Nov. 4 Election: A Voter’s Guide to the Charter Amendments

Opinions differ about the merits of the seven proposed changes to the charter. What no one disputes is that the changes would be profound if the first four are approved by voters. The mayor’s term would be extended to four years. A change in the pay formula would result in an 80% raise for the mayor and commissioners.  A candidate who receives 50% plus one vote in a primary would be declared the winner.

Below are the proposed amendments, background about them and the rationale for voting yes or no on each. The rationales were crafted from interviews with city leaders and citizens, by consulting the city’s “Pros and Cons” card, and by reviewing the meetings of the Charter Review Committee that recommended the changes.

Currently the mayor faces the voters every two years. Extending the mayoral term to four years would begin with the November 2026 election.

Yes: With a four-year term, the mayor could set and pursue longer term goals and focus on governing rather than the financial and time pressures that come with almost continual campaigning.

No:  A four-year term means voters would lose the ability to make rapid course corrections. Currently, the mayor’s seat and two of the four commission seats are up for election every two years. This ensures that voters are never more than two years away from the ability to create a new governing majority of three on the five-person commission.

A candidate who obtains 50% plus one vote in a primary would be considered elected to the office. That’s how local primaries worked before the rule was changed in the current charter, which requires that the top vote getter run in the general election, even if that candidate has earned a majority.

Yes: The rule wastes time and campaign dollars. For example, Mayor Fred Cleveland earned 76.7% of the votes cast in the 2024 primary against two opponents, and the result was about the same in the general election – he received 72.6% of the votes. Also, there have been no cases in Volusia County of a candidate losing in the general election after winning a majority in the primary.

No: Primaries have vastly lower turnouts than general elections, which means a candidate could potentially win a seat without ever facing a majority of the city’s voters. For example, in the 2024 mayoral primary, Mayor Fred Cleveland earned 76.7% of the votes cast, but those 5,438 votes represented 22% of all registered voters. This change would put the city’s fate back into the hands of a relatively small group of “super voters,” meaning those who vote in all elections every time.  Also, something new could be learned about the candidate between the primary and the general election.

The clerk is currently supervised by the City Commission, but this change would make the city manager the clerk’s supervisor.

Yes: The change could avoid a repeat of the difficulty the City Commission had in navigating a human resources issue that arose with the previous clerk, one city commissioner said. Personnel matters are accompanied by strict confidentiality rules, but the commission can’t easily meet in private due to Florida’s Sunshine Law. Also, other cities with the new arrangement have reported that it is working well.

No: Keeping the clerk under the City Commission is wise because it provides some independence, which is important given the clerk’s role as an impartial local election official and custodian of records, as well as a vital link between those records and the citizenry.

Today, the salaries of the commissioners and mayor are set by ordinance. This change would put the salary formula in the charter and adjust it to make the mayor’s salary 75% of the salary of the Volusia County Council chair. Commissioner salaries would remain 75% of the mayor’s salary, but the commission salaries would rise as the mayor’s salary rises. The changes would result in a salary of $50,545.80 for the mayor and $37,909.35 for commissioners, according to city figures. That equates to an 80% raise for the mayor and commissioners.

Yes: Higher salaries could encourage younger residents to run and thereby diversify the commission and mayoral races. Also, as the city has grown, the jobs of the mayor and commissioners have become more complex and time consuming. “You’re going to get what you pay for,” one member of the Charter Review Committee said during its meetings.

No: The proposed raises would be exorbitant, and the current commissioners and mayor have not earned raises, as proven by the ongoing flooding issues, over development and the resistance to addressing these problems.

Owners of historic structures would be encouraged to voluntarily maintain them, whereas the current charter embraces “regulations pertaining to historic preservation.”

Yes: Homeowner rights need to be respected. Encouraging and assisting property owners to respect our history will be enough to protect it.

No: The existing charter and regulations are there for a reason and are working well, says one longtime preservation advocate.

This amendment would create an entirely new section of the charter. The city would be called on to provide information about grant opportunities and to preserve existing cultural events while encouraging the creation of new ones.

Yes: The arts are central to the city’s identity and should be recognized in the charter. Assistance finding grant opportunities could buoy practitioners in a time of budget cuts.

No:  This amendment went “largely unchallenged” in deliberations by the Charter Review Committee that recommended the changes, according to the city’s Pros and Cons card.

The current charter calls for a fresh review in 2026, followed by reviews every 10 years. The proposed amendment calls for a review “at least” once every 10 years to provide flexibility.

Yes: The 2020 charter was decades old. Letting the city’s “foundational document” languish misses an opportunity to keep the community unified around modern principles that can guide the elected leaders.

No: Every five years would be better, given the highly dynamic times in which we live. Specifying 10 years could invite procrastination.

Correction: This article was updated on Oct. 31 to correct an error regarding the size of the raise the commissioners would receive if the amendment passes. The commissioners would receive an 80% raise.

Email: [email protected]