1. MERGE OF BOA TO LPA ADVISORY BOARD (RC): RESOLUTION No. 119-2024; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING THE MERGER OF THE CITY'S BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WITH THE CITY'S LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY; AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY'S BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY'S LAND PLANNING AGENCY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

[1. MERGE OF BOA TO LPA ADVISORY BOARD (RC): RESOLUTION No. 119-2024; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING THE MERGER OF THE CITY'S BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WITH THE CITY'S LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY; AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY'S BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY'S LAND PLANNING AGENCY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

YES, MAYOR. RICH. YES, COMMISSIONER. CLARK. YES. NO. MR. BAGGETT, WILL YOU READ ITEM ONE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION, PLEASE? RESOLUTION NUMBER 119 DASH 2024, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE MERGER OF THE CITY'S BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WITH THE CITY'S LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY, AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY'S BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY'S LAND PLANNING AGENCY, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT. PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY. PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. MR. MARTELL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO? THE REASON WE BROUGHT THIS FORWARD IS BECAUSE I WAS WORKING WITH THE CLERK TO PUT TOGETHER THE AGENDA FOR DECEMBER NINTH, AND ON DECEMBER 9TH, THE BOARD IS GOING TO BE ASKED TO REAPPOINT VOLUNTEERS TO ALL THE BOARDS.

AND I MENTIONED THIS, I THINK AT THE LAST MEETING THAT UNFORTUNATELY, I GUESS IT'S FORTUNATELY WE DO NOT HAVE THE NEED FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT LIKE WE DID IN THE PAST. AND AS A RESULT, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS THAT GET APPOINTED TO THE BOARD HAVE EXPRESSED FRUSTRATION THAT THEY VOLUNTEER. THEY SAY THEY WANT TO COOPERATE AND BE INVOLVED IN THE CITY. THEY GET APPOINTED TO A BOARD AND THEN THEY DON'T HEAR FROM US FOR SEVEN MONTHS. AND I THINK IT MAY HAVE MET ONCE OR TWICE LAST YEAR, BUT THERE'S NO REAL END IN SIGHT AS FAR AS EVEN MEETING AGAIN ANY TIME. SO RATHER THAN REAPPOINTING ALL THESE PEOPLE AND HAVING THEM NOT KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE ANY MEETINGS, STAFF WAS SUGGESTING THAT WE MERGE THE LANGUAGE IN THE CODE FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INTO A RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LPA BOARD AND WHAT WE WHAT WE WOULD DO IF YOU IF THE BOARD GRANTS THIS MERGER OF THE BOA TO THE LPA ADVISORY BOARD, WHAT WILL EFFECTIVELY HAPPEN IS WE WILL CONTINUE THE BOA UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT WE HAVE YOU ADOPT THE NEW LANGUAGE IN THE CODE, MAKING IT THAT THE LPA DOES THOSE DUTIES.

BUT IT'S NOT LIKELY THAT WE'LL EVEN HAVE A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING ANYWAY. THAT WAY WE WILL NOT PUT ON THE AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 9TH AN APPOINTMENT FOR YOU TO REAPPOINT MEMBERS TO A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING YEAR, BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NO REASON TO APPOINT AN.

PERHAPS YOU COULD CLARIFY WHY THERE USED TO BE A NEED FOR THIS, AND WHY. SO IT NO LONGER.

I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER BEEN TO A BOA MEETING. SO FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS. HAVE HAPPENED. NUMBER ONE, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY BUILT OUT. SO THERE ARE NO LOTS.

