Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 6:07 p.m.

15 -

Present:

Member Dick Batchelor, Member Alisia Adamson Profit, Member Angel de la

Portilla, Member Eric R. Grimmer, Member Erica Jackson, Member Homer

Hartage, Member Lee Chira, Member Mark Arias, Member Rishi Bagga, Member

Tom Callan, Member Dotti Wynn, Member Eugene Stoccardo, Member Cornita A.

Riley, Member Chuck O'Neal, and Member Beverly Winesburgh

Others present:

Deputy Clerk David Rooney

Assistant Deputy Clerk Jennifer Lara-Klimetz

CRC General Counsel Wade Vose

CRC Administrative Assistant Jessica Vaupel

Senior Minutes Coordinator Noelia Perez

Pledge of Allegiance

I. Roll Call

Members Present: Member Jackson, Member de la Portilla, Member Winesburgh, Member

Callan, Member Arias, Member Wynn, Chair Hartage, Vice Chair Chira, Member Grimmer,

Member Bagga, Member O'Neal, Member Stoccardo, Member Adamson Profit, and Member

Riley. A quorum was established and the meeting was called to order.

II. Chair / Vice Chair Comments

CRC Chair Hartage explained the order of tonight's proceedings, stating that the CRC will first

review two reports from the Sustainable Growth and Charter Clean Up Committee. He went on to

explain that both reports are recommending no action, so neither report required first or second

readings nor public hearings. After consideration of the committee reports, the CRC will move on

to a series of second and final public hearings as listed on tonight's agenda. Following each

hearing, the CRC will vote on the recommendations and ballot language proposed by the

Committees. If approved, these recommendations will be included on the ballot. Later in the

evening, there will be a discussion about the placement of ballot order.

Chair Hartage acknowledged Orange County District 5 Commissioner Emily Bonilla.

Orange County District 5 Commissioner Bonilla addressed the CRC regarding the proposed

rural boundary amendment. She took the opportunity to express her gratitude and appreciation for

the CRC's commitment on this important issue. Citing potential legal concerns, Commissioner

Bonilla has proposed that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) assume the responsibility

of advancing the rural boundary amendment. At tomorrow’s upcoming BCC meeting,

Commissioner Bonilla plans to outline the CRC's presentation and propose that the BCC adopt

the CRC's language to advance the amendment to the ballot. She is requesting the support of the

CRC to endorse the proposed amendment of the rural boundary for consideration by the BCC.

Discussion ensued.

Chair Hartage acknowledged Florida House of Representative Tom Keen.

Daniel Elliott addressed the CRC on behalf of Florida House of Representative Susan Plasencia.

III. Public Comment

CRC Chair Hartage announced that speakers would be allotted a two-minute period for public

comments. Furthermore, individuals wishing to donate their time may do so, with a maximum of

one minute per person.

The following persons addressed the CRC during public comment:

- Nelson Betancourt

- Kari Williams

- Orange County Soil and Water Conservation District 1 Samuel Chambers

- Bobby Beagles

- William Sheerin

- Laurie Forrester

- Dan Wasahburn

- Cheryl Coats

- Lisa Horine

- Hal Coats

- Rachel Hildebrand

- Pamela Sible

- Debbie Parrish

- Mark Mansfield

- James Auffant

- Jacob Malherbe

- Matthew Grocholske

- Roseann Malherbe

- Lisa Sorice

- Robert Barbour

- Katherine Winter

- Grace Abraibesh

- Kay Hudson

- John Fauth

- Lee Patrizzi

- Lee Perry

- Maria Martinez

- Kelly Semrad

- Sage Hamel

- Todd Catella

- Giancarlo Rodriguez

- Robert Perez

- Tom Narut

- Marjorie Holt

- William Pons

- Maria Estella Casanova-Baker

- David Boers

- Susan Morris

- Steve Meyers

- Umut Kocaman

- Nate Douglas

- Gretchen Robinson

The following materials were presented to the CRC during public comment. The materials

referenced by the speakers were not received by the Clerk prior to the close of the public hearing:

- Exhibit 1, Pamela Sible

- Exhibit 2, John Fauth

- Exhibit 3, Maria Estella Casanova-Baker

Discussion ensued regarding if the CRC has the authority to place an item on the ballot. CRC

General Counsel Vose contributed to the discussion.

