The Palm Coast City Council held a special workshop on Tuesday, February 24, 2026, to review proposed amendments to the city charter submitted by the charter review committee. Over the course of the lengthy session, the council worked through more than a dozen recommendations and reached consensus on three top priorities to advance toward the November ballot: filling council vacancies, revising the city’s borrowing limits, and clarifying the censure and removal process for council members.
The workshop was led with the assistance of Dr. Georgette Dumont, the professional facilitator hired to guide the charter review committee through six months of work that included three public town hall meetings. No formal votes were taken during the workshop, as it was structured for discussion and consensus-building only.
Public Comment and East Hampton Follow-up
Before the charter discussion began, the council heard from several residents during public participation. Jeanie Duarte requested written legal explanations on a number of charter-related topics, including the change to the mayor vacancy process, the legal status of appointed council members, and the timing of the charter review in relation to its 10-year review cycle.
Jeremy Davis, a Palm Coast resident who has been raising permit and drainage concerns since August 2023, told the council he has documented deleted permit record comments, more than 100 city-owned culvert failures, and a home flooding following a city-approved elevation decision next door. He questioned the city’s priorities, asking why documented drainage failures remain unresolved while the city has approved approximately $330 million in utility bond insurance. “When administrative process fails, the only option left is litigation,” Davis said. “Why is resolution through transparency and documentation harder than resolution through litigation?”
Bruce Stone raised concerns about the East Hampton development vote from the previous meeting, questioning council members voting on developments tied to campaign donations.
Mark Webb also addressed the East Hampton vote, criticizing the process of approving the development based on what he described as “brand new, unknown, untested, unverified information provided last minute” regarding the property donation to a nonprofit. He questioned why the item was not tabled as Mayor Norris had recommended.
Vice Mayor Theresa Pontieri responded directly to the East Hampton concerns, emphasizing that the council’s approval was specifically contingent on the developer donating the property to a nonprofit for attainable housing. “If they don’t donate the property for the purpose for which they said they would, then that approval is withdrawn,” Pontieri said. “In other words, they would be held to the previous settlement agreement, which was 58 homes.” She explained that Councilman Gambaro amended his motion and Councilman Sullivan amended his second to make the conditions explicit.
Mayor Norris acknowledged his position, saying he had asked to have the item tabled because he had not received the letter of intent. “I don’t think we should do business like that and that’s not my philosophy and I tried to do the right thing,” the mayor said.
Supermajority Debate
Before the charter discussion began, Mayor Norris requested consensus that any charter amendments moving forward to a ballot vote should require a supermajority, or four out of five council votes, rather than a simple majority. He argued the higher threshold was appropriate because two of the five council members are not elected but appointed.
Vice Mayor Pontieri and Councilman Gambaro opposed the supermajority requirement, arguing that since any charter amendments must ultimately be approved by voters through a referendum, requiring a supermajority of the council would limit the public’s ability to decide for themselves. “I think by doing that, you’re taking less power out of the residents and putting in more power into five people,” Pontieri said. Councilman Miller also sided with the simple majority, saying the residents would be the ultimate authority through the referendum.
Councilman Sullivan supported the mayor’s position, expressing concern about precision in wording and the potential for legal challenges. The council did not reach consensus on the supermajority requirement and proceeded with the standard simple majority for consensus decisions.
Filling Vacancies and Elections
The committee’s top-ranked recommendation addressed how vacant council seats are filled, a topic that became urgent after the city experienced prolonged vacancies with appointed rather than elected members on the dais. The committee proposed that if a vacancy occurs within six months of a scheduled election, no appointment can be made, and that any appointed member must face voters within 12 months.
Significant debate followed over timelines. Mayor Norris advocated strongly for a special election to be called within approximately 72 to 90 days of any vacancy, arguing that residents deserve elected representation as quickly as possible. “The person that’s sitting in that seat must be elected by the people,” Norris said.
Vice Mayor Pontieri shared the mayor’s concerns conceptually but raised practical issues, including the potential for a four-person council during budget season. She pointed to a real-world example from her own experience when the council nearly deadlocked during budget approval. She proposed that even within the six-month window, the council should be able to appoint someone temporarily, with a special election then required within 90 days after the next general election. “I don’t think we need to go six months with a vacant seat,” she said.
Councilman Miller agreed with the sentiment but noted that the supervisor of elections should be consulted on timelines before any specific number of days is locked into the charter. The council reached consensus to move this issue forward as a top ballot priority, with staff directed to refine the language, consult with the supervisor of elections, and bring it back for further review.
Council Contracting and Borrowing Limits
The second major topic concerned the city’s borrowing limits, which were set at $15 million with a 36-month payback period when first written into the charter in 1998 and have never been updated. Vice Mayor Pontieri noted that adjusted for inflation, the 1998 amount is approximately $29 to $30 million in today’s dollars. She advocated for raising the cap to $30 million and tying future increases to the Consumer Price Index.
Councilman Miller agreed and suggested the contract term should also be extended, noting that typical capital project financing runs 30 years and that locking the city into 36-month paybacks could result in losing favorable interest rates. Vice Mayor Pontieri suggested eight to 10 years as a potential range, though she expressed caution about prior councils binding future ones to long-term deals.