THERE'S LESS THAN 20 ACRES OF AVAILABLE SINGLE FAMILY HOME. LOTS VACANT IN THE CITY OF STUART. BUT WHEN I SHOWED THOSE AERIAL MAPS OF STUART, LIKE IN THE 70S AND 80S, ALL OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS HAD YOU KNOW, 30, 40% VACANCIES THROUGHOUT THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS. SO THERE WAS A CONSTANT NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOMES COMING IN AND GETTING DEVELOPED. AND WHEN THE GIS WAS INVENTED, IT TURNED OUT THAT THE SURVEYORS THAT WOULD PUT A STICK IN THE GROUND AND SOMEBODY MOVED THE METAL ROD AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THEY'D BE OFF BY A FOOT, AND PEOPLE WOULD GO TO BUY OR SELL A HOUSE. AND THE FRONT PORCH WAS ACTUALLY NINE FEET INTO THE SETBACK INSTEAD OF TEN FEET INTO THE SETBACK. SO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WAS GOING THROUGH AND FIXING A LOT OF THESE SETBACK PROBLEMS. SO THEY HAD CONSTANT MEETINGS EVERY MONTH WHERE THEY'D HAVE TWO AND THREE, MAYBE FOUR MEETING AGENDA ITEMS PER MEETING. BUT NOW IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS, ALL OF THE LOTS ARE BUILT ON, AND BECAUSE OF TECHNOLOGY, YOU'RE NOT RUNNING INTO SITUATIONS WHERE SURVEYORS OVERLAP. THE SURVEYS ARE ACTUALLY DIGITALLY DONE, AND THEY'RE RIGHT TO THE TO THE PENNY. AND SO WE JUST DON'T RUN INTO THE SITUATION THAT WE USED TO. NOW THERE ARE STILL SITUATIONS WHERE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CONVENES BECAUSE SOMEONE'S APPLYING TO DO A LOT SPLIT OR SOMEBODY'S SEEKING A VARIANCE FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, THEIR PORCH NEEDS

[00:45:03]

