Alan Lowe, one of the candidates for Palm Coast mayor defeated in the August primary, sued the city and the Supervisor of Elections on Friday to remove from the November ballot a charter amendment that would scrap limits on the city’s borrowing and leasing capacities. The suit argues that the amendment’s language is misleading–a point two of the four sitting council members have made, as have both remaining candidates for mayor and some of the candidates for council seats.
The ballot summary is misleading, the lawsuit states, “by failing to explain the chief purpose of the proposed amendment to the City Charter, which is to take away the right of the citizens of Palm Coast to approve by referendum vote clearly defined fiscal limitations placed on the City and, effectively, to allow the City unlimited discretion.”
Charter amendments have a legal requirement to fairly and unambiguously inform voters and to not mislead them about the measure’s intent. “The ballot title does not accurately reflect what the amendment would do, as it would not ‘update’ but rather erase provisions,” the suit states, “and the ballot summary language impermissibly flies under false colors and hides the ball because it fails to, in clear and unambiguous language, fairly inform the voter of the chief purpose of the amendment, and because its language, as written, misleads the public.” In a clever line that would catch any judge’s attention, the suit adds: “The ballot language is biased and misleading both because of what it says and because of what it does not say.”
As currently filed though, the lawsuit is slightly flawed: it quotes ballot language that the council has since amended. It would be easy for the city to file a motion to dismiss on that ground. But it would be just as easy for Lowe’s attorneys to file an amended complaint with the correct language. The attorneys filing the lawsuit are Jay Livingston of Palm Coast and Douglas Burnett of St. Augustine, both land-use attorneys who frequently represent developers.
“That’s an easy thing to fix, I can amend that and refile it by Monday,” Livingston said today. “I don’t think it has any bearing on the substantive arguments in the lawsuit,” particularly since the ballot summary as it appears on the actual ballot is also included in exhibits.
Just 46 days from Election Day, the lawsuit further muddles the prospects of a ballot proposal that has been controversial almost from the time it was first discussed in early summer. The lawsuit now places the council in a no-win situation. Fighting the lawsuit would further focus attention on the controversy rather than on the measure’s merits. Even if the city prevails, as it very likely would, the victory would just as likely be so pyrrhic as to ensure that if a better-written, more transparent measure were to be floated in the next two years by the next council, it would fail by association. In other words, this council’s decision–or intransigeance–could hobble the next council’s attempt at a more successful referendum.
The defeat in primaries of three of the five council members who in July approved sending the measure to voters, plus the resignation of a fourth, had already severely weakened the measure’s credibility. (Lowe’s credibility is not stellar, either: he drew 13 percent of the vote in his latest bid for a council seat, least among five candidates.) Then two of the four council members–Ed Danko and Theresa Pontieri–raised questions about the ballot wording less than three weeks ago.
Danko called it deceptive and misleading, and felt he himself had been misled when he first approved its language in July, when he thought the measure was to facilitate infrastructure improvements in Palm Coast. Instead, he said, the measure is tied to a planned $93 million sports complex in the yet-unbuilt west side of the city. The ballot language doesn’t refer to any projects, leaving voters with the impression that only future residents will bear the cost of future debt–a word (“debt”) that does not appear in the ballot language. Danko wanted the measure removed from the ballot or at least rewritten or delayed.
Pontieri sought to rewrite it or delay it as well, and proposed new wording that would have gotten Danko’s support, but by then it was too late to make it onto the ballot in time. So they motioned to have it removed. Their motion failed.
No matter what the council or the circuit court decide, it is too late for changes to the ballot. The referendum and its language have been printed, and ballots are being mailed. “So far we’ve sent our military and overseas citizens’ ballots, those went out yesterday,” Supervisor of Elections Kaiti Lenhart said this morning, “and Thursday is our mailing date for all our other mail-in ballots, the 26th. Nothing can change the ballot at this point.”
But it’s not too late either for the city or a court to nullify the referendum, even though it’s on the ballot: it can be left uncounted.