IV. Consent Item

CRC-24-135 Approval and execution of the minutes of the April 29, 2024 meeting of the

Charter Review Commission (CRC).

A motion was made by Member Arias, seconded by Member Wynn, to approve the minutes of

April 29, 2024. The motion carried by the following vote:

14 -

Aye:

Member Batchelor, Member de la Portilla, Member Grimmer, Member Jackson,

Member Hartage, Member Chira, Member Arias, Member Bagga, Member Callan,

Member Wynn, Member Stoccardo, Member Riley, Member O'Neal, and Member

Winesburgh

1 - Member Adamson Profit

Absent:

V. Acceptance of Committee Final Reports

CRC-24-136 Sustainable Growth & Charter Clean Up Committee - Charter Clean Up

(Recommending No Charter Changes)

Committee Chair Grimmer presented the final report on the Sustainable Growth and Charter

Cleanup Committee's efforts to address cleanup issues within the Orange County Charter. The

Committee examined Section 801 concerning the Citizen Review Board for the County Sheriff's

Office. The Florida Supreme Court declared this section unconstitutional, leading to its removal

from the Orange County Charter. However, the language still appears in the Charter's version

found on Municode. Additionally, the Committee also reviewed Article IX, Section 901, pertaining

to the completed Orange County/City of Orlando Service Consolidation Study. Despite its

completion, this section appears in the Charter and requires a public vote for removal. The

Committee has successfully prompted Municode to eliminate the language about the Citizen

Review Board. Furthermore, the Committee concluded Article IX, Section 901 Orange

County/City of Orlando Consolidation of Service Study Commission is outdated and should no

longer appear in the Charter. Committee Chair Grimmer has announced that the Committee is

requesting to take no action.

A motion was made by Member Grimmer, seconded by Member Bagga, to adopt the report and

recommendation of the Sustainable Growth and Charter Clean Up Committee to take no action

on the Charter clean up issues. The motion carried by the following vote:

14 -

Aye:

Member Winesburgh, Member Batchelor, Member Adamson Profit, Member de la

Portilla, Member Grimmer, Member Jackson, Member Hartage, Member Chira,

Member Arias, Member Bagga, Member Callan, Member Stoccardo, Member

Riley, and Member O'Neal

1 - Member Wynn

Absent:

CRC-24-137 Sustainable Growth & Charter Clean Up Committee - County Wetland

Protections (Recommending No Charter Changes)

Committee Chair Grimmer presented the final report of the Sustainable Growth and Charter

Cleanup Committee on County wetland protections. The Committee reviewed Section 704, noting

that Section 704.B.1 grants the County the power to set minimum environmental standards by

controlling air and water pollution. The Committee contemplated revising Section 704 to enhance

wetland protections by proposing an amendment that would impose stricter county standards than

municipal ordinances and address preemption concerns. However, due to Senate Bill 1420 and

advice from CRC General Counsel Vose, the Committee is recommending taking no action, as

the amendment might be preempted. Furthermore, the County Attorney's office is of the opinion

that the current County Charter provision already authorizes the County to regulate and enforce

wetland protection measures. Additionally, the County has updated its wetland protection

standards, which will take effect in June 2024. The Committee is requesting to take no action,

however they are recommending the 2028 Charter Review Commission examine the issue to

ensure the County’s wetland protection regulations are being enforced. Discussion ensued.

A motion was made by Member Grimmer, seconded by Member Arias, to accept the report of the

Sustainable Growth and Charter Clean Up Committee with regards to the wetlands protection and

recommends the CRC take no action. The motion carried by the following vote:

14 -

Aye:

Member Batchelor, Member Adamson Profit, Member de la Portilla, Member

Grimmer, Member Jackson, Member Hartage, Member Chira, Member Arias,

Member Bagga, Member Callan, Member Stoccardo, Member Riley, Member

O'Neal, and Member Winesburgh

1 - Member Wynn

Absent:

VI. Committee Recommendation Public Hearings

CRC-24-138 Sustainable Growth & Charter Clean Up Committee - Rural Boundary

(Second of Two Public Hearings / Votes)

1. Public Comment

2. CRC Discussion and Second Vote

CRC Chair Hartage opened the public hearings and outlined the proceeding of these hearings,

which will commence with public comments, followed by questions from the CRC, a presentation

followed by a motion from the Committee Chair, subsequent CRC discussion, and input from

CRC General Counsel Vose as needed.

