The Palm Coast City Council is at war with itself over a proposed referendum that would remove borrowing limits the city has had to comply with for 25 years. If the city is hoping for a successful outcome in November, this is not the way to go about it, especially for a mostly lame-duck council, three of whose members were rejected by voters and a fourth who just resigned.
Two council members who had approved the referendum’s wording in July now consider it vague, unclear or misleading. Public opposition has been increasing, it has been sharp, and it has been all but unanimous. Even the usually gabby local chamber’s representative and cheerleader of all things development has been conspicuously absent from the discussions, as if avoiding a third rail.
For all the grim writing on the wall, an attempt to remove the proposed referendum from the Nov. 5 ballot and let the new council rewrite it more clearly and with additional guardrails failed in a 2-2 vote Tuesday evening.
Council member Ed Danko had made the motion to remove the proposal from the ballot. “The language is confusing. It’s dishonest and it’s deceitful, and I want to be very clear on that,” he said. “Let the next council deal with it, and we only have to wait two short years to put it on a ballot the next election, and if it’s explained properly to folks and what it’s for, and if it’s honestly explained, there’s a chance you could vote on it if you think it would help with our infrastructure.”
Council member Theresa Pontieri seconded, initially for discussion purposes, though she joined Danko in the vote for removal. Mayor David Alfin and Council member Nick Klufas voted to keep it on the ballot. A tie vote meant the motion died. The council has an empty seat since the resignation of Cathy Heighter last month. The seat won’t be filled until Oct. 1.
Cornelia Manfre, one of the two candidates in the run-off for mayor on the same Nov. 5 ballot, kicked off what would turn into a stream of nine public voices during the opening public comment segment, opposing the referendum and asking the council to remove it.
“I’m very concerned that 25 years ago, our founding fathers decided that we would have a cap and a time frame on any borrowing power,” Manfre said. The proposed language of the ballot “leaves it very open ended.” Manfre considers the language confusing regarding future liabilities to residents, doubting that only “future” residents would be repaying new debt (the city has not shown, nor has tried to show, how future debt would be assumed only by future residents), and asked that the whole proposal be stricken from the ballot.
Then followed public comment after public comment, calling the proposal “muddy,” “intentionally misleading,” “deceptive” and “confusing,” foreseeing its failure, and originating with a council “that, for the most part, is going to be out.” Klufas is term-limited and lost his bid for a County Commission seat, as did Danko, who was not term-limited but will be off the council by December. Alfin was defeated by Manfre and Mike Norris, the other candidate in the runoff.
Danko and Pontieri followed with strong arguments to remove the ballot proposal this year and float it again in two years. Alfin and Klufas largely stood by, providing little by way of counter-arguments. The council has already approved the language, and it is too late to rewrite it: to do so, the council would have to re-advertise the hearings and stretch out the process through September, but the Supervisor of Elections is sending the ballots to the printer this week. A re-written proposal was simply not possible.
Whether or not Alfin and Klufas would have opposed a re-write had there been time remained unclear, a lack of clarity that in itself further underscored how problematic the wording of the ballot language had become, and how glaring the council’s contortions.
Pontieri summarized the genesis of the proposal, which started with wording by the city attorney in early summer, then a rewrite by the council as a whole. “I did not single-handedly write this language. I did not do this by myself. We had consensus from this council and vice mayor and I worked together to edit it, to make it more transparent,” Pontieri said, the vice mayor being Danko. “Anybody can go back and watch that video.” She reminded residents that it is only a referendum at this point: “If you all don’t want it, then you vote no. And I actually think that that will happen. I do think that the vote will be No on this.”
In case the referendum passes, she suggested additional guardrails. The council would approve a resolution, effective January 1, that any borrowing of $30 million or more would require a supermajority vote of the council (at least four council members), thus alleviating the fear that the council could borrow whatever it wants. “I recognize the public’s apprehension in this regard, and so if we do not get the votes to pull this from the referendum, I suggest that we as council enter into this resolution,” Pontieri said. She will be the only elected council member left standing come December. The appointed member will serve out Heighter’s two years.
Vague language aside, criticism about the referendum has seized on its motive. The council previously lent support to what would be a $93 million sports complex on the city’s west side. Some critics see bonding as a financial mechanism for the complex. While that could be one financing model, it isn’t the only one–nor the one that interested council members when they discussed the complex, though both complex and bonds could soon be moot. Four of the five council members who favored the complex will be off the council by December, and the referendum’s success is in doubt, with Pontieri herself adding to the doubt–and distancing herself from the sports complex connection.
