
0)
`u
CD
CO)
CD
ro
i
CO)
�
`
CD
z
Approval as to Form
fees.
N
�
o
CD
IM
o
o
...
0
D
C
CO
0)
% of Regfttered
0
—.
—
�
—
CD
�
CM
m
Ele Required on
C
j
��
_
j
1
��
►
Petition
C
i
a
Z
3
y
°D
w
Time Limitation to
CM=
o
v
Gather Signatures
m
V
►
►
M
CD
0
0)
vx
C)
z
a
Q
C)
N
Q
Time Limit for County
CA
;
Commission to Take
o
_
a
Action
z
0
X
X
G7
G7
G7
v
�
M
CM
if Referendum is
>
r
-.&
�`m
°' ig
Required it will be
p
` CD
=m
CD
�`m
CD
scheduled at,
0
z
0
v
a
2
/�
CD
/'�
(
r/'�
CD
zi
CD
CD
'0
(D
0
n
CO) =ffie
0.
--
K3
0
�,
Limitation on Subject
N
CD
^
Matter for Initiative
.
Petitions
0
0
Y =r
c)
/IM
�
M
M
•TD
CD
C
cn
Cn
'.
CD
'.
m
--
M
-.
CD
ApprovgI as to Form
c. ix. Amending Charter by Petition
=
0
0
0
0
_
Cr
0
aCr
0
=r
_
2'
a
ML
^
Subject Matter
W
Exectusi ns
N
00
'"
0
CO
0
0
0
% of Registered
CO
OD
0
w
Electors !Required on
0°
n
Petition
`►
`
Y
j
_
j
1
v
�
0
v
i
0
CD
CD CO
CI3
CO
a
Cn
a
Q
cn
�
0
(a
w
Q
w
Time Limit to Gather
m
o
o
OD0-4.
�
M
CO
�
�
0
Signatures
_
w
a►
W
IV
�
Caca
n
a
r►
Lit
W
.a►
a
G7
Z
cv
CD
tD
cn
G)
CD
M
z
rD
(D 0
9m
CD
�
�
0)
CD CDCD
0.
�
M
M
M
rn
m
CD
m
(D
3
�,• CD
--
m
�v
m
(D
Referendum V i
Tare du Be
2
° •
a
o'
o
m —
m
,n
o'
Scheduled
�v
o
OD CD
(M G)
:3
ca
0
:3
M
�
00
?
`.
�
00
f V
^
R?
�.
0 a
CO)
-4
N
.-.
`.."
0
W
�-.
r►
0
W
r►
~
Qi
o
0'
0'
-,
0
0
0•
o.
CO^
-,
o
-,
Voting Requirements
o
CO
4
0
0CD
CD C
0
0
0
a:
o
�
a)
C
Subject Matter
z
z
z
z
Exedusions
o
�
v0
Cm
C)
o
Cm
"'
% of Registered
CM
CF)
Electors Required on
o
Petition
-.
JJ
o.
v
o
o
a
CL
Q
Q
CD
a)
0)
m
n
Time Limit to Gather
v
--
CO
K
Signatures0
a
N
o
>
D^
N
rn .
a
z
ic
0 CI)
CD
G)
G)
rn
T.
-� (D
W. G7
CD
n,
G
C)
ro
D
(D
0
(D =c�
rn
-% m
?. CDM
Da
`�
M
m
� n
Q
a'
0
a'
CD
CD
Referendum Will Be
v
TM) CD
3
o
n
o `�
P a
o
0
Scheduled
�v
rn
0
07
_
0
r2
0
J
0CA
_
t0
0
CD
;
►
w
N
�
Q]
�
>
1
a
0
Q
0
0
CO)
o
�
Voting Requirements
Co
Ul
�
'
.
CA)
-
>
v
.
�,
Y
Q
!D
0
o
�
c
a
Subject Matter
w
w
Execlusions
cn
a
c�
~
% of Registered
r.
4
w
y
.
4
Electors Required on
Ption
N
�•
�r
M
C.n—
o
Qi
1
0
3
CD
o
�
M
CO
4
CD
�
�
CO
Time Limit to Gather
v
CD
CO
CD
Signatures
0
iu
.. .Flook%
.--
iv
_
o
m
-
M
m
G]
G]
CD
CD
z
0
CD
CD
CD
CDo
(n
(D ._ o
� y
C
rn
•••-�•
rn
m
_...ro,
rn
_��CD
(D a
Referendum WWII Be
.�
CD
oCD
�• o•
�,
h
Scheduled
�
o
=
v,
o
:
� '�
13
m
v
CA)
a
-,
w o a
w o r
w
w
y� o
z
W
j
Q (J) Cr
CL
V/
/D
��
�•
0
0
0
"_"
OE
o
%--
Voting Requirements
Cm
4
C
w
w
w
-,
c. x. Amending Charter by Charter Review Commission
=
o
n
w
a
a0
?
Cr
Cr
M
Appointment of Charter
Z
N
Review Commission
vD
i
0
s
y
ao
Specified in Charter?
< I
C
C
CD(D
m
^�
M
�
m
a
M
^CD
CT Q
Q
Q
CD
1
v 4
M
a
When Appointed
iCD
j (D
M
� q
�
o
co
oD
can
w
�
~
N
z
M
z
i
1
1
Cil
CA
^ �
1
CA
.►
CD
N
^
��
s
..
C
Size
is f Commission
=
>.
^
�•
N
.-.
M
.
CD�
M
G7
G)
G)
G7
G)
C/)
G)
m
°D �'
�. �'
a
^' —
n
°
—
m
Q —
Ehection Scheduled
$
�rn
�,m
�rn
^m
m
CD
�_
ern
�.
..
-
w
n
eA
(A
w•
w
M
o
z
`ai
iE
CO'o sv,?
ti �.
N
�.
N �.
Voting Requirements of
0 o
CDo
*ftwo02.
n o
At.
� o
ao 0
Commission
CL
CD
to
us
to
Financial Impact
(D
CD
CD
CD
I
CD>
>
Statements
0
0
ic
..
.
.—
0
CL
0 ?
CA
Z
0
0
o' ° 0
0
CL
0 CD
Appointment of Charter
` 4
v �- C7
1-1
�; Co
Review Commission
.
°D : OD m
'
N CD
Specified in Charter?
'.
�'
CL
CD
CL
C
C
CD
1
CD
"2
m
%2
M
M
CD
CO)
CD
%
Q
��
�
0
av
)
°°
Whi en Appointed
°
�
n(
�CD
a
a)�
ID4
IDM
w
rC)
`
z
m
°pic
z
CD-�
�
•
Q
CA
J Vr�
�
Size of Commission
Z
+
>
M
G)
G)
G
rn
�
�
�:
�:
��
CO0Cr
CA)m —
(
rn —
m m
M m
o�
Election Scheduled
z
�
.
.
�
0
!n
v
o
a
o'
in
0
z
N
� �
; j w
s
Voting Requirements of
no
°°°.
Commission
CD °
u
ui
4
�?
Fitancial Impact
CD
cvCD
Statements
�
o
low)
o
,�
c
M
C
Appolntrnent of Charter
CM
CM
M
Review Commission
4
W
w
{V
.- %
CM
Specified in Charter?
a]
V
rn
<
M
CD
m
<
m
<
m
v
(D
00
j
Is,
CO
(D
M
when Appointed
CM
M
m
2
o
w
n
-
---
a
M
z
(D n
cn
p
a
w
0
CM
o �, a,
CO)She
of Commission
=
Z.,
-
---
mo
--
M
G]
G7
G]
Z
G]
rn
>
>
��
U CD K
�
rn
(D
CD
0
CD
0
-4 �4
1M
o m
m m
rn
Election Scheduled
m
r-F
_■
rh
w.
`
rF
J
j
rt
•
a
(D
0
z
Z
v o
Q
._. 3
CD
�
w
Voting Requirements of
%.,,,,.
N
M.
Commission
(D �
o
VI
�?
_
Col
01
(A
CD
Financial Impact
OD
�
�
Statements
c. A. Amending Charter by County Commission
o
0
0
0
w
w
n
0
(D=
v
o0
o
Cr
o
Cr
M
CL
a.
�vCC
CD
CO)
W
o
O•
�•
16
_
m
O'
-1
_
o.
0'
o
0.
CD
Amendment
x
[�
+
—'
�
+
Proposed by
�
.-.
o
v
.-t
s
ordinance Approved
rn
-
o
00
[31
a
OD0
N
�►
N
by:
1
10
M
z
y
Q
m
ZL
vv
-C
Z
0
Q
w
C0
13
M
�
a
z
G)
o
G)
�
10,
G
CD
G)
C
9CL '
G0
@
-1
—
(D
CD
G)
CZ
ic
C
m
n�
M
ro-1.
CDo.
��
CD
@
--
0
CD
@
cv
0
m
to
cn
0
s
2
o—
rn
cv
o
m
CD
2)
CD
Referendumw11 be
°a
�
CD
cv
0)NY
o'
o'
oFM
�
M
o
scheduled:
CM
CAL"
---
m
_
o'
Co
ODCD
�
oCD
ti
^
%wof
--
.-.
>
--
CD
�
.-.
�
o�
N
0
fl.
CD
a
ti
Ca
o'
mi.
o'
A
o'
�'.
o'
(D
=•
�
•
Voting
�a
CM ^
CO)ooft%
�v
�.
°
o'
Requirements
N
OD
co
N
^
^
n
0
W
N
�
�
�
N
oCD
o
ca
to
0
0
0)
p
w
o
�
2
r,
❑
❑
❑'
su
❑'
0'
0
+
rrti
i
0
0
=
�
N
C7
Ui
�
+
j
ODD
+
s
to
�
�
+
s
�►
N
W
W_•
s
W
w
1V
•
s
..r
Z
CD
C
G)
❑
m
CD
a
❑
W
G)
m
—
m
_
CDCm
a
a
�
IV
W
CD
�
�
0
�
C7
..a►
CO)
❑
0
r
m
.
�.
o'
ftftwo f
�
❑
CD
m
a
'
OD
W
0
0
CD
c�
m
[7
0
�a
�,
C
m
S!
o '
vo
�
Cl)
a
CD
n
—
m
—
co
o
N
�3
owlah
s
�V-
a
�1
CD
Q
.
❑
-
.�
0
rn
0
0
❑'
�.
0
❑.
..�,_
CO)
y
W
G►
:a
W
CAS
`�
R3cm
j
��
E
s
Ov
8
P
W
W7
d7
0
`�
W
fV
-Ah
d. County Government Structure in Florida
Aubrey Jewett, University of Central Florida
2. County Government Structure
in Florida
Aubrey Jewett
A county government's structure refers to the political institutions and processes created by the
state to legally operate a county, the formal role and authority of the various county officials who must
abide by those processes and operate within those institutions, and the methods used to select those
officials. The structure of county government sets the level of independence a county has from the state in
making and implementing policy. The structure delineates who is responsible for making policy in a
county (the legislative function) and who is responsible for overseeing the implementation of policy (the
executive function). The structure also affects how well county residents are represented by their elected
county officials, whether or not they are allowed to exercise local direct democracy (voting on initiatives,
referenda and recall), the types of services provided by their county, and how efficiently those county
services are delivered.
In Florida there are three basic structures affecting county government: charter status; form of
government; and districting plan. The first question is whether a county has decided to adopt a charter or
not. Florida's 20 charter counties have more freedom in making decisions than the 47 non -charter
counties. Charter status also affects the form of county government that can be chosen, the districting
plan that can be chosen, and how the form and plan can be changed.
The second structure is the actual form of government used to organize a county. Florida has
three options for form of government: the traditional county commission used in some variation by ten
counties; the commission -administrator (or manager) used by 54 counties; and the commission -executive
used by three counties. Two of the executive counties, Duval and Miami -Dade, have additional unique
county structures: consolidated city -county goveraament and federated government respectively.
The third structure is the districting plan used to select county commissioners including the
number of commission seats. In Florida, counties use three basic schemes for elections: single member
districts in operation in 23 counties; at -large district residency systems employed by 38 counties; and
mixed systems found in the other six counties. After a brief review of the evolution of county government
structure in the United States and in Florida, this chapter examines each of these three basic county
government structures in Florida.
THE EVOLUTION OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE
All states but Connecticut and Rhode Island have operational county governments, although
Alaska calls their county -type government boroughs and Louisiana calls them parishes? Historically rural
county government was the most important type of local government in the southern, Midwestern and
western United States (New England relied more heavily on town government). By the early to mid 1800s
counties acted as the primary administrative arm of state government in these areas.
Florida County Government wide
TRADITIONAL STRUCTURE OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT
Most counties had a similar government structure --tee traditional county commission form of
government. Under this form, county residents elected a number of officials to oversee administration of
specified state responsibilities (often called "row" officers around the country because the office labels
usually occurred in a row on the ballot). County residents might elect a sheriff and judge to maintain
public order (and a county coroner for when public order failed), a county clerk to keep public records,
and a tax assessor and tax collector to bring in revenue. County residents also elected a board of county
commissioners (known by various names in different states) who would, in the limited fashion allowed by
the state, both make and implement some additional policies for the coon
ty (one of the only types of
government in the U.S. that violates the doctrine of separation of powers for the legislative and executive
branch). The legal doctrine known as Dillon's Rule meant that states could (and usually did treat their
local governments, including counties, as "crew of the state,,, heavily regulating their government
structures and rarely allowing them to take independent action.3
The historical relationship between Florida and its counties (and cities) unfolded in much the
same way. 4 And so by 1949-1950 in Florida the structure of local government was virtually identical
across its 67 counties. Under the traditional commission form of government, the residents of each county
elected a county commission (that would select a chairman from its members), county judge, county court
clerk, sheriff, tax assessor, tax collector, and registration supervisor,5 Florida counties were tightly
controlled by the state legislature under the philosophy of Dillon's Rule. Under this rule, local
governments were presented from doing anything not specifically authorized by state laws. Counties who
wanted even small changes in their structure or responsibilities had to petition the legislature to pass a
special act —a statute drafted specifically naming a city or county and not applicable to the entire state
like a general act. Consequently hundreds of special acts were passed by the Florida legislature each year
in a very cumbersome and inefficient process of micromanagement. The flaws in this unwieldy system
became more exposed as growth in Florida accelerated by two to three million people a decade in the
1950s and 1960s. Florida's counties could not take innovative action on the myriad problems caused by
massive sustained growth unless specifically authorized to do so by the legislature.b
REFORMING THE STRUCTURE OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT
However, as states across the country became more urban in the 20'h century, progressive
reformers called for cha
nge and counties were slowly granted more power and independent • •
for local governance. Fast win urban p ep dent responsibility
growing ban counties began to provide a larger number of servic '
addition to their traditional responsibilities. Counties be es �`
began to experience variations of home rule and
some counties even began getting charters from their state '
expectations for counties ��g expressed powers of self-government.
