The Volusia County Charter Review Commission reviewed staff'summaries of public listening sessions and legal limits on charter changes, and directed staff to research five issues further before deciding whether any should be pursued as charter amendments.

The commission'chaired by Mark Watts heard a staff presentation and debated what topics are legally available for a county charter amendment after the passage of Senate Bill 180 and related statutory provisions. County Attorney Mike Dyer advised the commission about who would need to put measures on the ballot and about limits imposed by state law.

The commission'ordered staff to provide additional analysis and return with more detail at the next meeting on five items shown by staff as requiring further research: distribution of treated wastewater to upland areas for filtration (page 8 of the materials); setting a specific acquisition target for the Volusia Forever program (the suggestion discussed at 55% on page 10); removing the county council's authority to directly purchase Volusia Forever properties (page 10); mandating funding sources for public transportation (page 12); and allowing thoroughfare road impact fees to be spent on alternate forms of transportation (page 16). Commissioner discussion ranged from legal cautions about state preemption to policy questions over whether certain technical matters belong in the charter or should be left to ordinances or the county council.

Why it matters: The commission is charged with reviewing the county charter and recommending any amendments to the county council and, if appropriate, ballot language for voters. Several speakers and staff cautioned that recent state changes, especially Senate Bill 180, and existing Florida statutes limit the commission's ability to propose some land'use or development rules as charter amendments; the commission must weigh legal vulnerability before recommending items for placement on the ballot.

Most important facts
- Chair Mark Watts opened the meeting and framed it as the commission's second full meeting following a series of listening sessions. He asked staff to summarize and color'code topics raised in public comment to show which items staff believed were preempted by state law, which needed further research, and which were within the commission's current purview.
- Staff provided a 17'page list of topics from listening sessions and a color'coded analysis. Watts told commissioners: “I asked them to kinda make it even a little simpler. So we pass these around here.”
- County staff member Booker presented a county trend booklet to commissioners as an informational resource. Booker said of the booklet: “This is merely for your personal use if you need it and your responsibilities for the Charter Review Commission.”
- County Attorney Mike Dyer advised the commission on limits for charter proposals. Dyer said that a land'use or rural growth boundary amendment "would need to be put on the ballot by the county council," and he discussed Florida Statutes cited in staff materials (including chapter 163 provisions). He also told commissioners, “I can give advice, but it doesn't mean you have to take it.”
- After discussion about preemption and which items merited further work, the commission voted to ask staff for more analysis on five items (the five yellow items described above). The chair said staff would provide the requested analysis at the next meeting.
- The commission also referred a separate staff list (Exhibit B) of 11 staff'identified charter concepts for further analysis; commissioners asked staff to examine those suggestions and to consider a bilateral framing for one item (item 2 on that list).
- Commissioners set an internal deadline for submitting additional topic suggestions to staff for inclusion in the next meeting packet. Commissioners were asked to email suggestions to vccharterreview@volusia.org; the chair said suggested material should be submitted by "Monday, the 20 seventh" so staff could include it in packet materials (as stated in the meeting). Staff said materials are ordinarily circulated a week before each meeting and asked for as much lead time as possible.

Discussion highlights and context
Commissioners repeatedly raised the effect of state law on the commission's ability to act. Legal staff explained that Senate Bill 180 and Florida Statutes (including §163.3167 as cited in staff materials) place restrictions on county and municipal authority over land'use and that the definition of terms such as "propose" or "burdensome/restrictive" can be legally uncertain.

Commissioner Sikovsky expressed concern about spending commission time on day'to'day operational matters and urged focusing on higher'level items. Commissioner Shiver and others emphasized the commission's role in explaining to residents which suggestions from listening sessions cannot be implemented by charter. Several commissioners said that some matters raised at listening sessions might be better addressed through county ordinances or by the council rather than by charter.

Staff and commissioners discussed Volusia Forever, the county's conservation-acquisition program. One public suggestion discussed by commissioners was setting a numeric acquisition goal (a 55% target was raised in listening'session materials); commissioners instructed staff to research whether that sort of numeric mandate would be legally feasible as a charter provision and to provide analysis on potential legal constraints and on how the county's existing procedures would interact with any such requirement.

Votes, motions and formal actions (at a glance)
- Approval of minutes from the organizational meeting (09/03/2025): Motion from Vice Chair Northey, second by Commissioner Lewis; approved by voice vote.
- Amendment to September 15 listening session minutes (correcting word "rule" to "rural"): Moved and seconded; approved by voice vote.
- Motion directing staff to research five items (treated wastewater distribution to upland filtration; Volusia Forever percentage target; removing council authority to directly purchase Volusia Forever properties; mandated funding for public transportation; use of thoroughfare road impact fees for alternate transportation): motion moved and seconded; passed by voice vote (chair later described it as a "13-1" vote in the transcript).
- Motion to refer Exhibit B (11 staff'identified charter concepts) back to staff for further analysis, with a modification to item 2 so staff would analyze both directions (the chair summarized the modification): motion passed by voice vote.

Quotations (as spoken)
- Chair Mark Watts: “I asked them to kinda make it even a little simpler. So we pass these around here.”
- Mr. Booker (staff): “This is merely for your personal use if you need it and your responsibilities for the Charter Review Commission.”
- County Attorney Mike Dyer: “Yes, it would need to be put on the ballot by the county council.”
- County Attorney Mike Dyer: “I can give advice, but it doesn't mean you have to take it.”
- Commissioner Sikovsky: “I joined the CRC and was appointed by a council member under the notion that we're looking at things from a 30 to 40,000 foot view ... but it seems like a lot of these suggestions ... are more day to day policy decisions and things that we really shouldn't be concerned with.”

What's next
Staff will prepare and return with more detailed legal and policy analysis of the five items the commission identified for follow'up. Commissioners were asked to submit any additional suggested topics to vccharterreview@volusia.org in time for staff to include them in the packet for the next meeting; staff requested as much lead time as possible (the chair referenced "Monday, the 20 seventh" as a target in the meeting).

The commission will use staff reports and the commission's deliberations to decide which items, if any, should be recommended as charter amendments and which should be referred to the county council or handled by ordinance.

Ending note
Commissioners said they intend to balance residents' suggestions from listening sessions with the legal realities identified by county counsel and staff. As the chair summarized, the commission must decide which items are feasible and appropriate for charter action and explain to the public when state law or other limits prevent a charter change.