The Flagler County Board of County Commissioners held a wide-ranging workshop on Monday, April 6, 2026, tackling three major topics: how to find and hire a new county administrator, how to improve the evaluation process for both the county administrator and county attorney, and whether to extend deadlines and funding for a struggling affordable housing development called Phoenix Crossing. The session, which ran for several hours, was led by Chair Leann Pennington and included Vice Chair Kim Carney, Commissioner Andy Dance, Commissioner Pam Richardson, and Commissioner Greg Hansen.
Searching for a New County Administrator
Human Resources Director Charlie Pecano opened the meeting by walking commissioners through a detailed questionnaire designed to set the ground rules for the county administrator search. The Florida Association of County Managers, known as FACM, has been brought on to assist, though Pecano made clear that FACM is not a traditional recruiting agency. “FACM is not a recruiting agency or search agency,” he explained. “They’re more of a professional service that’s going to offer expertise to us during the process.”
Much of the discussion focused on what qualifications candidates should have. Commissioners agreed that a minimum of 10 years of overall leadership experience would be required, with at least five of those years spent in local government. They debated whether to open the search to candidates from the private sector and ultimately decided to remain open to exceptional private-sector applicants, while strongly preferring those with direct government experience.
“There’s nothing like being in the trenches and working in government,” one commissioner noted. “It’s different. It’s not the same.”
On education, the board settled on requiring a bachelor’s degree in a relevant field such as public administration, political science, business, or law, with a master’s degree listed as preferred. Commissioners agreed they did not want to box out strong candidates by being too narrow, but also wanted to ensure a high baseline of academic preparation.
Florida experience was discussed at length, with commissioners agreeing it would be “highly valuable” and that experience in a coastal community would be ideal. However, they decided not to make it a hard requirement, instead listing it as a preference so as not to automatically exclude strong candidates from other states.
When it came to desired skills, the board ranked budgeting as the top priority, followed by economic development and intergovernmental relations. Leadership qualities that commissioners said they prize most include consensus building, transparency, and the ability to empower staff rather than micromanage. “I’m not looking for chainsaw Al,” one commissioner said, referencing a style of aggressive cost-cutting management.
Community visibility was also raised as important. Commissioners said they want an administrator who is comfortable being a public face for the county, speaking with the press and handling community concerns, rather than leaving those duties entirely to elected officials.
Regarding professional certifications, commissioners said they would prefer — but not require — a candidate who holds or is working toward an ICMA credential, a recognized designation in local government management. The board agreed that obtaining the credential could be made a condition of the employment contract, with a set timeframe for completion.
Salary: After considerable discussion comparing salaries from nearby and comparable counties, the board agreed on a posted salary range of $195,000 to $235,000 per year, with the possibility of negotiating higher for an exceptional candidate. Performance incentives tied to specific measurable goals were also discussed as part of the compensation package. The board noted that Flagler County’s median household income is approximately $75,000, but argued the complexity and demands of the administrator role justified the proposed range. Benefits — including health care, a potential car allowance or fleet vehicle, and a severance package — were mentioned as additional negotiation points, though the board declined to put specifics in writing at this stage.
Commissioners decided they want FACM to produce a ranked list of candidates rather than an unranked shortlist, and expressed a preference for an interactive process that could include in-person visits from FACM representatives. The job posting will be reviewed by FACM before it is officially published.
Revamping the County Attorney Evaluation
The board spent a significant portion of the workshop reviewing and updating the performance evaluation system for County Attorney Michael Rodriguez, who was present throughout the meeting. HR Director Pecano noted that the current evaluation format was outdated — a paper-based, four-point scale that lacked modern structure.
After reviewing how 10 other Florida counties conduct attorney evaluations, staff proposed switching to a 10-question, five-point rating scale. The 10 categories under discussion included interpersonal relations with the board, staff, and the public; legal counsel and competency; budget and financial management; ethics and integrity; communication and reporting; and goal-setting.
Commissioners debated which categories should carry the most weight. They agreed that legal counsel and competency, along with budget and financial management, should be weighted most heavily. Interpersonal relations with the public generated debate, with some commissioners arguing that it falls outside the core of the county attorney’s role. Rodriguez himself acknowledged that his primary obligation is to the Board of County Commissioners, not the general public, and that some of his work is by nature adversarial to individual members of the public.
The board ultimately decided to keep the public relations category in the evaluation but assign it a lower weight than categories tied more directly to legal duties.
On the topic of ethics, commissioners discussed whether the current language in the evaluation was clear enough to be meaningful, ultimately suggesting that the category be reworded to focus more on “professionalism” and consistent professional standards, rather than ethics alone — which, as one commissioner noted, is either present or it isn’t: “It’s one or the other. There’s no two or three.”
Goals set for Rodriguez for the current evaluation cycle include developing an onboarding program for new commissioners, reviewing the county’s advisory boards to ensure they are operating correctly and within the bounds of Florida’s Sunshine Law, and attending specific legal conferences — including the Florida Bar’s Local Government Law Section conference scheduled for April 22–25 in Fort Lauderdale. The board also discussed, and Rodriguez agreed to, a practice of reviewing all employee terminations through the county attorney’s office before they are implemented.
The evaluation period for the county attorney was set to run from September 15 through October 31.
Updating the County Administrator Evaluation
Using the same general framework, commissioners reviewed a draft performance evaluation for the incoming county administrator. The board agreed that the current job description for the administrator position is “very vague” and largely limited to references to state statutes, with little detail about skills, competencies, or expectations.