SOMETHING THAT MIGHT ENCROACH IN THE SETBACK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT LITERALLY IT'S SO FEW TIMES THAT I THINK I KNOW THERE WAS ONE MEETING LAST YEAR, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WERE TWO. I THINK THERE WERE TWO, AND ONE GOT CANCELED. BUT AS A RESULT, I JUST I FEEL BAD BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU, YOU, YOU KNOW, WE TELL THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PEOPLE, WELL, YOU'RE GOING TO MEET THE THIRD TUESDAY OF THE MONTH AND THEY START CLEARING THAT ON THEIR CALENDAR. AND THEN AFTER ABOUT THE FOURTH OR FIFTH MONTH THAT GOES BY, THEY START SAYING, YOU KNOW WHAT, I'M AVAILABLE ON THAT NIGHT TO GO DO OTHER STUFF BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN SITTING AROUND WAITING. AND THEN WE CALL THEM UP AND SAY, HEY, WE'RE HAVING A MEETING NEXT TUESDAY. AND THEY'RE LIKE, WELL, LISTEN, I'M ALREADY OBLIGATED. YOU HADN'T CALLED ME IN FIVE MONTHS. I DIDN'T KNOW WE WERE HAVING ANY MEETINGS. SO THEN WE SCRAMBLE ON QUORUM PROBLEMS. MY THOUGHT WAS, AND AGAIN, IT'S TOTALLY THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD. I JUST KNOW THAT YOU GUYS ARE THE ONES HAVING TO APPOINT PEOPLE. AND THE FEEDBACK WE GET, I DON'T WANT YOU TO BE IN A POSITION WHERE YOU'RE INSULTING SOMEBODY BY APPOINTING THEM TO A BOARD THAT DOESN'T MEET. SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION AND WHAT DOES IT COST IN TERMS OF THE EMAILS? WHAT'S THE OVERHEAD TO EVEN HAVE THESE? WELL, I MEAN, WE HAVE TO WE HAVE TO ADVERTISE THE BOARD MEETINGS, WHICH IS YOU KNOW, $700 OR SO JUST TO RUN THE ADVERTISEMENT AND THEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE STAFF PRESENT AT THE MEETINGS, AND YOU HAVE TO CONTACT THEM AND RUN THEM DOWN TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE CONFIRMED FOR IT. AND YOU HAVE TO DO THE SEPARATE AGENDA, AND YOU HAVE TO PUBLISH THAT AGENDA AND YOU HAVE TO DO STUFF. SO IT IT'S THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO HAVE A MEETING THAT PART, THOUGH, IS I MEAN, LISTEN, IF THERE'S A NEED FOR THE MEETING, WE'LL HAVE THE MEETING. WELL, THE SOLUTION TO IT NOW IS TO SIMPLY JUST HAVE IT BE PART OF AN LPA MEETING. THAT'S ALREADY GOING TO OCCUR, THAT LPA BOARD IS GOING TO BE MORE VERSED IN THE ISSUES WITH THE CITY, BECAUSE THE OTHER THING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAPPENS IS BECAUSE THEY DON'T MEET AT ALL. RIGHT? BUT WHEN THEY DO HAVE A MEETING, THEY DON'T HAVE AS MUCH FAMILIARITY WITH IT. NOW THERE'S MEMBERS OF THE BOARD THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND A LONG TIME OR THAT HAVE EXPERIENCE THAT MIGHT HAVE SOME FAMILIARITY, BUT OVERALL THEY JUST DON'T MEET. WHILE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BOARDS, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN CONTINUE WHILE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BOARDS. WHAT. AND THIS WILL BE A LOT MORE CONTENTIOUS. WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE EAST? STUART HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD? WHEN WE WERE MORE FORMALLY GOING THROUGH THE GUY DAVIS PARK AND MOVING FORWARD ON IT, THE CITY COMMISSION VOTED TO HAVE A COMMITTEE APPOINTED TO PROVIDE HISTORICAL INFORMATION AND DATA SO THAT IT COULD BE COMMEMORATED THROUGHOUT THE PARK OR IDENTIFIED IN THE PARK. THE ORIGINAL BYLAWS ADOPTED BY THAT BOARD OR BY THE CITY COMMISSION FOR THAT BOARD, HAD THEM HAVING THREE MEETINGS AND THEN DOING A FINAL REPORT. THEY HAD THE THREE MEETINGS, DID THE FINAL REPORT, AND THEN NOT THE SUMMER OF 24, BUT THE SUMMER OF 23. IN AUGUST, SEPTEMBER, WHEN WE WERE HAVING THE BUDGET MEETINGS, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD CAME TO ONE OF THE BUDGET MEETINGS, THANKED THE CITY COMMISSION FOR PUTTING THE COMMITTEE TOGETHER, AND THEN RECOMMENDED THAT IT SHOULD BE A PERMANENT BOARD. AND AT THAT MEETING, THE COMMISSION VOTED TO MAKE IT A PERMANENT BOARD. HOWEVER, THE INTENTION REMAINS THAT THE PURPOSE FOR THAT BOARD IS TO ADDRESS NEW PROJECTS COMING FORWARD IN THE EAST STUART NEIGHBORHOOD. AND NEXT YEAR WE'RE GOING TO RUN INTO THE SAME THING. I KNOW, AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE PINAL GANDHI DOES. IS THAT THE SCOPE THAT WAS TO REVIEW PROJECTS IN EAST STUART OR. NO, IT WAS JUST TO ADD THE HISTORICAL INFORMATION FOR PROJECTS IN EAST STUART. AND THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S BEEN CONFUSION ON WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THAT BOARD IS. WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE SKATE PARK, I GOT SOME FEEDBACK FROM AT LEAST ONE BOARD MEMBER WHO FELT LIKE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RUN THROUGH THAT BOARD. AND SO IT SEEMS LIKE AND THE SKATE PARK BEING IN THE GUY DAVIS PARK, RIGHT. GUY DAVIS PARK WAS RUN THROUGH THAT BOARD. AND THAT BOARD HAD DONE ALL THE HISTORICAL DATA FOR THE GUY DAVIS PARK RENOVATION. SO THAT ISSUE HAD BEEN RESOLVED. OKAY. I'M GOING TO ASK THAT WE ARE NOW ON THE FOURTH ISSUE. I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GUY DAVIS PARK. WE'RE GOING THAT'S A DIFFERENT WORD. YEAH. WHAT I WAS GOING TO WHAT I WAS GOING TO CAN WE CONFINE OUR DISCUSSION TO ITEM NUMBER ONE? I'M STILL ON ONE. WHAT I WANTED TO RECOMMEND WAS THAT WE ALSO INCLUDE THAT HISTORICAL BOARD IN THERE, AS WELL, FOR THE SAME REASONS OF STAFF. IS THERE WE HAVE MULTIPLE. HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE AT ONE OF THOSE MEETINGS? WELL, THERE'S SEVEN MEMBERS OF THE BOARD THAT WE HAVE TO TRACK. BUT THEN YOU HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY, TWO MEMBERS OF THE CLERK, TWO PEOPLE FROM THE CRA. SO YOU NORMALLY HAVE A MINIMUM OF FIVE STAFF. WE'VE GOT A LOT OF MONEY.