As ex
P ties grew, many states and communities began to look at
government structure to and provide g changing county p de more professional, efficient and effective service 7
Thus the traditional county commission form of ce to
government began to give way to the commission
manager form or even the commission -executive form.
All these trends were evident in Florida b the 195Os .
began to question the effectiveness y � state and local officials and academics
q tiveness of the traditional commission form of coup government
growing counties and be to advocate county g ernment in fast -
and allow structures with more independence from the state an
with more professional administration or stronger d
1970s g political leadership.g Finally in the late 196os and earl
Florida made specific constitutional and legal changes y
state adopted a new C 9 g g to reform county government structure. The
p Constitution in 1968. Article VM Section 1 c of the new Florida Constitution
counties the option of adopting a charter to gave
. g establish their government. And under Section 1 g charter
counties gained significant powers of home rule that allow them to
by state law. Article do anything not specifically prohibited
VM also set up a system of government for non -charter co '
officers and commissioners and unties establishing county
even providing for a more limited version of home rule for these count
as spelled out by state law. Following up on these constitution es
al changes and to clarify and overcome
Florida County Government Guide
resistance to home rule, state lawmakers passed legislation in 1971 (the County Home Rule Act),1973
(municipal Home Rule Powers Act), and 1974 (the County Administration Law and Optional County
Charter Law) setting up a code of county powers that exNanded home rule for non -charter counties and
repealed a number of laws that narrowed county power.
While these changes did provide counties with more home rule flexibility, the legislature
continues to restrain counties in two or ways." First the Florida legislature retains strict control over
the revenue sources a county can adopt and caps the level of taxes a county can charge. And second,
lawmakers continue to pass unfunded mandates that require counties to take on additional administrative
and policy responsibilities without providing money to pay for them. While not providing absolute home
rule, the new constitutional provisions and state statutes in Florida have given counties more
independence than they once had (although with charter counties still having somewhat more discretion
than non -charter counties) and have given counties more choices for structure and form of government.
CHARTER AND NON -CHARTER COUNTIES
One of the most important structural variations for Florida county government is whether or not a
county has adopted a charter. Counties that adopt a charter are called charter counties and the ones that
have not are called non -charter counties. while reforms to county government in Florida have given all
counties more independence, charter counties do differ in significant ways from non -charter counties. As
of 2010, 20 counties in the Sunshine State have adopted a charter allowing significant home rule (see
Table 2.1 ). The other 47 counties have not adopted a charter, but could do so following the procedures
outlined in the Constitution and state statute.
Table 2.1. Florida's Charter Counties and the Dates Chartered.
Alachua
1987
Miami -Dade
1957
Brevard
1994
Orange
1986
Broward
1975
Osceola
1992
Charlotte
1986
Palm Beach
1985
Clay
1991
Pinellas
1980
Columbia
2002
Polk
1998
Duval
1967
Sarasota
1971
Hillsborough
1983
Seminole
1989
L� L
Lee
1996
Volusia
1971
Z• g,•
�
Leon
2002
Wakulla
2008
j can
Source: Florida Association of Counties.
COUNTY CHARTERS
A county charter is a state grant of authority that sets forth governmental boundaries, powers and
functions, structure and organization, methods of finance, and means of electing or appointing local
officials. In other words, a charter may be thought of as a type of local government constitution. Figure
3.1 displays the contents of the Orange County Charter, which lays out the general powers of Orange
County government, creates the legislative branch (the county commission) and executive branch (an
elected mayor and appointed administrator), sets up administrative divisions, a commission and board for
planning and zoning and zoning adjustment, grants direct democracy to county residents, and establishes
a number of general provisions including the process for amending the charter, the establishment of
Florida County Government Guide
Figure 2.1. Orange County Charter
PREAMBLE
PAGE
ARTICLE I
POWERS OF GOVERNMENT
1
101. Body corporate and politic.
1
102. Name and boundaries.
1
103. General powers of the county.
1
104. Special powers of the county.
1
105. Transfer of powers.
2
106. Security of the citizens.
2
107. Casino gambling.
2
108. Division of powers.
3
109. Construction.
4
110. Severability.
4
ARTICLE II
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
4
201. Board of County Commissioners.
5
202. Commission districts.
5
203. Structure of board.
5
204. Terms of county commissioners.
5
205. Compensation.
5
206. Vacancies; incapacity or absence due to military service.
207.
6
6
Power and duties.
208. Organization.
7
209. Meetings.
7
210. Enactment of ordinances and resolutions.
7
211. Code of ordinances.
8
212. Noninterference.
8
ARTICLE III
213. Temporary Succession Plan.
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
8
8
301. County administration.
10
302. County mayor.
10
ARTICLE TV
303. County administrator.
ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISIONS, OFFICERS AND AGENCIES
10
12
401. General provisions.
13
ARTICLE V
402. Initial divisions and administrative regulations.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND BOARD
13
OF ZONING13
ADJUSTMENT
501. Creation of Orange County Plannin and Zoning Commission.
g
14
502. Creation of board of zoning adjustment.
14
503. Review ofplann.ing and zoning commission's and board of zoningadjustment's d • •
SOS. Voluntary annexation. ] decisions.
14
15
ARTICLE VI
INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM AND RECALL
15
601. Initiative and referendum.
17
602. Procedure for initiative and referendum.
17
603. Limitation.
17
604• Power of recall.
18
ARTICLE VII
605. Nonpartisan elections.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
18
18
701. Charter amendment by board.
20
702. Charter review commission.
20
703. County officers.
20
704. Conflict of county ordinances with municipal ordinances;
705.
21
Bonds.
21
706. Legal actions involving county.
23
707. Code of ethics.
23
708. Existing contracts.
23
709. Uniform budget procedure.
23
710. Effect on special acts.
24
711. Home Rule Charter transition.
24
ARTICLE VIII
712. Audits of county officers.
CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD
24
24
ARTICLE IX
801. Citizen review board.
ORANGE COUNTY 1 CITY OF ORLANDOCONSOLIDATION
25
25
OF SERVICES STUDY COMMISSION
901. Orange County/ City of Orlando Consolidation of Services Study Commission.
26
26
Source: Orange County Supervisor of Elections as edited by the author.
r lorida Uounty Government Guide
10
a
county officers (the traditional five found in most Florida counties), and the resolution of conflict between
county ordinances and municipal ordinances in the thirteen cities and towns within the border of Orange
County.
R
ADOPTING AND REVISING A CHARTER
Two counties, Miami Dade and Duval, have charters that were originally established by a special
act of the legislature followed by a referendum. These charters were "grandfathered" into the 1968
Constitution and have since been significantly revised. Since that time Article VIII, Section 1(c), of the
Florida Constitution states that county government may be established by charter but that the charter can
only be adopted, revised or repealed by a vote of county residents in a special election.
Chapter 125 of the Florida Statutes spells out the detailed procedures. In brief the county
commission must set up a charter commission by resolution or upon receiving a petition from 15% of the
county voters. Charter commission members are selected by the county commissioners (or, if a petition
specifies, by the legislative delegation). The charter commission must then conduct a comprehensive
study of county government and within 18 months of first meeting report back to the county
commissioners and present a proposed charter. Three public hearings must be held so that the charter can
be revised based on citizens input. The county commission must then set up a special election between 45
and 90 days from date of final proposal and the charter is adopted if a majority of county voters approve.
Once adopted the revision process is governed by the charter. Frequently amendments can be
proposed by petition of the county residents, or the board of commissioners or a charter review committee
that might be assigned to meet periodically under the terms of the charter. Regardless of how an
amendment is proposed, all changes must be approved by the voters in a referendum election. The most
common types of proposed changes have to do with duties of local officials, charter review ratification,
charter language (usually getting rid of out-of-date language), and financial matters.
CHARTER AND NoN-CHARTER COUNTIES
The general underlying difference between charter and non -charter counties is the extent of home
rule and freedom from state control. The Florida Constitution states that charter counties "shall have all
powers of local self-government not inconsistent with general law..." and that non -charter counties "shall
have the power of self-government as is provided by general or special law." This is a subtle difference
but in essence means that charters counties can do what they wish as long as it does not conflict with state
law while non -charter counties can only do what state statute allows them to do.
A number of important differences between charter and non -charter counties are displayed in
Table 2.2. In addition to more general powers of self-government, charter counties have a structure of
government specified in the charter and approved by county residents tailored to meet county needs
whereas non -charter counties must use a structure specified in state law and those options could only be
changed by the Florida Constitution or legislature. Charter counties can provide direct democracy for
their residents while non -charter counties do not. County charters can require an administrative code
detailing regulations, policies and procedures while state statutes do not require an administrative code for
non -charter counties. Non -charter counties cannot levy a utility tax in the unincorporated areas while a
county charter can provide for a "municipal utility tax" to be levied in the unincorporated area. And
county ordinances do not apply within mutucipalities in non -charter counties while a charter can decide
which ordinance would prevail in the case of conflict.
Florida County Government Guide
11
T" u � ��� been Charter and Non -Charter Counties,
NON -CenxT�R
Srincdns►e of cow�tSan t ��ed inS tate
Carman aid Florida Statutes. Only amending the
3tte Con. or state law can change structure.
Cow have powers of self-government as prescribed
by the state 1e8islaturc'
gtp" statutes do not provide for initiative or referendum,
or r=ll of county officers.
State statutes do not require an Administrative Code.
CozenfiY cannot levy a utility tax in the unincorporated
area.
County ordinance will not apply in a municipality if in
conflict with a municipal ordinance.
CHARTER
sC
Structure of county government specineu in •� ��_ --�
approved by the electorate. Structure can be tailored by
the local electorate to meet the needs of the county.
Counties have all powers of self-government unless they
are inconsistent with the Constitution or state law.
County charter may provide for initiative, referendum
and recall at the county level.
County charter can require an Administrative Code
detailing all regulations, policies and procedures.
County charter can provide that a "municipal utility tax"
is levied in the unincorporated area.
When there is a conflict between a county ordinance and
a municipal ordinance the charter will Provide for the
resolution.
Source: Florida Association ojCounties as supplemented by the author.
THREE FORMS OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT
There are three basic forms of county government in use in Florida. The traditional commission
form, the commission -administrator or manager form, and the commission or council -executive form.
These forms are also typically found inmost counties across the country. The primary difference between
these three forms is who is responsible for implementing policy. In the commission form, policy
implementation is handled by the board of commissioners. However in the commission -administrator or
manager form an administrator or manager appointed by the commission oversees implementation of
policy. And in the commission -executive form an elected executive (typically a mayor) oversees policy
implementation. In all three forms a board of county commissioners meets and makes policy for the
county. In addition, regardless of government form, almost all counties have five other county officers
that are popularly elected by county voters. These row officers are called constitutional officers in Florida
since their existence at the county level is mandated in Article VIII, Section 1(d), of the state constitution.
These constitutional officers perform a variety of administrative duties and policy functions for the state
and county.
OPTIONS FOR CHARTER AND NON -CHARTER COUNTIES
Charter and non -charter counties have different options for structure of government. When a
county drafts and adopts a charter it can pick the manager form or the executive form as a model and
modify substantially based on local needs (and in fact state statute actually gives a third choice to charter
counties: the county chair -administrator plan which is not currently in use in the state) .13 If a charter
county wants to change its form of government then it must revise its charter. Non -charter counties may
simply stay with their existing commission form of government (with some slight modifications allowed)
12
Florida County Government Guide
or choose the commission -administrator form. If a non -charter county wants to change its form
overnment it has two � f g o options. It may simply choose the county administrator form of government by
Table 2.3. Three Forms of County Government in Florida with Date of Adoption of New Form.
Charter Counties in Italics
UommIssion Administrator or Manager Executive
(Terms used interchangeably in Florida)
Administrator Manager (Mayo!)
County Date County Date County Date County
Date
Calhoun NIA Baker 1990 Alachua 1987 Duval
1968
Franklin N/A Broward 1975 Bay 1987 Aflami Dade
2007
Hamilton* NIA Charlotte 1986 Bradford 1993 Orange
1986
Jefferson* NIA Citrus 1999 Brevard 1994
Lafayette N/A DeSoto 1987 Clay 1991
Levy* NIA Escambia 1985 Collier 1993
Liberty N/A Flagler 1995 Columbia 2002
Madison* NIA Gadsen 1989 Dixie ?
Suwannee NIA Gilchrist 2004 Glades 1995
Union NIA Gulf 1993 Hardee 2001
Hendry 1978 Lake 1990
Hernando 1983 Lee 1996
Highlands 1991 Nassau 1986
Hillsborough 1983 Osceola 1992
Holmes 2006 Polk r 1998
Indian River 1990 Seminole 1989
Jackson 1984 Volusia 1971
Leon 2002
Manatee 1991
Marion 1983
Martin 1981
Monroe 1977
Okaloosa 1993
Okeechobee 1992
Palm Beach 1985
Pasco 1974
Pinellas 1980
Putnam 1990
Santa Rosa 1989
Sarasota 1971
St. Johns 1990
St. Lucie 1959
Sumter 1983
Taylor 2003
Wakulla 2008
Walton 1984
Washington 1991
Source: Data collected by the author.
Note: Date of adoption for non -charter counties is the year the commission adopted the county administrator law
into the county code (dates for Baker and Glades are estimates). For charter counties it is the year of charter
adoption (or for Miami Dade the year of charter revision of form of government).
*These four counties employ a county coordinator who performs some of the duties of an administrator for the
commission but have not adopted the county administratorform of government into county code.
Florida County Government Guide
r
' n law of 1974(per Ch. 125.70, Florida
e County Administratio
• e expressly adopting and ado a charter as descn*bed above.
once a charter county Pt
States v�r' it � choose t° become ' es still use some variation of the traditional county .