“It is possible,” Lenhart said. The City Council “would have to have a majority vote to essentially remove the item. It would still be on the ballot, but it would not be counted. Or, a court order could mandate the same.” It would be the same as if a candidate had withdrawn. Notices would be posted in voting booths, and, time permitting, slips would be included in mail-in ballots to inform voters that the referendum would not be counted even if ovals are filled in. “The machines would not compile or publish the results,” Lenhart said.
Precisely that scenario unfolded in 2010 when the county approved a referendum pushed by the chamber of commerce at the time, that would have levied a tax for economic development. The referendum made it to the ballot (ironically with language far more transparent and precise than the city’s referendum). But the proposal was so poorly received by the public well before the vote that the chamber and the county opted to nullify it–not to have it counted. So it wasn’t.
Palm Coast’s proposed referendum is following the same pattern, in worse: in 2010, the County Commission was unified in proposing the tax referendum, as was the chamber. No such unity exists today, either on the council or even among some members of the chamber’s successor.
Pontieri in an interview today said “the language of the amendment certainly could have been made more clear,” but she does not consider the language that has made it onto the ballot legally wanting. “My very first endeavor when this was brought up, was to speak with legal counsel about whether or not this language was legally sufficient pursuant to case law and pursuant to what the law requires, and I was assured by legal counsel that it was. So depending on legal counsel, I was satisfied.”
Pontieri is herself a lawyer. Analyzing the lawsuit from that perspective, and pointing out its flawed premise, she said “injunctive relief is very hard to succeed on, and they’re going to operate on a very tight window. Unfortunately our city is going to be wrapped up in a lawsuit that’s going to cost us a lot of money over the next couple of weeks.”
“It’s disheartening to see that a taxpayer would file a lawsuit against the city that’s going to cost taxpayers more money in legal fees to defend rather than making their voices heard at the ballot box,” she said. “But I guess that’s their right to do.”
Danko today took the lawsuit as confirmation of what he’s been saying for weeks. “I’m not surprised there’s been a lawsuit filed,” he said, though he said he was surprised Lowe had filed it. “This language was deceptive, dishonest, right from the start, and I’m very disappointed that our city attorney didn’t catch that, and alert us to the issues.” He was adamant: “I don’t think the city should spend a penny fighting this lawsuit.”
It’ll be up to the council in coming days to decide whether to fight the lawsuit or to surrender to the likelihood of one more failure at the ballot box for its lame-duck majority. But if the council is to reconsider pulling the measure from the ballot–or at least nullifying it–that motion would have to be initiated by Mayor David Alfin or Council member Nick Klufas, since Pontieri and Danko were at the losing end of their attempt to do the same.
Alfin, who has been ill, deferred comment for now. “I’m not familiar with it yet, it’s my understanding there’s not been an official service,” the mayor said this morning. “I don’t have any thoughts yet.” Both Alfin and Klufas were battling Covid.
Cornelia Manfre and Mike Norris, the two candidates in a run-off for mayor, each urged the council to delay the proposal. “The language is very confusing, and I think it needs to be reconsidered,” Manfre told the council. “To change the charter, eliminating a cap on borrowing, is not necessary and should be left for the incoming council to address. Therefore, I’m asking that this referendum, in its vagueness, be stricken from the ballot.”
Norris was even more sharply opposed: “They put these safeguards in place,” he said of the original authors of the charter, “and what you’re attempting to do is you’re going to put the city in debt. “And if the city’s funds are going to go to fund this, advertising it up to the election, I’m going to put as much money from my campaign as I possibly can to campaign against it.” It’s not clear if Norris could legally use his mayoral campaign funds–as opposed to his personal funds–to campaign against a different ballot measure, but his point was clear.
Lowe=developers fool says
Proof that Danko and Lowe are being financially bankrolled by developers. Lowe doesn’t have any money to hire these attorneys.
It’s clear that developers who are upset about westward expansion that doesn’t benefit where they own land on the east side are paying these attorneys. Lowe is a mere donkey allowing them to use his name. Hope he signed a contract saying if the city wins and makes him pay attorney fees that those developers pay them for him.
DLM says
I could not agree more !!!