THAT'S A MEMBER OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT PLUS YOU HAVE SOMEBODY RUNNING THE COMPUTER.

EVERYBODY, LET'S GET A MOTION WITH THE ELEMENTS. YOU KNOW, I'M JUST I'M JUST I'M MAKING KIND OF A POINT FOR IT FIRST. SO IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S WHEN YOU MAKE A MOTION AND GET A SECOND,

[00:50:06]

THEN YOU MAKE THE POINTS REGARDING THE VALUE OF THE MOTION. SO CAN WE DO THAT PLEASE. TO KEEP THEM MOVING. SURE SURE, SURE. SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MERGE THE BOA INTO THE LPA. BUT ALSO AMENDING THIS. OR IF IT NEEDS TO BE A SEPARATE ITEM TO YOU CAN JUST ADD IT TO THE MOTION. THE EAST STUART, YOU WANT TO ELIMINATE THE STUART OR USE IT AS NEEDED. MAYBE RECONVENE IT WHEN THERE IS AN APPROPRIATE ISSUE, INSTEAD OF JUST TRYING TO FIND REASONS TO HAVE THEM MEET WHILE WE'RE BURNING MONEY ON THE CLOCK, YOU KNOW? OKAY, IF YOU COULD BE. SO RIGHT NOW SPECIFIC TO NOW, THE DIRECTION IS TO HAVE FOUR MEETINGS A YEAR. NO MATTER WHAT. RIGHT? SO IF YOU WERE TO DIRECT US TO JUST SCHEDULE MEETINGS AS NEEDED, THAT'S FINE.

AND KEEP THE COMMITTEE. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH THAT LANGUAGE? YES, SIR.

OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CLARK. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.

WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GOBI. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? NICK, ARE YOU GOING TO COMMENT ON THIS? IS THIS ON THE EAST? STUART ONE. YES. THIS IS SPECIFICALLY ON NO, THIS IS ON THE MERGING OF THE BOARDS. YES. OKAY. WELL WE'RE DOING YES. OKAY. THAT'S APPROPRIATE. I DIDN'T SHOW UP HERE FOR THIS ITEM. NO THAT'S FINE. YOU'RE YOU KNOW, THE ZONING IN PROGRESS IS ABOUT TO MAKE THOUSANDS OF PROPERTIES NON-CONFORMING AND MAY RESULT IN A VERY DIRE NEED FOR A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NONCONFORMITIES EXISTING ACROSS THE BOARD IN SEVERAL PROPERTIES. SO JUST A JUST A THOUGHT. THAT'S TRUE TOO. THANK YOU. NICK. OKAY. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? MADAM CLERK? I DO NOT QUESTIONS ARE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BY THE BOARD. THANK YOU MAY I OKAY SO I HAVE A I HAVE A COMMENT ON THAT KIND OF SIMILAR TO NICK ALSO. AND THEN SOMETHING THAT MIGHT SORRY THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER SAID SPECIFICALLY THAT WHEN WE SOMETIMES WHEN WE HAVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETINGS, PEOPLE AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT. AND I KNOW THAT JUST COMING INTO THIS WITH NEW MEMBERS ON THE BOARD, PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHO TO SELECT FOR WHAT BOARDS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH SOME OF THE THINGS OR, OR THE PEOPLE OR PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY. AND IT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT. I WAS THINKING THAT IF WE COULD AT LEAST HAVE THESE MEMBERS OR HAVE PEOPLE AS AT LEAST HAVE UP TO 3 OR 4 ALTERNATES TO THE LPA, SO THAT THEIR SECOND THEIR OR SECOND FIDDLE, THEY CAN ALWAYS HAVE A HAVE A QUORUM AND THEY'LL ALWAYS BE LEARNING. THEY DON'T HAVE TO NECESSARILY COME TO THE MEETINGS, BUT AT LEAST WE'LL KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME PEOPLE THAT WE CAN LOOK TO IF WE NEED TO, TO REFER AND HAVE SOMEBODY STEP IN. IF WE COULD ACTUALLY CHANGE THE MAKEUP OF THE LPA TO HAVE AT LEAST MAYBE 2 TO 3 ALTERNATE MEMBERS. BUT IF WE CAN'T EVEN GET OUR REGULAR MEMBERS, I KNOW, I KNOW, WE HAVE SEVEN MEMBERS IN THE LPA, AND IF YOU HAVE ALTERNATE MEMBERS AND PEOPLE DO COME, DO THE ALTERNATE MEMBERS PARTICIPATE? NO, NO, THEY'LL JUST BE THERE AS, AS AS PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED. BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE VOTING, BUT THEY'RE THE REGULAR MEMBERS WILL ALWAYS VOTE. IT'S ONLY IF THEY'RE NEEDED. THEY WOULD BE CALLED IN, MR. MAYOR. BUT YOU KNOW, I KNOW IT'S JUST A SUGGESTION. ARE YOU ASKING COMMISSIONER COLLINS TO AMEND HIS MOTION? NO, I'M JUST PUTTING IT OUT THERE. I'M JUST ASKING.