“I don’t know what everybody else’s intentions with this charter amendment are,” Pontieri said. She’s not opposed to a sports complex if it were part of a public partnership, as it would bring tourism dollars in, she said later in the meeting. But she did not see the ballot proposal as part of that. “My intentions are to fix infrastructure without paying as we go. The pay as you go system is not working. It is not tenable. It is not sustainable. We have to be able to borrow money to fix infrastructure before it breaks.” The $15 million borrowing limit built into the charter in 1999 did not provide for inflation. That $15 million in constant dollars would be close to $30 million today.
But connecting the bonding referendum to infrastructure like utilities would be incorrect: the council does not need the referendum to pass for its utility department to have more freedom to borrow. The utility department is its own separate entity, independent of the general fund (where taxpayers’ property tax revenue goes) and operated strictly on user fees. It can and does bond well past the $15 million limit without voter approval. That authority would persist regardless. The same can’t be said, say, if the city wanted to borrow over $15 million to build a fire station or a public works plant, or to spend the money on street repairs.
Klufas said it’s not just inflation: the council went to the rollback rate last year, eliminating $2.5 million that was slated for infrastructure, he said. Danko is not opposed to bonding for whatever reason (though he’s not supportive of borrowing for a sports complex). But he’s opposed to doing so without voter approval.
“I think yanking this from the ballot and proceeding down the path you just laid out only puts us two years away from getting the ability to actually do bonds and a way that the public understands why we’re doing it,” Danko told Pontieri. “I actually think this makes a lot of sense.”
Yet more people from the audience addressed Danko’s motion, again opposing the referendum’s language or existence on the ballot. This round included the words “song and dance,” “absolutely not,” “appalling” and “malfeasance” if–as with the first round–with substantial doses of misinformation, misplaced criticism and baseless claims (“there’s so many people here that are overpaid and under qualified”).
Samuel says
City of Palm Coast Council is a failure just like Mayor Alfin who was largely voted out of office.
The City of PC needs a all-new council as we look forward to a new mayor being elected.
The Sour Kraut says
I mostly agree. Theresa Pontieri is worth keeping.
Mabel Dunbar says
Oh no, you’ve got it all wrong. There’s absolutely no rebellion – that implies people are going against rules, law & order. This is exactly the opposite.
The residents are waking up. They have listened to you & others. They know now that they must babysit Palm Coast City Council to protect themselves and the city they all love.
Just wait until they get to the school district and the county commissioners.
Those who’ve been running the show won’t wait until the taxes are so high on the residents as they’ve planned; they’ll be run right out of town. They did this to themselves, but we caught on.
It’s a beautiful thing. I can’t wait.
Gina Weiss says
Vote NOOOOOOOO folks , its as simple as that!
KMedley says
STOP THE STEAL!
Palm Coast City Council wants to SCRAP THE CAP and Strip Voters of Their Right to Vote!
Vote NO on Amendment 1
This last ditch effort to remove the proposed amendment to the City Charter was destined to fail once Councilwoman Heighter resigned, and the lame duck council members knew it.
While Clueless Klufus loves to remind voters he was term limited and that’s why he ran for County Commission, let us NEVER forget he wanted to bring his vast accomplishments as a Palm Coast City Councilman to the dais of Flagler County. Thank God voters sent him packing! The same applies to No Show Danko.
The entire time Danko ran, not once did he warn voters of the devastaing effects that could come with the passage of Charter Amendment 1, scheduled for the November 5, 2024 ballot. True, this is a City issue, but it wasn’t until AFTER he lost he became insensed with the reasoning for lifting the cap. As reported by Flagler Live, in its July 3, 2024 article titled, “With Nod to ‘Slippery Slope,’ Palm Coast Will Ask Voters for More Borrowing Power Through Vague Ballot Measure” (https://flaglerlive.com/palm-coast-borrowing/#google_vignette), Danko stated, “I’m willing to put this on a ballot I don’t think it’s something we should just decide not to do…. I think voters need to make that decision.” And while Klufus warned of a slippery slope, he nonetheless voted in favor of the proposed Charter Amendment. So what does the City Council want? In short, MORE MONEY without seeking voter approval.
The proposed amendment seeks to remove Section 3 E from Article VI of our City Charter. Currently, Section 3 E states:
“Limitations to Council’s Contracting Authority. Unless authorized by the electors of the City at a duly held referendum election, the Council shall not enter into lease purchase contracts or any other unfunded multiyear contracts, the repayment of which: extends in excess of 36 months; or exceeds $15,000,000.00.”
(Source: https://library.municode.com/fl/palm_coast/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CITY_PALM_COASTCH_ART._VIBUAP)
This section survived the 2018 City Charter Review process which in my opinion usurped voters in an effort desgined to limit changes. But, that’s another story. The current language is clear. It seeks to provide a cap on council’s ability to enter into “contracts or any other UNFUNDED multiyear contracts” with a repayment period “in excess of 36 months; or exceeds $15,000,000.00”, unless voters approve the request through a referendum election. This is a way to make the city pay as it goes and allows the voters to say yes or no to spending in excess of the limits set forth.
