Called for a year. What? Okay, I'm calling this. I'm calling this regular meeting of the
stuart city commission for the 25th of august, 2025. To order before the presentation. Roll
call, please, madam clerk, mayor rich here, vice mayor collins here. Commissioner
clark here. Commissioner. Gobi here. Commissioner reid here. And offering this evening's
invocation is pastor darrell ormond from the first baptist church of stuart. He is not
here. Jimmy smith is here. Jimmy, come on down. Oh! Say the prayer. The invocation.
please. Stand and then lead us in the pledge of allegiance, please. Thank you, father, for
this day. We come now, lord, as your little kids coming before you, asking you for all the
good things you have to give us today. God, that our right minds I'll love in our hearts.
our visions utilize our limbs, our legs and our feet. God, we just thank you for the right
mind that we can come together as one in the place called the city steward. God, touch
everybody here today. God in a special way. As we go forward in this meeting, give us a love
in our heart to be humble and respectful and love towards one another in the name of the
father, son, and the holy spirit. Amen, amen, amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under god,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Amen. Thank you, mr. Smith. So I just want
to take one moment to introduce the chief councilor of hopetown, which is the city of stuarts
sister city. I know former mayor matheson was involved after dorian and troy mcdonald
was very involved. He's here this evening with his wife, chelsea. I was he was nice
enough to join me for breakfast at maria's on saturday. And would you like to take a moment
just to make brief remarks, mr. Jeremy sweeting? I promise I'll be brief. I don't want to keep
you long, especially after such a provocative budget workshop today. But just a few words,
really, mr. Mayor, city commissioners, city manager, residents of stewart. Good
evening. Just over a decade ago, in 2014, the city of stewart became sister cities with the
uptown district in the bahamas. The uptown district has had a name change recently to better
reflect the entire district. We are now known as the abaco keys district, which includes
hopetown, maniwaki and great waunakee. Mr. Mayor, in 2014, one of your predecessors, mayor
troy mcdonald, visited uptown and we signed the sister city agreement. Myself, along with
two other council members, don cash and arthur alden, made a return trip to stewart where we
attended a special called city commission meeting and also toured the city, visiting
various businesses here in stewart. A good number of our businesses in the district have
participated in boat shows here in stewart, and we have a number of stewart residents
that have second homes in the albuquerque district. Although our municipalities may differ
in size, our budget is $506,000 per annum and yours is, I think, 100 million, and your
population is much greater. We both offer a quaint, small town feel that is the envy of many.
we can't say thank you enough to the city, the people of stewart, and in particular the
nonprofit group operation 300. Stephen layton and many of the former city commissioners. They
did an amazing job in the response in the aftermath of hurricane dorian, when our
communities received catastrophic damage from dorian's fury. Almost
immediately, we began to receive aid from different ones here and many, many others as
well. Across america and in other countries. We're excited to keep this relationship alive,
and I would like to invite you, mr. Mayor, on a tour of our district in abaco, bahamas,
whenever the time is right and then a small contingent from our council may do a return
trip to stewart in the near future. Mr. Mayor, I thank you again for allowing me some time.
I pray god's blessings on this evening's deliberations. Thank you so much. Thank you, thank
you, thank you, mr. Sweetie. Mr. Sweeting and his family are here. And stewart, to take
advantage of medical resources available to them, so I wish them the best luck. Mr. Mayor,
did you take a picture with I did. Would you all like to take a picture with mr. Sweetie? No
I did, yes. You took one here on the dias. Here. Would you all like to take a picture with
mr. Sweetie? Come on. I think it'd be good for positive. Okay. Up there, mr. Martel? Come on.
that was a commission. Come on, mike, I was just about out. Come on. Journey. American
music city. Come on. Yeah. Junk city. All of that. Everybody. Fried chicken. Okay. For real?
thank. Welcome to the bahamas. And I will be accepting mr. Sweden's offer. And I look
forward to going over there hopefully in november. I have a friend here in stuart who had a
home. Has he had a had a home in man o war and it was completely destroyed,
completely destroyed the docks, the dock, the dock house. And fortunately he was able to
rebuild it. But that was an unbelievable storm. And unfortunately the residents of
stuart are well aware of how powerful and damaging these hurricanes can be. So, well,
this. We haven't seen one of these for a while. Mr. Baggett, could you please. Do the oath
of office for our new environmental attorney, miss ruth holmes? Yes. Miss holmes
will come up to the podium. Thought that would be the best spot where the mic will catch
both of our voices. And if you'll raise your right hand and repeat after me, I, ruth a
holmes, do solemnly swear I, ruth a holmes, do solemnly, solemnly swear that I will
support, honor, protect, and defend. That I will support, honor, protect, and defend the
constitution and the government of the united states and the state of florida, the constitution and the government of the united states and the state of florida. That I am
duly qualified to hold office, that I am duly qualified to hold office under the
constitution of the state of florida, under the constitution of the state of florida, and under the charter of the city of stuart, and under the charter of the city of stuart.
and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of stuart environmental attorney, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of stuart environmental
attorney, on which I'm a. I am now about to enter, so help me god, on which I am now about to
enter. So help me god. Absolutely. Okay. So exercise today. Commissioner. I know
it's my party for the day. Yeah, right. Right. Sorry. I thought it was a lawyer thing, but. You
are a lawyer. That's a yes. All right. Okay. The woman in the. Oh. Oh, hold on, hold on. Oh.
where's mary? This way. Jerry williams, shake his. Thanks. You don't want to wait for. No.
just on that item, I'm sure. I would just like to say, ruth, it's it's a really big day. And
it it was a war to get you here. It's been a war that's been going on for a long time. I
think it's great that, you know, former mayor matheson was here. This was something he was
pushing for during his term. And I'm thankful you're here. I'm looking forward to you
being an asset. And there's bright and beautiful things ahead for the city of stuart.
so thank you for taking the job. Thank you man. Mr. Martell or mr. Baggett who's going to take
the lead on this item I am okay. This is a presentation on the referendum process pertaining
to the two acre parcel adjoining haney creek. Previously, we had brought
before you some of the issues or potential issues regarding the two acre parcel that you
guys had wanted to move forward about possibly converting it into, converting it into
preservation or conservation land, whereas it's now zoned commercial. So I wanted to kind
of update you on a little bit of the process that will require us to do that. And I've
done a little bit of research in both myself and the city clerk. So if we go back to
section .9.01 of the code of ordinances, I have attached to the agenda item long term
leases for waterfront property in the city that's owned by the city must be approved by
referendum. And back in 2011, when this when this parcel was separated out from 5051 other
acres at haney creek, it was done by referendum to have two acres zoned commercial and to
develop to help pay for the remaining 51 acres there. And so that was done by referendum.
and so likewise, in order to change that, we need to go back out for referendum under our
under our code 9.05. It refers to the process going back to 9.04. And that section of the
code requires us to publicize the issue 30 days in advance in the newspaper, prior to it
going to referendum. We also have to provide notice to the supervisor of elections and
city clerk reached out to our county supervisor of elections, and she requests that we have a
resolution adopting the referendum and the language in the referendum at least 60 days
before the election, we have the option of doing a special election, which would be pretty
expensive and probably have a lower turnout if we do it earlier. Or we could just wait
till the next general election, which is next august, and then it wouldn't cost extra money.
if you also recall, in the last meeting I brought before you, there was an interlocal
agreement that us, the city and the county joined together in 2011 and that that interlocal
agreement was conditional upon the referendum. And the interlocal agreement also
requires us to use the two acre parcel for commercial purposes in order to pay for the park.
the park, the whole preservation area, the haney creek. The county has has never
objected to us not developing it into commercial. So right now it's never been developed
in the commercial. So it's not been providing money. We've just been providing it out of
our own general budget. We would probably need to that we probably we we are required to
enter into a new interlocal agreement with the county or amend the previous one. I'm not
quite sure which one it will be, because it's kind of the way the original interlocal
agreement was written was. It expires after five years, but the part about the continuously
using the two acres survived the expiration of the agreement. So I'll probably work with the
county attorney. I have reached out to at least elder at the county and and have already
kind of started this process. I forwarded her the old documents, the interlocal agreement and a
referendum. We've had a couple of conversations about it, and I think she was in agreement
with me that that process to amend or draft a new interlocal agreement would probably take
about 1 to 2 months. So with 1 to 2 months to get a resolution by before both boards, with the
draft of the interlocal agreement, probably two months capped at maximum. So we have
plenty of time because the next general election would be august, unless you wanted to do
it on a special election earlier, we would have time for that as well. But we have a
whole year to get to the next general election. So roughly three months is all that would
take. So we've got plenty of time to do that. And that's the only thing that I was coming
back to kind of go over that process and how much time we needed. And if you guys have
any questions, I'll be happy to answer. And oh yeah, one more. Yeah, one more thing. Mr.
martell had spoken to someone potential developer, and I'll let him talk about it. So
following the meeting that we had the discussion, I got a telephone call from a gentleman
by the name of taylor or tyler. Tyler has the property owned by the county that used to be
known as aaron's nursery. For those of you who've been around a while under contract, and
it's on the corner of us one and baker road, it already has a curb cut on us one, and it
already has a curb cut on baker road. He has concerns about the curb cut on baker road because
just like the the shell station on wright boulevard, when people go to pull out of the
shell station, the cars get backed up at the light and they try to pull out and get in
between the cars and turn left there and kind of wreak havoc. And so he contacted me and
wanted to know if the city of stewart would be interested in working a deal with him, where
he would actually build our entire trailhead, the parking lot, the bathroom, the lights.
and then, just like our code requires, and you can look up and down us one and everywhere
else, we require cross connections to keep cars off the roads anyway when they can
interconnect, so that he could make it so that cars leaving his property wouldn't be going
directly onto baker road right there, but they would be going further down, and they'd go
into the parking lot of our trailhead and then go out onto baker road, creating the
expansion. I told him no, the first time he called me. Just know. Then he was insistent on
following up, and then we had the meeting where you guys discussed coming back with the
referendum on the trailhead idea up on baker road, and he called me again and I said,
look, I don't know what the commission is one way or the other on it. I will bring it up
at our next meeting. I will mention it to them. And if the commission wants, you can come
in and answer questions, or you can do a proposal or submit it to them one way or the other. I
just didn't I didn't honestly didn't know what the commission's temperature was
for it, I can tell you. I mean, the property's been kind of underdeveloped for a long time
because the aaron's family had no interest in selling it, but I believe that it's already
transferred and the state issues are over with, and it's probably going to be developed
whether it's developed with a connection to that trailhead to it or not. I don't know that it
makes any difference one way or the other. I just wanted to tell you that this phone call
came in. If you guys want me to schedule the guy to come in and give you some kind of
presentation, I will. But there's really not much need for one. I on last agenda I
attached and you guys had the pictures of the parking lot of what our trailhead would look
like. And so the only thing that would be additional is literally a connection through
to the next parcel on onto aaron's property. The advantage to it would be one of the
biggest concerns I get into when we start talking about doing these types of projects
is the o and m, because we have to maintain the parking lot, we have to maintain the lights, we
have to maintain the bathroom, we have to, you know, insure it. We have to do all the stuff. If
he was willing to build it for us. Number one, that alleviates an an extreme expense to us.