COMMISSIONER JOB, WOULD THESE ADDITIONAL FLOATERS OR WHATEVER WE WANTED TO DESCRIBE THEM AS.

WOULD THEY BE REQUIRED TO HAVE CITY EMAIL ADDRESSES? CORRECT? CORRECT. AND FINANCIAL? YEAH.

AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES AND SUNSHINE. YEAH. THEY'D HAVE THEY'D BE JUST LIKE REGULAR.

RIGHT. SO THEN IT KIND OF DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF CLOSING A BOARD THAT'S NOT USEFUL ANY LONGER, BECAUSE WE NEVER MEET. AND THEN EXTENDING A BOARD THAT DOES MEET AND CAN DO THE JOB OF THAT BOARD, IF NEEDED. ANYWAY, IT'S JUST THE WAY WE ALL WE NEED TO HAVE A WAY TO GET PEOPLE TRAINED TO BE ABLE TO WHEN THE TIME COMES AND IF A COMMISSIONER ASKS THEM THAT THERE'S SOMEBODY WHO HAVE BEEN INTERESTED OR HAVE BEEN TRAINED OR SOMETHING, OR MAYBE THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS TO OFFER TRAINING ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN BEING A MEMBER OF A BOARD, SO THAT THEY KIND OF HAVE AN IDEA WHAT IT TAKES TO BE ON ANY TYPE OF BOARD. AT THE CITY OF STUART. OKAY. COMMISSIONER, JUST ARE YOU DONE? COMMISSIONER? YEAH, JUST A REPLY TO COMMISSIONER CLARK. I THINK THAT TRAINING IS VERY IMPORTANT, BUT YOU SHOULD BE TRAINING THE

[00:55:06]

PEOPLE AS THEY'RE ON THE COMMITTEES. NEW PEOPLE WHO COME ON TO THOSE. I WAS ON THE LPA MYSELF FOR A YEAR. PEOPLE BEING APPOINTED TO THOSE BOARDS COULD BENEFIT FROM THAT TRAINING RATHER THAN DOING IT FOR ALTERNATES OR. YEAH, THEY DO GET THE TRAINING WHEN THEY'RE ON THE BOARD. NO, THEY DON'T. OH, OKAY. I THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE OKAY. MAYOR RICH, MAY I COMMISSIONER REED SO I SAT ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND OKAY, I DID I SAT ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR TWO YEARS. I THINK WE SAW 3 OR 4 AGENDA ITEMS IN TWO YEARS. I DO KNOW WHEN IT COMES TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WHEN YOU DO VOTE ON AN AGENDA ITEM, IT DOES HOLD SOME WEIGHT THOUGH. I AGREE WITH THE MOTION TO MERGE THE TWO BOARDS. I THINK IT WOULD. YOU KNOW, MORE BOARD MEMBERS WOULD BE ACTIVE, SO YOU'RE NOT ON STANDBY LIKE I WAS. LIKE MIKE HAD STATED, SOMETIMES I WOULD HANG AROUND ON THE THIRD THURSDAY AND IT WOULD GET CANCELED AND I COULDN'T MAKE PLANS. ET CETERA. ET CETERA. WHAT I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF, THOUGH, WITH THE MOTION.