The following persons addressed the CRC:

- Marjorie Holt

- Pat Lindsey

- Orange County District 5 Commissioner Emily Bonilla

- William Pons

Committee Chair Grimmer presented the final report of the Sustainable Growth and Charter

Clean Up Committee regarding the rural boundary. The committee has spent the past year

listening to both residents and officials tackle issues caused by urban sprawl in Orange County.

These issues include municipalities annexing land without considering wildlife regulations, rapid

expansion in previously undeveloped areas, increased traffic due to car dependency, and the

need for aquifer recharge. The rural boundary has been an important tool to combat suburban

sprawl, as it allows for investments in infrastructure, roads, social services, transportation, and

schools in rural areas, improving the quality of life for residents. The Committee has received

positive feedback from residents and have also considered the opinions of those in rural and

urban areas, who support controlled growth in Orange County as long as it is sustainable. Based

on this valuable feedback, the Committee has carefully considered the need for a rural boundary

amendment.

The Committee initially proposed the rural boundary based on the County's urban service area

map. However, concerns were raised by County staff and representatives from local

municipalities. They pointed out that there were already developed or planned suburban areas

outside the urban service area. These areas included growth centers, sector plans, and

unincorporated land under joint planning agreements with municipalities and where the

municipalities had already taken actions in anticipation of future annexation and development,

such as the building of utility lines. As a result, the CRC decided to send the rural boundary issue

back to the Committee. The Committee had meetings with staff and municipalities to discuss joint

planning agreements, sector plans, growth centers, municipal matters, which led to them to take a

closer look of the east-west rural boundary. During the meeting, the Committee agreed to exclude

these areas from their proposal. The map of the Committee's proposed rural boundary and rural

areas can be found as Exhibit C of the final report. Furthermore, upon review of the concerns

raised by staff and the municipalities, the Committee created a new draft of the proposed map.

This new draft amendment is designated as Exhibit B of the final report. Committee Chair

Grimmer presented Exhibit “B” as follows:

Exhibit "B"

Ballot Proposal: The ballot title and ballot summary for this question are as follows:

ORANGE COUNTY CHARTER AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING RURAL BOUNDARY AND

RURAL AREA ("AREA")

Establishing a Rural Area (unincorporated lands located outside the County's Urban Service

Area, municipal joint planning areas, Growth Centers, Innovation Way Overlay, and Horizon West

Villages on the effective date) where the County's comprehensive plan and land development

regulations will exclusively govern land development and prevail over municipal ordinances, and

where comprehensive plan amendments increasing density or intensity, and ordinances removing

lands from the Area, must be approved by majority-plus-one County Commission vote.

____ Yes

____ No

Committee Chair Grimmer addressed the misinformation surrounding Exhibit B and the current

proposal the Committee worked on. He emphasized the Committee does not have the power to

strip any landowner of their existing property rights in unincorporated Orange County or in the

municipalities. Moreover, he clarified that the proposal only requires a slightly higher threshold on

future land use amendment applications that increases density and intensity of land in the rural

areas of only unincorporated Orange County. The Committee is not proposing any changes to

future land use decisions in the urban service area of Orange County, any properties or

communities located within this area would not have been impacted by the establishment of the

rural service boundary; and further, the intention was not to prohibit the annexation of lands

currently situated in unincorporated Orange County into municipalities. He indicated the focus was

primarily on promoting responsible land use practices and ensuring the sustainable development

within that area. The Committee's proposal aimed to strike a balance between the needs of the

urban service area and the preservation of rural lands. The Committee never stated that if rural

land is annexed into a municipality, County land use rules would always apply. If the Orange

County Board of Commissioners agree that the municipality should apply their own land use rules

the Board could vote with a majority plus one to remove the land from the rural area and the

municipality would then have or been free to apply its own land use rules after annexation.