but more importantly, if he was willing to maintain the parking lot, ensure the parking lot,
pay the electric bill and maintain the that access for us so that we didn't even have to
do it. The perpetual nature of that, from a management perspective is great. The the
negative aspect is, well, the city's cooperating with the developer or whatever it is now.
the developer is going to use the parking lot. I'm sure they are. I'm sure cars are going to
drive from his property right through the parking lot and right out onto baker road. But
if you're serious about doing the baker road trailhead, imagine not doing the the deal
with the developer. And now we spend the 700 grand or whatever it costs, and we maintain it,
and we do the lights. And his employees still park in that parking lot. We just ensure it.
it still gets whatever it gets. And it's just simply that we get $0 from it. I should also
mention that that particular property owned the aaron's property is not in the city of
stewart, that is in the county. So that corner is county land. So it will be going through
whatever development approvals it's going to go through. It's not going to come through the
city of stewart, of course. And again, this is all conjecture and speculation. I mean, the
guy hasn't made any offers. I don't have anything in writing. He was just calling to see what the city felt about it. But if you wanted to talk to him, you could say to him that you would
only approve it if he annexed into the city, or if he didn't annex into the city, or if he
did x, y, or z. I mean, that would be the discretion of the board. And for you guys to talk
about the the fact of it is, is that I originally told him it was haney creek. I didn't think
the commission would have the tolerance to do really anything. But then as this has evolved a
little bit now, there's been more discussion about potentially going to a referendum and potentially building this trailhead. I said to him, look, I'll, I'll, I'll
bring it up. So here it is. I brought it up. If you guys want me to do anything, let me know.
for now. It's not an agenda item. You don't have to vote on it. You don't have to do
anything. Just letting you know. Mister vice mayor sean, were you able to see you were on
vacation that day? Were you able to see those slides from that meeting where it showed
that trailhead off of baker? Yeah. I have a question for the city attorney though, too. So I
just wanted to see if you were familiar with that. It would be met with I met with
commissioner reed on friday and showed him the slides. And so those prices, you know, one of
your concerns was, oh, what if it's 5 million or 10 million? I think it was like 6 or $700,000
at the time. Correct. So if you put that two acres into conservation just because we
can't talk otherwise. So that's why I wanted to ask the city attorney something on this
agreement prior. Sure. Lee. So I and you can correct me if I'm wrong. I just want to
understand at least. So if I'm looking at the term of the agreement, section four, you
talk about the interlocal agreement with the county. Yes. And and as far as the
termination and the terms. And it says section seven, eight and nine will survive at the
expiration of the termination. Right. And then when you go to section. Eight, it talks about
a management plan, and it talks about land uses that are compatible with the restoration
goals and purposes, conservation and appropriate public recreational uses, where
such recreational uses are compatible with conservation requirements, you can come up
with a management plan, such as conducting limited land clearing for the purpose of
constructing such pervious facilities as docks, boardwalks, or mulched walking trails.
would we still have to go to referendum in order because that survived the term? So, no.
so the referendum was to whether or not to do a long term lease of the property.
that's all you have to go to referendum on. This was an interlocal agreement. Gotcha. So this would be terms that the staff and commissions on both boards would agree to. And they
agreed to in 2011. But if we're going to do an amendment it would be both boards currently.
so like that section, the whole seven, eight and nine isn't even applicable anymore. No it
is, it's it is. So that's that's what I was trying to explain, that the way this is
written, the term expires after five years. Seven. Right, right. So that means some of it
survived. So that's why it's a question of is it an amendment or do I have to do a whole new
interlocal agreement? I can bring you up to speed. When you were out of when you were not
present, you were out of town. The discussion was, can we take the two acres and stop using it
for commercial activity? And the putting the conservation, make it a trailhead, whatever.
and the city attorney said there was a referendum and the public voted. And the
referendum says we shall list this property for commercial lease. So we can't put it into
conservation. If there's a clause that says we have to list it for commercial lease because they're contradictory, that's contradictory language, just the funding agreement
between the city and the county. And then you have the ref. No, we're not funding anything.
well, that's what it's called. So. Right. But that was agreement between this is back
in 2012 when they were merging there. So and when was the restaurant in 2012. Back in
2011 when the tax money came in, the city owned a property called the flag parcel. That's
down by where frankensteins used to be. The county and the city pooled their tax, their
half cent sales tax money to buy the last 53 acres of haney creek from seacoast bank, who
had it in foreclosure from a developer. Jeff krauskopf wanted to take the two acres
and use it for commercial purposes to provide a perpetual funding source to pay for the
maintenance of haney creek in order to make everybody whole. Jeff krauskopf had the city
donate the flag parcel to the haney creek park project, which was roughly two acres. It was a
road that was finished with the all upland and dry at the end of it, so there was going to be
no loss of land. There was then a big hoopla about what would the city use the money for
other purposes? And jeff said no, they would do it for just the management of haney creek,
and all of the money generated from it would go back to haney creek. So the county and the
city entered into an interlocal agreement saying that, yes, we're going to buy the 53 acres
of haney creek together, hence the name, the funding agreement. And yes, when we buy the haney
creek property together, the city is going to throw in the flag parcel. In exchange for
that, the county is going to agree to allow this other parcel at the entrance of north
river shores be surveyed, staked, and a lot or created so that the city could then have a
two acre parcel that the city would then be responsible to go lease it out for commercial
purposes. And 100% of the revenue that was generated from that lease would be reinvested
into haney creek, so that haney creek could the maintenance would be insured or paid for.
that's where we were. So the referendum overrules the this the referendum. The county
doesn't need a referendum. I know you respond. What's just so I understand. So the the
referendum is to we did a referendum to take the two parcels and convert it to
commercial so that it can pay for the rest of the park. The referendum was because haney
creek is a watershed that is on a tidal basin. And section nine of our code says prior to
leasing or renting any land in the city of stewart that is on water that city owned, there
must be a public referendum. Since haney creek was adjacent to a tidal creek. It qualified
under the referendum to be required before it could be leased out. For more than ten
years, there had to be a referendum. As a result, a referendum occurred in, in, in,
in, in concert with the agreement that the county and the city had entered into in
the interlocal agreement, the language of the referendum is with the city attorney was
interpreting that said, it told us we need to do this now. If we want to not do this, what do
we do to correct it? You come back with another referendum, right? And that's where we are,
the referendum. So this was a referendum specific to this parcel then, right? Correct.
correct. But it's not I can read it to you. That's what I was getting at. How come it's
not in the agenda packet then. Well it was in the last agenda but I the only thing I was
talking about today is the process. I understand the process of, of I've already
discussed that. I already brought the language. I in the last agenda item. It's very
brief. You can read it. Right? Right. I can read it. It's very brief. I'll get it, I'll get it.
it's it would have given. Yeah. So the last time we had it on the agenda, I attached the
referendum language in the interlocal agreement. And I discussed the background and the history of it. Today. I was just trying to explain the process because you guys wanted
to go forward with it. What do we have to do? We have to go out for referendum, and we have
to amend the interlocal agreement or draft a new interlocal agreement with the
county. So the interlocal agreement, I.e. The funding agreement, the funding agreement is an interlocal agreement. I know it's titled funding agreement and like mr.
wartell said, it was about funding the whole project. The county and the city both own
the haney creek watershed district 5050. These 50, 51.5 acres, I think. And the two
acres come out of that, we have to undo by referendum what we did by referendum only on the
two acres, the the all the other conditions as far as maintenance and so forth. We
did it in the original funding I interlocal agreement. So we would need to do all that stuff
by interlocal agreement with the county. So the county will have to have a commission
meeting on on an interlocal agreement and so will we. And so each board will do a
resolution adopting a new interlocal agreement. The if what you're if you want to
consider what mr. Mortel was talking about today by this developer, the two acres would
just be converted into conservation land, and then the trailhead would be around the
corner on baker road, and we would develop the trailhead there versus on the two acres.
I mean, whether or not that developer would go that path, that's something we could do,
is have that baker creek trailhead be what we develop versus that two acres. Two
acres would go conservation. And then if we wanted a trailhead, it well, regardless
we have to convert the commercial zoning to to yeah to conservation land. So even to
do the trailhead. So commissioner clark. Well it was just this is probably getting
into the weeds, but it was just the idea of if he built the trailhead and would possibly
maintain it, it was just about liability and about annexation. And I know that mike already
brought that up. So, you know, if it would be treated as a regular road right away, public
road right away. And even though it's going over, quote unquote, our land, but it would
be a long term lease, I guess, if we decided to do it that way. Well, as far as the two acres,
there's no lease. We. Yeah. Well, if we if we ever did that agreement with the developer.
yeah, it would be whatever agreement you entered into. Okay. He owns it. Yeah. Well,
no, our piece would. Well. Can we bring it back and talk about it before the 2026 commissioner
would like to. Oh, sorry. Yeah, I would like to entertain at least finding out what his
plans are. You know, what restraints we could have on restrictions. Also, do we know
what he's planning to build on that other property or it's already built or. Well, there's
already a nursery that's been on the property for at least 50 years. I think it was probably
the 60s is when it was built, but I suspect he's going to be building a gas station, a fast
food store or a cvs because it's the corner of us one and baker road. But he can come in.
and now, by the way, that's likely going to happen no matter whether you get your
trailhead or not. It's not in the city of stewart. It's a county parcel. It's not in the
city. We're not going to have anything to do with it. And that's why I told him
originally, no, I said that our original referendum on the two acres was saying no to that
stuff. And so the real thing for us is if you're really serious about doing the
trailhead, there's going to be whatever it is next door. Let's say it's dunkin donuts, or let's say it's 7-eleven next door. They're going to have a curb cut right onto the road,
and then we're going to have our parking lot, which is another curb cut right under
the road. And it's going to be erased to fdot to see who gets the first curb cut, because
then they can't be so close to each other and, you know, all the other stuff. Whereas if we
were both doing the project, then the the question would be what would be better from the
standpoint of the traffic on the road or not? And honestly, I mean, obviously the answer
and the easy answer would be, why doesn't he sell us the land and let us make it all part of
haney creek and use the half-cent sales tax to buy that? There you go. That was the
first thing I offered. It didn't work. Well, there's other options, too. We recently
entered into an agreement with. I honestly don't remember the name. It was to be a
conservative where people could come and fish, walk trails, and I forget what that conservation
easement where we we entered into an agreement to be part of this trail where people could
come and, you know, we had to have the right trails for people to come and access to
walk to different. I don't remember what the name of the project was. So in line with
that. Maybe he would at least build some stores that would attract more people to the park.