Jeffrey Douglas says
Not sure gas lighting so many people is going to further your cause. Be helpful to put your name for such a broad and knowingly false accusation.
Kathy Austrino says
Jeff,
You’re getting messy. That person clearly doesn’t know what they’re talking about. You know this filing hurts your desire for the blank check and thus aren’t behind Lowe. You are clearly in desperate defense from way up on that high horse.
Simmer down jellyfish, there’s no need to challenge anonymous residents.
Do better.
Jeffrey Douglas says
Thanks for that Cathy. Happy to sit with you and discuss professionally.
Pappy says
Jeffrey Douglas, we all know you are one of the developers ruining Palm Coast and will vote no on anything or anyone you suppirt
Kathy Austrino says
Kathy with a K (as shown in the post). Last time I requested to meet with you you offered “limited time”.
The next time we spoke you weren’t entirely truthful as I addressed in a January 2024 City Council meeting.
Perhaps I can offer you a limited amount of my time. Though, I have no idea what nonsense you’re expecting me to buy this time.
Let me know I’m open…to a little time for you.
Y says
Kathy,
My sincere apology for the misspell. That was short sighted of me. I will do better and reach out.
palmcoaster says
While living in Palm Coast since 1991 I have seeing better times for this city, but in spite of it, I would never accuse anyone of what there is not documented proof found. Now being you a big or representing current developer I am bewildered that when ITT developed Palm Coast in the 70’s and 80’s paid all the infrastructure, roads, bridges, overpasses, sewer, water storm water and parks and sports and pool complexes infrastructure that we enjoyed and now some current developers want us the taxpayers to pay for all current infrastructure needed for their large profitable development projects even some while rejecting the original DRI’s? Do you imagine that the cost is probably into the hundreds of millions and in a county where the per capita earning is $42,000 those taxpayers can’t afford it., even if some of those millions come from Tallahassee or other entities, are still tax funded. Why common sense doesn’t yet set in and current developers start funding their own projects in the same way ITT did and current residents funds are used to preserve fix or expand our existing decaying infrastructure instead? Your realistic reasoning/point of view will be greatly appreciated.
T Hicks says
Thank God someone is taking action – the city would borrow us into bankruptcy – they love spending other peoples money
Nicki says
The Taxpayers want to move on and because these clowns are an embarrassments to all of us.
YankeeExPat says
Our local Sovereign Citizen presidente rears his over active ego once again !
Sorry, but Lowe, as a multiple political loser is rrelevant to Palm Coasters
Go back to Idiotstan or what ever country you calim citizenship to and take Danko and Mullins with you as ambassadors
J Shabotz says
Alan Shepard Lowe is bringing this action up for the sole purpose of “staying relevant” in Palm Coast politics after getting his ass handed to him by the voters. His 13% is as pathetic as this lawsuit. Sad.
Just say NO! to Palm Coast debt says
The United States is already a debtor nation.
Does the City of Palm Coast want to become a debtor city too, regardless of the amount of money or how it’s financed?
Do the citizens of Palm Coast really want to give the Palm Coast City Council the unbridled power to take on a huge mountain of debt, all hidden behind purposely misleading legal gibberish?
Do they think the citizens of Palm Coast are that stupid that they would allow this to pass?
Apparently they do think the citizens of Palm Coast are too dumb to know what’s going on. Insulting to say the least.
Once you or an entity become a debtor, you relinquish control to the owners of the debt. Being a debtor, either as an individual or an entity, creates an imbalance in power.
Never aspire to be a debtor.
How about financial planning that could have been done (but wasn’t) when the worst mayor in the City’s history (Netts) was in power? Twice no less. But he (Netts) was too interested in going against the wishes of the then citizens of Palm Coast to build a city hall that no one wanted. (having mysteriously found the funds to do it). Then he also instituted red light cameras at huge expense to the city which were then found to be unconstitutional. And then he was re-elected. Planning for future infrastructure including water treatment plants and repaving of roads could have and should have been planned for 20 years ago. Then we had the second most awful mayor in Palm Coast, Milissa Holland, with her vanity projects which cost the City millions upon millions of dollars and it’s still going on.