However, Committee Chair Grimmer believes the approval of Senate Bill 1420 by the Florida

State legislature, targets the committee’s proposed ballot language. The bill reads as follows:

163.3167 Scope of act.-(8) (d) A citizen-led county charter amendment that is not required to be

approved by the board of county commissioners preempting any development order, land

development regulation, comprehensive plan, or voluntary annexation is prohibited unless

expressly authorized in a county charter that was lawful and in effect on January 1, 2024.

Committee Chair Grimmer informed the CRC that Senate Bill 1420 has not been submitted to the

Florida Governor for signature or veto. While not a state law, the Committee is treating the bill as

though it will be eventually passed. He noted that CRC General Counsel Vose informed the

Committee that the stipulation in Exhibit B, which mandates County land use regulations for future

municipal annexations of rural land parcels, would probably be preempted under Senate Bill

1420. Consequently, the Committee opted for Exhibit A, as detailed in the final report presented

below:

Exhibit "A"

Ballot Proposal: The ballot title and ballot summary for this question are as follows:

ORANGE COUNTY CHARTER AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING RURAL BOUNDARY AND

RURAL AREA ("AREA")

Establishing a Rural Area (unincorporated lands located outside the County's Urban Service

Area, municipal joint planning areas, Growth Centers, Innovation Way Overlay, and Horizon West

Villages on the effective date) where County comprehensive plan amendments increasing density

or intensity, and ordinances removing lands from the Area, must be approved by

majority-plus-one County Commission vote.

___ Yes

___ No

Text Revisions: Upon approval of this question at referendum, the following portions of the

Orange County Charter are amended to read as follows:

Sec. 506. - Rural Boundary and Rural Area.

A. Establishment of Rural Area and Rural Boundary. There is hereby established a Rural Area,

initially consisting of all lands lying in the unincorporated County as of the effective date of this

section that are located outside of the following areas as of the effective date of this section: ( 1)

the Urban Service Area specified in the Orange County comprehensive plan; (2) municipal joint

planning areas adopted by joint planning agreement or interlocal agreement; (3) Growth Centers

specified in the Orange County comprehensive plan; (4) the Innovation Way Overlay specified in

the Orange County comprehensive plan; and (5) the Horizon West Villages specified in the

Orange County comprehensive plan. There is hereby established a Rural Boundary, consisting of

the boundary lines of the Rural Area.

B. Legal Effect of Rural Area.

(1) After the effective date of this section, any ordinance amending the Orange County

comprehensive plan that increases allowable density or intensity within the Rural Area or any

portion thereof, may be approved only by an affirmative vote of not less than a majority plus one of

the entire membership of the board.

(3) After the effective date of this section, the board of county commissioners may remove lands

from the Rural Area only by ordinance approved by an affirmative vote of not less than a majority

plus one of the entire membership of the board.

(C). This charter amendment shall become effective upon the date of canvassing board

certification of approval by a vote of the electors of Orange County.

Committee Chair Grimmer went on to state that in recent days concerns have been raised

regarding the Committee’s proposal in Exhibit A. He believes that state elected officials have

restricted the ability of the Charter Review Commission to establish rural boundaries in Orange

County. Therefore, he indicated he would not be offering a motion seeking approval from the CRC

for the proposals offered in Exhibit A or Exhibit B. Instead Committee Chair Grimmer is

requesting the CRC include in its final report a recommendation to the Board of County

Commissioners that they place the rural boundary amendment on the ballot to be voted on by the

people of Orange County. He explained Senate Bill 1420 preempts the Charter Review

Commission’s ability to propose a rural boundary amendment but it does not preempt the Board

of County Commissioners. Therefore, he urged supporters of the proposed rural boundary

amendment to stay engaged by attending meetings, offering letters of support, and continuing

their advocacy efforts with the Board of County Commissioners.

Committee Chair Grimmer made a motion, seconded by Member Arias, that the Charter Review

Commission take no action with regards to placing a rural boundary charter amendment on the

ballot but the final report recommend that Orange County Board of County Commissioners put the

Exhibit B proposal on the fall ballot for the people of Orange County. No vote taken.

CRC General Counsel Vose contributed to the discussion about concerns regarding the

placement of the proposed amendment on the ballot and Senate Bill 1420. Discussion ensued.

CRC Chair Hartage indicated the CRC has the ability to place this item for further consideration

at the CRC Meeting on May 30, 2024.