I mean, he's just looking for I mean, I'm just saying there's an exchange of ideas that we
could do. I mean, maybe I mean, there's no doubt about that. The the dialog is the question.
right? So whatever that might or might not be, I mean, I can give you guys's contact to him
individually. I can give it to him separately. I did I just said to him that I'd bring it
up and I would get back to him. I, I didn't really have. Well, I agree with you, commissioner
joby. I think we should at least talk to him. I do, to see what it is. Would it, mr. Clark?
would you agree with that? That's what I was getting at. Yeah. Would this be overflow,
vice mayor? Would this would not be opposed to it? Okay, okay. I think it's to again,
there's the shell station just on the north side of the roosevelt bridge. If you pull
into that shell station and you pull out under wright boulevard to try and get back on us one,
the curb cut is really close to us one so the car is turning right off of us. One are
constantly coming around the corner and the cars waiting at the light to get onto us. One
back up so it makes it so cars pull into wright boulevard and then they're kind of stuck
there in limbo and there's like mini traffic jams all the time. What he is looking to do is
shift the curb down to where the entrance to public is down on the western end of the
publix, properly so our entrance would be right across from that so that it'd be a
straight line moving it west of the entrance of us one, so that people could pull through the
parking lot and pull out over there without getting caught up in that traffic jam. If we say
no, he can go ahead and build it, and he's got the curb cuts. They're already there. You can
look at it on a map. It's just going to be a tied up mess. And and it may be better just to
say no, not to get caught up in the mess with it. But I didn't want to say no without giving
you guys the chance. And I didn't want to give him your phone numbers and have him
start calling you without having talked to you or brought it up, because I didn't want you to get bombarded with stuff. You had no idea what was coming. Mike, I gotta question. Can I
just finish? I'm sorry. No. It's okay. I guess that if we're going to discuss it, this
would be the time to discuss it, to see if we're even in agreement. I, I'm not adverse to hearing what he has to say and how it benefits us, and obviously it benefits him also.
but I'm just saying, if a majority of the commissioners aren't in favor, then we're
wasting our time, right? This is the point for us to have a dialog. I mean, this is the
only time we can have a dialog about this. Well, it seems currently a majority are in
favor of at least listening to what he has to offer. Anything to listen to him. Yeah. Can I
commissioner read? Do you have. Yeah, I just wanted to state on the record too. There there are
two different zonings right now. There's two. Is it two? Is it the. Both parcels there, mike.
there's ones be one and then one's general commercial. Two. I have no idea. I mean I'm, I'm
not I have nothing to do with the development. I have never looked into it. I never
contacted the county. I don't know the guy. I've never even met him. I mean, I've never
even met him. I didn't I wasn't concerned with what his development was because it was
in the county. It's not even city land. It's not in the city limits. It's county county land.
so I don't know what the zoning is. I don't know, I mean, I'm assuming that aaron's nursery
was probably ag at one point. I mean, it's been there a long time. So how would it work for
discussion with them? Like, did you reach out individually? Well, I think we need to have
the discussion here first to decide what it is we'd even be looking for. What are the
things we wouldn't accept before we even entertain the idea of speaking to him? Well, when you guys say what you're looking for, what you wouldn't accept if he builds a racetrac
gas station. And it gets approved by martin county, which it will, then I'm not
sure what difference it makes. The question still is, would you connect to the parking lot
to get the parking lot for free and maintained for free? Or would you say no, we want two
curb cuts on baker road? Because I mean, to me that's the only issue. I mean, there's
no there's no real benefit to the city at all other than where not having to pay for the
the trailhead. If we weren't doing the trailhead, the answer would be really easy. It'd be
no, no, go away. We're not doing anything. But if I'm the only reason I'm even bringing
it up is because if we're actually considering building a parking lot there and building
curb cuts and putting lights in so that it's lit, and putting a bathroom in so that people
aren't going to the bathroom and hanging creek and putting the facilities and structures
there. Then the idea that someone else might pay for it has an appeal. But how much is
the appeal? And and what's the benefit that you can provide us with this map as to the cut
through that you're talking about, like from that property to it was on last agenda, right?
yeah. 28th. So if you pull up on your phone right there baker and us one. Yes. It's that
property on the corner that pulled up. I mean I I'll, I'll email. Okay. He wants it to be
opposite the entrance to the public is what it is. So you can see that on the map. Mr.
vice mayor. Yes. So for me that would. I'm sorry. Were you were you done, commissioner? Well, I
thought, is that something that I can show commissioner lee we're not talking about? Well,
as you guys. Yeah, I can show it from my computer. I just want to make sure you're
talking to each other privately. No, but if it's part of the public discussion, then yes, I can show you on a map what it looks like. The trailhead. You want to go ahead. Yeah. So for
me, that that kind of a thing. Assuming that that's a gas station, I'll wait for them.
all right. What you're doing here from from the last. Thank you. Never mind. Thanks. I was
just looking. The public is right across the street. Basically. Yes. That's publix
there. So now you're looking at it. You can see it. Yeah. So to me, that would defeat the whole
purpose of a park. There. If you basically extend the parking lot of, like a wawa or
this kind of a thing into your park versus having a separate park that has a sign there that
it's park and parking for the park for the park. I'm sure that would help that gentleman,
but to me, that's a deal where it's it's more damage than. I mean, we're blessed that we
have the half cent sales tax money there to even trailhead up there. You put that two
acres in conservation that's done, and then you have a separate park. I don't want to
be connected to whatever he's going to turn that into. I think it's messy. If it gets
sold, if I'd rather just have a park there. Imagine I imagine my four little kids, while
people are zooming in and out to get to a gas station. It's just a mess. Like I after
seeing the map. What I do realize is that, yeah, it's almost like, you know, on one
where you have td bank and wawa, it would be that same kind of yeah, to me it's a mess and it
defeats the whole like exclusivity. And you know, you're tucked into a park to
have that kind of a through thing. If it was another sort of commercial property that the
city owned or something that's different, having that connectivity. But you want your park to be isolated. It would be my take on that. So I'm not really interested in that kind
of a deal. What I want to see is just as soon as possible, because there are two separate
issues. One is the the lee, what you were talking about where we're going to referendum
for the two acres going to conservation. The other is, you know, separately what do we
doing with that parcel and trailhead off baker so as soon as possible I would like to see,
you know, and have us all talking about if there's something different that we
would like to see, other than what tim volker put together for the arpa money for that
site and go into a little more detail with the half cent sales tax money. Commissioner clark,
it's been a long time since I saw this resolution, but just mean mr. Mr. Baggett on section
8.4. I forgot why we had that phrase in there about the city providing the annual income of
anything that happens on the two acre parcel to the county, because we were going to show
that we were maintaining the caney creek with all of the money. So if we rented it out
for $1 million a year, we would have to demonstrate to the county that we were spending $1
million a year on caney creek. It all came from the carveout parcel, right? It's been a
while. I mean, that's the the greatest appeal to me of that document is that it says that
these this financial revenue will be dedicated to the maintenance of the park in our
cost cutting fervor here, the easiest thing to start cutting is going to be maintenance of
these parks, and especially a 50 acre parcel. We don't take care of the interior of that.
not that many people will see it. So I, I would like to praise those of you who are
involved and had the foresight to commit those resources to the maintenance of this very
large park. And I hope we can see that take place. I've never been a fan of providing a
trailhead on us. One of the busiest streets in the city of stuart. So I think we and
commissioner reed, correct me if I'm wrong, but there seems to be a majority that's willing
to at least discuss with this gentleman what options he may feel he has, if we can, if we
can have somebody else build that trailhead, we're sort of eating our cake and have it too.
it seems to me it sounds enticing. I have to be honest. Once I saw the map, it
basically then looks like wawa and td bank. So you have this intercourse of that road and
it's just too much. It doesn't have to be that we could give him his access and then move
our move the park down a little and have a separate. Perhaps he'd be willing to provide a
separate entrance to the trailhead than the two don't have to be connected. All he
wants is that cut down the road a little. I don't think it necessarily has to be attached
to the entrance to the trailhead. We have money set aside for this purpose. What what's the what's the issue? The issue is why not take advantage of someone? Because
it would destroy the very nature of having a secluded park for families. Who's going
to build there anyway? Yeah, it's. So why would you connect to what he develops there? I'm
saying the trail, the entrance to the trailhead does not necessarily need to be
connected to his little road to the to the cut. That's exactly what he wants. Ironically, I
know ironically, I think that if you if you I think it would he absolutely wants to be
connected to the park. But I also think if you look at the entire corridor or any other
corridor in stuart, that you would also find that our code requires us to like when
developers come in, they actually have to ask to a for an exception to deviate from
the code, not to interconnect their parking lot with their adjacent parking lot. So we
require like if you go to walgreens on east ocean boulevard, you can drive
through to sports without going on the east ocean boulevard, because we required them to
connect the parking lot. And then from stimlje you can go into the next parking parking
lot because we require them to be interconnected so that cars don't loop in and out onto the
road. So to his adjacent parcel and the adjacent parcel. Well, you said his adjacent parcel.
and is it specific? Does it include parks? I don't have any idea where we're where we're
going here. I know that his commercial property, if it was being built in the city next to
another commercial property, it's not that's that's a hypothetical. That's not. That's not what we're talking about. I totally agree. Yeah, it's next to the city. It's
next to the park. Right. Can I make a motion that we parking lots. You're going to have
people pull out onto baker road to pull into the parking lot is what the like that's what. Why
would you be faced with if let's say it was a subway and somebody went into the subway
and bought a sandwich to go for a hike in the park, then they'd have to pull out onto baker to
pull into the parking lot to go to the trailhead, because the two parking lots weren't
connected. Correct? Right. Somebody's zipping through that parking lot. You like to make a
motion? Ask kids. Yeah, just to get through there to get back onto the on the baker. Yeah, I
just I had another are we willing to speak with the gentleman? He's mr. Mr. Reed I
had a question. So like I don't know mike, if this is something, would it come before the mpo
board because it's a county road to know they wouldn't want a signalized light there at one
point, because it's already hard enough coming out of even if they wanted a signalized
light, their mpo is fdot. Those are state roads, the county roads, the city. The mpo
doesn't address those. It's this was just a presentation. I just wanted to we're way in the
weeds. I don't it it's not that significant to me. I'm going to tell them I didn't get any
clear direction. If he wants to call you guys directly, he's welcome to. All right. Sometimes you need to get into the weeds just to get where we want to go. All right. You feel
you have sufficient direction, mr. Martell? Okay. Comments by city commissioners.
commissioner reed, I'll still let you go first. All right? I thought that we. Are you sure
that's where we are? Yes. I'm on the wrong agenda. Right. Environmental attorney
presentation. Just finished. Approval of the agenda. We're not there yet, mr. Clerk. We're
getting there. Yeah. I did want to reiterate in my commission comment for emails to be online.
it's something I'll continually push for. And I also wanted to mention I spoke with city
manager mike mortel and the hamilton's. Their project is supposed to come up as an
agenda item at the september 8th meeting, and they asked me to get a consensus from board
majority that they don't want their project presented yet. They said they're waiting for
something from florida commerce. So if I can get a consensus during everyone else's mission
comments, I'll let city manager know that they're not ready for it to come in front of us.
that'd be great. Is that the case? Right. Well, the hamilton's won't speak to me.