} non -chaffer county 5#zator
Currently ten Florida on -charter employ the county manager or admim
•(both charter and n ) P
• ft, 54 counties roan executive form(see Table 2.3}. Charter counties
ve elected to use the e
�e chatter counties have officers are chosen and even abolishing th
fauna, � how the constitutional o
e the flexibility of changing officers are transferred to another office. Non -
also ties assigned by state law to the o
'�� �, long as the du g° Quid need to etas special law passed by the
Pow
• 'call have this option as well, but w g
chaster counties technically voters.
legislature
first and then approved by county
T1i,ADTTIoNAL
CouNTy ConmissioN FORM
• as been in existence nationally since the
.. county commission form of government h
The traditional c � s:(1)the existence of a plural executive [county
� characterized by two mador feature board of
late 19 century. It is .
om�missioners ,and (2) a legislative body (the
• s plus the board of county c )
constitutional officer p d executive functions. It is a system with
commissioners) that performs both legislative an executive
county c° was born in an era when the public greatly distrusted.
splintered executive authority that « • local oliticians}.There is no single
machine politics with its big bosses and corrupt P
officials (the era of P • ctions. Instead the various county department
responsible for the administration of county fun commission
person resp 'ssioners. The organizational chart for the county
heads report directly to the board of comma oveent was designed for a
e 2.2. Since this form of g
system used � Franklin County is shown in Figure some variation of this
sys ' ' at all the Florida counties that continue with
rural o ulation, it is not surprising that •
P P cited ui the Florida Panhandle.
form are smaller counties to Mies that have not adopted the County
while technically Florida still has 1 onon-charter co • .
And d to the commission -administrator form of
stration Law by local ordinance and change hired a "
Adnaini Jefferson, Le and Madison) have county
government four of these counties (Hamilton,l r or mama er.
f the same duties as a formal county adnu .1 strato g
coordinator' that performs many o
Figure Z.Z. Traditional Commissio
n Form of Government, Franklin County, Floridan
Foardo Supervisor of
FApp�raiser
erty nty EE]
Clerk of Cou FCountyySheriff Elections
County
Attorney
Parks & Planning &ELL]
c Public Veteran`s
Animal Emergency Extension Mosquito ry Works Services
Cont
rol Mngmnt. Service Control Recreation ] IBuilding
County website; organizational chart designed by the author.
Source. Franklin C ty
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
• elected county -wide on a partisan ballot with no term
The five constitutional officers who are � courts
d almost all charter counties
limits in all Florida non -charter counties an include. the clerk ofesor of elections and sheriff. while several chaster counties have
property appraiser, tax collector, supervisor
i+
Florida County Government wide
made small changes to this arrangement (for instance a non partisan supervisor of election in Leon or a
board of county commissioner auditor in Osceola), only one, Miami -Dade, has made significant
alterations. Under their county charter the county officers are appointed and there is no agency called a
g Y
"sheriff's" office.15
y
Each of the five constitutional officers administers his or her own office, although each must
obtain budgets and facilities from the board of commissioners. The sheriff usual) submits the largest
Y g
single budget request, covering countywide law enforcement and the operations of the county jail. It is not
• tY
uncommon for sheriffs to press their county commissioner for sizable budget increases, more deputies,
and larger jails. County commissioners may risk appearing "soft on crime" if they continual) oppose the
Y PP
sheriff's requests. However, if the do
. q y and the sheriff believes it is insufficient, under Florida Statutes, the
�
sheriff has the right to appeal the commission's budget decision to the state A 'stration Commission
(governor and the cabinet),"
Constitutional officers perform many essential tasks for the state and the county:
[�
• Sheriff: oversees law enforcement, public safety and often corrections for the county.
■ Property appraiser: assesses the fair value of all property so that roe taxes can be
property
com uted.
P
■ Tax collector: receives property tax and other payments for both the county and state.
■ Supervisor of elections: registers voters and organizes all elections in the county.
• Clerk of the courts: maintains public records and is clerk to the county commission.17
DUTIES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Florida law lays out a large number of specific duties for commissioners in non -charter counties.
Some of the more important commission duties in Ch. 125.01 of the Florida Statutes include:
• Adopt an annual budget to control county fiscal year expenditures.
■ Levy taxes and special assessments; borrow and expend money; issue bonds, revenue
certificates and other obligations.
• Adopt county ordinances, resolutions, and rules of procedure, prescribing fines and penalties
for violations of ordinances.
• Provide for the prosecution and defense of legal causes on behalf of the county.
■ Provide and maintain county buildings.
■ Prepare and enforce comprehensive plans for development of the county.
• Establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and business regulations necessary for public
protection.
• Place issues on the ballot at any primary, general, or special election.
■ Provide services related to the health and welfare of citizens, such as fire protection, arks and
recreation, and waste collection/disposal. P
• Appoint members to and create Boards, Authorities, Committees and Commissions as
required by law.
Commissioners in charter counties are given a shorter list of specific responsibilities because their
charters can be modified to add additional responsibilities. Chapter 125.86 of Florida Statutes lists these
eight duties:
Florida County Government Guide
15
■ Advise and consent to all appointments by the executive for which board
confirmation is specified.
• Adopt or enact, in accordance with the procedures provided by general law,
ordinances and resolutions it deems necessary and proper for the good governance of
the county.
■ Appoint a clerk to the board who shall serve at its pleasure and keep the records and
minutes of the board.
• Approve the annual operating and capital budgets and any long-term capital or
financial program.
• Conduct continuing studies in the operation of county programs and services and take
action on programs for improvement of the county and the welfare of its residents.
• Adopt, and amend as necessary, a county administrative code to govern the operation
of the county.
■ Adopt, pursuant to the provisions of the charter, such ordinances of countywide force
and effect as are necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the residents. It is the
specific legislative intent to recognize that a county charter may properly determine
that certain governmental areas are more conducive to uniform countywide
enforcement and may provide the county government powers in relation to those
areas as recognized and as may be amended from time to time by the people of that
county.
All other powers of local self-government not inconsistent with general law as
recognized by the Constitution and laws of the state and which have not been limited
by the county charter.
COMMISSION MEETINGS
One of the main responsibilities of any county commission in Florida is to meet regularly as a
group and make policy. Most county commissions select a Chair and a Vice Chair to help run the
meetings (some even select a 2d or 3'd Vice Chair). The Broward County Commission selects a Mayor
and Vice Mayor from the Board, although they are functionally equivalent to Chairs and Vice Chairs and
not to be confused with elected mayors wielding executive power. Commission meetings must be
announced ahead of time and the agenda for the meeting must be made available ahead of time as well.
County residents must be given an opportunity to speak and bring up issues they are concerned about.
Minutes must be kept of board actions and made available to the public.
COMMISSION -ADMINISTRATOR OR MANAGER FURM
By far the most popular form of government in Florida today is the commission -administrator or
manager form of government. Fifty-four counties have chosen this form of government. All but one of the
counties with this form of government adopted it since the reforms of the late 1960s and early 1970s. St.
Lucie County, a non -charter county, got a special act of the legislature passed in 1959 granting permission
to create a commission -administrator form of government. Figure 2.3 shows the organizational chart for
t. Lucre county government.
The key difference between this form and the traditional commission form is the separation of
powers between making policy and executing policy. The board of commissioners passes ordinances but
hires an administrator or manager to execute the policy and oversee the various departments under the
Florida County Government Guide 16
board's control. Technically under Florida's County Administration Law the proper term for the person
hired to implement policy and oversee day to day operations in a non -charter county is "adininistrator.29
And technically the proper term for that person in charter counties is "manager" according to the Optional
County Charter Law. However, as Table 2.3 shows, the terms are used interchangeably by charter and
non -charter counties. So as a practical matter in Florida a commission -administrator form of government
is equivalent to a commission -manager form of government. ' s
Figure 2.3. Commission -Administrator Form of Government, St. Lucie County, Florida.
[Clerk of County Property County Supervisor Tax
Courts Sheriff Appraiser Commission of Elections Collector
1
Assistant County
Administrator
Housing & � Environmental
Community Services
Deve oament
Parks & Mosquito Cntrl.
Recreation &Coastal Mgt.
Planning & public Works
Development
County County
Administrator Attorney
IMedia I
Relations
Management &I I Human
Budget Resources
Source: St. Lucie County website; organizational chart adapted by the author.
Public Safety &
communication
Again, the meaningrful difference is between charter and non -charter counties. Regardless of what
the person is called, in charter counties the duties are largely governed by the county charter. Specifically
Chapter 125.84, Florida Statutes, succinctly says: "The county manager shall be appointed by, and serve
at the pleasure of, the board and shall exercise the executive responsibilities assigned by the charter."
Conversely in non -charter counties the duties are largely governed by state law (Chapter 125.74, Florida
Statutes) and administrators are legally kept on a fairly short leash: "It is the intent of the Legislature to
grant to the county administrator only those powers and duties which are administrative or ministerial in
nature and not to delegate any governmental power imbued in the board of county commissioners..." The
duties assigned by the legislature include:
• A 'ster and carry out the directives and policies of the board of county commissioners and
enforce all orders, resolutions, ordinances, and regulations of the board to assure that they are
faithfully executed.
Florida County Government Guide
17
■ Report to the board on action taken pursuant to any directive or
report to the board. Policy and provide an annual
• Provide the board with data or information concerninggovernment v county government and advice and
recommendations on county g operations.
■ Prepare and submit to the board an annual operatin bud
program, g get a c apical budget, and a capital
■ Establish the schedules and procedures to be followed b all Y acounty departments.
• Prepare and submit to the board after the end of each fiscal year
finances. Y a complete report on
• Supervise the care and custody of all county property.
• Recommend to the board a current position classification an
positions. d pay Plan for all county
• Develop, install, and maintain centralized bud etin
procedures. g g, Personn el, legal, and purchasing
■ Organize the work of county departments and review the departments, administration, and
operation of the county and make recom
mendations pertaining to reorganization by the beard.
• Select, employ, and supervise all personnel and fi11 all vac
board. However, the employment vacancies under the jurisdiction of the
p yment of all department heads shall require confirmation b the
board, y
• Suspend, discharge, or remove any employee under the jurisdiction
procedures adopted b the boar ]unsdict�on of the board pursuant to
P Y d.
■ Negotiate leases, contracts, and other agreements for the co
board. unty, subject to approval of the
• See that all terms and conditions in all leases, contracts
notify the board of any noted,and agreements are performed and
violation thereof.
• Attend all meetings of the board with authorityto participate •
P p e in the discussion of any matter.
• Perform such other duties as may be required b the board
Y of county commissioners.
Statutes make clear that managers and administrators .
fai are not to engage in policy making. Instead
they must only faithfully execute the decisions made b the commission.
not always the waythings work ' Y mm�ssion. �f course, what is on paper is
g in real life. And so managers and administrators often
what ordinances the county commissionershave great say over
The adopt, what decisions they make, and what budgets
managers and administrators are full-time employees g they pass.
p oyees and have a large information advantage over
their commissioners, particularlyin small- _ •
have o and medium-sized counties where the commissioners
other full- or part-time jobs. Managers brie Problems may
them to helpset g P blems #o the attention of the board, which allows
the agenda. They also propose budgets and d •
help steer the board to their d g o research on policy problems and so can
desired course of action. Of course, coup administrators
tough and tricky job and the have county or managers have a
y to be careful not to obviously exceed their authority or an
commissioners. Because if they do, the same tY gar the
fire them!
commissions that hue managers or administrators can also
COMMISSION -EXECUTIVE FARM
Only three charter counties have adopted the '
(technicallycalled the " P co�sslon-executive form of government
county executive form" in Florida Statutes): Duval; Miami -Dad e, and Orange.
Florida County Government Guide
18
Like the commission -administrator form, the commission -executive form differs from the traditional
commission form in that there are separate roles for making policy and implementing policy. However, it
differs from the commission -administrator form, as well, because the person responsible for the executive
role (the mayor in the case of these three Florida charter counties) is elected by the county voters rather
than appointed by the board of commissioners. And unlike an administrator or manager, the mayor in this
form of government is expected to help formulate policy. In each of those three counties, the mayor is
expected to suggest policy to the board and influence what is actually passed. In Orange County, the
elected mayor actually chairs the commission meetings and has an equal vote with the other six
commissioners. In Miannni-Dade and Duval, the mayors can veto commission actions (subject to override
by the commission). And, of course, since the office is elected, the mayor is also expected to politically
lead county residents and speak publically and to the press about the direction of local policy and even, on
occasion, state and national party politics. These are activities that are strictly forbidden for county
managers and administrators and would almost certainly lead to termination.
The mayors in all three of these counties are similar to the administrators and managers in one
way, however, since the mayor is also legally responsible for the administration of county government
and executing the laws that the commission passes. In fact, Chapter 125.85, Florida Statutes, lists twelve
specific administrative duties that charter county executives must undertake in addition to whatever else
the charter contains (they are not listed separately here as most of them duplicate the administrative
functions required of county managers and administrators in state statute). The specific duties and
expectations for the mayors beyond the administrative ones required by the state are set out in the charter
of each county. Of course all three of these county mayors employ a full time administrator to oversee
day to day operations because of the size of their counties and the enormous workload they carry. Of the
three charters, Orange County has the one that might be considered the "average" example of a county
executive form of government found in other states. The charters of Miami -Bade and Duval each have an
interesting and unique twist on county government structure in Florida. Each was designed to help
mitigate the problem of metropolitan fragmentation --the existence of many local governments in one
region trying to coordinate and offer citizens services efficiently. i 9
CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT IN JACKSONVILLEIDUVAL COUNTY
The Florida Constitution allows for the merger of local governments, including city -county
consolidation, by special legislative act "if approved by vote of the electors of the county, or of the county
and municipalities affected."2° The logic behind consolidation is to ease fragmentation and competition
between cities and counties and increase efficiency by creating one local government to replace two or
more. Jacksonville and Duval County residents voted to merge in 1967, following allegations of
widespread corruption in the city government, a weakening tax base, and deteriorating public schools.
2i
But consolidation proposals have been repeatedly rejected by voters elsewhere in the state22 Often
incumbent officials and public employees fear loss of their positions; racial minorities fear dilution of
their power; and other voters fear larger, more expensive, and less responsive government.
Nonetheless, consolidation did replace separate Jacksonville/Duval County governments with one
consolidated government. And so the legislative body for the county is called the Jacksonville City
Council and the chief executive of the county is called the Mayor of Jacksonville. Figure 2.4 displays the
county executive form of government for Jacksonville/Duval County.