Committee Chair Grimmer withdrew his previous motion agreed upon by the seconder Member

Arias. Committee Chair Grimmer offered a new motion, seconded by Member Arias, that the

CRC vote in favor of recommending Exhibit B to be placed on the ballot by the Board of County

Commissioners. CRC Chair Hartage requested that Committee Chair Grimmer modify his

motion to include the recommendation of the Committee to the Board of County Commissioners

as presented today; and further, CRC Chair Hartage will schedule the consideration of the

recommendation for the next CRC Meeting. CRC General Counsel Vose pointed out the

modification offered by CRC Chair Hartage is not the same motion proposed by Committee

Chair Grimmer. He went on to explain the proposed amendment as presented in Exhibit B is the

version of the rural boundary amendment that included both elements that were in the original

proposal. Exhibit B was presented as follows:

Exhibit “B”

Ballot Proposal: The ballot title and ballot summary for this question are as follows:

ORANGE COUNTY CHARTER AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING RURAL BOUNDARY AND

RURAL AREA (“AREA”)

Establishing a Rural Area (unincorporated lands located outside the County's Urban Service

Area, municipal joint planning areas, Growth Centers, Innovation Way Overlay, and Horizon West

Villages on the effective date) where the County’s comprehensive plan and land development

regulations will exclusively govern land development and prevail over municipal ordinances, and

where comprehensive plan amendments increasing density or intensity, and ordinances removing

lands from the Area, must be approved by majority-plus-one County Commission vote.

____ Yes

____ No

Discussion ensued on the CRC's limitations, particularly the inclusion of language in Exhibit B

concerning the supermajority vote requirement. CRC General Counsel Vose contributed to

discussion and confirmed that the Board of County Commissioners has the ability to include all of

Exhibit B on the ballot.

CRC Chair Hartage indicated there was a motion to call for question. Discussion ensued.

Committee Chair Grimmer made a motion, seconded by Member Arias, for the CRC to make the

recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to place a rural boundary charter

amendment modelled after Exhibit B on the ballot for the November 2024 election. No vote taken.

Discussion ensued. CRC General Counsel Vose contributed to discussion. Member Batchelor

offered a friendly amendment to Committee Chair Grimmer’s motion requesting the Charter

Review Commission communicate to the Board of County Commissioners to place the rural

boundary issue before the Board of County Commissioners for a vote. Committee Chair Grimmer

requested an explanation between his motion and the friendly amendment offered by Member

Batchelor. Member Batchelor indicated the friendly amendment would not include the language as

presented in Exhibit B. The friendly amendment was not accepted by Committee Chair Grimmer.

Discussion ensued.

CRC Chair Hartage called the question to end discussion, seconded by Member Arias. The

motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 13 - Member Batchelor, Member Jackson, Member de la Portilla, Member Winesburgh,

Member Callan, Member Arias, Member Hartage, Member Grimmer, Member Bagga, Member

O'Neal, Member Stoccardo, Member Adamson Profit, and Member Riley

Nay: 1 - Member Chira

Absent: 1 - Member Wynn

A motion was made by Member Grimmer, seconded by Member Arias, for the CRC to make the

recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to place a rural boundary charter

amendment modelled after Exhibit B on the ballot for the November 2024 election. The motion

carried by the following vote:

Aye: 13 - Member Batchelor, Member Jackson, Member de la Portilla, Member Winesburgh,

Member Callan, Member Arias, Member Hartage, Member Grimmer, Member Bagga, Member

O'Neal, Member Stoccardo, Member Adamson Profit, and Member Riley

Nay: 1 - Member Chira

Absent: 1 - Member Wynn

CRC Chair Hartage indicated the proposed rural boundary amendment will be brought up again

at the CRC Meeting on May 30, 2024 if the Board of County Commissioners does not approve

the recommendation at their next Board of County Commissioners meeting.

CRC-24-139 Sustainable Growth & Charter Clean Up Committee - Consideration of the

proposed amendment concerning a supermajority County Commission vote

to dispose of or change use of “County Protected Lands”

(Second of Two Public Hearings / Votes)

1. Public Comment

2. CRC Discussion and Second Vote

CRC Chair Hartage opened the public hearing of the Sustainable Growth and Charter Clean Up

Committee proposed amendment concerning supermajority County Commission vote to

dispose of or change use of County Protected Lands.