they sent me an email saying that they're waiting for an answer from florida commerce. I
spoke to florida commerce on a conference call on friday. Florida commerce provided me
with a copy of the answer that they'd already given him. His answer was related to the money
that was used by the city to pay for the patriot group to do his roof. Essentially, the
gentleman at florida commerce by the name of graham, told mr. Hamilton that we used the
administrative matching funds at his direction to pay for that lien to be removed from
his house. When he was complaining about it. He now wants to say that mr. Grant,
that graham told him that they couldn't use cdbg funds because at the meeting I said, we use
cdbg funds to do it. The city of stuart has one account that has the cdbg funds in it. It
was the 50,000 that the city put in as the matching funds, the $750,000 that we got was
all commingled at the direction of florida commerce. That's how we paid it. I sent copies of
those emails to mr. Hamilton last week, and nonetheless, the question that was being
resolved was we had all backing it up. We had his scope of services was to get a roof,
windows and doors with some insulation started moving forward on that. There's been a
calamity of issues. We then got to the point where we were doing another scope of services,
and we said, here's where we think the scope of services is. He said he wanted to do his own
scope of services. He hired a group called mckee group to do the scope of services. He
presented that to the city. I reviewed it, personnel reviewed it, guardian reviewed it and
went through it and said, okay, we'll agree to this scope of services. We then took the
pricing off of it and took the letterhead off of it, because a scope of services has to go out
to bid. And pinellas sent that to florida commerce and cc, the hamiltons and said, we believe
we've agreed on a scope of services. Mr. Hamilton submitted this to us. We don't
have any changes to make. We're agreeable to this as well. That's when mr. Hamilton
accused the cra director of fraud because she took mckee's letterhead off and changed the
prices, and that's when he said he was entitled to get his own without going through
procurement, could use his own contract and didn't have to go through procurement. We had a
conference with florida commerce. They said it has to be procurement. They said, let
us call the hamiltons. They then called us back and said the hamilton's will not talk
about this anymore unless they speak to all of us. With congressman mast present. We
said, okay, great. Schedule us when congressman mast is present. No one contacted us.
the hamilton's contacted commissioner reed. Florida commerce thought us. Who do you
mean, mister? Me. Pinnell guardian, the city of stuart or anybody to participate in that
phone call? The hamilton's had contacted commissioner reed to participate this phone call.
commissioner reed sent an email to florida commerce. Florida commerce commissioner reed was
representing the city of stuart to resolve that scope of service. They had the meeting
on the scope of service. They didn't really talk about scope of services, though. Well, okay.
so that becomes the issue. According to florida commerce, they did talk about the scope
of services, and the hamiltons wanted additional work done, such as an air conditioning
system and some electrical work done that was outside of the scope of services, and no one
from the city objected to it. So I then objected to it when I found out about it on the phone
call. Okay, so I don't by the way, we don't know what was other than what you were there
for. So I just what was discussed. Hamilton's asked me during my commission comments
to get a consensus from the commission up here that they do not want their item heard on
september 8th and because they were not ready. Something to do with florida commerce. I don't
know all the details. I'm just trying to give that's that's good for me. Someone what they
want. But it's it's more complicated than that. Sure. It's very complicated. I can't
not have it on the september 8th. Well why not? Because the city also said that guardian
shouldn't receive any additional tax dollars. And guardian is involved in the
hamilton case. The city said guardian shouldn't be involved anymore. Commissioner job said
we should start the procedure to have them removed from the file. We can't move forward on
a scope of services until guardian goes back into hamilton's house and inspects
paid, haven't they? Or they would still be paid because they process, they're still
involved in the case. We removed them, they would still be paid. So there's no point
even discussing that. I'm not I don't I'm not. Are we removing them? Because that's all the
more reason to have the hearing. No, we had a we had a discussion. Right. But the the
but so there's no point. Hang on guardian. Guardian wants to come put on their side of the
story. Guardian got a lot of things said about them last meeting that they totally
disagree with. Hamilton's don't want guardian to come put in on their side of the story, but it
gets better because this is a cdbg grant. It must be completely finished by january
1st. That means we have to figure out the scope of services. If you fire guardian,
we have to hire a new guardian. They would still get paid anyway, so that's why. So
there's no point discussing that. So I've learned a lot more since the last meeting and that's well, I know that's how you feel, but the board is still discussing it. Right. So
by the way, for the board, even if you did remove them, they would still get paid. So what
would be the point in removing them? First of all, I remove them. I was yeah, I don't feel
comfortable even taking the position that they should be removed because that's not what
we're discussing. They did anything wrong. Yes they did. Yes. Yes we are. Now that was
at the last meeting, by the way. Yeah. What you're talking about is not. No, what I'm talking
about currently is not having the hamilton's project on the september 8th meeting. And I
was trying to get the consensus from the board majority. So I'm trying to explain some of the
problems with that. So if we don't have it on september 8th, when are we having it? They'll
probably notify us. Who the. Hamilton's okay. They've received the response from from
the florida commerce. Commerce. And they received that like two weeks ago. Okay. Well, I
haven't heard anything since I know. And then and as of thursday, they told me they
were waiting for the response to. And I sent them the same responses and the emails again.
but here's the thing. If we don't do it and we don't get the scope of services, and then
we don't go out to the 30 day bid to get the job bid, and then we don't issue the po or
the purchase order before december. It's over. There is no more grant funding to
reimburse. So january don't think you get to send in the bills. Where does it state that
at? Well, actually they claim they discussed it call with brian may's office,
but I wasn't there. So I don't know. Does it does it in a contract with guardian, the
city, the entire grant the cdbg grant program ends january 1st. Yes. Just like the arpa funds
ended. That's the same exact thing. And yeah, so we still have time then? How much? Well,
how much time do we have? It's. You said we only need 30 days, so we need 30 days to publish
the rfp. And then we need 15 days for hamilton's to pick their contractor, which is 45
days. So if we start december 30th that we take 30 back. That brings us to thanksgiving. Then
we take it back. That brings us to november 15th. So we have to have this entire matter
resolved by november 15th. There's no way that the city can sign the scope of services
until we have access to the property again. But guardian is no longer welcome on the
property because the city said that guardian did something wrong, but I don't. The
guardian says they didn't do anything wrong. Are you talking about from the last meeting?
that's when this guardian thing got brought up. It's been going on for a year. Gotcha. Okay. It's been going on for a year. Just out of respect for them asking, can we defer the eighth?
and but they've been tentatively look at like the 22nd and just see if you guys can discuss this. If you can talk to the hamilton's or somebody can talk to the
hamilton's, because I mentioned to them that they needed to reach out to the city. I don't
want them to feel like trying to talk to the hamilton's for a year. We've been putting it off
and trying to negotiate it, and then all of a sudden, every time I told them something,
they'd come into this room and say, consider us committing fraud and all these. And that's
why I picked it up in my commission comments. And now what they told me. I'm just
trying to reiterate to the board, that's that's all I'm doing. I'm trying to do my job. That's it. Right. So they don't want us to talk about it. They want me to continue being
blamed for all this stuff. And they want guardian to continue to be blamed for all this stuff,
but they don't want you guys to see the information. I mean, that's what's happening right
now. That's what I'm just reiterating what I was told. Hamilton's don't need to be here. They don't need to come. They don't need to present anything. There's no reason. I
just want to walk through and show you guys the history of it, show you the pictures of it and
say, look, is this a reasonable scope of service? I disagree, I think that they do. I stated,
what? Yeah, what was it? And they should be able to have their time, just like any
developer or guardian or anyone that we're going to give time for them. And we are. Absolutely. And have they've been to 20 meetings so far. We've been given three minutes
every time they come. That's all they get is three minutes. Like anyone with a public
comment. Okay. So what I would prefer then is can we assign this to one of you guys?
because I don't have any authority the way this is going. I can't manage it, I can't the
hamilton's won't speak to me. They tell me every time I talk to them that one of the
commissioners told them that they didn't have to have a contractor. One of the
commissioners told them that they were going to have their meeting. Then when they don't want their meeting, they turn. We have a procurement process. So how would that work for them
to even pick their specific contractor that was under the grant program, under the procurement of it, they go out to bid, correct the top. Any bids over a 15% threshold are
removed, and then the remaining bids are left, just like they were before. They had two
contractors to pick from in their original bid. And my concern is that if we go out to
bid process right now that the hamilton's, if they don't get mckee, there's going to be no
deadline for them to do it. And then they're going to say, we didn't get it done. City of
stuart, you need to pay for this. And then it's going to be on the city's tab. And and
everyone's going to be looking at me saying, mike, why didn't you get this done? Okay. Just
no. Excuse me, mr. Martell. This lengthy discussion with your good questions,
commissioner reed, indicate why this needs to be on the agenda. Well, they don't, because the
agenda. Mayor rich. Okay, but the city has been instructed to pay money. The florida wasn't
florida commerce. Who told you to write a check, mr. Mortez? This was in november. This was
a while ago, mayor rich. Okay. Yep. But representations are being made to the hamilton by a
single commissioner, of which actually, by the way, city manager, mayor rich, we just
let me finish a stance on anything. The city manager is completely unaware. Why? I mean,
well, that's why I'm trying to reiterate it. Just let me finish. It reminds me of when
we had to deal with the restaurant next door. Remember that? And they were asking us
to provide them considerable compensation to improve the building. That took us a couple
of meetings. We didn't do that. So let's get going on this process. Let the whole I mean,
things are said in the meetings with our congressman that even our city manager doesn't know.
brian, I'm very I'm very uncomfortable with that. I would just the more the entire
commission is informed of this issue, the better served everyone will be, especially
the hamilton to give the residents what they asked for. Yeah, okay. All right. You've
already heard commissioner reed say that brian mast was not on the call. There was a
representative there. There was a representative for him. What was the purpose of the phone
call? What was the discussion? That's all I need to know. I wasn't on the phone. I know,
I'm asking commissioner reed. There was discussion on the process and stuff. That was a majority services. No no no no no. It was processes on how things work throughout the cdbg
grant. There was some comments made towards the city that I necessarily didn't want to hear,
and that got shut down by florida commerce. But to say that I'm like talking about
making I would never do that behind closed doors. That's not what you made a deal that
didn't happen. Well, that's how I feel. It's being portrayed. But I'm just my comment is I'm
looking for a consensus from the board majority that the hamilton's do not want their
agenda item on the september 8th meeting, for what it's worth. And that's it. There is
no hamilton agenda item. Just so you know, you told me there was going to be one on
september 8th, and that's why the board instructed me to correct the original cdbg.
grant didn't have the board micromanaging it. The board has taken over the hamilton case.
if it's given back to staff and we can make our own decisions, and I'm not required to come in
front of the board and not required to get commission action like the rest of the the
the cdbg cases, then I can tell hamilton's this is the way it is. We're moving forward and
these are the rules. This is the grant. And if you don't like it, sue the city. But the
problem is the board has taken all my authority away from me and given it to the hamilton's.
and I don't have the ability to implement any of the grant rules. I don't have any of the
authority to implement the contract. And every time I tell the hamilton something, they run to a different commissioner and say, I want a public hearing or I want to talk about
this. And they come to the meeting and they post stuff on social media and they put signs
in their yards. I said what I had to say, right. So so I'm fine with not having any
meeting, but don't we don't. There is no public hearing scheduled. There is no decision
for the board to make. There is no nothing. The reason we're doing all that is because the
board is instructing staff to do it. You just made a statement that they have to be
here on the eighth. If the board's going to continue managing this project and we're
going to finish it by january, then yes, if you don't want to do that, then I'm asking you
guys to take it over and have somebody be assigned from the board, be the one that's going
to manage the project or in the alternative, cancel the public hearing altogether, have the
board not have the public hearing. None of the others got a public hearing and let the
city staff run the grant the way it was originally intended to be run through the grant
rules through florida commerce. But what's happening with me is every time I try to say the
grant rules, they run to you guys and I get beat up at the next meeting. And then when I'm
finally pushing back to him saying, fine, you know what? I was trying to wait to get this
scope of service assigned, but I don't care. We're going to put this out there. We're going
to show everybody what happened. All of a sudden. They don't like that idea. And so now what
they're telling you is don't do it because I know why. So that when we miss the deadline, you
guys can then turn around and say, mike, why did you let us miss the deadline? And so I'm
trapped in this thing. I don't want to be here. Sean, do you feel comfortable talking with
the hamiltons and sort of told them to reach out to the city manager and and let them know,
but they said they were waiting on something from florida commerce, mike, saying that they got it two weeks ago. It's my understanding that there was partial information that came
from florida commerce. They're waiting for the other part. Correct. So they have not received everything from florida commerce. What is it they want? I don't know, I
don't know. They have a they had a list of questions and information. But to mike's
point, we don't want to get too far behind here to where we can't get it done right. I
understand that, but I feel as if we still have time. When would you need to have this
this buttoned up mike? I is you're saying, am I handling the matter? So why don't we
table it to a commission, sir? What's a date certain that we need? Mike and I'll make september 8th would work for me. What? What's our absolute last deadline? Next meeting. So,
what is it that you guys want the hearing to be about? They want an opportunity, from what
I understand, to present their side of what has happened to who, then they don't get to do
that in the three minutes they have. So they can have that whenever they want. I don't
care about that at all. But if you guys are authorizing me, what if we did it october 13th?