Florida County Government Guide
19
Figure 2.4. Council -Executive Form of Government, Jacksonville/Duval County, Florida.
FClerkof Sheriff Property Mayorrts Appraiser
Chief
Administrative
Officer
City Sup. of Tax
Council Elections Collector
Sustainable Recreation & Central Economic information
Communities Public Works Community Operations Fire & Rescue Finance Development Technology Services Commission
Source: City of Jacksonville website; organizational chart adapted by the author.
FEDERATED GOVERNMENT IN I-DADE
Another attempt to coordinate service delivery and mitigate the problems of metropolitan
fragmentation is the creation of a federated local government. The Florida Constitution established home
rule in 1956 and a special federated government was created in Dade County in 1957. (Dade Count
y
officially changed its name to Miami -Bade County in 1997). Interestingly, before the voters of Bade
county were able to hold a referendum, the entire state got to vote on approval for this new form of
government in 1956 as it was proposed as an amendment to the state constitution (subsequently it was
carried forward in the new constitution of 1968). Unlike consolidation, federated government sets up a
two-tier system of governance (much like the U.S. federal system sets up a structure with national and
state governments). The 35 municipalities in Miami -Dade make up the lower tier of government and
provide police and fire protection, zoning and code enforcement, and other typical city services paid for
by city taxes. The county is the higher tier of government and provides services that are more regional in
nature such as emergency management, airport and seaport operations, public housing, health care,
transportation, and environmental services, which are funded by county taxes on all incorporated and
unincorporated areas. The original charter changed the form of government from the traditional
commission form to a county manager form. However, in 2007 the voters of Miami -Bade revised their
charter creating the current commission -executive form of government.
ASSESSING FORMS OF GOVERNMENT
All three basic forms of county government can work effectively. However, each is designed for
a certain type of county. The primary factor in having a good fit between the county and the form of
government is population size. Table 2.4 shows the average population size of the counties that have each
form of government. The ten non -charter counties with commission forms of government average a little
less than 19,000 people. The 54 counties that have county -manager or administrator forms of government
average a little over 260,000. And the three charter counties that have adopted an executive form of
government average almost 1.5 million people.
Florida County Government Guide 20
Table 2.4. Form of Government by Average County Population 2009 .
Form of Government Average County Population
Commission 189969
Mana er/Administrator 2609723
Executive 11,4939914
Source: Data collected by author.
There is logic to this self -sorting. The traditional county commission structure was designed for
smalI rural counties with fairly homogenous population. Citizen expectations for services are fairly low
and political conflict is rare. County commissioners can handle both making and overseeing policy and
many key state functions are handled by the separately elected constitutional officers.
However, as the population grows and becomes more diverse, more political conflict is bound to
occur and citizens begin to expect more services. Having the county commission make and implement
policy becomes difficult and inefficient and violates the cherished political doctrine of separation of
powers inherent in national and state government. Thus counties begin to gravitate towards the county
manager or administrator form of government to allow a professional administrator to oversee day to day
operations of county government and allow the commission to focus on making policy.
Finally, as the county grows even larger and more diverse there is a need for political leadership
and an elected executive. Political disagreements between diverse factions can best be overcome by
strong political leadership, something a manager or administrator is ill-equipped to provide and legally
cannot provide. Executive mayors that are forced to campaign, talk to voters, lay out plans for the future,
and help work out compromises that various factions can live with help make large urban counties
function.
COMMISSION DISTRICT STRUCTURES
There are basically two issues involved when examining the structure of commission districts in
Florida: the number of commissioners and type of district. Charter status is the primary determining factor
for size, although even non -charter counties have two options. Generally most counties in Florida have
five districts although several charter counties (and one non -charter) have larger numbers. Federal civil
rights concerns are a significant factor in the type of district that some counties use. The three basic types
of districts found in Florida and across the country are: single member districts in operation in 23
counties; at -large district residency systems employed by 38 counties; and mixed systems (a combination
of single member and at -large) found in the other six counties (see Table 2.5). The number and type of
commission districts for non -charter counties is governed by the Florida Constitution and Chapter 124,
Florida Statutes. The charter designates the number of commissioners and type of system in the charter
counties.
AT -LARGE, DISTRICT RESIDENCY SYSTEM
Article VM, section 1 (e), of the Florida Constitution requires that county commission districts in
all counties be redrawn after each decennial census and be of "contiguous territory as nearly equal in
population as practicable." Additionally it states that non -charter counties will have five or seven
commissioners serving four-year staggered terms (so as to keep some experienced members on the
commission after each election) and that one member residing in each commission district will be elected
as provided by law.
Chapter 124.01, Florida Statutes, sets up an election system called an at -large, district residency
system. Specifically, the county is divided into five equally populated, geographically defined districts. A
Florida County Government Guide
21
�A
candidate runs to represent the district he or she lives in (e.g., District 1), but all voters in the county get
to vote on who shall represent that district. Thirty-eight counties, including seven charter counties, use
this system and have five districts. For non -charter counties it is the default system if they do not choose
something different.
SINGLE -MEMBER AND MIXED DISTRICTS
Chapter 124.011, Florida Statutes, gives two more alternatives for non -charter counties: five
single -member districts or a seven -member mixed system —both with staggered terms. In either case, for
a non -charter county to adopt either of these systems a proposition to do so must be placed before the
voters by resolution of the commission or by a petition signed by at least 10% of the county's registered
voters. The single -member district plan is fairly straightforward: "each commissioner shall be nominated
and elected only by the qualified electors who reside in the same county commission district as the
commissioner." Twenty-three counties have single -member district elections with four charter and 15
non -charter counties having five members and four charter counties deciding on larger commissions
(Orange, 6, Palm Beach, 7, Broward, 9, and Miami -Dade, 13).
Table 2.5. Count
Commission Elections Districts: Type and Number. Charter Counties in Italics
Single Member At -Large, District Residency Mixed
(Single/At-Large)
County
Bradford
Brevard
Broward
Calhoun
Clay
Collier
Columbia
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsen
Gulf
Hamilton
Hendry
Jackson
Jefferson
Madison
Miami Dade
Orange*
Osceola
Palm Beach
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
5
5
9
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
13
6
5
7
5
5
5
County # County #
Alachua
5
Liberty 5
Baker
5
Marion 5
Bay
5
Martin 5
Charlotte
5
Monroe 5
Citrus
5
Nassau 5
Desoto
5
Okaloosa 5
Dixie
5
Okeechobee 5
Flagler
5
Pasco 5
Gilchrist
5
Polk 5
Glades
5
Putnam 5
Hardee
5
Santa Rosa 5
Hernando
5
Sarasota 5
Highlands
5
Seminole 5
Holmes
5
St. Johns 5
Indian River
S
St. Lucie 5
Lafayette
5
Sumter 5
Lake
5
Wakulla 5
Lee
5
Walton 5
Levy
5
Washington 5
County
#
Duval
19 (14/5)
Hillsborough
7 (4/3)
Leon
7 (5/2)
Manatee
7 (5/2)
Pinellas
7 (4/3)
Volusia
7 (5/2)
Source: Data collected by the author.
* orange County actually has 7 voting members on the commission since the executive mayor elected countywide
also has a vote.
For the seven -member mixed system, five members are elected from single member districts as
just described. The other two run at -large --candidates for these two seats can live in any part of the
county and all county electors are eligible to vote in those elections. Manatee County is the only non -
Florida County Government Guide
22
charter county currently using this system, but two charter counties, Leon and Volusia, do as well. Two
other charter counties (Hillsborough and Pinellas) also have seven members but have four single members
and three at -large. Finally Duval County/Jacksonville uses a mixed system and has the largest
commission/council in the state at 19 total members: 14 from single member districts and five elected at.
large.
EVALUATING DISTIUCTING PLANS
Each of the three types of districting plan has some advantages and disadvantages. At -large
district residency plans require commission members to be spread '
p out geographically through the county
to ensure that all areas receive representation, but allow all residents t • o have a vote for all commissioners.
Theoretically, at -large elections keep commissioners focusing on the good of the whale county rather than
of one area. However, at -large systems can make it more di •
elect a nunori to the cult far nunonty residents to
ty commission. If most residents vote alas racial or ethnic lin •
49% minority population may not g es, even a county with
PoP y elect any members to the commission. In fact a number of Florida
counties have been forced to abandon at -large elections and replace them with single member districts
because of legal action by the U.S. Justice Department and federal ederal courts enforcing the Voting i Rights
Act. These
include Escambia, Miami -Dade and more recently Osceola. •
residents complained , Y In each case Black or Hispanic
• p that they were not able to elect minority members to their commission
having a fairly high percentage of nano ' mmission despite
P g my residents in the county. In each case the switch to sin le
member districts increased the number of minorities on the co g
commission and gave needed representation to
minority groups in the community.
One of the big advantages of single member districts is that they.
representation an the allow for greater diversity and
eP commission. Single member districts can also lead each commissioner
narrow view of issues and lose sight of mnaissioner to have a
gh what is in the best interest of the coup as a whale. Thus
proponents of mixed systems promote � • Y p ote them precisely because they allow some commissioners to brie
countywide perspective to matters before the board of coup commissioners g a
based commission county ssioners but allow other district -
based to represent specific areas of the county.
A REVIEW OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE IN FLORIDA
Florida county government structure has come a longway since •
to the counties b the Y e the 195os. The options provided
y. • state have given counties more home rule and flexibilityto deal with l
Populations and citizen demand larger urban
for increasing county services. There are three main structures that a
all counties in the state: charter status; f affect
form of government; and type of commission district.
The first and most important structural question faced b Florida '
adopt a charter, q Y rich counties is whether or not to
P Charter counties have more independence from the state in dete .
operate their coon overnment Ong how to set up and
county g although even non -charter counties have man more options
mare independence than the used Yand much
y to. It is somewhat surprising that only 20 counties have chosen to
become charter counties in the last 40 ears. It would not surprising
taming decades.
Y be surprising if more select this option in the
Florida counties are using three different farms of government
—with five elected co g with all but one county also
g constitutional officers. Same smaller counties still use the traditional co
commission system that combines the legislative�� and executive function in the county commission. Onl
ten counties are still using this system in Florida and four of those are y
already phasing into a county
administrator system by employing a coup coordinator to act ' • • • county as an administrator over day to day
activities. Over time it is likely that all but two or three of the smallest coFlorida
unties in Floriwill eventually
Florida County Government Guide
23
choose to abandon the county commission system. By far the most popular form of government is the
CO�h' administrator or manager form of government. The vast majority of counties have chosen this
system, By Separating policy making and policy implementation between the commission and a manager
or administrator appointed by the commission, residents get more efficient effective governance.
Just three of the largest counties in Florida have chosen an executive form. This form requires a
mayor to be elected. The mayor can then provide political leadership to the county, work with the
commission to make policy, execute county decisions, and manage the bureaucracy, Of these three
counties, Duval County's consolidation with Jacksonville and Miami_Dade's system of federated
government provide two more interesting structures to try and deal with the problem of metropolitan
fragmentation in urban areas. Several other large Florida counties will likely consider an executive form
of government or consolidation in the future (although consolidation attempts have not fared well in
Florida).
Finally, the last structure is number and type of commission district Almost all non -charter counties
. �e �� des of
er
counties have five commission members (although they can have seven and one does). Chart
can and do have larger commissions with the number determined by the charter
election districts are available to both charter and non -charter counties alike (although the method of
adopting hem is somewhat different for each type of county). At -large district residency
most prevalent in Florida and allow commissioners to focus on wider county concerns. However
�s the areye
also make it more difficult for minorities to win seats on the commission and thus a number of counties
have switched (voluntarily or through legal action) to single member districts. Increasing use of single
member districts increases diversity of county commissions and allows district concerns to be addressed
but also encourages commission members to take a very narrow mew of their job. The mixed system that
combines single member and at -large districts is perhaps a good compromise that utilizes the best features
of each.
NOTES
I Current information on the structure• of all Florida counties was compiled by the author from
websites of the Florida Association of Counties the m a survey of the
Florida. Follow u hone Municipal Code Corporation, and the 67 individual counties . p p calls and e_mails were also made to a number of counties ounties bl
or unclear. unties where web -data was unavailable
z Terry Christensen and Tom Hv en -Politics:
Arnzo g Esch, Local A Practical Guide to Governing as
* NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2006), . 79, gat the Grassroots, 2 ed.
P
I 3 This brief history is adapted from ` '
`Hi P story of County Government Part I" authored b the '
Counties, http://www.naco.orgtCounties/P es/His Y National Association of
` ag tv o�oun
a rY tyGovernmentPartI.aspx (accessed June 2010).
For an excellent concise overview of
the history and current status of local government in FloridaWhite, "Local Government," in Allen Morris and g see John Wesley
(Tallahassee: The PeninsularJoan Perry Morris, eds•: The Florida Handbook, 2007--20
publishing Company, 2007) 08
5 , pp. 236-245.
See Allen Moms, The Florida Handbook,1949-1
p . 233-235 for 950 (Tallahassee: The Peninsular Publishing C P a list of Florida County Officers from those ears. g °mP�Y, 1949},
Y
a John DeGrvve and Rob a Turner ""
Local Local Government in• Florida: Coping with Massive Sustain �_ •
Robert J. Huckshorn ed., Government and Politics i � �°� in
223. n Florida (Gainesville: Florida University Press, 1991
pp. 13-
Thvmas R. ed
Dye and Susan A. Mac • • Manus, Politics • in States and Communities, 13�' . (Upper S
Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009}, pp. 350-356. (Upp addle River, NJ.
$Robert Benedetti, "Local GoveFlorida:rnment in FloriAn Introduction" in Manning J. Dauer ed., Florida's Politics
Government (Gainesville, FL: UniversityPress of Florida,lntncs and
orida198D}, p . 192-200.
P
r tariaa County Uoverrnment Guide
24
9 See Article VIII, Florida Constitution, online at:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Constitufon&Submenu=3&Tab=statutes&CFID=75235441 &c
FTOKBN=10950934#A08
10 See Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, online at:
http://www.leg-state.fl.us/Statutes/*Mdex.cfrn?App_mode=Display Statute&URL=ChO125AitIO125.htm&Statuteyea
r=2009&Title--%2D%3E2009%2D%3EChapter°/o2o 125
11 Frank P. Sherwood, County Government in Florida, (Lincoln, NE: iUniverse, 2008) p.9.
12 Thomas R. Dye, Aubrey Jewett and Susan MacManus, Politics in Florida (Tallahassee: Florida Institute of
Government Press, 2007), p. 236.
