- September 14, 2024
-
-
Loading
Loading
Another vote on removing a Palm Coast charter amendment from the November general election ended in a tie on Sept. 3.
For the second time in two weeks, Vice Mayor Ed Danko motioned to remove a city charter amendment that would expand Palm Coast’s financing abilities by removing a section from the charter that limits it. It was the last opportunity for the council to remove the amendment from the November election.
At the Aug. 27 business meeting, Danko made the same motion — after a heated discussion among council members — to remove the charter amendment, as it was too late to change the language. That motion died without a second.
On Sept. 3, Danko made the motion again, which council member Theresa Carli Pontieri seconded for discussion. Danko and Pontieri voted to remove the amendment from the ballot, while Mayor David Alfin and council member Nick Klufas voted to keep the amendment on the ballot.
A motion needs a majority vote to pass. In the event of a tie, the motion fails.
Danko called the amendment language was “deceptive” and “fraudulent.”
Pontieri agreed that the language could be more transparent, but said she was hesitant to wait another two years for a general election to change the language because the city needs money to fund infrastructure projects now.
“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,” she said.
The city’s charter, in Article VI section (3)(e), currently prohibits the city from entering into lease purchase agreements — otherwise known as public private partnerships — or “any other unfunded multiyear contracts,” if it is more than $15 million or takes longer than 36 months to repay, unless the contract is first approved by Palm Coast residents in a referendum vote.
The amendment on the ballot, if approved by voters, would removing section (3)(e) entirely, allowing the city to enter into contracts above those limitations without the referendum vote. Residents are voting to either keep section (3)(e), with the restriction, or remove the section from the charter entirely.
Pontieri said the language in the charter, which has not been updated since the charter was written over 20 years ago, needs to be updated regardless and adjusted for inflation.
Danko said in the Aug. 27 meeting that he changed his mind on the ballot amendment — which he and the other council members voted for over the summer — after meeting with attorney Michael Chiumento that the amendment was to pave the way for a $90 million sports complex in the city’s planned westward expansion.
In the Sept. 3 meeting, he said he did not want to take away the public’s right to vote on if the city entered into bonds.
“What we're doing with this is still taking away the right of the public to vote on any bonds, and that's what we presently have right now,” he said. “If we came up with a bond for $15 million with a 36 month payback, the public would get to vote on it.”