continue with guardian and I don't care about the public hearing. You guys can give that
to them anytime they want. But let me handle the cdbg grant and let me write them a letter
and tell them if you miss these deadlines, you're done. And I'm moving on without you and
that's that, and treat them the same way as the other grant people, that's wonderful. But
if there's some kind of public hearing that gets to take place where it's the whipping boy,
where they want to slam mike mortel and and pinal gandhi, I'd like to get it over with
and be done with it. October 13th. Give you enough time to do what, I don't know, to have
it as an agenda item. And then I'm not. I don't have an agenda item. I don't have anything for
you to vote on. I'm not sure exactly what they're waiting for either, but apparently they're waiting for something from florida commerce. They asked me during my commission,
why don't we get him in here and hear what they're waiting for? Well, and at least start
the process of understanding what they feel they need. Yeah, it seems like the perfect reason, mayor rich, if the consensus is not made right now, it's coming on the september
8th meeting. Regardless, let's take it off september 8th and never put it on another meeting
until you hear from them, until they come in and ask for it. There you go. What? What
commissioner reed is asking for is what would be the deadline date with october 13th. Is that
the next date after the 28th? Yeah. Recognize this? If they come in on october 13th and
they whatever they say, whatever you hear, I promise you they are going to be really
upset after that hearing. And it's going to take some. There's going to be some
healing necessary. So when they don't respond and we don't get anything done and we go past
that january date, the question is going to be why did we go past the january date? My
preference would be no hearing at all. I don't want there to ever be a hearing. I was
originally asked to do a presentation to the board as to what happened in hamilton's. I
told you all that I was going to present it when the matter was over, because I didn't want
to say anything during that public meeting that would offend hamilton's, that would slow down the process. But now it's been manipulated into a situation where every time I
try to move something along in the grant, the hamilton's run back to the board and say, I'm
committing fraud or I'm breaching the tax dollars, or I'm doing this or doing that.
the questions they're asking for right now, either we let mike handle it fully or we
schedule this instead of the eighth. Let's make it the 22nd. And unless we hear back from
you that, yeah, that's not okay. But out of respect, we won't do the eighth. Let's do it on the
22nd. Okay. And then you can you can report back. What if they say they're not ready on
the 22nd? Why are we why don't we just let staff do with me? If they're not ready by the
22nd, they're never going to be. And we'll just deal with it. Mayor. And I've had
commissioner job, okay? So I just want to. There's some misstatements that are made.
mike, you made a statement before saying that we asked you to remove a guardian. We asked
how could we remove guardian? And we were told, it's my understanding that there was
impossible. We could not they were in we could not unless someone found cause for them to
be. That is what you said? No, what I said was we couldn't approve project lift and not
pay guardian. And we couldn't remove guardian and not pay them for the work they'd
already done. You can remove guardian right now without cause for 30 days notice. Yeah,
but you didn't say to do it. That's not what you said at the last meeting. At the last
meeting, you said the only way they could be removed is if they had done something wrong or right, screwed up a project or whatever. And other than the hamilton's, according to you,
that hasn't happened, I don't think. No no no no no. Let's be clear. Not other than the
hamilton's I think in the hamilton's guardian has been our saving grace. Guardians
been the ones that helped the city. Guardians are the ones that keep pointing out the
stuff at hamilton's. Patriot was the one that hamilton's had a problem with. A good job, but
not guardian. It's not the guardian issue that part of the cbg grant is if work is not
done or not properly done, they should not be paid. And that is part of the cbg grant process,
because I did I went to look it up. So. Right. So now we're having this hearing that I'm
talking about and I'm being accused of failing to follow the cbdg grant. But the reality
is I gave the hamilton's the letter from florida commerce that told me to use those funds
gets better, because even after they told us to use those funds, we said, nope, that's not
enough. We need hamilton's signature and we couldn't get hamilton's signature. So then we had a second letter from florida commerce that said, pay this money without their
signature to get this lien removed. And they instructed us to do so based upon their
communication, that meeting. And so we did it. Okay. The other thing is that you had
mentioned that the cbg grant for there's two it was mit and another that garden guardian
had put in for an rfp for these cbg grants. And they were on record. But I went to the
procurement site on the city and those cbg grants with them with the guardian had expired
in april of 2025. I have the printouts if you'd like. Okay, so I'm not sure what you're
saying. I don't know. According to this, they're not even the holders of these cbg grants any
longer because this what's on the procurement site says that they have expired in april of
2025. I'm not sure what's on the procurement site, but their bids expired in april of 25.
well, I know the contract. I sent you an email on it as well. Contract with guardian and
there's two of them. So. So we're still working with guardian every day. Hamiltons
were supposed to be done in 24. They won't let us be done. Hamilton's. This wasn't even in
relation to hamilton's. It was in my relation to the question which was, we were told sean
and I both wanted to see what could be done to have the guardians off of the cbg. Grant.
right? Did tell us that was impossible. It could not happen because they hold these rfps,
these two. I that what we said was we'd have to go back out to a new rfp to hire a new company
to like if they walked off the job today, if guardian quit, who would finish the reporting
and do all the the work? Who would finish the reports? But again, wouldn't they or
shouldn't they have valid cbg contracts on our site? We do have valid contracts with them.
we're continuing to work them. No one has terminated the contracts. Just like when you
sign a lease with a landlord and the lease is for a year and you continue to live there
after the lease runs out, you can terminate the contract. You guys could terminate it, but we
need to hire someone else to do their job, and we don't have time to go out to rfp and hire
that someone else and then get them on the job and then them get them into inspect and then
get the scope of services, and then go out to rfp on that scope of services, and then
pick the person that does it, and then then to come back and do it, and then to go and get
the job done by thanksgiving. It just won't happen. Mayor rich, may I? Sure. Okay, so we
had a meeting on august 11th. City commission meeting. I was told by city manager that when
you look at it, there's a termination. Section six, 6.2. I was told there was only
termination for cause. That's absolutely not true. You can also terminate for convenience
in section 6.1. Also, to clarify the term of the contract in section 1.1, the
term of this agreement shall commence on the date of execution by the city and
continue through approval of the final reports by the city. This agreement shall have an
option for extension of this agreement as necessary to complete the services, or to provide additional services not to exceed five years. The agreement was executed on the
27th of april of 2020, so you absolutely could extend it. You could also terminate it. And
this was an email that I sent to city manager mike mortel and city attorney. August 12th at
12:38 p.m. The following day. Because I knew you could terminate for convenience and I
knew that it wasn't valid. And my response to that email was that at the meeting you had
discussed that they had done shoddy workmanship. Regardless of that, they also forged the
evidence. They also they want to see it. Correct. Okay. Could you, could you I'm finished.
but those those are the facts. And I also stated that's what the hamilton's asked for. And I
was trying to give them what they want. This has spiraled out. Let him finish, mr. Mortel.
this spiraled out of control. But I was also told there was only termination for cause, and that absolutely was not true. On august 11th meeting. Okay. And I'm here with the facts.
we've the facts that the august 11th meeting was that no one knew that you had appeared on
the telephone call with brian mast office until you told us on august 11th. That was a
surprise to me. It wasn't on the agenda. It was out of left field. No one knew what
happened. When I started asking you what happened at the meeting. I still don't know. To
this date, I don't know what was discussed. I don't know what what the purpose was. All
I know is that florida commerce told me that the purpose of it was to get them to sign the
scope of services that they had originally submitted and agreed to. When you and I spoke about
it afterwards, you told me that they also said they wanted a steeple. They wanted electrical
work done on their house. They wanted air conditioning done on their house. Mike, you knew
about the electrical work, though, when you told me that that happened during the
conversation with florida commerce? No, that was that's so that didn't happen. That didn't happen on that meeting. Okay. All right. Excuse me. I think it's clear. And, mr. Vice
mayor, correct me if it's wrong that there are at least three of you who would wish to
continue this to the 22nd, is that correct? That is correct. That's we're going with and I
just ask what is being scheduled for the 22nd. So this would be the presentation by.
the presentation by hamilton. Well the hamilton's have an opportunity. They certainly
will. They will not be. Originally commissioner reed got up on the 11th and said the
hamilton's have a presentation they want to do on september 8th. Now the hamilton's are
saying they don't want to do a presentation. Do they want to do one on the 22nd? I don't
know, they just said they were waiting on a response from florida commerce. I would just like to make sure that they have the opportunity to if they. So, mr. Mayor. Okay.
commissioner clark, so what if guardian does their presentation on the eighth and
the hamilton can do any rebuttal or anything on the meeting after that? That way we
know the information. We know what guardian is presenting. I think we should do it on the
22nd. I think it efficiently. It would make more sense to have one hearing, okay. To just
do one. I mean, no matter what, it's hamilton, right? It doesn't matter who's doing it
as long as they're not limited to three minutes. The hamilton I mean, it's going to be a
presentation. Right. And then so for clarity find out if they know excuse the commission
terminating the contract because it expired in april. Is that what I'm hearing? I don't
there's no motion for that. There's no motion. Right. I know, but it's not in existence.
do you want me to set another agenda item to extend it? It wasn't in effect when project
lift was here either. So. So do you want me to skip? That's not what I said to extend it. The
point we're trying to make is that we asked for information and we got back information
that really wasn't. It was half truth, actually. It was tied to the discussion we were having
at the time. The discussion was saying that the guardian had done all this shoddy work and
that they weren't to receive any tax dollars. And I said, you can't do that, and you
can't do it unless you can show, cause now you can terminate the contract at will, but you can't
take the tax dollars away. You still got to pay them and fulfill the terms of the
contract that they fulfilled. They were. You're co-mingling both issues. Last time the
meeting was don't give them any money from project lift, and don't give them any other tax
dollars from the these grant things. And I was saying, you can't do that unless you show
cause that is got to be done. There were several questions I think commissioner read, if I
remember, was saying that these are tax dollars. Right. And and I was saying that they, they
could not be removed. Meanwhile, they really don't even have a contract. Let's not let's not
let's not start talking about project lift. I would remind the commissioners that if they
ask for information from either, we have now three direct employees, mr. Martel, mr.