13 Chapter 125.84, Florida Statutes, County Charters; Optional Forms.
14 Chapter 125.70, Florida Statutes, County Administration Law of 1974.
"Miami -Dade County is the only county without an elective sheriff or an agency titled "Sheriffs Office." instead
the equivalent agency is known as the Miami -Dade Police Department, and its leader is known as the Metropolitan
Sheriff and Director of the Miami -Dade Police Department.
16 Pursuant to section 129.03, Florida Statutes, on or before June 1 of each year, sheriffs are required to submit a
tentative budget to the board of county commissioners for the operation of the sheriffs office for the ensuing fiscal
year. Along with the tentative budget, Section 30.49, Florida Statutes, requires the sheriff to submit a sworn
certificate that the proposed expenditures are "reasonable and necessary for the proper and efficient operation of the
office for the ensuing year." The board of commissioners is to review the budget request and may require changes
made as it deems necessary. Section 30.49, Florida Statutes, allows the sheriff, within 30 days, to file an appeal to
the Administration Commission regarding the approved budget. The Executive Office of the Governor is required to
provide a budget hearing to allow both parties to present their case. Upon the findings and recommendations of the
Executive Office of the Governor, the Administration Commission may amend the budget if it finds that any aspect
of the budget is unreasonable. The budget as approved, amended or changed by the Administration Commission is
final.
17 The clerk also has some audit and fiscal responsibility over the commission. Charter counties may appoint a
different person to be their clerk.
18 Although in Florida there is little practical distinction between Commission -manager and commission -
administrator forms of goverment, this is not the case in all states. Some states, like Georgia, view county
administrator as a more constrained position than a coup manager which is viewed as more expansive. See
Bernard H. Ross and Myron A. Levine, Urban Politics 7 ed. (Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2006), pp. 426-
427.
19 G. Ross Stephens and Nelson Wikstrom, Metropolitan Government and Governance (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2000) pp. 75-81 and 88-95.
20
Article VIII, Section 3, Florida Constitution, "Consolidation"
21 For a good description, see James B. Crooks, Jacksonville: The Consolidation Story, from Civil Rights to the
Jaguars (Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 2004).
22 Areas that have rejected city -county consolidation include Tampa -Hillsborough in 1967, 1970, and 1972;
Pensacola-Escambia in 1970; Fort Pierce -St. Lucie in 1972; Tallahassee -Leon in 19731976, and 1993;
Gainesville -Alachua in 1975, 1976, and 1990; and Okeechobee City and County in 1979 and 1989.
23 See http: llwww. miamidade.govlinfolgovernment. asp. For an early look at the establishment of federated
government in Miami -Dade see Edward Sofen, The Miami Metropolitan Experience (Garden City, NY: Anchor
Books, 1966).
Florida County Government Guide
25
Part Three
Escambia County Materials
3. a. Escambia County Background Memo
Escambia CoMpt
y Charter Commission
..
Structure or Form of County Government
The Florida Constitution provides for each non -chartered county to be governed
by a board of county commissioners composed of five or seven members serving
staggered terms of four years.
Florida Statues allow Boards of County Commissioners in non -chartered counties
to appoint a county administrator to administer the affairs of the county.
Non -chartered counties also elect five county officers for terms of four years: a
sheriff, a tax collector, a property appraiser, a supervisor of elections, and a clerk of the
circuit court.
Escambia County, as a non -chartered county, is governed by a board of county
commissioners composed of five members serving staggered terms of four years.
Because Escambia County's system of at large elections for its county commissioners
was declared to be in violation of the Voting Rights Act by the Federal Court, the county
commissioners are elected from five single member districts. In 1985, the Board of
County Commissioners enacted an ordinance creating the position of county
a 'strator, and Escambia County presently has an appointed County Administrator.
Pursuant to the Florida Constitution, Escambia County also elects the county
constitutional officers of sheriff, tax collector, property appraiser, supervisor of elections,
and clerk of the circuit court for four-year terms.
The current Escambia County Charter Commission was appointed by the Board
of County Commissioners pursuant to Chapter 125, Part H of the Florida Statutes, to
conduct a comprehensive study of the operation of county government and of the ways in
which the conduct of county government might be improved or reorganized. No
parameters are set by statute for the structure or form of the reorganized government, if
the Charter Commission were to conclude that it should be reorganized.
Chapter 125, Part IV of the Florida Statutes, known as the "Optional County
Charter Law," which allows a Board of County Commissioners to propose a charter by
ordinance, does limit the form of government to be proposed to one of three structures:
(1). COUNTY EXECUTIVE FORM. The county executive form shall provide
for governance by an elected board of commissioners and an elected county
executive and such other officers as may be duly elected or appointed
pursuant to the charter.
(2). COUNTY MANAGER FORM. The county manager form shall provide for
governance by an elected board of county commissioners and an appointed
county manager and such other officers as may be duly elected or appointed
pursuant to the charter.
(3). COUNTY CHAIR -ADMINISTRATOR PLAN. The county chair -
administrator plan shall provide for governance by an elected board of
county commissioners presided over by an elected chair that shall vote
only in case of a tie, and an appointed county administrator and such other
officers as maybe duly elected or appointed pursuant to the charter.
Under the County Executive Form of government, the elected county executive is
not a member of the Board of County Commissioners, but may veto ordinances enacted
by the Board, subject to override by a two-thirds vote of the Board. This form of
government is found in the Miami- Dade charter and in the charter for the City of
Jacksonville.
Miami- Dade has a Board of County Commissioners composed of thirteen
members elected from single member districts, and a Mayor elected count} -wide. The
Mayor serves as the Chief Executive and appoints a County Manager, subject to the
Board's approval.
The City of Jacksonville has a City Council composed of nineteen members,
fourteen of whom are elected from single member districts, and five, of whom are elected
county -wide. The Mayor serves as the Chief Executive of the government and appoints a
Chief Administrative officer, subject to approval by the City Council.
Under the County Manager form of government, the County Manager is
appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the Board of County Commissioners. The
County Manager exercises the executive responsibilities assigned to that office by the
charter. The form of government in Escambia County is a ComnaissionlManager form of
government. Those non -chartered counties, which have appointed a county
administrator, pursuant to state statute, also operate under a CommissionlManager form
of government.
There are nineteen counties in the State of Florida which have adopted charters.
The charters for Miami- Dade and the City of Jackkonville were proposed by special acts
of the Florida Legislature. The remaining seventeen charters are county charters drafted
pursuant to Chapter 125 of the Florida Statutes. Sixteen of these seventeen charters
provide for the County Manager form of government.
The remaining county, Orange County, has adopted the County Chair -
Administrator Plan of government. Orange County has a Board of County
Commissioners composed of six members elected from single member districts and a
chairman elected county -wide. The County Chairman is a member of the Board of
County Commissioners; he presides over the meetings of the Board and has a vote. The
County Chairmen also serves as Chief Executive of the government and appoints the
County Administrator, subject to approval by the Board.
The form of government that is best for Escambia County is a matter of opinion.
The Escambia County Charter Commission is very interested in hearing the opinions of
the citizens on the form of government that they believe would be best for Escambia
County.
3. b. January 8, 2010 news article
Government Consolidation Plan flits Roadblock:
Escambia Withdraws Support for 2010 Vote
Government Consolidation Plan Hits Roadblock: Escambia withdraws Support For 2010... Page 2 of 7
Government Consolidation Plan Hits
Roadblock: Escambia Withdraws Support For
2010 Vote
January 8, 2010
On a split vote, the Escambia County Commission has pulled support for a 2010 vote on a
government consolidation plan, delaying any possible consolidation referendum until 2012 at the
earliest. Escambia became the second of three entities to withdraw support; Century pulled their
support in January of last year.
motion by Commissioner Wilson Robertson to ask
the Escambia County legislative delegation to delay any consolidation vote until no earlier than
November 2012 passed 3-2. Commissioners Robertson, Kevin White and Gene Valentino voted for
the delay, while Commissioners Marie Young and Grover Robinson voted against.
mhtml:file:HC:lUserslshillinger-boblAppData\LocallMicrosof \WIndowslTemporary Interne, 1/4/2011
Government Consolidation Plan Hits Roadblock: Escambia Withdraws Support For 2010 ... Page 3 of 7
The Escambia County Consolidation Study Commission's proposal to unify the three governments is
due by January 15, but it is still not complete. The group has three meetings remaining, including one
on January 14, in which it planned to hammer out a final proposal.
That schedule, Robertson said, was simply not acceptable to allow for full review of the plan.
"There is no rush, and there is plenty of time to do this," Attorney Kenneth Bell told the commision.
Bell, who chairs the consolidation committee, said that the actual bill in legislature does not have to
be filed until February 15. "I was given my task under the bill agreed to by this commission, the City
of Pensacola, the Town of Century and other folks ... And the deadline we were given was January 15,
and we are on task to reach that deadline."
Bell said he was disappointed that there "would be an attempt to the pull the rug out of this process".
y things that Mr. Robertson has put in his letter are simply not true,"
he said. He encourage the commission to wait until the final consolidation commission meeting on
January 14, or "at the latest" January 21 for final proposal that he said the commission had worked
thousands of hours to draft. "I think it is incredibly disrespectful."
"I didn't think you could make it," Robertson said. "I was very concerned about seeing this document
so we could decide if we wanted to continue to support it."
"I don't want to have a document that has been approved by the delegation," he said, "that all I am
going to be able to debate for the next 10 months before it goes to election is whether I am for it or
against it. I want a document that has been worked out, that has been hammered out, refined, that's
went out to the community, that's been discussed."
"I am not trying to kills this. Get it on the 2012 ballot. Why does it have to be 2010?" Robertson said.
"I do support some form of consolidation. I've referred to it as ice cream that comes in 20 flavors
which one are you talking about?" Commissioner Gene Valentino said. "There is no judgement being
passed here directly or indirectly on consolidation."
The Town of Century also pulled their support for the plan altogether. In December 2008, the Century
Town Council voted to support a consolidation study, but a few weeks later, Century withdrew their
support with council members saying they were misled by the group Escambia All For One.
If the 25-member Escambia County Consolidation Study Commission finishes their proposal by
January 15, it will still go to the Northwest Florida Legislative Delegation. The delegation will
usually not send an item to the full legislature if it does to have the full support of the local
governments involved.
Pictured top inset: Commissioner Wilson Robertson at Thursday night's BOCC meeting.
Pictured bottom inset: Kenneth Bell.
mhtml:file:IIC:IUserslshillinger-boblAppDatalLocallMicrosoftlWindowslTemporary Interne... 1/4/2011
3. c. House Bill 1431 Staff Analysis on
Escambia Consolidation Bill
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES LOCAL BILL STAFF ANALYSIS
BILL #: CS/HB 1431 City of Pensacola, Town of Century, and Escambia
County
SPONSOR(S): Military &Local Affairs Policy Committee; Evers
TIED BILLS: IDEN./SIM. BILLS:
REFERENCE ACTION ANALYST STAFF
DIRECTOR
1) Military & Local Affairs Policy Committee
2) Economic Development & Community Affairs Policy
Council
3) Finance & Tax Council
4)
5)
14 Y, D N, As CS
14 Y, D N
11Y,ON
SUMMARY ANALYSIS
Nelson
Nelson
Wilson
Hoagland
Tinker
Langston
Section 3, Art. VIII of the State Constitution provides that city/county consolidations may take place
pursuant to a "consolidation plan... proposed only by special law, which shall become effective if approved
by vote of the electors of the county, or of the county and municipalities affected...."
This bill creates a commission for the purpose of developing a consolidation plan for the City of
Pensacola, Town of Century, and Escambia County. The bill provides for: the membership of the
commission; special advisory committees and membership; meetings; sources of funding; private
contributions; clerical, technical and legal assistance; dissolution of the commission and reversion of
commission property to the county.
While the Economic Impact Statement does not describe a fiscal impact, it indicates that the proposed
consolidation would provide for lower taxes, and have a positive impact on economic development.
The bill is effective upon becoming law.
This document does not reflect the Intent or official position of the bill sponsor or House of Representatives.
STORAGE NAME: h1431e.FTC.doc
DATE: 4/13/2009
HOUSE PRINCIPLES
Members are encouraged to evaluate proposed legislation in light of the following guiding
principles of the House of Representatives:
• Balance the state budget.
• Create a legal and regulatory environment that fosters economic growth and job creation.
• Lower the tax burden on families and businesses.
• Reverse or restrain the growth of government.
• Promote public safety.
• Promote educational accountability, excellence, and choice.
• Foster respect for the family and for innocent human life.
• Protect Florida's natural beauty.
FULL ANALYSIS
I. SUBSTANTIVE ANALYSIS
A. EFFECT OF PROPOSED CHANCES:
Present Situation
History of City/County Consolidations
Consolidation involves combining city and county governments so that the boundaries of
the county and an affected city or cities become the same. Consolidation can be total or
partial. Total consolidation occurs where all independent governmental units within a
county are assimilated into the consolidated government. When some of the
governmental units remain independent, the consolidation is partial.
All jurisdictions need not participate in a consolidation effort, and consolidation does not
automatically preclude the later formation of new cities or special districts. When the
consolidated government of Jacksonville/Duval County was formed, for example, four
cities retained their identity (Neptune Beach, Baldwin, Atlantic Beach and Jacksonville
Beach), but four special districts were eliminated and 12 more were consolidated into two
dependent districts. Since that time, at least one new independent special district has
been created within the geographic boundaries of the consolidated government.
Few successful city -county consolidations have occurred in the United States. Of the
nearly 3,066 county governments in the United States, only 36 are combined city/county
governments.'
The Florida Constitution & Consolidation
Prior to 1934, the 1885 State Constitution was silent on the subject of consolidation. This
lack of constitutional direction left many questions unanswered about the authority of the
Legislature to enact statutes consolidating city and county governments. Consequently, to
avoid potential legal challenges, the Legislature began specifically authorizing
consolidation efforts by proposing constitutional amendments.