Mayor Norris expressed concern about the city’s overall debt level, saying he wanted to restrict future borrowing. “I am anti-debt, and just someone on a whim writes a contract for something that’s just, you know, but we will not always be in these seats,” he said.
Councilman Gambaro supported the changes and suggested a formula that keeps the dollar amount current. Councilman Sullivan noted the council should act now because waiting another two to three years without updating the limit would only make the gap larger.
The council directed City Attorney Marcus Duffy to work with staff on specific numbers and bring a proposal back, with consensus forming around approximately $30 million tied to CPI and a term limit in the range of 8 to 10 years. The council also discussed potentially requiring a supermajority vote if borrowing approached a high percentage of the cap, such as 80 percent.
Censure and Removal from Office
The third top priority involved rewriting the charter’s provisions on censure and removal of council members. Dr. Dumont explained that the current charter language implies the council can remove its own members, which is not legally permissible under Florida law. Only the governor, a citizen recall, or resignation can remove a council member.
The proposed changes create a clearer process. The council could censure a member by supermajority vote for failing to maintain duties of office, being convicted of a felony or first-degree misdemeanor, violating the city’s adopted code of conduct or the Florida Code of Ethics, or being absent from three consecutive business meetings or six business meetings within a 12-month rolling period without being excused. After at least three censures, the council could then formally request the governor to remove the member.
Mayor Norris expressed strong support for the supermajority requirement on censure, saying an elected official should only be removed by the governor or through a citizen recall. “I was elected for this seat. I’m going to hold this seat unless I violate one of these and the governor removes me or someone does a recall,” he said.
Vice Mayor Pontieri suggested removing the ambiguous language of “multiple censures” and replacing it with “at least three,” which the council agreed to. The council reached consensus that this issue belongs in the charter and should move forward as a ballot item.
Items Deferred to Policy or Lower Priority
Several committee recommendations were redirected to policies and procedures rather than charter amendments. These included requiring specific qualifications for the city manager and city attorney, adding budget assumption requirements, specifying the number of required monthly meetings, mandating in-person participation for votes, and clarifying council expenses.
On the city manager residency requirement, the council reached consensus to change the charter language from requiring the city manager to live within the city to requiring residency within Flagler County. Mayor Norris argued the city manager should live within city limits, but the majority favored the broader requirement to avoid limiting the candidate pool.
The council also agreed to move forward with updated term limit language. The committee proposed a lifetime cap of eight years per type of seat, meaning a council member could serve up to eight years and then run for mayor for another eight years, for a maximum of 16 years total. Currently, the charter only prohibits two consecutive terms in the same seat, with no total cap. The council expressed general agreement with the proposed change.
On the initiative and referendum process, the committee recommended requiring the council to act within 90 days if it fails to adopt a voter-initiated ordinance, after which it must be placed on the next general election ballot. The council agreed in principle but placed it in a lower priority tier.
The committee also recommended a post-service employment restriction, preventing former council members from taking executive-level or charter officer positions with the city for one year after leaving office while allowing lower-level employment. The council agreed with the concept and directed staff to ensure the language covers charter officers including the city manager position.
A citizen bill of rights ordinance was recommended as a non-charter item. The council expressed support for the concept and directed staff to bring a draft ordinance forward for review.
The committee discussed the possibility of expanding the council from five to seven members in the future as the city’s population grows but recommended no change at this time. Several council members agreed the topic deserved a separate workshop, potentially tied to the next census cycle.
The council also agreed to administrative cleanup items including replacing the term “electors” with “registered voters” throughout the charter and specifying references to Florida statute where the current document simply says “by law.” A preamble was also agreed upon that would read in part: “We the people of Palm Coast, Florida…do adopt this charter.”
Closing Public Comment and Army Corps Letter
During final public comment, Jeremy Davis noted that only three regular residents and two candidates were present for discussion of changes to the city’s governing document. “Low participation is not public approval. It is public disengagement,” he said. “If you’re changing the rule book for how power works in this city and almost no one is in the room, that should concern you.”
George Mayo urged the council not to leave seats vacant for extended periods, arguing that appointment should happen immediately so residents are not left without representation during critical votes like budget approval. He also expressed opposition to term limits, saying voters should decide if someone has served long enough.
Committee member Mike Martin thanked Dr. Dumont for her facilitation and urged the council to continue using professional facilitators for future charter reviews.
Before closing the workshop, Mayor Norris raised a time-sensitive matter regarding an Army Corps of Engineers permit renewal for a previously approved development. He noted the deadline for interested parties to express concerns was March 3 and asked for council consensus to submit a letter stating the city opposes any additional environmental impacts beyond what was previously contemplated. The council unanimously agreed, and City Attorney Duffy was directed to draft the letter and circulate it to council members before submission.
The council adjourned with direction for staff to refine ballot language for the three top priorities, consult with the supervisor of elections on special election timelines, and schedule a future workshop to finalize wording before the early September ballot deadline for the November election.
