Palm Bay, FL – The Charter Review Commission approved a controversial amendment Thursday night that would embed explicit references to US founding documents into the city’s Charter, while rejecting proposals to overhaul the election system and repeal the three percent property tax revenue cap.
The February 12 meeting produced three major votes that will shape which Charter amendments ultimately reach voters, with commissioners splitting sharply over the role of ideological language in municipal governance and the balance between fiscal constraint and operational flexibility.
Constitutional Definition Amendment Passes Despite Legal Concerns
The Commission voted 8-2 to approve Commissioner Ruth Kaufhold’s proposal adding constitutional definitions to Article I, Section 1.01 of the Charter. The amendment specifies that whenever the word “Constitution” appears in the Charter, it refers explicitly to the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Florida Constitution.
Kaufhold framed the amendment as a response to concerns about Sharia law being applied in US municipalities, citing pending federal legislation including H.R. 5512 co-sponsored by Congressman Mike Haridopolos. None of the bills she referenced have been enacted into law.
“Given the state of the nation at this point with all kinds of Sharia law getting infiltrated into our country, I just really wanted to make clear what constitution, what law, what is the nation and Palm Bay looking at,” Kaufhold said during the meeting. She cited examples from Minnesota, Michigan, and New York as jurisdictions where she believes constitutional protections have been undermined.
Vice-Chair Thomas Gaume and Commissioner Phil Weinberg cast the only votes against the amendment, raising First Amendment concerns about religious establishment and questioning whether the language falls within the Commission’s authority under Florida’s home rule framework or presents constitutional issues.
“What I fear is I don’t want today’s political climate written into our charter by establishing that we don’t have Sharia law,” Gaume said. “We’re establishing one religion over another and that’s against the Constitution. This does nothing but set the city up for lawsuits and I’m opposed to it.”
Chair Ken Delgado defended the amendment as purely definitional clarification rather than religious preference. “All she is proposing is that wherever the word constitution appears in this charter is to refer to the laws of the United States of America,” Delgado said. “It’s not mentioning religion. We’re not putting one religion above the other.”
Commissioner Eileen Sepp provided extended remarks distinguishing between Islam as a religion and Sharia law as what she characterized as a governance system, describing specific cases she claimed demonstrated human rights violations under Sharia courts.
The vote breakdown was Myers (yes), Miller (yes), Gaume (no), Norris (yes), O’Neill (yes), Sepp (yes), Kaufhold (yes), Chandler (yes), Weinberg (no), and Delgado (yes).
City Attorney Patricia Smith has not yet issued a formal legal opinion on whether the amendment exceeds the Commission’s authority under Florida’s home rule framework or presents constitutional issues.
At-Large Election Reform Fails, Primary Remains Intact
Commissioners rejected a proposal to eliminate numbered council seats in favor of a single-pool at-large system by a 6-4 vote, effectively killing Vice-Chair Gaume’s broader election modernization package.
Commissioner Kaufhold moved to remove seat numbers and implement an at-large system where all candidates would run in a unified pool with the top vote-getters winning regardless of seat designation. The motion failed with Miller, Gaume, and Delgado voting in favor, while Myers, Norris, O’Neill, Sepp, Kaufhold, Chandler, and Weinberg voted against.
The roll call showed Kaufhold voting against her own motion, though this may reflect a transcription issue in the official record.
Following the failed vote, Gaume withdrew the remainder of his election reform proposal, which would have eliminated the August primary and moved all municipal races to the November general election.
Commissioner Tyler O’Neill raised concerns about vote dilution under a single-pool system. “If we move to an open pool system, we are looking at potentially 12 to 16 candidates,” O’Neill said. “You’re looking at only about 10 to 20 percent of the actual votes going to the quote winners, and you’re looking at potentially disenfranchising majority of the voters.”
Weinberg argued for retaining both the numbered seat system and the primary election, emphasizing voter education. “What it allows the voters to do is to learn more about the candidates by having two elections, one a primary where they can meet the candidates if they’re so inclined to learn about them, and then the two top vote-getters in a general election,” he said.
Commissioner Mark Miller supported eliminating seat numbers but wanted to retain the primary to narrow larger candidate fields. “I agree with the dissolution of seats because they really add no value,” Miller said. “However, because that pool number could be a little bit larger I would want to retain the primary to narrow a potential 16 or 8 down to 4.”
Public commenter Bill Battin supported Gaume’s proposal, arguing it would prevent situations where strong candidates face each other while weaker candidates run unopposed. “I could vote for two people that I think would be good for the city,” Battin said, contrasting this with the current system where voters must choose “the lesser of two evils” in separate seat races.