The proposed language for the ballot is not only a grammatical mess, it’s a guarantee ALL residents will be on the hook for ALL future debts incurred should the caps be removed. The ballot summary language reads:
“Shall Article VI of the Charter be amended by removing provisions related to contracting authority that limit the city’s ability to enter into public private partnerships, respond to emergencies and have the ability to address growth by having future residents contribute to infrastructure costs?”
Translation? We can’t get around the 36 month / $15,000,000.00 cap. Notice, there is not ANY cap as to repayment timeframe or the amount.
At the August 27th and September 3rd City Council meetings, more questions were raised. Rewording the language is not an option now as any changes would require votes by City Council and two public readings, each requiring a 10 day notice to the public. The ballot language is due by September 5 so the Supervisor of Elections can get in on the November ballot. Removing it completely from the ballot was an option. At the August 27th meeting, No Show Danko, having lost his bid for the County Commission, decided to voice concerns, after he already voted in favor of the proposed changes. He made a motion to have it removed. With the exception of a voter from the audience, his motion did not receive a second. At the September 3rd meeting, Councilwoman Pontieri provided the much needed second; however, lame ducks Alfin and Klufus voted to keep Amendment 1 on the ballot. The vote was 2 to 2, and with Heighter’s sudden resignation, the motion to remove failed. It’s now up to the voters!
SAY NO TO ALFIN BONDS FOR THE WESTWARD EXPANSION AND THE $93 MILLION DOLLAR SPORTS COMPLEX!
SAY NO TO HAVING YOUR VOTING RIGHTS STRIPPED!
SAY NO TO COUNCIL’S DESIRE TO SCRAP THE CAP!
STOP THE STEAL!
VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 1
Sally says
Thank you its No on Amendment 1. So glad Alfin is out in November, I can vote that he is the worst Mayor this town has ever had.
Cash is King says
Never aspire to become a debtor.
Never give government a blank check for spending with increased debt.
Same goes for personal finance.
It’s obvious Alfin and Klufus haven’t learnt anything from their recent political defeats.
Joe D says
There DEFINITELY needs to be more moderate LIMITS ( possibly tied someway to inflation), on LARGE amounts of public dollars (borrowed OR spent). ESPECIALLY for such a large $million Sports Complex which has only LIMITED public support. Something that large REALLY needs to have VOTER approval by way of a Referendum.
Looks like the current referendum needs to go forward as written, and we have to deal with the consequences later, when an adjustment can go through the NORMAL legislative process
There just needs to be some better financial guardrails on the borrowing of money to be used for expansive projects. Taxpayers have reached a LIMIT on how much they can tolerate unlimited government spending.
KMedley says
The proposed amendment, as written, MUST be defeated.
Citizen Cane says
They only need to listen to the people! Not hard. We want no more building! No more cutting down our tree canopy’s & wetland areas! And overhaul the roads!
JimboXYZ says
“The $15 million borrowing limit built into the charter in 1999 did not provide for inflation. That $15 million in constant dollars would be close to $30 million today.”
$ 15 million cap didn’t become $ 30 million as inadequate until 2021 when Biden-Harris inflation & Bidenomics became the Government game. Get rid of Biden-Harris-Walz and see how $ 15 million becomes what anything can really get done for. Raising the debt ceiling is raising property taxes. This council should not be raising property taxes nor committing the next incoming mayor & council with a sandbagged budget & flawed vision. Biden-Harris has done enough for doing that over nearly 3.75 years. We all know who really needs to go in Nov 2024 for anything to stand a chance of restoring Democracy, sustainable affordability. The source of funding trickles down from Federal to State to County to City. When the Federal plan has been as awful as Biden-Harris-Walz, can’t expect anything to be any better at the city level.
Ray W. says
Its Trudenflation, JimboXYZ. Trump signed $2.9 trillion of unfunded stimulus money into law before he left the White House. That money contributed to the inflation we experienced over the past four years. Simple as that. Every time you attempt to misinform and disinform, I will oppose you.
Kat says
You seem to forget that this is a Republican dominated city, county, and state. Put the blame where it belongs, on the Republican party. Our elected representatives have not voted for our interests at the local, county, or state level. They vote against federal dollars but when they get them, they act as if they did something for their constituents. We need change. VOTE BLUE to preserve our freedoms and democracy. Everything you’re complaining about is the result of a red grip on Florida politics.
Deborah Coffey says
Sorry, Jimbo. We simply can’t allow your misinformation to stand on a public forum.
https://www.crfb.org/papers/trump-and-biden-national-debt
Maryann Collins says
No, no, no!!! Shame on you!!! Why do you keep trying to fool us. Vote No!