Volusia County holds first public hearing on five charter amendments amid heated debate over conservation lands

Volusia County held the first of three required public hearings May 19 on five proposed amendments to its home‑rule charter, with public comment centering on a proposal to tighten rules for selling or repurposing county conservation lands.

Mark Watts, chair of the Charter Review Commission, told the council that the commission met across the county, considered more than 40 pages of public suggestions and focused its package on government structure, housekeeping changes and protections for conservation land. ‘‘We tried to keep our focus on the purpose of the charter — structure, power and authority — and to propose legally defensible language,’’ Watts said during the presentation.

Amendment 5 would create a conservation‑lands registry and raise the voting threshold for any property placed on that registry to a majority plus one of the full council (five of seven) both to add and to remove properties; it would also require a 30‑day public notice before delisting. Proponents said the change strengthens existing protections while remaining consistent with state law; opponents said the wording is too broad and could allow conservation land to be repurposed for non‑conservation uses under an expansive ‘‘public purpose’’ definition.

‘‘This registry strengthens what we already have; it makes removals more deliberate,’’ said Amy Munizi, a member of the public who served on the commission. ‘‘It is consistent with state law and is designed to avoid litigation risk that could render protections ineffective.’’

But several residents urged the council to place a stronger Alachua‑ or Miami‑Dade‑style amendment on the ballot that would require voter approval before any conservation land could be sold. Catherine Pantay told the council that the proposed language still leaves a loophole: ‘‘I do not want our Volusia Forever land turned over to another purpose that would truly take it out of conservation,’’ she said, citing examples in state statutes that define ‘‘public purpose’’ broadly.

Council members pressed staff and commission members for legal context. Commissioners cited recent cases and statutes and noted that some types of charter language that give voters final say can be struck down if they conflict with state land‑sale statutes. The County Attorney and commission members pointed to court rulings in other Florida counties as part of their legal reasoning.

No final decision was required at the meeting; the council will hold two additional public hearings, with a resolution to place amendments on the November general election ballot expected after the required hearings. Several council members asked staff to draft an alternative amendment that would require an even higher threshold of council approval — a proposal the council directed staff to return with for consideration.

What happens next: The council will continue the public‑hearing process and may receive a staff‑drafted competing amendment that would change the required vote to sell or repurpose conservation land. If the council adopts a resolution placing amendments on the ballot, voters will decide the changes in November.