Don’t bamboozle in the ability for those in power to take the City of Palm Coast down the debtor path. In the end, that will require raising taxes even more to pay the debt.
There should be a huge outrage about this deception by the City of Palm Coast.
I commend Alan Lowe for having the guts to file suit. Someone has to take charge.
Too bad the Flagler County Republican Executive Committee(FC-REC) practiced political warfare against Alan Lowe each time he ran for office. The FC-REC instead chose to back candidates (behind the scenes) like David Alfin and Netts and others now like Ty Miller who’s backed by the Flagler Builders Association and Andrew Werner who’s a carpetbagger. All at the expense of Alan Lowe who has been continuously crucified by the powers that be and their PACs. And please, don’t tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about because I was there as a member watching. (like so many others who’ve watched and resigned membership in disgust).
The Flagler Republican Executive Committee is one of the most destructive political forces in Flagler County (in my opinion having watched up close and personal). And that goes for whomever is the chair. Unfortunately at this time the current chairman is a fraud and has a terrible reputation in Flagler County and in the City of Bunnell.
NomoreCons says
Here is “that” group again, front and center. Anything they can do to stay in the loser’s limelight.
This wreaks of danko and his development dupes. Lowe is his willing and complicit buddy. Do you really need attention that bad, Lowe?
I hope Lowe gets charged with perjury because he didn’t write this. I bet this was written by developers. Make them pay court costs when this is defeated.
Meanwhile, get and keep these bad apples out of office: Danko, Mullins, Furry and all their little supplicants with the fake Facebook aliases. They’re an absolute cancer that need excising.
DLM says
You so hit it on the nail and I totally agree
Watch Out PC says
Lowe is like a bad penny..he keeps showing up. I believe he is just a ‘patsy’ for the other people he surrounds himself with. They say ‘do this’ and he does. My guess is he is cruising for a position in Palm Coast government along with Danko and some of his other associates. This could happen if Michael Norris is elected Mayor. Norris is Ed Dando 4.0.
Nope says
Not even close!
Watch Out PC says
Just watch.
Stephen says
we know Alan Lowe is a sovereign citizen. How can he file a lawsuit?
Foresee says
Finally Danko is gone. Lowe should accept that his ideas and philosophy have been repeatedly rejected by voters.
Deborah Coffey says
All true, but the amendments still sucks.
KMedley says
Honestly, it is truly sad when ANY voter, regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree with that voter’s political philosopy and/or associations, believes the ONLY way to effect action to protect the City of Palm Coast and its voters is to bring about a legal action. The people of Palm Coast have lost trust in its council.
The City Council instructred its staff to bring back recommendations with regards to Article VI, Section (3)(e) of our charter. Simply stated, in its present form, which survived the 2018 Charter Review, this section states city council CANNOT borrow more than $15 Million or any amount that requires more than 3 years to repay WITHOUT voter approval. The exact language is:
“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.” [Palm Coast City Charter, Artivle VI, (3)(e). ]
Currently the caps provided do not allow for inflations and honestly, the caps are low, given today’s prices for projects. In 2019, Jason DeLorenzo, former Palm Coast City Council Member, Former Government Affairs Director for Flagler Home Builders’ Association, and Former Chief Development Officer for the City of Palm Coast was appointed as its Chief of Staff in 2019. As reported by Flagler Live, Delorenzo’s previous appointment as chief development officer sent a, “very loud signal to the development community that Palm Coast intends to have its interests at heart, which raises a question… how does Palm Coast not send the message that developers have a blank check at city hall?” [https://flaglerlive.com/jason-delorenzo-development-chief/#google_vignette] Speaking for myself, I have an issue with such obvious political appointments designed to appease developers.