Pecano said he would update the job description this week based on feedback from the workshop, then have FACM review it before posting. The updated evaluation for the administrator will mirror the attorney’s format — a 10-question, five-point scale — with higher weighting assigned to categories such as budget and financial management, economic development, and communication and reporting.
The board agreed that the administrator should also complete a self-evaluation during the same review period. Commissioners said they want evaluations timed to align with the end of the fiscal year so that any merit increases tied to performance can take effect at the start of the new fiscal year.
One recurring theme was the importance of regular communication and project updates. Commissioners said they want the incoming administrator to provide consistent, timely reporting on all county projects — capital improvements, easements, grants, and more — rather than leaving board members to seek out information on their own. “This whole county is built on projects,” one commissioner said. “We should be getting constant feedback.”
Goal-setting for the administrator was tabled until the new hire is in place, at which point the board plans to hold a workshop dedicated to establishing measurable priorities for that person’s first year.
Advisory Boards: A Need for Oversight
Woven throughout the evaluation discussion was a broader concern about the county’s many advisory boards. Commissioners and Rodriguez both noted that several boards have been operating for years without clear guidance on their legal obligations, the scope of their authority, or whether they are subject to Florida’s Sunshine Law.
Rodriguez referenced a past situation involving FC3, a county-affiliated group that had been operating outside of Sunshine Law requirements. He was credited with stepping in and addressing the situation, and commissioners praised his Sunshine Law presentation as particularly clear and effective.
The board discussed setting a goal for Rodriguez to visit every advisory board and provide a refresher on Sunshine Law compliance, proper minute-taking, and the scope of each board’s authority. One commissioner noted that even basic tasks like writing meeting minutes correctly are often mishandled: “Most boards don’t know how to write minutes.” Commissioners discussed making this an annual practice.
Phoenix Crossing: Affordable Housing Project Faces Uncertain Future
The final major agenda item involved a request from Abundant Life Ministries for an extension on its Phoenix Crossing affordable housing development — a project that has been in the works for four to five years and continues to face financing and deadline challenges.
Health and Human Services Director Joe Hegedus, Housing Services Manager Devery Paradowsky, and Assistant County Attorney Sarah Spector presented the request to the board. Phoenix Crossing is intended to provide 28 units of affordable housing — 12 two-bedroom and 16 three-bedroom — specifically for foster youth who have aged out of the system.
The project has received two types of public funding: $170,000 in ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) funds and $330,000 in SHIP (State Housing Initiatives Partnership) funds. According to staff, the ARPA funds are largely spent down, primarily on pre-development activities like permitting, with approximately $20,000 remaining. The SHIP funds were supposed to have been used by June 30, 2026, with units occupied by that same date. Neither deadline will be met.
The organization’s request is to extend the occupancy deadline to June 30, 2027, using SHIP funds from the 2024–2025 cycle rather than the previously allocated funds. Staff explained that the existing SHIP mortgage — under which no funds have actually been disbursed to the organization — would be terminated and replaced with a new agreement, clearing what was described as a “cloud on the title” that is currently blocking the project’s main financing from closing.
Commissioners expressed support for the project’s mission but raised serious concerns. Commissioner Dance asked whether a general contractor had been hired and whether a realistic construction schedule had been submitted to the county for review. Staff acknowledged they had not seen a detailed construction timeline. Commissioner Carney noted that the ARPA funds already spent are effectively unsecured — meaning if the project collapses, the county may have no mechanism to recover them. “I’m not trying to throw a wrench in,” one commissioner said. “I’m just trying to secure ARPA funds that are desperately needed for other stuff.”
Spector confirmed that the ARPA agreement does not include a mortgage or promissory note attached to the property, describing it as “unsecured.” She added that the main project financing had experienced several complications, including a subordination agreement dispute, the need to remove the county’s financing from consideration in the organization’s overall funding package, and delays caused by the federal government shutdown.
“One thing you may recall in the last couple of meetings, we’ve actually had to come back to you for a subordination agreement,” Spector said. “And other agreements to subordinate our ship funding to their main funding.”
As of the date of the meeting, the finance closing — which had been represented in a letter from the project’s lead as occurring on March 30, 2026 — had not yet taken place. Spector said the organization planned to close on its main financing sometime in April.
Commissioners asked that when the item returns for formal approval, staff bring a detailed, verified construction schedule; clarity on whether the ARPA funds can be secured against the property in some form; and a clear assessment of the project’s realistic chances of completion by the proposed September 15, 2027, deadline cited in the extension request.
The board directed staff to place the Phoenix Crossing item on the agenda for the meeting two weeks out, with the requested additional information included. No vote was taken at the workshop.
Public Comment
One member of the public, Raymond Royer of Pelican Lane, addressed the board during the public comment period. He argued that the salary range being discussed for the new county administrator was too high, given what he described as wasteful spending at the county level. He suggested a starting salary of $170,000 to $200,000 and called on commissioners — all Republicans — to be “more conservative.” He also raised concerns about due process in county proceedings and the handling of applications before advisory boards.
Royer also commented briefly on Robert’s Rules of Order, arguing that the county selectively applies the rules in ways that disadvantage the public. “If you stay in it, you stay pure; you stay even with everybody. Everybody gets to see a fair due process,” he said.
No other members of the public spoke. The board adjourned following the close of public comment.
This article is based on the audio transcript of the Flagler County Board of County Commissioners Workshop held on April 6, 2026. State statutes referenced during the meeting can be reviewed at leg.state.fl.us. Information on the Florida Association of County Managers can be found at facm.net. The ICMA credentialing program is described at icma.org.
