ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. — Orange County Commissioners will vote Tuesday on two proposed ballot measures that would put a rural boundary in place to protect rural land and regulate new commercial and residential development.

This comes less than a week after several mayors and city officials from cities in Orange County sent a letter in opposition to Orange County Mayor Jerry Demings on the proposed rural boundary amendment and an annexation clause granting the county veto power over an attempt to annex land.

What You Need To Know

  • Apopka Mayor Bryan Nelson responds to a controversial letter sent by him and several Orange County mayors opposing a proposed rural boundary amendment

  • Orange County Board of County Commissioners hold a public hearing Tuesday, July 30, to vote on the proposed ballot amendments

  • Letter sent to Orange County Mayor Jerry Demings by several Orlando-area mayors and city attorneys which made rounds, stirred controversy

  • The Rural Boundary measure seeks to protect rural land and regulate any new commercial and residential development in Orange County

On the eve of these proposed amendments, tensions were still running high between city officials and Orange County commissioners.

Spectrum News 13 sat down separately with Apopka Mayor Bryan Nelson and Orange County District 5 Commissioner Emily Bonilla to discuss the controversial nature of this letter and proposed amendments.

It’s a matter that has been in the works for some time now. 

Last July, a proposal to implement a rural boundary to the Charter Review Commission (CRC) was voted into a subcommittee. 

It then took several months of county attorneys and staff reviewing the amendments and their legalities before they could receive a public hearing and a vote on Tuesday, July 30.

However, city officials like Nelson said they’re not happy with a clause granting the county veto power over attempts to annex land.

“We were concerned that the cities weren’t being included in those discussions. It was just being driven by Orange County alone. We’d like to have a seat at the table,” he said.

Nelson said city mayors and managers held a meeting over two weeks ago to collectively address their concerns on the proposed amendments.

His biggest concerns ahead of Tuesday’s public hearing included joint planning areas, which would enable cities and the county to share certain agreements in the event of an annexation.

The annexations being the second concern at hand. 

“Let’s say somebody that’s right outside the city of Apopka wants to annex in, the county then would have we think undue control over whether that person or company could annex in the city of Apopka,” he explained.

But District 5 Commissioner for Orange County Emily Bonilla said there needs to be stricter regulations when it comes to annexations, especially since cities don’t need county’s permission to annex properties at the moment.

“This causes problems because we’ve worked so hard on different land use regulations in order to prevent urban sprawl and control our environmentally sensitive lands by development and by having the cities just come in and take it over, it tosses away all that hard work,” she explained.

On the other hand, Nelson admits he’s concerned about the impact the rural boundary measure could have on the home rule rights of his citizens.

“The government closest to the people is where most things get done and so what they’re doing is they’re taking it away from the cities and keeping it to the county, which is obviously a much bigger government and much farther away from the people,” Nelson expressed.

In his eyes, cities like his deserve to have the same say over annexation as they’ve always had following the municipal home rule. 

Even though they may not see eye-to-eye on the issue, Bonilla said Tuesday’s public hearing can pave the way for a mutual agreement between cities and the county.

“This proposal gives the opportunity for the county to stop and say, ‘Hey no, let’s look at this and really think about this.’ If we can get into an agreement with the city on how this annexation would happen, let’s do that. Or perhaps this isn’t right for an annexation. It has to stay in the county, under county control,” she said.

Bonilla said as a taxpayer herself, she just wants to make sure the money is going in the right places, because at the end of the day it comes down to meeting each other halfway and making responsible decisions for the good of the citizens. 

“We need to be able to have some predictability, some way to look at our finances and say are we making the right decisions and we’re not able to do that when there isn’t any process that includes the county,” Bonilla explained.