baggett and miss holmes. If you ask them for information, whether it's in a public
meeting or in private, and they give you information you feel is incorrect or incomplete or a
falsehood, you don't have to wait for the meeting to say, I'm confused. You said this,
this, you know, could you please explain it in greater detail to me? I appreciate that
you've drilled down, but just to. We're on the very first commissioners comments still
and I'm so he has made the request that the item that was on for the eighth is now on for
the 22nd. Is that sufficient? We're moving on. And does that conclude your remarks,
commissioner reed? It does. And I want to state I'm not up here to argue. I'm here to clarify
things for the record, on what was said at last meeting and what actually exists in a
contract and what was actually said between the hamiltons and myself. And as far as the phone
call, I'm not here to argue with our city manager, nor am I here to argue with you. Mayor
rich, I just wanted to present some things that I thought needed clarified, and I respect
where you're coming from, mike, on it. I just, I feel like I'm doing my job by stating that
this is what they asked for, and I feel like I wouldn't be fulfilling my obligation if I
did not at least attempt. Okay, thank you, mayor rich. The hamiltons have gotten what they
wanted. Well, commissioner question no. You can clarify if you wanted to clarify if that
would require them to provide information to the city manager in time to have it in the
agenda packet for the 22nd, so that that time frame is provided to them, that anything
that they want to have in their presentation, that they'd give it to us ahead of time in the
time frame and have that available and then whatever guardian is going to present or
whatever mr. Martel is going to present, that will also be on the agenda item. I want to make
sure that we don't have any confusion and that there's complete cooperation by everyone. I've already told the hamiltons that they're not required, by law or otherwise,
to present anything in advance, and that they don't absolutely have to give it to us. To us. I
just wanted to give them the opportunity, if they wanted it to be attached to the agenda,
to present it in advance. And it's got to be on the like for the eighth, it would need to be
tomorrow, but for the 22nd it will be the ninth. On the ninth. Okay. The day after the meeting,
I'm not obligated to know. I'm sure I could not compel them, but. Right. He can request. No
thank you, mr. Reed. Do you have any additional unfinished commissioner job? No, it's my
turn. Number one. I want to welcome. I also want to welcome attorney holmes. Thank you so
much for being here. But I have to say, while we're in this budget phase, some individuals
continue to mention the cost of hiring an environmental attorney for the city of stuart.
I would like to remind everyone that if we do not aggressively attend to the repair of the
saint lucie river, anything else we do in the city will mean nothing. The river
provides life to the city. Boating, both personal and boating industry, fishing both
personal and fishing industry and tourism. So the implication that this is not money well
spent is misleading. I'd also like to request, now that the attorney holmes is on board, I
would like to set up meetings with all the commissioners and the attorney so that we can
discuss strategies, etcetera, going forward. I'll let commissioner baggett discuss it
with you. But the only place that I, commissioner, attorney baggett, to discuss it with you,
but the only place you can have private meetings with all the attorneys going forward would be if you're in litigation. So you have to file the lawsuit first. Otherwise it has to be
on the dais one on one. What about one on one, one on one, one on one. You can. It's so
much more. What she's asking if we were all there. Right. So the question is this is talking
to basically an employee which doesn't really come under the private. It's a public, it's a
public. If you if there's more than one commissioner present, it has to be a public meeting.
would you like to have a workshop or something? But it's still a public meeting. All right. Well then maybe a workshop if she can make a presentation and we could
question it more effective if we're all there to discuss it, rather than doing it one by one,
where we haven't had the opportunity to even talk to each other as to some of the
things we'd like to be, you know, addressed in the strategy, she could make her presentation
and we could all speak with her, add to it. Yeah, we could do that. That's the simplest. And
we've got room on september 8th, a little less formal on september 8th. Oh, gee, I
wonder why, but we don't know if that's agreeable to attorney holmes. She's going to do that.
well, we're we're able to instruct her. She's raring to go. Have to put a presentation
together. I have to be honest. Okay, so the next thing is on the august 11th commission
meeting, robin cartwright, a resident of stuart, stated during her public comment that
she had reached out to the city manager, mike martel, for the opportunity to create a
committee for residents to navigate issues with the commissioners. I agree with
commissioner reed regarding transparency within the city government and this type of
interaction between residents and commissioners might be the answer to gaining the public's
trust. Once again, I would like to see this on an agenda so that the commissioners could
discuss and vote on such a committee. Once this item has been added to the agenda, it
might be helpful to ask miss cartwright if she would like to share her vision for this type
of committee, and there might still be room on september 8th if miss cartwright is available.
in response, commissioner, the original meeting I had with robin cartwright was when I was
the city attorney and david dias was the city manager. I met with robin and virginia
sherlock for about two hours, and we actually went over a very detailed list of things
related to the code of conduct and other methods, and potentially creating a
committee that would hear challenges to actions by city commissioners for one reason or
another. It didn't end up getting put on an agenda. Then, when I became either acting
city manager or city manager, miss cartwright brought it up again and I actually put it on
an agenda, presented it to this board, and you guys voted and told me not to go forward. I
think if I remember correctly, that was more about rewriting an ethical. It was the code of
conduct and that, but it was all directly related to the exact same thing. That's what
it was. I'm happy to put it on again. I'm just telling you that we did it. And if you guys
want to do it again, I'm happy to. September 8th, mayor rich, may I? Yes, commissioner. I
remember you doing it, mike. I think a big part of it was at the time was something to do
with punishment towards city commissioners. And I think you should ask robin, because that's what it was. Was that what it was pertained? It was a committee that would hear
complaints about commissioners and be able to address those complaints that that may have
been. But that isn't what she mentioned on august 11th. Yeah. What is it? I'm fine. No, no, I
mean, we can put it on september 8th. I don't have any problem hearing it. I was just
told by the board not to. I thought that's what it was pertaining to. Well, if you the majority would like an item put back on the agenda to discuss it, you can clarify for the
record, no, we're not going to start having people come up from the audience during
commissioner comments. So you want to make a comment now? No, no. Okay. She will make public
comment when she has time to make public her. So does that conclude your remarks,
commissioner? It does, commissioner clark. Oh, brother. I have a couple of things I
don't know. We haven't met since the passing of pastor jerry gore, who has been very
active in our community. And his funeral was this past saturday, and he's just going
to be a loss to our community. And I just wanted to just say that from the dais. How
important participating in the community is. And I just wish his family and his friends and
his entire church, it's been a great impact on the community, and I'm sure that they will
feel the loss and will feel the loss of his participation, especially at some of these
meetings. So that's that's that. And I heard about pastor gore's passing on my way to the league
of cities meeting, which was around the 15th, 16th and 17th or so of 14, 15, 16 of, of
august. And the to me, the league of cities meeting hadn't been in probably like 6 or 7
years to one of those annual things. At least that's what it felt to me. I might have gone
to something, but it was well attended. Of course, there's all these concerns with regard
to sb 180 home rule and all the other things that are of concern and the things that the
league has been pushing with our other elected officials at the especially at the state
legislative level and even congressional level, when it comes to having funding to do
things in our city from the from the federal government level. And I went to several
workshops. But I think that people were very cautious. They they want to hear what's going
on with the legislature and what's going to happen, especially when it comes to how
sb 180 is going to be playing out and the potential for objections to that. So, and
which is called the the joint lawsuit, which is also on this agenda today. But I'd say that
people want to serve their cities and their communities when they get on these boards
and councils and they are concerned. But I, I just know that people also want to be
able to participate in a lawful manner with regard to even if you don't agree with things
that national or state level. And so that was that was a kind of atmosphere that I felt. But
I know that we have some very good people here on the treasure coast who have been
participating with the league of cities and with the treasure coast league. And I must say
that we should be thankful for the leadership that they have and that they've been pushing
at the state level. And I just want to say that all of us together collectively, have
been really. Working hard in the state. It's just amazing to see the the discussions that
people had and, and to to know that there is just people are on the edge about certain
things. And at the same time, they were very fervent and want to make sure that their
communities are well represented. So I appreciate the opportunity to go to the
league of cities. I have information for a personnel department, for utility
department, for city manager. I took a lot of information and paperwork, and I still have to
get that out to them. But I just think it was it was good for to get an opportunity to
participate in that meeting. And the third thing I have for today is someone brought up
project lift, and we know that that's going to be coming in soon, and they're going to be
removing the current building that's there in what we call the old willie geary plaza. And
I know for years the naacp has been having a small they've had permission to use the building
there. And I, I think that there's still like to continue to have a relationship with the,
the city. And I understand that the city may have. A mobile building that could be used if
we can work together with a contract. And I think that we need to if it's okay, I'd ask
if we could look into that and see if that bill, if the city can lease something to be put
on a property which is actually close. It's it would be on private property, but it's
actually close to the current location where they've been having their meetings on the on
the what is called now the project lift property. Are they seven, is it 720? Martin luther
king boulevard property. So I'd like to see if we can, if it's okay with this commission, to
ask the city manager to possibly look into the possibility of using, what do
you call it? I wouldn't say a trailer. It's called is it a mobile, a mobile building?
that's I think it's an old it's a building that used to be a part of an old fire station
that they're not using now. It's. And they, they could use that building behind the
sheriff if they, if it could be used. I'd like to ask if we can. I don't know if we need to vote
on investigating the possibility of doing some kind of a lease with that, so that they could be able to use it and meet meet, but they'd have to put it on their land. I
don't know if we could ask mr. Martell to investigate that. If I need to have a vote on that,
I'd like to ask people to, if they're interested in seeing if I could find out what it takes
to do something like that. Yeah. Liability. I'm happy. I'm happy to look into it, to see as long
as the commission is open to it, we could obviously secure liability. It would obviously
be a lease. It would have to be insured and bonded, and they would need to be responsible
for providing the land. But I can look into it and they'd take care of the liabilities if
you. So you look into it. Is that okay with everybody for mr. Martell to look into it?
this this was for the naacp to have a to use a mobile building that the city has, and it would
be all fire code and everything. Yeah, yeah, they would look into all of that, of course. So
fire building. Yeah. Well, used to be a fire station. Would that be otherwise? It's just
well it's currently we could we would. The city has still owns it but we could, would normally
if we didn't have another use for it, we would normally put it on government okay. And and
sell it or dispose of it as a surplus asset. Government surplus. We haven't done that
yet. Short term lease. But it's really the discretion of the board if you wanted to do
something else with it, I'm pretty sure the lease would be negligible. For what time frame?
well, well, hopefully if they can maybe get incorporated back into probably using a room at
the new project, I'm not sure. I'm not sure how that will work out in that project. I don't
know, I thought zach said he'd let him use portion. Yeah, a little rule I remember about
the discussion. He said that they would be able to maybe bring back just an item where
there's more information and we can. That's what she's asking. Okay, so that's what I'm asking. Yeah. Not a lease yet, but just more information. No, no. Right. More information. Do we have to
have a roll call on that or just. Okay. We all agree on that okay. Thank you. Okay okay.
it had three but I'll do for I'm definitely going to get involved with miss ruth holmes.
and I appreciate her being here. And I hope that we can work really hard and get some things
going, because I don't want us to become a ghost town because we have more and more
environmental problems and problems with our water. And I know that you won't be able to
solve everything, but we're looking forward to you working with the county and working
with the organizations in our community to make sure that we're on top of things. All
right. Does that conclude your remarks? Yes. Thank you, mr. Vice mayor, I have none. Okay.