The following persons addressed the CRC:

- Marjorie Holt

- Lee Perry

- Nate Douglas

- Lisa Sorice

- Orange County Soil and Water Conservation District 1 Samuel Chambers

Committee Chair Grimmer presented the final Committee report and thanked Valerie Anderson,

an Orange County resident who made the initial proposal to the full CRC asking they examine if

Orange County owned conservation land and parks may only be used for the purpose for which

they were originally acquired. He noted that although conservation lands and parks are vital for the

mental and physical well-being of Orange County residents, these areas remain under constant

threat and mentioned the citizen-led efforts to preserve Split Oak Forest and the actions taken by

the Orange County Board of County Commissioners to uphold the County Charter, with regards

for protection of Split Oak Forest. He indicated current policy and procedures are in place when

the existing and limiting park land is sought to be converted to another use and mentioned

Orange County Comprehensive Plan Policy R.1.1.4, which reads: “Public park or recreation

areas operated or maintained by Orange County shall not be converted to other uses, except by

determination of the Board of County Commissioners that such conversion is in the public

interest. Orange County shall seek appropriate compensation or replacement land if such land is

taken.” However, despite that policy, Committee Chair Grimmer indicated conversions of these

County protected lands are taking place, as is the case with a portion of Horizon West park which

will be converted to a branch of County library and additional land possibly converted as a YMCA.

The Committee discovered through County staff they are frequently approached with requests to

access park land for other purposes. Although County staff indicated the requests are rarely

approved the decisions ultimately rely upon the Orange County Board of County Commissioners

who can approve those requests with a simple majority vote. As for the Green PLACE (Park Land

Acquisition for Conservation and Environmental Protection) Program County staff explained it is

used by the County to purchase environmentally sensitive lands for the purposes of preservation .

Furthermore, the Board of County Commissioners allocated $100 million in September 2021 to

purchase environmentally sensitive lands, twenty-three (23) parcels of land have been acquired

and over five hundred acres (500) preserved. The Green PLACE Program has an overall goal of

preserving twenty-three thousand (23,000) acres of land by 2030. Committee Chair Grimmer

presented maps depicting the current state of conservation lands in Orange County, and shared

specific maps highlighting conservation areas in both eastern and western regions of the County.

The Committee discovered that after the Green PLACE Program becomes the sole owner of

acquired land, the County maintains a list of various activities permitted on these parcels and the

types of uses permitted by County policy; however, it can be subject to change by the Board of

County Commissioners. Additionally, the Green PLACE Program does not prohibit the selling of

any Green PLACE acquired land even though the land was specifically acquired for the purpose

of preservation. The Committee looked at the Pinellas County Charter, which requires approval of

the sale of any environmental land larger than one acre and any lease agreement longer than ten

years for environment lands approved only by a majority of voters during a referendum. The

Committee ultimately decided not to pursue the Pinellas model because they believed it was too

restrictive. The Committee feels their model allows for the Orange County Board of County

Commissioners to retain an element of discretion and flexibility with regards to

conservation land.

parks and

Committee Chair Grimmer reviewed the proposed ballot language as follows:

Exhibit "A"

Ballot Proposal: The ballot title and ballot summary for this question are as follows:

SUPERMAJORITY COUNTY COMMISSION VOTE TO DISPOSE OF OR CHANGE USE OF

"COUNTY PROTECTED LANDS"

Amending the Orange County Charter to define "County Protected Lands" as County owned (in

whole or in part), operated, or maintained public parks and recreation areas, and environmentally

sensitive lands acquired by the County for environmental, ecological, or recreational purposes;

and requiring that any County Commission action authorizing the disposition of County Protected

Lands or change to another use must be approved by a majority-plus-one County Commission

vote.

____ Yes

____ No

Text Revisions: Upon approval of this question at referendum, the following portions of the

Orange County Charter are amended to read as follows:

Sec. 713. - County Protected Lands.

A. Definition of "County Protected Lands". As used in this section, "County Protected Lands"

means public parks and recreation areas that are owned, operated, or maintained by the county,

and environmentally sensitive lands acquired by the county for environmental, ecological, or

recreational purposes. References to ownership or acquisition encompass ownership or

acquisition of any interest in real property, whether by conveyance, dedication, grant of easement,

or otherwise, and whether held solely, or in common with others.