COMMISSIONER COLLINS IS DOING IT AS NEEDED FOR THE EAST STUART WITHOUT HAVING THEIR INPUT. I RECOGNIZE WHERE YOU COME FROM, BUT I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH SUNSHINE AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DID STATE THAT THERE SHOULD BE PUBLIC NOTICE FOR CONTROVERSIAL ITEMS. SO I DON'T SUPPORT THE MOTION IN THE WAY THAT IT'S STATED. UNLESS WE HEAR FROM EAST STUART, MAYBE THAT SHOULD BE AN AGENDA ITEM. SO THERE'S PLENTY OF NOTICE. SO IT'S NOT LIKE A SUDDEN GOTCHA. I DO THINK THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO COME IN AND PROVIDE COMMENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

AND I THOUGHT THAT THE CLERK I THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE TWO SEPARATE THINGS. NOW, I READ THIS AGENDA ITEM REGARDING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND I SPOKE AGAIN WITH THE CITY MANAGER. I DIDN'T SPEAK WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, BUT LET ME BE CLEAR, I HOPE. OR IT WAS CLEAR WE'RE ONLY MERGING THE ROLL. WE'RE NOT GOING TO MERGE THESE ADDITIONAL PEOPLE. IT'S JUST A ROLL. SO EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE HANDLED BY THE LPA, CORRECT? THAT'S IT, MR. MARTELL. CORRECT.

WELL, THE POINT IS, THE BOA WILL BE GONE. THEY ON DECEMBER 9TH AT THE REORGANIZATION MEETING. WE WILL NOT ASK YOU TO APPOINT ANYBODY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. CORRECT. AND THE LPA WILL NOT BE EXTENDED. ALL OF THEIR TERMS EXPIRED DECEMBER 9TH. SO YOU COULD POTENTIALLY TAKE SOMEONE THAT IF YOU HAD SOMEONE ON THE LPA AND THE BOA, YOU GET TO DECIDE. IN MY PARTICULAR CASE, I DON'T HAVE ANYONE ON THE LPA, I JUST HAVE SOMEONE ON THE BOA SO YOU COULD GIVE THEM OVER. YEAH. SO BASICALLY I'M JUST MOVING MY APPOINTEE OVER AND OUT OF RESPECT TO WARNER. I GAVE HIM FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL. THAT'S JUST WHERE MY POSITION WAS THOUGH OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO YOUR RECOMMENDATION WITH REGARD TO THE HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD IS LEAVE IT ALONE. IT SHOULD BE AN AGENDA ITEM, I THINK AT A FUTURE MEETING, WHETHER IT'S I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD STACK UP DECEMBER, MAYBE THE FIRST QUARTER MEETING, SECOND WEEK OF JANUARY. THAT'S JUST MY OPINION BECAUSE OUT OF RESPECT TO THEM, BECAUSE THOSE BOARD MEMBERS WOULD BE UPSET, YOU'RE SAYING NOT NECESSARILY UPSET, LIKE JUST TO HEAR FROM THEM. I MEAN, IF YOU'RE SITTING ON AN ADVISORY BOARD AND IT'S JUST GETTING UPSET. BUT YEAH, TO ME, WHEN THERE'S ACTUALLY A NEED VERSUS JUST LIKE EVERY SO I FULLY SUPPORT WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM AS FAR AS A NEED VERSUS JUST DOING IT EVERY QUARTER, BECAUSE IT MIGHT NOT BE NECESSARY TO EVEN DO IT EVERY QUARTER. BUT I THINK OUT OF RESPECT TO THOSE BOARD MEMBERS, THEY SHOULD BE NOTIFIED AHEAD OF TIME WHAT'S GOING TO POTENTIALLY HAPPEN TO THEIR BOARD. KIND OF LIKE WHAT WE DID WITH THE BOA AND THE LPA. IF ANY BOARD MEMBERS WANTED TO PROVIDE COMMENT, THEY COULD COME PROVIDE COMMENT OR REACH OUT TO US. AND THERE WAS PLENTY OF NOTICE. THAT'S MY ONLY THOUGHT.

SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S ENOUGH NOTICE THAT THE REALITY OF IT IS THIS WE'RE NONE OF THE MOTIONS INTEND FOR YOU TO REMOVE ANYBODY FROM THE ADVISORY BOARD. SO FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, FOR DECEMBER 9TH, WE WILL BE HAVING THOSE APPOINTMENTS PLACED. IF YOU'D LIKE, I CAN I CAN PUT THAT ISSUE ON DECEMBER NINTH AGENDA AS A SEPARATE ITEM FOR NOTICE SO THAT WE CAN ADDRESS IT ACCORDINGLY. I'M IN SUPPORT OF THAT. IF YOU WANT TO AMEND YOUR MOTION. YEAH, I WOULD AMEND MY MOTION ALONG THOSE LINES. THAT'S FINE. OKAY. MR. MAYOR, HE'S HE'S GOING TO AMEND HIS MOTION. SO I'D LIKE HIM TO DO THAT BEFORE WE CONTINUE DISCUSSION. RIGHT. SO I WOULD PULL OUT WE WOULD PULL OUT AN EAST STUART SPECIFIC ADVISORY BOARD ITEM FOR THE NINTH. AND THEN THE MOTION IS SIMPLY WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US. EXACTLY. YES. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER COLLINS. I'LL SECOND THAT. OKAY. NO. OKAY, COMMISSIONER, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLLINS AND THEN A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER REID. COMMISSIONER JOB. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT WE WERE NOT DISBANDING THIS, THE EAST STUART COMMITTEE. WE WERE JUST CHANGING THEIR CALENDAR TO MEET. YOU

[01:00:02]

KNOW, WE'RE NOT TAKING ANY ACTION NOW WITH REGARD TO THAT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? I WOULD JUST LIKE MR. MOORE TO HOW MANY TIMES THIS YEAR DID THE LPA MEET, BECAUSE I KNOW TWICE. NO, THEY MET REGULARLY. OBVIOUSLY THE ZONING AND THEY CANCELED A LOT OF MEETINGS, BUT THERE'D BE A LOT OF CANCELLATIONS. BUT THAT WAS THE APPLICANT'S WHERE THEY WERE ON THE MEETING, AND IT WAS SCHEDULED TO GO FORWARD AND WE ACTUALLY HAD A COUPLE OF SPECIAL LPA MEETINGS. PLUS LPA IS DESIGNED OR IN THE CODE TO MEET ANY TIME WE HAVE A LDR CHANGE.

SO RIGHT. THE TEXT AMENDMENTS HAVE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE LPA AS WELL. SO THEY DEFINITELY MEET MORE THAN BUSY. RIGHT. BUT YOU KNOW EVERYBODY THINKS THE CITY HAS THIS BUILDING FRENZY. BUT ACTUALLY THERE HAVE BEEN SO FEW APPLICATIONS THAT I KNOW THE LPA HAS NOT MET THAT OFTEN. SO I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO MERGE THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES WITH WITH THE LPA SO THAT THEY CAN PLAY A MORE ACTIVE ROLE. AS FAR AS TRAINING GOES, I THE RESPONSIBILITY OF TRAINING, I THINK, IS THE COMMISSIONER WHO APPOINTS THAT INDIVIDUAL TO THE BOARD. I KNOW WHEN I WAS ON THE LPA, I WOULD MEET WITH MY COMMISSIONER BEFORE EVERY SINGLE MEETING AND AS NEEDED, AND MY APPOINTEES. NOW I MEET WITH THEM BEFORE EVERY MEETING OR AS NEEDED. SO I THINK WE, YOU KNOW, WE POSSESS THAT RESPONSIBILITY AND WHETHER WE CHOOSE TO DO IT OR NOT IS OBVIOUSLY UP TO US. SO SEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS, ROLL CALL, PLEASE, COMMISSIONER COLLINS. YES, COMMISSIONER.