Term Limits Tightened to Absolute 12-Year Maximum
In the only unanimous vote of the evening, commissioners approved a strengthened term limit provision that caps total service on the City Council at 12 years or three four-year terms, whichever comes first.
Commissioner Miller proposed the amendment to close what he characterized as a loophole in current Charter language allowing council members to serve multiple non-consecutive terms with no lifetime cap.
“Right now you can run for a couple of terms, take some time off, come back, run for some more, and serve again,” Miller explained. The new language establishes an absolute 12-year maximum for all council positions including mayor, with any partial term counting as a full term.
Gaume successfully amended the proposal to specify that “any partial term counts as a full term,” preventing circumvention through mid-term appointments followed by multiple election cycles.
The amendment passed without opposition and will be forwarded to City Council for consideration alongside other approved Charter changes.
Three Percent Tax Cap Survives Repeal Attempt
Commissioner Weinberg’s motion to completely repeal the three percent property tax revenue cap failed 7-2, with only Weinberg and Commissioner Jordin Chandler voting in favor.
Weinberg argued the cap severely constrains the city’s ability to fund infrastructure and essential services, noting that it now limits revenue growth below even the rollback rate that would maintain the prior year’s tax collection level.
“This year in 2026, the 3% cap limits us to even below the rollback rate,” Weinberg said, referencing a staff presentation from the previous meeting. “The 3% cap is reducing that from the previous year actually by $310,000. So the city’s collecting $310,000 less than they did the previous year because of the 3% cap.”
Weinberg emphasized that only three Florida municipalities had implemented similar caps when Palm Bay adopted its version in 2016, arguing the limitation forces difficult budget choices between public safety and infrastructure maintenance.
Commissioners defending the cap cited the overwhelming voter support it received in 2016 (70.97 percent approval) and the strong rejection of a repeal attempt in 2022 (64.93 percent voted to keep the cap).
“We all talked about we’ve got a lot of growth. Well, with growth, isn’Page_UpPage_UpPage_UpPage_UpPage_UpPage_Upt there more revenue?” Commissioner Kaufhold said. “This is why the citizens don’t trust the city, because there has been more people moving in here, there has been more revenue coming into the city, yet we can make all kinds of money for things that are not structurally necessary.”
Chair Delgado pointed to recent revenue increases shown in budget data, noting the city received increases of 6 percent in 2021, 70 percent in 2022, 22 percent in 2023, 12 percent in 2024, and 15 percent in 2025. “Apparently they have no problem spending the money,” Delgado said. “And yet they’ll probably still hear, I need more money.”
Public commenter Bill Battin revealed that city staff are exploring non-ad valorem assessments as an alternative revenue mechanism that would not count against the cap. “This non-ad valorem assessment will be on top of the 3% cap that they’ve already busted,” Battin said. “I don’t care what they call it, ad valorem assessment or breaking the cap, when they’re asking for more money it still comes out of the taxpayer’s pocket.”
Vice-Chair Gaume had proposed an alternative amendment that would remove the “emergency or critical need” language from the current cap while requiring a consensus of four council members to exceed the limit. After the full repeal failed decisively, Gaume declined to formally introduce his modification, indicating it lacked sufficient support.
The three percent cap remains unchanged with its current provision allowing City Council to exceed the limit by supermajority vote upon finding an emergency or critical need exists.
Meeting Procedures Updated
The Commission unanimously approved a two-hour meeting limit with the option to extend in 30-minute increments up to a maximum three-hour duration. City Clerk Terese Jones noted the three-hour ceiling was necessary due to wireless microphone battery limitations.
The new procedure provides flexibility for complex agendas while ensuring meetings don’t extend indefinitely. Commissioners can vote to extend beyond two hours if needed, but the hard stop at three hours creates a planning discipline for future meetings.
What Happens Next
All approved amendments will be forwarded to City Council as recommendations. City Council retains final authority over which proposed Charter changes are placed on the ballot for voter consideration.
Commissioner Sepp previously suggested a joint workshop between the Charter Review Commission and City Council to review all recommended amendments before committing resources to drafting formal ballot language through outside counsel.
The Commission continues its systematic review of the City Charter through May, with remaining articles including provisions on administrative procedures, finance, and general provisions. Any amendments reaching the ballot would appear before voters at a future election pending City Council action and coordination with the Supervisor of Elections.
The Charter Review Commission’s next meeting is scheduled for March 12, 2026 at 6:00 PM. Approved amendments to date include changes to council vacancy procedures, petition signature requirements, citizenship qualifications for charter officers, and the newly approved constitutional definitions and term limits provisions.
Sources
Charter Review Commission Meeting Transcript, February 12, 2026
Public testimony from Bill Battin and Butch Orend