B. Supermajority vote requirement. Any action of the board authorizing the disposition of any

County Protected Lands, or any portion thereof, or the change of any County Protected Lands, or

any portion thereof, to another use must be approved by an affirmative vote of not less than a

majority plus one of the entire membership of the board.

Committee Chair Grimmer indicated the proposal does not prohibit the County Commission from

changing the use or disposing of lands it would only require the majority plus one vote.

A motion was made by Member Batchelor, seconded by Member Arias, to call the question to

end discussion. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 13 - Member Batchelor, Member Jackson, Member de la Portilla, Member Winesburgh,

Member Callan, Member Arias, Member Hartage, Member Grimmer, Member Bagga, Member

O'Neal, Member Stoccardo, Member Adamson Profit, and Member Riley

Absent: 2 - Member Chira, and Member Wynn

A motion was made by Member Grimmer, seconded by Member Callan, to approve the draft

ballot language and text revisions for County Protected Lands and send the Charter amendment

to the ballot in November. The motion carried by the following vote:

11 -

Aye:

Member Batchelor, Member Adamson Profit, Member de la Portilla, Member

Grimmer, Member Jackson, Member Arias, Member Bagga, Member Callan,

Member Stoccardo, Member Riley, and Member O'Neal

2 - Member Hartage, and Member Winesburgh

2 - Member Chira, and Member Wynn

Nay:

Absent:

CRC-24-140 Sustainable Growth & Charter Clean Up Committee - Requiring Adoption of

a Fiscal Sustainability Analysis Tool

(Second of Two Public Hearings / Votes)

1. Public Comment

2. CRC Discussion and Second Vote

CRC Chair Hartage opened the public hearing of the Sustainable Growth and Charter Clean Up

Committee proposed amendment of a fiscal sustainability analysis tool.

The following persons addressed the CRC:

- Marjorie Holt

- Lee Perry

- Orange County Soil and Water Conservation District 1 Samuel Chambers

CRC Chair Hartage requested Committee Chair Grimmer offer a motion.

Committee Chair Grimmer made a motion, seconded by Member Arias, requiring adoption of a

Fiscal Sustainability Analysis tool and send it to the ballot in November. No vote taken.

Discussion ensued.

A motion was made by CRC Chair Hartage, seconded by Member Riley, to call the question to

end discussion. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 13 - Member Batchelor, Member Jackson, Member de la Portilla, Member Winesburgh,

Member Callan, Member Arias, Member Hartage, Member Grimmer, Member Bagga, Member

O'Neal, Member Stoccardo, Member Adamson Profit, and Member Riley

Absent: 2 - Member Chira, and Member Wynn

A motion was made by Member Grimmer, seconded by Member Arias, requiring adoption of a

Fiscal Sustainability Analysis tool and send it to the ballot in November. The motion carried by the

following vote:

13 -

Aye:

Member Batchelor, Member Adamson Profit, Member de la Portilla, Member

Grimmer, Member Jackson, Member Hartage, Member Arias, Member Bagga,

Member Callan, Member Stoccardo, Member Riley, Member O'Neal, and Member

Winesburgh

2 - Member Chira, and Member Wynn

Absent:

CRC-24-131 Transportation Committee - Consideration of the proposed amendment

creating the Transportation Mobility Advisory Commission

(Second of Two Public Hearings / Votes)

1. Public Comment

2. CRC Discussion and Second Vote

Committee Chair Callan introduced the Transportation Committee's Final Report, which includes

the establishment of the Transportation Mobility Advisory Committee. He noted that this advisory

committee, would be appointed by the BCC, and it's purpose would be to evaluate, prioritize, and

conduct public hearings on all transportation funding requests at the beginning of the budget

cycle. Committee Chair Callan said that this allows for a complete review of all transportation

expenses at the same time. It also increases transparency and examines transportation funding.