When DeLorenzo presented the proposed charter amendment in July of 2024, he noted to City Council the charter “really has a significant limitation on your ability to pay for capital projects.” [https://flaglerlive.com/palm-coast-borrowing/]
When staff had first been tasked to bring back options, why didn’t they first seek to raise the monetary limit from $15,000,000.00 and the pay back period from 36 months? I think most voters would understand and even be amenable to an increase of the current caps. Why didn’t staff offer to amend this section to allow for inflation? Instead, staff offered language which strips the voters of their rights to increase council’s contracting authority through referendum votes, and, staff took it a step further and scrapped the caps. Is this the saem staff that missed current obligations of two DRIs discussed during the Comprehensive Plan discussion? BTW, do we know who missed that chunk of information?
There are many issues on which I disagree with No Show Danko and Alan Lowe; however, each are correct with their assessment of the Charter Amendment 1 language slated for the November 5, 2024 General Election Ballot. Although changes were made, should this amendment pass, we the people will be giving 3 council members the vote to enter into UNFUNDED multiyear contracts without any limits. A Developer’s Dream Come True!
The proposed Charter Amendment 1 language reads:
Title: Charter Amendment to Update Provisions Related to City Council’s Contracting Authority
Summary: Shall Article VI of the Charter be amended by removing provision (3)(e) related to Contracting Authority that limits the City’s ability to enter into public private partnerships, have the ability to address growth by having future residents contribute to infrastructure costs, respond to emergencies and use available financial instruments including, but not limited to bonds.
Shall the above amendment be adopted?
Yes __________
No __________
This is not an UPDATE to the Article VI (3)(e), it’s a REMOVAL. It changes the protections substantially. It strips voting rights away from Palm Coast voters. It scraps the cap of $15 Million and 36 Months to repay. It does nothing to address inflation as all limits are now removed. It falsely states future residents would be on the hook for the money borrowed for infrastructure. All residents are responsible for the taxes needed to repay these bonds. It gives 3 City Council members the right to vote Palm Coast into perpetual debt.
Palm Coast once promised future impact fees for water and sewer plants. Once the housing crash occurred, Palm Coast and all residents were left holding the bag and as a result, water and sewer rates were raised in 2013 by 17.6 percent to quell bond holders. “Existing residents, not new residents, took the brunt of that new cost.” [https://flaglerlive.com/palm-coast-borrowing/#google_vignette]
Remember when Walmart was promised at Hwy 100 and Old Kings Road? Property owners are STILL paying for that through a special taxing district.
Clueless Klufus explained the scrap the cap unlocks many opportunities for the westward expansion, which in all probability would include a “$93 million sports complex on the west side of the city” as outlined in a February 2024 presentation. [https://flaglerlive.com/palm-coast-borrowing/#google_vignette]
No Show Danko changed his opinion and vote. He then announced at a council meeting he, along with other council members, had been invited to a meeting with MC III and Rayonier . He was told at that meeting if council failed to scrap the cap and provide for unlimited bond amounts for the westward expansion, including building a stadium/sports complex, the company proposing the build would walk away. He urged council to adopt a motion to rewrite the proposed charter amendment language and/or remove it from the ballot. There was not a second from the council.
We MUST defeat Charter Amendmet 1! If passed, developers would be given carte blanche for the Westward Expansion and ANY project their minions on council would approve. Vote NO on Charter Amendment 1! Tell the City of Palm Coast to live within its means! Say NO to Alfin Bonds!
Stop The Insanity says
Rcons love to play verbal jujitsu with their moronic base. The freedum caucus that aims to take away rights of women and others. “School choice” to defund public schools. They just make up lies about anything they don’t like and their base doesn’t hesitate to believe it as truth even though it’s totally not. Look at what’s going on in Springfield all because a con man made up more lies about a group people he doesnt like. Similar to the “kung flu” that propagated hate and ended the lives of many Asian Americans in Atlanta. They know it was bs like their election lies but apparently many people aren’t bright enough to see the truth right in front of their face and continue to push misinformation. “Fox “can do it cause they aren’t news just propaganda entertainment for the racist morons and that has been proven in court on several occasions.
Billy says
They would bankrupt the city, give it all of developers ruin everything file bankruptcy, and simply walk away. We would be stuck with the result of a nightmare city. While they laugh and move on to the next tow,
Eye Roll Emoji says
Alan Lowe still thinks people care about his opinion. This multi-time loser should take it to an open mic night.