I have to stay here. All right. I'm going to be the nice commissioner this evening or
tell a nice story. So thank you, commissioner clark, for accompanying me to the florida
league of cities annual meeting. And it is an intense event, nonstop breakfast through
dinner and meetings all day. There's many breakout sessions, and fortunately, we were able
to cover most of them between us. I brought back what I think is a terrific idea for the
school zone we've been working on, and mr. Martell is going to bring that to us. So this is
the job as mayor does have considerable challenges, but it also has some terrific benefits.
and one of them is I get to meet people on a fairly serious level that I otherwise, let's
be honest, I'd never would encounter them. And one of them was pastor gore and. He was a
very interesting guy. He felt very strongly about community, his community. He took to the
time to share those concerns with me. And I was I really enjoyed and valued the fact
that I got to know him, and I had the honor of reading a proclamation from the city at
was that the first methodist? Is that what that was? United methodist, united methodist.
and that place was completely full. I was I had no idea the influence and impact this. I
mean, he's sort of diminutive in stature, but boy, he's big in heart and spirit. And it was
such a privilege to be able to stand in front of that group of people who cared so much about
him and share the city's acknowledgment and respect for his contribution. And I just
wanted to say that. Mr. Mordell, are you talked out or do you have additional comment?
nothing further. Okay. Can I get a motion for the approval of the agenda? Approval of the
agenda is published. No items to be moved up or down. Okay, okay. We have a motion by
commissioner clark. We have a second by the vice mayor. Is there any public comment on
this seeing? None. All in favor, I. Okay, madam clerk comments. I do have one. It's robin
cartwright. I came tonight to talk about the senate bill, but I'm really beyond annoyed. Mr.
martell, you are no victim. Nobody is blaming you for anything. The truth of the
hamilton's case is it was shoddy work done. Period. Full stop. End of story. If guardian
or the city of stuart paid any bills when they saw the shoddy work that was done, that is on
the guardians in the city of stuart. There is no other way to say it. You are responsible.
guardians is responsible for processing it. There are documented issues with all of it. Regardless of how you feel about the hamiltons. Mr. Martell, you are no victim in
this situation, but I want to be very clear about the comment that commissioner job gave me
credit for. When commissioner, when miss sherlock and I met with mr. Martell, that was in
october of 2022, and it was to discuss the actions of a commissioner. Commissioner
bruner, who represented the city without authority on a youtube channel with the
chamber of commerce. And I wrote to mr. Martell expressing my concern about how it was a
policy violation of the city's code of conduct. And mr. Martell wrote me a very lengthy
email on october 21st, 2022. If you would like to do a public records request for it, or I
can forward it to you and miss sherlock actually responded to mr. Martell, which is why we
had that meeting, to have the discussion that we did. And I'm just going to read you a couple
highlights, because I keep everything just for this reason. This is from miss sherlock. I'm
very disturbed by your responses to robin cartwright's email asserting alleged violations of the city's code of conduct. For commissioner bruner, you advise, robin that
the process for citizens to request an investigation of an alleged violation of the code of conduct is to file a complaint with the florida commission on ethics. I'm sure
you know, however, that the commission on ethics does not investigate complaints based on alleged violation of local guidelines or conduct like the city of swartz code of conduct
for commissioners. She then goes on to say, you advise robin that quote, if the city
manager determines there is a violation of the code of conduct, then he will address
that with commissioner bruner and whoever else he deems appropriate. But it would amount to a human resources policy issue. Your responses to robin's complaint, which have
been adopted by the city manager, are clearly an effort to dismiss the allegations without independent or unbiased review to determine the validity of the allegations.
this is not authorized by the code of conduct or the city code, and does not reflect an
interest in upholding the public's interest in responding to residents concerns on integrity. This is why we asked for the commission so that there would be an opportunity
for people like me who have a grievance with people like mr. Martel or any of the
commissioners to basically field and vet these concerns so that they could be reviewed and
appropriate nonpartisan, nonparty affiliated person could give guidance on what
this looks like. It could be go to the commission on ethics, it could be directed to human
resources, or it could be these are other resources. You're valid. Your complaint is not
necessarily valid. But I hear you and it definitely needs to be addressed. The hamiltons
need to be heard. People like me need to be heard. And, mr. Martell, if you disparage me
one more time, I'm seriously going to file a complaint with the commission on ethics. I
have no further public comment. Okay. Can I get a motion for the approval of the consent
calendar? Move approval of the consent calendar, which is actually item number three.
second, and we have a motion by commissioner clark and a second by the vice mayor. Is there any
public comment on this issue? Seeing none. All in favor, I okay. Mr. Baggett, could you
read item four, please, for our consideration? Sure. Resolution number 82, dash 2025, a
resolution of the city commission of the city of stuart, florida, authorizing participation in a lawsuit seeking, among other things, to declare that senate bill one
8180 imposition of a blanket statewide prohibition on the exercise of home rule authority
over land use and zoning regulations is unconstitutional and should be enjoined and
retaining weiss, serota, hoffman, cole, plus bierman pl, I.e. A law firm to prosecute
the lawsuit and providing for an effective date. I know we discussed you wish to make
comments on this? Sure. We've already previously discussed this issue. You guys asked us
to bring back a resolution authorizing the city to join the lawsuit. I think it's
important to note that the attorney client relationship in this lawsuit is going to be
different than what you might be used to with our other outside counsel, as we would
have florida sunshine shade meetings where we could talk to the attorneys on a regular
basis about the status of the case, the settlement of the case. It's my opinion that
you're not going to have that relationship in this case. So you're part of a it's not a class action, but you're going to be a group with a large group of plaintiffs. And I just
wanted to point that out, that that is going to be a little bit different. You're not going
to have a lot of say so or decisions in the case you're you're going along for the ride,
I guess is a good way of putting it. And the law firm will probably be making
majority of the decisions they can't have, let's say 30 cities join up. You can't have 30
shade meetings to try and make a decision in the case. So you're kind of giving up some
of the power by joining the case. But there is strength in numbers. Obviously if you have
a large number of cities, you're going to make a more of an impact against the state. In
this in the resolution, we are waiving potential conflicts because an attorney is
representing multiple parties in the same action. It could it a conflict could arise with the
attorney. If the attorney is making a decision about the case, like I mentioned, the
attorney can't have every single city make a make the decision. So there are some
potential conflicts that we're going to be waiving. One good thing about it is if we went on
our own with our own law firm, we'd be paying a much higher bill. With this opportunity, we
are capped at a maximum of $20,000. $10,000 is for the initial case. And that's that's
through the regular circuit court. You know, we would this case is probably going to be
expedited. It's probably they're going to file it. I did speak to them. They're going to file it up in tallahassee and leon county. That's where they're going to file the case.
on behalf of all the cities that join, probably within six months, you're going to have a
summary judgment motion at the trial court level, and then you get a final judgment that's
going to be ten grand if it gets appealed to the first district court of appeal, it's
another five grand. And if it goes to the florida supreme court, it's another five grand
thereafter. So you are capped at a maximum of $20,000 exposure on the attorney's fees.
I. Wanted to address, you know, we were getting solicitations from the law firm. And I
believe commissioner dory howington, a commissioner from deltona, and I just wanted to
address a couple of things. I saw some at least one communication where she said,
if you join, if you don't join the case, you may be left out. I don't necessarily agree with
that assertion. There's going to be we're going to be seeking injunctive relief and
declaratory relief. And I want to separate both in the case just to explain to you. So
they're going to file a case, a loss, a lawsuit on behalf of any and all cities and counties
that join. And they're also going to file an emergency motion for an injunction. An
injunction is to stop someone from doing something. They're going to seek an injunction asking the state of florida to stop enforcing senate bill 180 against us and the other cities
during the pendency of the lawsuit. So it's a temporary injunction pending the outcome
of the the long term and the end of this case. They have to prove to get a temporary
injunction during the pendency of the case, a highly likelihood of success. So they may or may not prevail on that. And so if you weren't in the case, there's a potential some
case law out there that you might not be included in that injunction. However, the case
itself is seeking declaratory relief, and the declaratory relief is that this law is
unconstitutional. If the lawsuit prevails and it is declared unconstitutional, then
it applies to all cities. So she kind of made in one of her communications that if you
don't join, you won't get the relief. But I think there's kind of half it's kind of half
correct and half incorrect. And I wanted to make that distinction because I feel like
you might have had some questions regarding that statement. And. If you have any
questions, I'd be happy to discuss or answer any further questions about the case. But I
think I've just described everything that I wanted to that I had any questions of mr. Baggett from the commission? Thank you. Lee. If not, do we have a motion? I'd move
approval resolution 82 2025. I'll second. We have a motion by the vice mayor and a second
by commissioner job. Is there any public comment on this item? I don't have any currently.
none. Okay. Are there any questions or comments amongst the commissioners? Okay. None.
oh, okay. Mr. Vice, you're the maker of the motion. I would just like to say I'm all for
this. You know, as one of these whereas clauses says sb 180 is unconstitutional and invalid.
and my my hope is that more municipalities jump on. I know we're going to be the first
wave and the tip of the spear here. I hope more municipalities jump in because
I believe this is what I can't speak for florida residents overall. But in martin county,
we want to protect the martin county difference. You know, this is what I believe voters
want the city of stuart. And my hope is that martin county will join in and follow suit with
what we're doing as well here. And because as of yet, they've been pretty quiet. But this is
the right thing to do. This is us fighting back. And truly, I mean it when I say this is the
alamo. If sb 180 is not struck down, you know, can cities even really can counties even
protect that slow growth difference anymore? Probably not. So this is this is it for
me. This is the alamo. And I'm just so thankful that that this is happening and we have the
opportunity to join it. Commissioner clark oh, I did I know that I've heard about
communities wanting to join, and I just wanted to ask mr. Baggett with regard to the
status as to the governor and some of these communities that are weighed in, especially
counties. I think I think it was manatee county. I was reading about them when we've
already taken that step. And of course, we're taking it. We we would take a further step today.
but I was just wondering, what is what is the status with regard to some of these
communities that are supposedly going to be in this first wave? Nobody has done anything yet
per se, who has joined? Is that what you're asking? Yeah, I'm asking, I, I asked that
question of I've spoken to two different lawyers at the law firm, and I've asked that
question who all's joined and have do you have the ten. The ten. Yeah. They need okay. So I
need to back up because the, the proposal for the cap of 10,000, 5005 thousand is this
as long as they have a minimum unicipalities or counties that join, they felt
pretty confident they're going to get that number. I asked who's joined but they wouldn't
identify who. To me on the phone. And did they say how many? No, they I think we would
be number seven. From my understanding, they wouldn't identify the number or or who
has joined or not joined to me on the phone. They, they said that they will be in touch with
us on it, but that's they didn't not want to answer my question on it. I'd like to
take this opportunity, mr. Mayor. I wanted to add something. Something else came
to mind. We have 314 day notice letters from residents slash business owners in the in the
city that are threatening to sue us under senate bill 180. And last time, I think I
indicated there were two. I got a third one today. And so I just wanted to this is a good
opportunity to tell you that if we get sued, we're going to be defending the case based on it
being unconstitutional. So we're going to have ongoing conversations with the law firm
because they're going to be suing as a plaintiff seeking that it's unconstitutional.