The 1933 Legislature passed a joint resolution to amend the Constitution declaring its own
power to establish a municipal corporation consolidating the governments of Duval County
and any of the municipalities within its boundaries, subject to referendum approval of the
1 Research Division, National Association of Counties, Washington, D.C.
STORAGE NAME: h 1431 e. FTC.doc PAGE: 2
DATE: 4/13/2009
affected voters.z The electorate of Florida adopted this amendment in 1934. However,
the voters of the City of Jacksonville and Duval County did not adopt a municipal charter
pursuant to this constitutional provision until 1967.3
In 1935, the Legislature enacted a joint resolution to amend the Constitution, adopted by
the Florida electorate in 1936, establishing similar legislative authority, subject to voter
approval, with respect to Key Vilest and Monroe County.4 The citizens of Key West and
Monroe County have not voted to utilize this authority and enact consolidated government.
In 1965, the Legislature passed a constitutional amendment, adopted by the Florida
electorate in 1966, authorizing consolidation in Hillsborough County in a slightly different
manner. This constitutional provision directly authorizes the electors of Hillsborough
County to adopt a county charter, conditioned upon the consolidation of the governments
of the City of Tampa and the county.5 This authority has not been utilized. Hillsborough
County, however, became a charter county pursuant to general law in 1983.
Presently, only Duval County and the City of Jacksonville have taken advantage of the
specific constitutional authority to consolidate. However, the enabling amendments to the
1885 Constitution for the consolidation of the City of Key West and Monroe County, and
the consolidation of the City of Tampa and Hillsborough County, remain a part of the State
Constitution, adopted by reference in Article VIII, section 6(e) of the State Constitution.
The 1955 Legislature authorized the voters of Dade County to enact a home rule charter
through an amendment to the 1885 State Constitution.' This constitutional provision did
not authorize consolidation as authorized for the other three counties. It did empower the
electors of Miami -Dade County through their charter to: 1) create a central metropolitan
government; 2) merge, consolidate and abolish all municipal corporations, county, or
district governments in the county; and 3) provide a method by which any and all of the
functions or powers of any municipal corporation or other governmental entity in Miami -
Dade County may be transferred to the board of county commissioners.
General authority for consolidation is provided in Article VIII, section 3 of the State
Constitution. Under this section, city/county consolidations may only occur through a
consolidation plan passed by special act of the Legislature and subject to approval of the
electorate. Voter approval may be obtained via a single countywide referendum or
through a separate referendum election held in each affected political jurisdiction. The
consolidation plan cannot require new residents to be responsible for old debts, unless
they benefit from the facility or service for which the indebtedness was incurred.
Florida Statutes Specifically Addressing Consolidated, Govemments
Several general laws uniquely affect consolidated governments. These statutes fall into
three broad categories: retirement and pension rights, taxation and finance, and export
trade. These statutes apply to the consolidated govemment of Jacksonville/Duval County
and, in some cases, Miami -Dade County. However, these provisions could apply to any
other governments that consolidate.
z Section 9, Art. VIII of the State Constitution of 1885 as referenced in s. 6, Art. VIII of the State Constitution.
3 Jacksonville Ordinance Code, Volume III (containing the Charter and Related Laws of the City of Jacksonville,
Florida), (Tallahassee, Florida: Municipal Code Corporation, 1991), C-1.
4 Section 10, Art. VIII of the State Constitution of 1885, as referenced in s. 6, Art. VIII of the State Constitution. .
5 Section 24, Art. VIII of the State Constitution of 1885 as referenced s. 6, Art.VIII of the State Constitution.
a Home Rule Charter for Hillsborough County Florida, (Tampa, Florida: Hillsborough County Board of County
Commissioners, September 1983), Introduction.
' Section 11, Art. VIII of the State Constitution of 1885 as referenced in s. 6, Art. VIII of the State Constitution.
STORAGE NAME: hl 431 e.FTC.doc PAGE: 3
DATE: 4/13/2009
Retirement and Pension Rights
Section 112.0515, F.S., protects the rights of all public employees in any retirement or
pension fund. Public employees' benefits or other pension rights may not be diminished,
impaired or reduced by reason of city/county consolidation or other types of governmental
reorganization.
In addition to protecting pension and retirement benefits, the law in ss.121.081 (f) and (g),
F.S., details the conditions under which past service or prior service may be claimed and
credited for purposes of calculating retirement benefits. For officers and employees of any
county or city involved in a consolidation, the following conditions apply:
• Employees participating in a local retirement system of any county or city
involved in a consolidation may, if eligible, elect to switch over to the Florida
Retirement System. Employer contributions must continue at required rates.
• Past -service credit must be given.
• Membership in a state retirement system will be protected for officers or
employees of a consolidated government enrolled in the system on May 15,
1976.
Taxation and Finance
There are several statutes that financially affect consolidated governments. These laws
relate generally to:
0 millage determination;
local option taxes; and
revenue sharing.
For purposes of the determination of their millage rates for ad valorem taxing purposes,
the governments of Miami -Dade County and the consolidated government of
Jacksonville/Duval County are defined as county govemments.e Except for voted levies,
cities and counties are constitutionally limited to a millage cap of 10 mills for municipal
purposes and 10 mills for county purposes. However, since consolidated governments
provide both municipal and county services, s. 200.141, F.S, grants Miami -Dade and
consolidated Jacksonville/Duval Counties the right to levy a millage up to 20 mills on the
dollar of assessed valuation. When these counties consider their assessed millage rates
based upon city and county services, they must balance their tax levies so that the millage
rate for city/county services taken together is no more than 20 mills.
In terms of local option taxes, consolidated governments may levy most taxes other local
governments are authorized to levy. They also are specifically authorized to levy a
convention development tax on transient rentals by passage of an ordinance. Revenues
generated by such a tax must be used to build or improve/enlarge publicly owned
convention centers, including stadiums, exhibition halls, arenas, coliseums or auditoriums.
Also, the 1985 Legislature authorized the transit system surtax subject to voter referendum
or charter amendment for counties which adopted a charter prior to January 1, 1984.
Export Trade
Section 125.025, F.S., provides that each county that operates under a government
consolidated with one or more municipalities in the county has the power to:
• own, maintain, operate and control export trading companies and foreign sales
corporations as provided by the laws of the United States;
a See, s. 200.001(5), F.S.
STORAGE NAM E: h 1431 e. FTC.doc PAGE: 4
DATE: 4/13/2009
• own, maintain, operate and control cargo clearance centers and customs
clearance facilities and corporations established for the purpose of providing or
operating such facilities;
• maintain the confidentiality of trade information to the degree provided by the
Export Trading Company Act of 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-290, as it is amended
from time to time;
• maintain the confidentiality of trade information and data pursuant to the patent
laws of the United States, the patent laws of foreign nations (to the extent that
they are enforced by the courts of the United States), the copyright laws of the
United States, the copyright laws of foreign nations (to the extent that they are
enforced by the courts of the United States), and the trade secrets doctrine;
and
• authorize airport and port employees to serve as officers and directors of
export trading companies, foreign sales corporations, and customs and cargo
clearance corporations.
Florida Consolidation Activity
No successful consolidation activity in Florida has occurred since the consolidation of
Duval County and the City of Jacksonville in 1967. Despite the perceived benefits of
streamlining govemmental processes, and the Legislature's attempts to simplify the
process, Floridians have consistently rejected consolidation proposals at the polls. Below
is a list of failed attempts at consolidation in Florida since 1967, along with a vote count,
where data is available.
1967 Tampa/Hillsborough County
(County: 11,400 for/28,800 against)
1970 Pensacola/Escambia County
(County: 4,550 for/22,600 against; City: 5,350 for/7,700
against)
1970 Tampa/Hillsborough County
(County: 37,250 for/51,550 against)
1971 Tallahassee/Leon County
(County: 10,400 foN14,750 against)
1972 Ft. Pierce/St. Lucie County
(County: 3,000 for/6,500 against; City: 2,050 for/2,250
against)
1972 Tampa/Hillsborough County
(County: 54,700 for/74,900 against)
1973 Tallahassee/Leon County
(County: 11,050 forh2,850 against)
1975 Gainesville/Alachua County
(County: 5,100 for/15,100 against)
1976 Gainesville/Alachua County
(County: 6,300 for/13,250 against)
1976 Tallahassee/Leon County
(County: 20,350 for/24,850 against)
STORAGE NAME: h1431e.FTC.doc PAGE: 5
DATE: 4/13/2009
1979 Okeechobee/Okeechobee County
(County: 1,150 for/2,350 against)
1985 Halifax area/Volusia County
(County: 19,050 for/23,450 against)
1989 Okeechobee/Okeechobee County
(County: 1,350 for/3,100 against)
1990 Gainesville/Alachua County
(County: 11,000 for/21,800 against)
1991 Tallahassee/Leon County
(County: 36,800 for/55,800 against)
In addition to the consolidation attempts that went to referendum, there have been efforts
that stopped short of the ballot in Brevard, Charlotte, Columbia, Hardee, Highlands and St.
Lucie Counties.
Effect of Proposed Changes
HB 1431 creates the Escambia County Consolidation Study Commission to develop a
consolidation plan or a plan for unification of administrative services for the City of
Pensacola, Town of Century, and Escambia County, in whole or in part.
The bill provides for submission of any proposed consolidation plan to the local legislative
delegation by January 15, 2010, to seek support for a special act that would be submitted
to the 2010 Legislature. If approved, the plan will be submitted to the qualified electors of
Escambia County.
The membership of the commission may not exceed 25 persons, and must be appointed
by July 1, 2009, as follows:
• The Escambia County Commission appoints five members. Each
commissioner appoints one member who is required to reside, work, or own
property in the appointing commissioner's district.
• The Mayor and the Town Council of the Town of Century appoint one
member who is required to be a resident of the Town of Century.
• The Pensacola City Council appoints two members who are residents of
the City of Pensacola.
• The following organizations each appoint one member:
o Escambia County branch of the NAACP;
o Escambia County Taxpayers' Association;
o League of Women Voters of Pensacola Bay Area;
o Pensacola Young Professionals;
a Pensacola Ministerial Alliance;
a Escambia County Farm Bureau; and
a Home Builders Association of Vilest Florida.
• The President of the University of West Florida appoints one member who
has expertise in local government matters.
• Each of the following Escambia County constitutional officers appoints one
member:
STORAGE NAME: h1431e.FTC.doc PAGE: B
DATE: 4/ 13/2009
a sheriff;
o tax collector;
a property appraiser;
a clerk of court and
o supervisor of elections.
■ The Chief Judge of the First Judicial Circuit appoints two members who are
members of the Florida Bar with legal expertise in local government
matters.
• The Escambia County School Board appoints one member by a majority
vote of the board.
• The Emerald Coast Utilities Authority appoints one member.
The bill also creates several advisory committees that are required to meet no later than
30 days after the effective date of the act. The committees must elect a chairperson and
report to the chairperson of the commission. These committees are as follows:
A Special Advisory Committee on Public Safety to provide advice and counsel to
the commission on the integration of public safety services in the consolidation
plan. Each of the following may serve as a member of the committee or appoint a
representative:
• The Sheriff of Escambia County.
• The Chief of Police of the City of Pensacola.
• The Escambia County Community Corrections Bureau.
• The Escambia County Public Safety Bureau Chief.
• The Fire Chief of the City of Pensacola.
• The Fire Chief of Escambia County.
• The Escambia County Medical Director.
• The chairperson of the Escambia County Fire Services Advisory Board.
• The Police Benevolent Association of the City of Pensacola.
• The Police Benevolent Association of Escambia County.
• The Chapter of the International Association of Firefighters of the City of
Pensacola.
• The Escambia County Professional Firefighters.
A Special Advisory Committee on Economic Development to provide advice and
counsel to the commission. Each of the following may appoint a member to the
committee:
• Pensacola Junior College.
• The Pensacola Bay Area Chamber of Commerce.
• The Perdido Key Chamber of Commerce.
• The Pensacola Downtown Improvement Board.
• The Gulf Coast African American Chamber of Commerce.
• The local chapter of the Florida Black Chamber of Commerce.
• Florida's Great Northwest.
• The Town of Century Chamber of Commerce.
• The Ruritan Club of Walnut Hill.
• The Pensacola Beach Chamber of Commerce.
■ Women for Responsible Legislation.
A Special Advisory Committee on Health Care to provide advice and counsel to the
commission. Each of the following may appoint a member to the committee:
STORAGE NAME: h1431e.FTC.doc PAGE: 7
DATE: 4/13/2009
• Baptist Health Care.
• Sacred Heart Health System.
• West Florida Hospital.
■ The Escambia County Health Department.
• The Escambia Medical Society.
All members serve without compensation. The failure of any person or organization to
appoint a member or the failure of a member to serve does not affect the validity of the
recommendations of the commission or any special advisory committee. The appointing
person or entity may replace any member who resigns or fails to serve. Failure to attend
any two meetings without good cause constitutes failure to serve. A member may not be
an elected state, county, or municipal official or a constitutional officer. A majority of the
duly appointed members of the commission constitute a quorum.
All meetings and records of the commission are public, with meetings to be held
throughout Escambia County. The commission or a committee may visit local
governments outside of Escambia County to observe their operations.
The commission is required to elect a chairperson at its first meeting. The commission
meets at the call of the chair or upon the call of any three members at least once a month
from July 1, 2009, through January 15, 2010. The commission is required to compile and
present a status report on its progress and tentative findings by November 30, 2009. This
status report will be presented to the board, the City of Pensacola, the Town of Century,
and the legislative delegation. The commission is required to submit any proposed
consolidation plan to the legislative delegation no later than January 15, 2010.
Neither the state nor any governmental entity of the state has an obligation to fund the
commission. However, the commission may solicit and receive private contributions
limited to $3,000 from any individual or for -profit entity and may solicit and receive public
contributions in support of its study. The Commission is required to maintain a detailed
accounting of all funds received and the expenditure of such funds. The board or other
governmental entities may furnish the commission with such services, office space, and
supplies as may be requested by the commission and approved by the board or other
govemmental entities.
The City of Pensacola, Town of Century, and Escambia County may provide reasonable
technical, legal and clerical assistance to the commission.
The consolidation of the governments of the City of Pensacola, the Town of Century, and
Escambia County will become effective only by approval of a majority vote of those
electors of Escambia County voting in a referendum. The referendum must be held, after
approval of the consolidation plan by the Legislature, at the next general election, in
accordance with the provisions of law relating to elections.
In a referendum on consolidation, it is necessary for a majority of the electors in Escambia
County to approve the consolidation, as well as a majority of electors in the City of
Pensacola, in order for the governments of those two entities to be consolidated. Likewise,
it is necessary for a majority of the electors in Escambia County to approve consolidation,
as well as a majority of electors in the Town of Century, in order for the govemments of
those two entities to be consolidated.
