Commissioners press city manager on permits, staffing and stalled stormwater projects
February 27, 2026 | Flagler Beach City, Flagler County, Florida
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Commissioners used an agenda item titled "performance matters" to press the city manager and staff for clearer records, stronger permit controls and faster progress on prioritized stormwater projects.
Commissioner Bellheimer brought an extensive packet alleging departures from standard practices, citing a change to the city organizational chart presented with recent budgets, hiring decisions he said conflicted with advertised minimum qualifications, and several city projects that began without the permits some commissioners expected. The packet listed items the commissioner said warranted independent investigation or further review.
City staff pushed back on several factual claims in public session. City Manager Gail Martin said the organizational chart had been presented previously as part of the July 2024 and July 2025 budget packages, and that only one box (engineering under public works to admin) was changed between those versions. On hiring, Martin and staff said both the city engineer and the project manager met the minimum qualifications posted and that, in several cases, delays in hiring would have cost the city viable candidates.
Stormwater dominated the discussion. Martin summarized the McKim & Creed Phase‑2 prioritized list—roughly $43 million of projects—and explained the city currently brings in about $1 million a year in stormwater fees. At that funding rate staff said it would take decades to complete the list. City staff outlined smaller maintenance and low‑cost projects already underway (lift stations, swale work, pond dredging in the current budget) and said they are evaluating funding options including revenue or general‑obligation bonds and using reserves for high‑priority, affordable projects.
On process and transparency questions, the commission directed staff to produce documented, line‑by‑line responses to the packet items within a reasonable time and recommended an internal audit of policies and record keeping. City Manager Martin agreed to provide the city engineer’s weekly project report and to circulate the requested documents promptly. The commission also discussed scheduling a stormwater capital workshop to review the 10‑year plan and identify priority projects that could be funded from reserves this year.
The board did not take disciplinary action during the meeting. Instead, members agreed to seek better records, consider an internal audit and to prioritize a stormwater workshop aimed at identifying feasible near‑term projects.
Commissioner Bellheimer brought an extensive packet alleging departures from standard practices, citing a change to the city organizational chart presented with recent budgets, hiring decisions he said conflicted with advertised minimum qualifications, and several city projects that began without the permits some commissioners expected. The packet listed items the commissioner said warranted independent investigation or further review.
City staff pushed back on several factual claims in public session. City Manager Gail Martin said the organizational chart had been presented previously as part of the July 2024 and July 2025 budget packages, and that only one box (engineering under public works to admin) was changed between those versions. On hiring, Martin and staff said both the city engineer and the project manager met the minimum qualifications posted and that, in several cases, delays in hiring would have cost the city viable candidates.
Stormwater dominated the discussion. Martin summarized the McKim & Creed Phase‑2 prioritized list—roughly $43 million of projects—and explained the city currently brings in about $1 million a year in stormwater fees. At that funding rate staff said it would take decades to complete the list. City staff outlined smaller maintenance and low‑cost projects already underway (lift stations, swale work, pond dredging in the current budget) and said they are evaluating funding options including revenue or general‑obligation bonds and using reserves for high‑priority, affordable projects.
On process and transparency questions, the commission directed staff to produce documented, line‑by‑line responses to the packet items within a reasonable time and recommended an internal audit of policies and record keeping. City Manager Martin agreed to provide the city engineer’s weekly project report and to circulate the requested documents promptly. The commission also discussed scheduling a stormwater capital workshop to review the 10‑year plan and identify priority projects that could be funded from reserves this year.
The board did not take disciplinary action during the meeting. Instead, members agreed to seek better records, consider an internal audit and to prioritize a stormwater workshop aimed at identifying feasible near‑term projects.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