Additionally, it demonstrates both funded and unfunded projects and needs to the public. He

indicated the financial impact should be minimal since it does not create a review because the

review already exists in the budget cycle. He referred to the Comptroller’s Fiscal Analysis that

provides a breakdown of cost with an amount of ($725,132) which will include: Admin (Meetings,

legal, postage, graphics, supplies, meeting costs, advertising) $107,500, consulting services at

$215,000, County Staff (3 full time positions) at $350,513 and Comptroller staffing for meetings at

$52,118. He highlighted the Mobility Evolution and Enhancement that offers a non-budgetary

cycle, running from September to December, featuring periodic meetings to discuss new

technology platforms, transportation interfaces, and examines new methods or trends in mobility.

It also includes recommending new policies to the BCC and conducting a "Look Back" review of

the past decade's expenditures, serving in an advisory capacity to the BCC. Committee Chair

Callen indicated creating a Transportation Mobility Advisory Commission offers several benefits.

Firstly, it promotes transparency by allowing citizens to see how money is being spent.

Additionally, it provides a list of unfunded desirable projects. Moreover, it focuses debate on

transportation within a specific timeframe. This helps to create competition and build trust, while

addressing skepticism and doubts. Furthermore, it assists the BCC in vetting and resolving

conflicts. Lastly, it encourages citizen buy-in for funding transportation initiatives.

The following persons addressed the CRC:

- Marjorie Holt

- Nelson Betancourt

- Matthew Grocholske

- Nate Douglas

Discussion ensued.

Member Callan made a motion, seconded by CRC Chair Hartage, to recommend approval of the

amendment to Charter creating the Transportation Mobility Advisory Commission as outlined in

the packet as well as discussed today. No vote taken. Discussion ensued.

A motion was made by Member Batchelor, seconded by Member Arias, to call the question to

end discussion. Discussion ensued. No vote taken.

A motion was made by Member Callan, seconded by Member Hartage, to recommend approval

of the amendment to Charter creating the Transportation Mobility Advisory Commission as

outlined in packet as well as discussed today. The motion carried by the following vote:

13 -

Aye:

Member Batchelor, Member Adamson Profit, Member de la Portilla, Member

Grimmer, Member Jackson, Member Hartage, Member Arias, Member Bagga,

Member Callan, Member Stoccardo, Member Riley, Member O'Neal, and Member

Winesburgh

2 - Member Chira, and Member Wynn

Absent:

VII. Discussion of Ballot Order

CRC-24-141 Discussion of ballot order.

CRC Chair Hartage confirmed that the CRC approved eight proposed charter amendments. The

amendments will be placed on the ballot. He discussed two options for the order of placement:

arranging them in the order approved or holding a drawing. The second option was chosen.

Member Grimmer inquired if the Rural Boundary amendment would be placed on the list. CRC

Chair Hartage stated that the rural boundary amendment would be the last item on the list if the

item is brought back for consideration and approved at the next CRC Meeting. Citizen Marjorie

Holt, randomly drew and announced the amendments selected for placement on the ballot. The

amendment ballot order is as follows:

1. Initiative Petitions

2. Affordable Housing

3. Concerning the Write-in Candidate Effect on Timing of Charter Officer Elections

4. Requiring the Adoption of Fiscal Sustainability Analysis Tool

5. Establishing the Charter Office of the County Attorney

6. Increasing the Number of County Commission Districts

7. Creating the Transportation Mobility Advisory Commission

8. Concerning a Supermajority County Commission Vote to Dispose of or Change Use of

“County Protected Lands”

The next CRC Meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 30, 2024, at 6 p.m. Dinner and an awards

ceremony will be provided before the meeting at 5 p.m. The final press conference will be held on

May 22, 2024 at 11:30 a.m, at the County Chambers. The attendance of all Committee Chairs

has been requested by CRC Chair Hartage, and all CRC members are invited. CRC staff have

been instructed to extend invitations to the County Commissioners. CRC General Counsel Vose

will be completing the Final Report which will include all committee reports, any oral reports made

from the podium and the CRC Bylaws. The Final Report will be made available online for the

viewing public. CRC Chair Hartage has decided against forming a Public Relations Committee

for media discussions. CRC members addressing the media are advised to represent only

themselves and not the CRC as a whole. CRC staff will develop marketing materials for

distribution, as the State legislature has banned the dissemination of mail regarding information

of the proposed charter amendments. CRC Members wishing to make recommendations are

welcome to contact the CRC staff. CRC General Counsel Vose contributed to the discussion.

VIII. Member Comments

This item was not considered.

IX. Adjournment