The Escambia County Consolidation Study Commission is required to dissolve by July 1,
2010, at which time all property of the commission becomes property of the county.
The bill provides an effective date of upon becoming a law.
STORAGE NAME: h 1431 e.FTC.d0c PAGE: 8
DATE: 4/13/2009
B. SECTION DIRECTORY:
Section 1: Provides for definitions.
Section 2: Provides for creation of the Escambia County Consolidation Study Commission.
Section 3: Provides for Commission membership.
Section 4: Provides for meetings, records and reports.
Section 5: Provides for funding and expenses.
Section 6: Provides for clerical, technical and legal assistance.
Section 7: Provides for a referendum.
Section 8: Provides for disposition of property.
Section 9: Provides for an effective date.
II, NOTICEIREFERENDUM AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS
A. NOTICE PUBLISHED? Yes [x] No �
IF YES, WHEN? January 30, 2009
WHERE? The Pensacola News Journal, a daily newspaper of general
circulation published in Escambia County, Florida.
B. REFERENDUM(S) REQUIRED? Yes No [x]
IF YES, WHEN?
C. LOCAL BILL CERTIFICATION FILED? Yes, attached [x] No �
D. ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT FILED? Yes, attached [x] No 0
While the Economic Impact Statement does not describe a fiscal impact, it indicates that
the proposed consolidation would provide for lower taxes, and have a positive impact on
economic development.
III. COMMENTS
A. CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES:
Section 3, art.Vlll of the Florida Constitution provides as follows:
The government of a county and the government of one or more municipalities located
therein may be consolidated into a single government which may exercise any and all
powers of the county and the several municipalities. The consolidation plan may be
proposed only by special law, which shall become effective if approved by vote of
the electors of the county, or of the county and municipalities affected, as may be
provided in the plan. Consolidation shall not extend the territorial scope of taxation for
the payment of pre-existing debt except to areas whose residents receive a benefit
from the facility or service for which the indebtedness was incurred.
STORAGE NAME: h 1431 e.FTC.dvc PAGE: 9
DATE: 4/13/2009
The Florida Supreme Court previously has noted, when considering the issue of
consolidation, that u... it is clear from the language of the Constitution that the term `special
law' means an enactment of the Florida Legislature." 9
B. RULE -MAKING AUTHORITY:
None.
C. DRAFTING ISSUES OR OTHER COMMENTS:
None.
IV. AMENDMENTS/COUNCIL OR COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE CHANGES
At its meeting on March 18, 2009, the Military & Local Affairs Policy Committee adopted a
strike -all amendment which makes technical changes to the bill. This analysis is drafted to
the Committee Substitute for the bill.
9 See, Sarasota County v. Town of Longboat fey, 355 So. 2d 1197(Fla. 1978), citing Davis V. Gronemeyer, 251 1
(Fla. 1971.)
STORAGE NAME: h1431e.FTC.doc PAGE: 10
DATE: 4/13/2009
3. d. Taxes in Florida Medium -Sized Charter and Non -charter Counties
Wynn Teasley and Donald Steacy, University of West Florida
The Charter Commission
Page 1 of 7
Tax Study
Taxes in Florida Medium -Sized Charter and Non -charter counties
By
Wynn Teasleyand Donald Steacy
Whitman Center for Public Service
University of west Florida
The Fiorida Association of Court Clerks (FACC) published an often quoted pamphlet which showed that, for the fiscal
1999, Florida counties with charter governments had higher tax burdens than non -charter counties. One problem with
road brush report is that most of the larger counties are chartered, including two that are consolidations with the cities
Emi and Jacksonville. By analogy, that would be similar to saying that Escambia residents inside the City of Pensacola
lore taxes than residents outside the city's limits. Nineteen counties in Florida are now chartered and they represent
per cent of the state's population. So, the remaining twenty percent of Florida's population resides in the 48 non -
:red counties The charter counties in the FACC study had an average population size of 694,803 while the non -
,red counties had an average size of 83,415. That would be too much like comparing apples and oranges to produce
'esults.
unter this problem, we selected a sample of fourteen Florida counties with populations between 200,000 and 500,000
%nts in the year 2000 So, they all fit within that medium-sized county category, with charter counties having an
ge size of 393,356 and the non -charter counties average size being 266,207. By 2000, half of those fourteen counties
chartered and half were non -chartered, which offered a good comparison The seven chartered counties were
ua, Brevard, Lee, Polk, Sarasota, Seminole, and Volusia. The seven non -chartered counties were Collier, Escambia,
Leon- Manatee. Marion and Pasco. The two questions that we sought to answer were 1) do charter counties have a
r tax burden than non -charter counties, and 2) do counties raise taxes after becoming charteredl
charter counties have a higher tax burden than non -charter counties?
To answer this question, we compared those fourteen counties -seven chartered and seven non -chartered ---with
regard to property taxes and total taxes per capita and the amount of taxes raised per thousand dollars of personal income
during the decade from 1993 to 2002. Obviously, property taxes are just one type of tax a county may impose It can also
impose a sales tax and charter counties are authorized a utility tax, like chartered municipalities. Looking at the amount of
taxes raised as a function of personal income reveals the tax burden on an ability -to -pay basis.
For eight of those ten years, the amount of property taxes raised was nearly identical- (See Figure One and Table One
Attached) In the fiscal years 1999 and 2000, charter counties did raise more property taxes per capita, but in 2001 and
2002 non -charter counties charged a slightly higher rate Residents in non -charter counties were charged an average of
about five dollars more in property taxes per person than residents in charter counties in fiscal year 2002.
Figure One
Property Taxes per Capita
400
300
goo
100
5e 5e go gp ggA 0,4qo 040cp 5ZP o°& o�
r �
Charter m-T Non -Charter
Sources: Fla. Dept. of Financial Services and U.S. Bureau of the Census
The second indicator that we looked at (See Figure Two and Table Two) was the total taxes raised- Charter
counties, unlike non -charter counties, can raise a public service or utility tax. While both types of counties have access to
extra sales tax revenues, non -charter counties tend to make more use of this revenue source. Similar to the findings about
property taxes, the total taxes raised per person was nearly identical for all years, with citizens in chartered counties paying
only slightly more total taxes in the years 1999 and 2000. Apparently, the greater difference that was found for property taxes
during those particular years was reduced somewhat in total taxes by other tax revenues being raised by non -charter
counties. Again; except for the year 2000, there is almost no difference between charter and non -charter counties in total
taxes raised per capita. Citizens in charter counties paid about two dollars more per person in total taxes in 2002.
Figure Two
mhtml:file:HC:IUserslshillinger-bohlAppDatalLocallMicrosoitlwindowslTemporary Interne... 11412011
The Charter Commission
Page 2 of 7
Total Tax Dollars Per Capita
500
400
Z 300
a
200
100
Ne 4 rp r �.
�- Charter - Non Charter
Sources: Fla. Dept. of Financial Services and U.S. Bureau of the Census
Finally, we looked at lax burden as a function of total taxes raised per $1,000 of personal income. Figure Three (see
Table Two) shows that dunng most of the years, citizens in non -charter counties paid more of their personal income in taxes,
charter county residents paid more in 1999 and 2000, but there was no significant difference in the years 2001 and 2002.
Non -charter county residents were charged about two cents more in total taxes from personal income in 2002.
Figure Three
Tax Dollars per $K of Income
1
14
13
12
11
Charter -a Non -Charter
Sources: Fla. Dept. of Financial Services and V.S. Bureau of the Census
The overall conclusion from this analysis of the last decade of county tax burdents in the fourteen charter and non -
charter counties reviewed here is that it is a virtual dead heat. There is no significant difference between the taxes imposed
on citizens in these charter and non -charter counties based on whether or not they were chartered. Perhaps the most
striking observation from these figures is really how similar the trends were for both chartered and non -chartered counties of
similar size during the last ten years.
2. Do counties raise taxes after adopting charter?
Even if chartered counties had no higher tax burdens than non -chartered counties, it is still reasonable to ask if
citizens under charter government incurred tax increases immediately after adopting a charter. In order to answer this
questions we looked at the seven chartered counties reviewed above during the time period five years before a county's
particular charter was adopted and five years afterwards. We examined the millage rates as well as the total operating taxes
levied before and after charter was adopted Those seven counties adopted charters over twenty-seven years ranging from
1971 (Sarasota and Volusia) to 1998 (Polk). Therefore, we adjusted all the dollar figures to 1993 constant dollars.
Otherwise, when a county adopted a charter would have an impact on the total tax dollars raised in a given year based on
variations of the dollar's value or inflation, These charts show the year charter was adopted in the middle, -5 indicates the
time period five years before charter was passed and +5 indicates the time period five years after charter was passed. The
actual charter year, of course. varied between 1971 and 1998 and the mid -point on the graph (between --I and +1)
represents each charter county's particular adoption date.
Figure Four (see Table Three Attached) shows that in these charter counties, millage rates were rising steadily
before charter was passed as well as for the first year after charter was adopted. The millage rates for the first year after
charter adoption was probably set by the previous non -charter county commission. Those millage rates had risen from less
than six mills to nearly seven mills until charter was passed In subsequent years after the passage of charter, however, the
average millage rate for charter counties fell back to under six mills.
Figure Four
mhtml:file:HC:\Userslshillinger-boblAppDatalLocal\MicrosoftlwindowslTemporary Interne... 1/4/2011
The Charter Commission
Page 3 of 7
Millage Rates PreiPost Charter
m
8
7
�s
4
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5
Years Pre(-) and Post[+) Charter Adoption
Source: Fla. Dept. of Revenue
The second indicator of charter government behavior with regard to taxes is reported in Figure Five (see Table Three
Attached). The taxes levied could have actually increased even though millage rates decreased if the overall property
assessments increased. This chart shows the trend in total operating taxes levied before and after charter in 1993 constant
dollars adjusted for inflation. The results in Figure Five are consistent with the millage rates results reported previously
Specifically, taxes per capita increased steadily prior to the adoption of charter, but then they began declining after charter
was adopted.
Figure Five
Alaahue
1.6
1.6
1.4
14
1.4 13
dreaatd
12
1.1
1.1
1 U
11 1 J
Lea
1.1
1.0
1.0
10
1.0 0.2
Polk
1.0
1.0
11
u 8
U .� U.4
Sarasota
1.6
4.4
f .2 ;
40
3.E 33
5MMMle
1.3:
1.4
1.":
1 :3
1.� 1.2
. Vdumb
1.a
_1A
40
3 .E 33
Alachua
11:0.b1
11' c;i.
1 r4.1:
1ba.45
)W-*
Breowd
16g 27
162!81
16731
1611.0
14131
Lea
291 J1
:eWu Mb 1
_
JW J4 _
1: �
?49 Jt G
Polk
205.
212.321
212.7E'
221.43
2M37
3eraMs
1 Ub.U1
19 .11 1.
zb.�"
ZA.ty
24J.d'e
6enin0110
117.32
140.121
149.77 `
15/ _57
160_1 Z'
Vdusii�a ;
04.20
b':.rd'
1 U4 .J 1
12L. b4
1 JU it
Aug. !
173.40
I
170.61 ,
189.3`
180.E+1
19336
Alarxu,a
:i�.1
i
X/
:ib t
JU 2
4L.1
Arevard
33.6
34.6
33A
318
30.E
Lea
WU
161.1
bb.� �
54 y
5<.�
Polk
45.2
48.01
47.0
If 81
49.2 i
-baranate
;:H.0
W
4U.t
514
bl d
f emir�ala
25.0
29.7
32.4
338
31.E
Yalu ii
11.11.1
' l .b r
ZU
215 9
21.1 i
AvgTaa/Capita
37..221
38.31 `'
40.E
40.E9
41.34
-
-4
-2
-1
Sources: Fla. Dept. of Revenue and the U.S. Bureau of the CensuE
Conclusions
:LI4.I 1
13b.41 1
M. it
217.92
241 _Us
194.431
1 35.b3 `
203.42 1
11
U.9
U.9
U 8
0.6
0.0
0,91
09
U1,
U_9
U.0 i
u U
3.Ei•
3.3
3.0i
27
1,U!
1 u
311
3.31
#
1
3.01
i
27
1111
&U421
1 V4 M
1M.11:1
134.341
129.81
128 82 ;
126.C7
21b.rt i
I'L1 ba,
2sb 00 !
�:A kb
315.2C
2:A.1 0
230 84
232.00
241.E
lbi W .
1 Uy bU �
11 U d61
1985Z-
1 ES.17 .
161 071
176.78
119J1
1�:J.%
1tii5. j
15:.4y
197.;
167 53
10786
196.10
1
4HJ
Q_t
4' .e
4U.9
391
38.E
28.E
27.6
27.8
260
51.1
b'U.�
b' .0
164.3
all 1
4651
47.0
60.1
49.6
503
W.1
51.e
45 A
4U.5
ju 1
41.3
42.2
40.01
361
381
1J.1
15.E
i.r 1
Jkv
rJ U
43.43
425C
42301
1229
42.40
+1
+�
+3 '
+4
45
First, the results of this analysis show that there is currently no significant difference between the tax burdens found
In the fourteen Florida charter and non -charter counties today and there was no significant difference over the last decade.
In 2002, the average citizen in a non -charter county paid about five dollars more in property taxes, the average charter
county resident was charged about two dollars more in total taxes, and there was only two cents difference in total taxes
raised per thousand dollars of personal income. Moreover, the trend analysis of the last decade shows that for most of those
ten years there was no discernable difference in average taxes paid by residents in chartered and non -chartered counties.
Second, the dramatic differences found in the FACC study were not found here. Studies based on only one fiscal year, e.g.,
1999 or 2000 may yield a different picture if that year did not follow the general trend. We believe, however, that the main
difference between the results of this study of medium-sized counties and those found in the previous study of all Florida
counties is that the FACC compared the taxing and spending patterns of mainly large, urban counties (chartered) with mainly
smaller rural counties (non -chartered)
mlitml:file:HC:\Userslshillinger-bob\AppData\LocallMicrosof \Windows\Temt)orary Interne... 1/4/2011
The Charter Commission
Page 4 of 7
Third; while there has been much concern voiced that once a county is chartered it would raise the tax burden on its citizens
the medium-sized charter counties studied here did not exhibit a pattern of raising the tax burden on their particular property
owners and residents after the adoption of charter government. Rather. the average millage and tax rates rose consistently
before charter was adopted and they subsequently declined during the five years after charter was implemented.