we're going to have another case or multiple cases saying on the defense side that it's
unconstitutional. So we're going to have to seek action in when we're defending the case,
whether or not we can seek a stay of the defense of the case, because there's this other
lawsuit going. And I think that would probably be up to the particular judge that's assigned the case, whether or not he or she would like to stay the case, because there's
another potential litigation against the state of florida claiming unconstitutional. So
consolidating, I don't know. That's that's I otherwise you would have two different you
could have two different outcomes, you know, or and if we get sued multiple times we'd
have multiple. I could definitely see in martin county, if we had three lawsuits they would combine the lawsuits into one. So it's just judicial economy. It's better than
having three separate lawsuits. I don't know how it would be handled if they're suing in
tallahassee, and we have a case here that we're defending and I don't I don't this would be
handled by outside counsel and on the defense side and on the plaintiff side. So we would be
retaining outside counsel to defend the city for any lawsuit or lawsuits. I don't want to
speak ahead of time right now. And they might have a different, you know, strategy or or
recommendation on moving forward on that. So you may continue to ask questions. And
what is the hard and fast relationship with this law firm that it will be limited to the
10,000, then the five and five? Or will we be suddenly asked for more money and more money?
more money? I mean, there is a condition that they need ten minimum, so they might come back at nine. I don't I don't know if they're going to live up to the, to the limit. They
could come back and change the amount. But if they get ten, I think that's that's the number
that, you know, they drafted the, the the resolution that you have attached to it. So yeah, I can't see them bowing out on that. But I think they're locked in if they have
a minimum of ten or you know, if they have 20 same thing. They're locked in. I think pr
wise it would be bad for him. District court they I did ask today, are we going in federal
court or state court. And they said state court in leon county in tallahassee. I know that
you've probably read noel. We haven't gotten to reading the title yet. But for members of
the public who don't know what's in this. I was thinking of something that I'd ask you.
no, no, no, I did. I was looking at something. I heard smile. Yeah. I think the
main thing is that, you know, the part about the unconstitutionality. That's one
of the biggest. Whereas clause that comes up. So. I don't have any other questions on this.
any other comments or questions? I just have a brief comment. We've enacted ordinances that
are clearly in violation of our comprehensive plan. We're in direct violation of state law
by failing to rescind, and we have no business getting involved with this lawsuit at
this time. Roll call, please, madam clerk. Commissioner. Clerk. Public. Oh, I'm sorry.
public comment. Right. She's. No there there was no public comment. She had none. I don't
have any. Okay. Any public comment? No. Yeah. We're voting no. Let's allow public comment
on the public comment. You've got to provide. Okay. Come on. Did you take my vote already?
are you going to let me get through it again? I. Voted walter lloyd 150 cabana point
circle. It's amazing to me that the mayor wouldn't invite the public to comment, and I'm just
so refreshed by the the. Yes, public comment that. And then when I said I'm ready, he said,
no, we're voting because I know that we're not supposed to have debate here. But no, you're
right anyway. I'm refreshed by the members that do look to the public for their comment. Also,
as to the gentleman that's making the comment here, I, I got to see how he acted when he
was sitting up there. And I'm just thankful for who we have. I applaud you for standing
strong for the people that voted for you. Fear is never a reason to make a decision. We
know that. So I just want you to continue standing strong for the people, even if it meant
your removal. You're standing strong for your convictions and for what we elected you to do.
thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. I have no further public comment. Okay, let's try
the vote again. Please roll call. Commissioner clark. No. Vice mayor collins. Yes. Mayor.
rich? No. Commissioner. Job. Yes. Commissioner. Reed. Yes. Okay. Mr. Baggett, will you.
motion passes. Will you please read item five for our consideration, please? Again,
I'd like to point out this is the first reading of this ordinance. Ordinance number
2544 dash 2025, an ordinance of the city commission of the city of stuart, florida, amending
the text to section 11.01 .02 of the city's land development code by deleting the public
hearing requirement for major development projects greater than 50,000ft■!s and replacing t
with public presentation with a public presentation to the city commission requirement.
providing for conflict. Providing for codification, providing for an effective date
and for other purposes. Back in april, the city commission had directed staff to initiate a
text amendment to land development code, changing the public hearing requirement to a
public presentation requirement. You might have. The question is, how can we do the amendment
here? But we're not allowed to do it under zoning and progress. It's the city's position that
this is not making the land development code more restrictive. It's actually
making it less restrictive, which would not violate senate bill 180. So we are able to to
make these text changes to the code. I also want to point out that we have the public hearing
with the local planning agency last week, and they approved this. They approved
recommending approval of this ordinance with a caveat that to leave the public notice
requirement. And if you look at. The red lines in it, in the in the proposed text deletions,
there's a paragraph, it's paragraph f, and it has city commission public hearing
notice. Notice of the public hearing shall be provided by mailing and by posting the subject. Property requirements for notice for public hearings can be found in section 11.02
.00. So the lpa recommended approval of the changes, with the caveat of putting that back
in. And so what they wanted is at a public hearing, you have to put out we have our
ordinance that requires us to put notification out by mail and by posting on the property.
and so they wanted that requirement to still be there just for the presentation. So,
you know, a public hearing is quasi judicial. The folks are under oath. There's a
presentation from staff and from the applicant. You guys vote on it with a presentation.
it's just merely a presentation to notify you and the public of this project going on. And we
cannot vote no. Well, that's there would be no vote in a presentation. So that's kind of
the issue, I guess this these it was set up originally to create a public notice by
having a public hearing. And it put the board in an awkward situation where it appeared
that they could vote no, but they really couldn't vote no because it was in compliance
with the code. Right. So this way we're alleviating it's a public service. Do we have a
motion? I had my light on. What do you have? I asked a question after we have a motion. I'm
sorry. No go. So I'll make a motion so that I can ask a question with regard with
regard to resolution 2544 2025 move approval. We have a motion by commissioner clark and a
whispered second by the vice mayor. He did. Okay, so my question is I didn't see the
lpa minutes, but I know that it just happened recently. But I'm glad that mr. Baggett mentioned
the lpa vote on this matter. I was concerned about the difference between residential
and commercial, but I was told that 50,000ft■!s is 50,000ft■!sd of course, the whole idea of
whether or not it's. The, the, the publication part of it and whether or not even when you
have that presentation, it is just a presentation for the sake of the public before the
commission. It cannot be turned down by the commission. It's just to advise the public that
whatever is happening on that property, over 50,000ft■!s is happening there, whether it's
whether it's residential or commercial and. I hope it'll be okay. I mean, we we've done we
this has been there, but it's just been the con the I guess you'd call it. I don't know if
it's a confusion, but potential conflict or, or misunderstanding in how it's
actually carried out, but making this plain and letting people understand that this is
how it's going to be carried out and there won't be any vote. It's just having it here in
front of the commission to speak about it, to make a presentation about it, for the
knowledge and information of the public. And people might say, well, I'm here because I
don't agree with it, and it's going to go, well, it's something that can be done and
that has been approved. Whether it's I guess it's administratively and it's
something that could be done there. And we the commission at that time cannot deny that
project. That's correct. Mr. Baggett, do you wish to clarify? Yeah, just wanted to clarify.
so the way the ordinance is drafted is it does not include public notice because I have
that deleted. So that's what I was wondering. Yeah. So you would motion to approve the
ordinance as it's drafted. So the public know. So I'm just pointing out I agree you
brought that up to number two. This is the first reading. So we still have to come back for
second reading okay okay. So normally what we do is we do a motion to transmit to the
second reading. But I know you've already and I neglected to say that at the at the beginning of my introduction. But since you do have a motion, if you want to clarify that my
seconder agrees with whatever you just said, right. To add that language. So making sure
that we're still including public notice. Yeah. So paragraph f would be brought
back in. And I can make those changes by the second reading. I wasn't able to do it because
it was already posted on the agenda for the first reading. Even though because the lpa
happened last week, it wouldn't have to go back to the lpa. No, no. Okay. Okay. Now public do
we have public comment on this item? Madam clerk, I have none. You have none. Okay. Any
additional comments or questions from the commissioners? Are you doing
all right down there, commissioner joe? You're uncomfortable, I am okay, I'm
sorry. That's okay. Yeah, she plays hurt. You gotta give her credit. Okay. Roll call please.
mayor. Rich. Yes, commissioner. Reed. Yes, commissioner. Giovi. Yes, vice mayor collins. Yes,
commissioner. Clark. Yes. That we can do it. I should have said no. Good idea. You
probably could change it. Just mr. Baggott or mr. Martel. Would you like to lead the d
and d on item six, please? Certainly. I don't know if any of you had a chance to click on
the attachments to item number six on the d and d, but on june 20th. I'm sorry. Yes. Do you
have a question? So yes, it's just the d and d so there won't be to excuse myself. That's
fine. That's why I was asking. Thank you. Okay. Why don't we wait for her to. Leave the dais?
mr. Martel, do you need some assistance? Okay. It's just that when I sit that long. Yeah,
yeah, I get it. So for. For what it's worth, on june 23rd, a gentleman from jensen beach
came in and said that the left turn lane on us one at lockhart street in its current condition
was dangerous, and he presented a photograph and I attached the photograph to the agenda item.
and I have it on my computer right here if you want to look at it and see it. But the fact
is, you can see the dashboard of his, like the where the camera was held below the
dashboard of his car. You ever sat in your car and had your eyes below the dashboard of the
car? That too would create a fairly dangerous circumstance for you. When driving. I
attached pictures three and four to the agenda to show what it actually looks like. When
milton took the picture the next day, when you were sitting behind the dashboard of a car
regularly and well, he's got that big rig. But anyway, paragraph four gives you a
comparison of a car that was in front of him to show you what the visuals look like. In any
event, during the meeting, the commission discussed and said that this intersection was very
dangerous and needed to be modified. This is us highway one, the only modification that
the city of stuart can make is to remove all of the landscaping from the center
median. We maintain the landscaping well below the threshold that's set by florida
department of transportation. It was went out and measured it that week and it was 18. I
think 36in is the maximum height it can be, and it was between 12 and 18in. But
because the commission concluded that in the position it was in, between 12 and 18in
was dangerous, that means now that if there's a car accident. And we have it in this
condition, the city will be liable for failing to maintain it in a more safe condition. So
I need some direction from the commission as to whether you believe the intersection
actually was dangerous, or whether you want me to bring back an agenda item and notify
florida department of transportation that you want to remove the landscaping. I think
it's fine. I'm sorry I didn't hear you. Dangerous. Mr. Not dangerous. It's fine. I would
agree with that assessment, commissioner clark, do you have any comments? I turn left on sr
five every time. I don't like it and I don't like the oak tree and stuff, but I don't
think it's dangerous. Well, it's further down the median. Yeah, I don't I don't think
it's dangerous, but it's like any other tricky intersection. But it's been a big it's always
been there and. I think it's fine and I'm not I as long as, as long as there's a consensus
from the commission that the maintaining it in the standards set forth by fdot, fdot is is
okay, then I can move forward and that's it. I just need a consensus. That's all I need.
that's all I got. Comments. Comments. Thanks. Okay. Okay. That's all I have. So you don't
need a motion for that I don't. This is a d and d okay. If you wanted me to bring it back for
an agenda item to remove the stuff, then I would. I don't think we have an interest with
that, do we? No. The medians are finally looking nice. Okay. Seeing no other items for
reconsideration. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Sir.