Gulfport City Council Special Meeting on Charter Review Ballot Questions - February 5, 2026

This special meeting of the Gulfport City Council was held on February 5, 2026, to provide neutral explanations of the ten charter amendment questions that will appear on the upcoming ballot. City Clerk Carico walked through each question, clarifying the meaning of a "yes" or "no" vote. Council members and the public were permitted to ask clarifying questions, but the meeting was not a debate or a forum for expressing voting recommendations. The meeting began with a roll call, noting Councilmember Jackson was excused.

Ballot Question 1: Limiting Leases of City-Owned Property to Five Years

• Explanation: Currently, leases can be up to 30 years. A "yes" vote would reduce the maximum term to five years. A "no" vote leaves the 30-year maximum unchanged.
• Public Comments:
  • Lenny Gukenheimer (5213 Dillet Ave S) expressed concern that a five-year limit would discourage yacht clubs from investing in capital improvements (e.g., buildings, equipment) and questioned how the city would then maintain those properties.
  • Another speaker (name not given) asked whether the five-year term would allow lessees to recover capital investments; the city manager responded that such details would be negotiated in the lease (e.g., buyout clauses).
  • Lee Nell (2157 29th Ave) asked where the idea came from; Mayor Love explained it emerged from the Charter Review Committee, which was composed of residents.

Ballot Question 2: Leases Required at Fair Market Value

• Explanation: A "yes" vote would require all leases of city-owned real property to be based on fair market value as determined by a licensed appraiser. A "no" vote keeps the charter unchanged (no such requirement).
• Public Comments:
  • One speaker asked what the fair market value might be for the two current leases (Gulfport Yacht Club and Boca Siega Yacht Club); city staff noted appraisals would occur at renewal time.
  • Jonathan McCoachy argued that fair market value is "fatally flawed" because the unique waterfront properties cannot be compared to standard commercial rentals, and usage restrictions affect value.
  • Mary questioned how fair market value could be determined when the properties cannot be sold or redeveloped, and when the current buildings may be non-conforming. Vice Mayor Thanos responded that the appraisal would be based on the rental cost of the facility as-is.
  • Lauren asked about the list of affected properties; it was confirmed that only the two yacht clubs currently have leases, but the rule would apply to any future city property lease.
  • Jennifer (Don’t Premier Dr) clarified that single-use rentals (e.g., renting the casino for an event) would not be affected; only long-term leases are covered.
  • Amy asked if the city could negotiate below fair market value; it was stated that fair market value is a minimum, but other terms can be negotiated.
• Council Clarification: The requirement would apply only if the charter amendment passes; council still has discretion over which properties to lease.

Ballot Question 3: Council Term Length (Three-Year Terms)

• Explanation: Currently council members serve two-year terms. A "yes" vote changes to three-year terms. A "no" vote keeps two-year terms.
• Clarification: The change would not affect the current election for wards 1 and 3; those elected would still serve two-year terms until the charter is officially amended.
• Origin: Mayor Love noted the Charter Review Committee recommended this because many other cities have longer terms, allowing better continuity.

Ballot Question 4: Term Limits for Council and Mayor

• Explanation: Currently no term limits. A "yes" vote would limit council members and the mayor to three consecutive terms. A "no" vote leaves no limit.
• No public questions.

Ballot Question 5: Waiting Period After Term Limits

• Explanation: A "yes" vote would require a council member who has served three consecutive terms to wait two years before qualifying for the same office, unless no other candidate qualifies.
• No public questions.

Ballot Question 6: Remove Criminal Misdemeanor Language

• Explanation: Currently, the charter makes it a second-degree misdemeanor for a council member to direct staff or request appointment/removal of an employee. A "yes" vote removes that language. A "no" vote keeps it.
• Public Comment: Jennifer Webb asked how this aligns with state statute. City Manager O’Reilly explained that the removal simply deletes the charter provision; the state statute would still govern criminal prosecution, but the charter would no longer require a conviction for internal actions.

Ballot Question 7: Vacancy and Forfeiture of Office

• Explanation: A "yes" vote would add forfeiture of office (by majority vote of remaining council members) as a reason for a vacancy, alongside death, resignation, or removal. A "no" vote leaves current vacancy provisions unchanged.
• Discussion: Council members noted potential conflict with other questions; it was acknowledged that if Question 7 passes but Question 9 (magistrate hearing) fails, the council could still create procedures in their policies.

Ballot Question 8: Criteria for Forfeiture

• Explanation: A "yes" vote would establish specific criteria for forfeiture: lack of qualifications (e.g., moving out of ward), conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or failure to attend three consecutive regular meetings or four meetings in 12 months. A "no" vote leaves no such provisions.
• Discussion: Councilmember Early clarified that "lack of qualifications" includes residency requirements. Excused absences, as voted by council, would still be allowed—the provision does not remove the council’s ability to excuse absences.

Ballot Question 9: Removal from Office via Magistrate Hearing

• Explanation: A "yes" vote would allow removal of a council member for intentional, willful, flagrant, or continuous violations of the charter or adopted rules, after an independent magistrate hearing. A "no" vote leaves no removal provision for those violations.
• Discussion: Councilmembers raised concerns about potential conflicts with Question 6 and 7. City Attorney Evans noted that if conflicting provisions pass, the council would need to reconcile them later. The magistrate would be a retained attorney meeting state qualifications.

Ballot Question 10: Charter Review Every Five Years

• Explanation: Currently, a full charter review is required every 10 years. A "yes" vote changes that to every five years. A "no" vote keeps the 10-year cycle.
• Clarification: Council can still convene a review committee at any time, even under the 10-year requirement. If passed, the next required review would be in 2030 (five years after the 2025 review).

Public Comments & Testimony

• Jonathan McCoachy argued that the focus on financial benefit (as expressed by a Charter Review Committee member) is misplaced; a city’s success is measured by quality of life, environment, and opportunities, not quarterly profits.
• Mary (previous speaker) reiterated that non-profits like the yacht clubs provide social benefits (free youth sailing, Sea Scouts) that would be lost if lease terms or costs become unfavorable.
• Laura Oldaney (9th Ave S) urged consideration of fiscal pragmatism: the city lost casino revenue from the hurricane and faces potential property tax cuts from the state; the yacht club and marina are important revenue sources, so changes should be weighed carefully.
• Another speaker corrected the misconception that current leases are $1/year; she noted they are now $2,000 per month.

Key Outcomes

• No votes were taken; the meeting was purely informational.
• The city clerk reminded the public of upcoming election deadlines: voter registration deadline February 9, mail ballot request deadline February 26. Ballots have already been mailed; residents should re-request if their prior request expired in 2024.
• Council members emphasized that they cannot advocate for any position; voters will decide on the ten questions.