In sum. counties of comparable size apparently impose virtually identical tax burdens on their citizens without regard to
whether their government is chartered or not, and those charter counties in this study tended to reduce the millage and tax
rates after charter government was adopted. For them, charter government may have actually reduced rising local tax
burdens, perhaps, by using more non -tax revenues or more revenues available from other levels of government.
3. Does Escambia County have a higher tax burden than other medium-sized counties?
A third question we ask is- How does the tax burden in Escambia compare with those of ether medium-sized counties
in Flonda? Using the same data, we can compare the tax burden in Escambia with the other medium-sized counties. In this
analysis, Escambia is viewed separately but it is still included with the other six non -charter counties. The data for all the
charter and non -charter counties remain the same as reported in the first two figures (Tables One and Two) in this analysis.
Figure Six
Property Taxes per Capita
In Medium -Sized Florida Counties
400
� 300
a goo
0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
[�- Charter -a Non -Charter & Escambia
Sources: Fi. Dept. of Financial Services and U.S. Bureau of Census
Figure Six simply shows that Escambia County collects fewer property taxes per capita than other medium-sized
counties, whether they are chartered or not. This is likely the result of lower property values in this county that even having
one of the highest millage rates cannot overcome,
Figure Seven
Total Taxes per Capita in Medium=
Sized Florida Counties
500
400
300
200
100
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
-- Charter a Non Charter & - Escambia
Sources: Fl. Dept. of Financial Services and U.S. Bureau of Census
Figure Seven reports similar data comparing the collection of total taxes in Escambia and in other medium-sized
counties in Florida What this figure shows is that Escambia, relying mainly on property taxes through 1993 still had lower
total taxes per capita than its cohort counties in the State of Florida. Beginning in 1994, after additional sales taxes were
approved by county voters, Escambia began to slightly exceed the average total taxes collected for the other counties,
which it did in 2002 by a little more than ten dollars per person
Figure Eight
n html:file:IIC:\Userslshillinger-boblAppData\Local\Microsof \Windows\Temporary Interne... 1/4/2011
The Charter Commission
Page 5 of 7
Total Taxes per $1000 of Income
in Medium-sized Florida Counties
20
15 4
0 10
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
-*- Charter - Non -Charter P. Escambia
Sources: Fl. Dept. of Financial Services and U.S. Bureau of Census
Figure Eight depicts the trends in total taxes collected per $1,000 dollars of personal income in the fourteen medium-
sized Florida counties. What this chart illustrates is that when the extra sales taxes were collected in Escambia in 1994, the
tax burden in Escambia county not only reached parity with its cohort counties, it markedly exceeded them for the remaining
years in the decade in tax burden as a percentage of income.
Over that decade (1993 to 2002), Escambia County had a 98.6% increase in property taxes collected That increase
exceeded the average increase for both charter (75.2%) and non -charter (88.5%) counties. Correspondingly. the increased
property taxes per capita for Escambia County was 78.9%, while the corresponding average increases in the other counties
was 45.7% (charter counties) and 49.9% (non -charter counties). Perhaps one reason that the increase is greater per capita
in Escambia is that the populations in the other counties grew more rapidly.
The additional sales lax adopted in Escambia County gave it the highest percentage increase in "other taxesF raised
by the counties in this study, with a threefold increase. Resultingly, while the other counties' total taxes per capita were
increasing modestly at about fifty percent or about 5% per year, the increase in total taxes per capita in Escambia was
132.8% --more than double the rate of increase for the other counties on average, but most of that difference occurred with
the sales tax increase in 1994.
The average total taxes collected per thousand dollars of personal income was about $14.64 on average for both
charter and non -charter counties in 2002, it was $18.19 in Escambia In 1993, Escambia had lower tax per income than the
average for the other counties, but during the decade, Escambia's increase in tax burden per dollar of income increased
74.2%, while the average increases for the other medium-sized counties was under ten percent. By 2002, Escambia was
collecting more than 24% more in taxes out of every dollar of its residents' personal income.
Conclusions:
Escambla County grew the least in population (about 11 %) from 1993 to 2002 of the counties in this study In
addition. Escambia is, economically speaking, a relatively poor county in terms of both personal incomes and property
values when compared with other similar size counties in Florida, These factors help explain why Escambia grew more in
taxes per capita and taxes per dollar of personal income. In addition, Escambia added the highest rate of sales tax charges
at 1.5 percent.
When relying predominantly on ad valorem taxes, Escambia has a lower property tax burden than the average for both
charter or non -charter medium-sized counties in Florida. Once the extra sales tax revenues were added to Escambia
County's resources in 1994_ however, it slightly exceeded the other medium-sized counties in Florida in total taxes per
capita, and it exceeded them by a much larger percent in terms of ability to pay as a proportion of personal income. In that
sense, Escambia County has a higher tax burden than the average for the other medium-sized Florida counties.
Table One
Property Taxes in Medium-sized Charter and Non -Charter Counties and Escambia Counties from
1993 to 2002
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Charter Counties
Alachua
176.94
187.04
197.92
206.43
214.02
218.48
230.75
243.28
268.36
283.40
Brevard
144.67
138.64
13.54
137.31
138.18
138.75
136.41
140.53
153.88
171.69
Lee
280.28
301.21
261.41
258.72
289.13
300.87
324.45
338.16
374.20
170.37
Polk
203.26
205.26
218.90
224.05
240.73
245.77
244.93
247.41
262.19
257.06
Sarasota
203.46
209.60
217.32
230.01
238.81
258.74
301.85
319.78
345.73
370.37
Seminole
173.66
173.11
174.98
181.81
189.94
197.50
201.73
210.79
224.12
237.31
Volusla
175.09
179.36
188.66
198.41
209.64
214.16
220.50
229.52
241.48
238.79
Non -Charter Counties
Collier
312.23
305.53
300.01
327.09
334.18
334.49>
367.89
386.81
489.89
556.00
Escambla
171.18
173.69
178.17
181.38
185.83
212.80
218.68
236.67
261.06
262.32
Lake
138.86
145.39
145.53
146.88
147.73
154.19
164.56
205.12
196.96
241.47
mhtml:file :IlC:lUserslshillinger-bob\AppData\Local\Nlicrosoft\WindowslTemporary Interne... 1/4/2011
The Charter Commission
Page 6 of 7
Leon
202.56
207.99
218.04
228.08
238.95
248.99
257.41
267.45
276.70
287.58
Manatee
281.70
289.64
262.48
311.56
319.08
333.58
347.34
368.71
405.11
466.11
Marion
142.75
138.46
130.83
143.92
159.29
166.03
174.89
184.33
198.37
211.29
Pasco
207.57
207.19
218.93
216.46
225.72
209.41
232.84
261.13
284.58
295.29
Property Taxes
per Capita
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Charter
219.79
223.45
228.74
232.72
236.63
249.91
276.88
295.91
289.96
320.21
Non -Charter
217.16
226.41
228.47
231.85
238.89
245.93
252.48
266.74
292.64
325.49
Escambia
171.18
173.69
178.17
181.38
185.83
212.80
218.58
236.67
251.06
262.32
Sources- Florida Department of Financial Services and U S Bureau of the Census
Table Two
Other and Total Taxes per Capita and Income in Medium-sized Charter and a Non -Charter Counties and
Escambia County from 1993 to 2002
Other Taxes Per Capita
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Charter counties 69.60
74.85
78.32
83.50
83.57
89.98
53.59
82.16
105.68
95.97
Non -Charter Counties 58.76
78.06
84.67
89.51
91.48
93.96
72.03
99.43
100.72
88.87
Escambia 40.87
117.22
142.28
161.89
163.63
159.21
137.76
162.80
168.76
172.16
Total Taxes per capita
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Charter 289.39
298.29
307.06
316.21
320.20
339.90
330.47
378.08
395.54
416.19
Non -Charter 275.92
304.47
313.14
321.36
330.37
339.90
324.52
366.17
393.37
414.36
Escambia 183.79
290.72
322.26
338.03
341.98
344.35
348.39
384.74
410.09
427.83
Taxes Per $K Income
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Charter 14.04
13.90
13.73
13.55
13.08
13.18
12.63
13.82
14.19
14.63
Non -Charter 13.47
14.33
14.05
13.80
13.51
13.24
12.35
13.43
14.16
14.65
Escambia 10.44
16.15
17.33
17.07
16.68
16.24
16.05
17.02
17.78
18.19
Sources: Flonda Department of Financial Services and U.S. Bureau of the Census
Table Three
Average Millage Rates Before and After Charter Passage in Seven Charter Counties with Populations
between 200,000 and 500,000
Year Pre/Post Charter -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5
Average Millage 5.631 5.937 6.220 6.379 6.608 6.688 6.934 6.599 5.723 5.968
Source: Flonda Department of Revenue
Table Four
Total Taxes per Capita Before and After Charter Passage in Seven Charter Counties with Populations
between 200,000 and 500,000 in Real 1993 $Dollars
Year Before and After Charter Passage
County
-5
-4
do
-2
-1
+1
+2 +3
+4
+5
Alachua
163.87
171.43
174.12
187.45
208.99
224.28
200.38 200.42
194.33
188.61
Brevard
159.27
162.48
157.31
151.50
141.81
135.44
134.04 129.91
128.82
125.07
Lee
297.75
290.86
303.04
257.39
249.08
269.21
276.76 291.62
295.72
320.26
mhtml:file:HC:\Userslshillinger-bob\AppData\LocallMierosof \Windows\Temporary Interne... 1/4/2011
The Charter Commission
Page 7 of 7
Polk
205.27 212.32 212.76 221.43
223.67
217.92
215.20
224.1 ❑
230.84
232.00
Sarasota
186.07 197.11 225.55 238.89
243.22
247.03
241.95
216.53
189.58
178.51
Seminole
117.32 140.12 149.77 154.97
160.12
194.43
498.53
186.17
181.07
175.78
Voiusia
84.27 82.23 104.87 124.94
130.36
136.65
119.01
133.95
163.57
152.49
Avg.
173.40 197.51 189.63 190.94
193.89
203.42
197.98
197.53
197.85
196.1 ❑
Sources: Florida Department of Revenue and U.S. Bureau of the Census
11000 University Parkway I Bldg 53
Pensacola, FL 32514
mhtml:file:HC:lUserslshillinger-boblAAppDatalLocallMicrosof \WindowslTemporary Interne... 1/4/2011
Part Four
St. Johns County Materials
Background Memo
Comparison Chart
The Proposed
St. Johns County Home Rule Charter Government
To create a more responsive and effective county government
What is a Charter?
A charter is a constitution for a county or city government. Like the U.S. Constitution, a charter
establishes the structure and function of the local government. A charter provides for local self-
government. While the local government must function within the general laws of the State of
Florida, a charter provides flexibility for local governments to adopt provisions to meet specific local
needs. A charter also reserves certain rights to its citizens.
What rights does a charter reserve for citizens that are not currently available to St.
Johns County citizens?
• A charter allows citizens to propose changes to the charter that are decided by referendum
• A charter allows citizens the right to recall elected officials
• A charter requires voter approval to make any changes to the charter
• A charter allows adoption of term limits, residency requirements, campaign finance reforms,
and flexibility to adopt the form of government and the ordinances needed to meet specific
local needs.
What will the proposed St. Johns County Charter do?
• Empower the voters of St. Johns County to determine the type of county commission and form
of government that will meet the needs of St. Johns County now and in the future.
• Limit the terms of office of County Commissioners to two 4-year terms and require them to
reside in their districts when they qualify to run for office.
• Empower the voters of the County to recall County Commissioners if warranted by their
performance.
• Establish Campaign Finance Reforms
• Reduce from $500 to $250 the amount any individual, corporation or PAC can contribute to the
campaign of a candidate for County Commission.
• Require enhanced electronic campaign finance reporting by candidates for County Commission.
• Require approval of the majority of voters of the county to approve the Charter and any future
amendments.
Allow the voters of the County to propose changes to the Charter.
Exempts constitutional officers from provisions of the charter.
How is the charter adopted or amended?
• The charter may be adopted, amended or repealed only by the voters of St. Johns County
• A Charter Commission composed of fifteen citizens of the County will be created to review the
Charter within three years and every seven years thereafter and to propose any changes that
may be needed.
Are charter governments common?
• Yes, over 80% of the population of Florida lives under a charter form of government.
• All cities & municipalities operate under a charter form of government.
• Charter governments track growing populations, urbanization, and complexity of issues.
• Charter government creates a government more accountable to citizens.
A Comparison of
Current Government with the Proposed Charter Government
The Florida Constitution, article XII, Sec. 1 (g) allows local self-determination of county
government, called Charter Government.
For more information, contact Karen Pan, Public Affairs Specialist, St. Johns County, (904) 209-
0549, k an s'cfl.us.
Analysis by Roger Van Ghent ro ery mac.com, (904) 797-5997
Issue
Current S]C Government
Proposed S]C Charter
Ability to Change
Public initiative not allowed
Public initiative may amend
County Government
charter and laws, subject to
voter akpproval
Recall of County
Citizen recall provisions not
Citizens may initiate recall
Commissioners
available
procedure; subject to voter
approval
Constitutional officers
Elected every four years
Sheriff
They manage their office and
Clerk of Courts
funds independently.
No change
Tax Assessor
Duties are defined by Florida
Tax Collector
constitution and general law
Supervisor of Elections
Municipalities/Cities
All are independent and have
Does not preempt municipal
SA, SA Beach,
there own charters
ordinances
Hastings, Marineland
Campaign Reform
Candidate for commissioner must
Candidate for commission must
reside in district after election
reside in district at time of
calif in to run
Campaign contribution limit $500
Campaign contribution limit
per election cycle (primary &
$250 per election cycle
general)
Campaign finance reports: filed
Campaign finance reports filed
manually; available only after
electronically (same as state
filing and processing
requirement); eliminates
delay; quick and timely
availability
Term Limits
No term limit
Amendment 1.
Charter commissioners are
term limited to two consecutive
four year terms
Non -partisan elections
All county commission elections
Amendment 2:
are partisan.
Charter commissioners are
A last-minute partisan or write-in
non -partisan, primary is open
candidate disenfranchises voters
to all voters
in a one party primary-
2