CLARK. YES, MAYOR. RICH. YES, COMMISSIONER. SELBY. YES, COMMISSIONER. READ. YES. MOTION

[4. EXTENSION OF ZONING IN PROGRESS (RC): RESOLUTION No. 120-2024; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, EXTENDING THE “ZONING IN PROGRESS” UNDER SECTION 1.04.04, STUART LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS AUTHORIZED IN RESOLUTION 95-2024, AS IT RELATES TO NEW DEVELOPMENT WITH THE EXCEPTION FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS, REQUESTS THAT DO NOT INCREASE THE DENSITY OR INTENSITY OF AN EXISTING USE OR STRUCTURE, OR ANY COMMERCIAL PROJECT THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE A RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT AND THAT DOES NOT INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ANY STRUCTURE; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

IS APPROVED. MR. BAGGETT, COULD YOU READ ITEM FOUR FOR OUR CONSIDERATION, PLEASE? SURE. AND BEFORE I DO, MAYOR, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT I HAD A NEW VERSION OF THE RESOLUTION 120 DASH 2024, PLACED IN FRONT OF YOU. I MISTAKENLY LEFT OUT ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS OF GOVERNMENT BUILDING, SO I WANTED TO PUT THAT IN THE TITLE AND ALSO IN THE RESOLUTION. YEAH. SO IT'S RESOLUTION NUMBER 120 DASH 2024, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, EXTENDING THE ZONING AND PROGRESS UNDER SECTION 1.04.04. STUART LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS AUTHORIZED IN RESOLUTION NINE FIVE DASH 2024, AS IT RELATES TO NEW DEVELOPMENT, WITH THE EXCEPTION FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, GOVERNMENTAL BUILDINGS REQUESTS THAT DO NOT INCREASE THE DENSITY OR INTENSITY OF AN EXISTING USE OR STRUCTURE, OR ANY COMMERCIAL PROJECT THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE A RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT, AND THAT DOES NOT INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ANY STRUCTURE PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY.

PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. AND JUST TO. THIS IS MY AGENDA ITEM. SO I'LL GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF A BACKGROUND BACK ON AUGUST 26TH, 2024, THE COMMISSION DIRECTED CITY STAFF TO INITIATE A ZONING IN PROGRESS UNDER OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 1.04.04 AND THE PURPOSE OF THE ZONING IN PROGRESS IS TO ALLOW THE CITY COMMISSIONERS TO EVALUATE AND MAKE TEXT AMENDMENTS AND MAP CHANGES TO THE CITY OF STUART LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IF APPLICABLE, UNDER OUR CODE. IT ALLOWS US TO DO IT FOR THREE MONTHS, WHICH WE DID INITIALLY, AND IT STARTED ONCE WE DID THE ADVERTISEMENT ON SEPTEMBER FOURTH. SO IT STARTED IN ESSENCE ON SEPTEMBER 5TH. AND SO IT PUT A FREEZE ON ALL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS WITH THE INITIALLY WAS WITH THE ONLY THE GOVERNMENTAL BUILDINGS AND THE SINGLE FAMILY EXCEPTIONS. OBVIOUSLY THROUGHOUT THE FIRST THREE MONTHS, WE ADDED TWO MORE EXCEPTIONS. AND UNDER OUR CODE WE AFTER THREE MONTHS AND FOR GOOD CAUSE AND UPON MAKING A FINDING THAT IT'S IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO DO SO, THE COMMISSION IS FREE TO EXTEND UP TO ANOTHER THREE MONTHS. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS MOTION IS FOR.

THIS RESOLUTION, PROPOSED RESOLUTION IS FOR WE'VE HAD THREE WORKSHOPS. WE'VE GONE THROUGH AN EXHAUSTIVE REVIEW OF SEVERAL CHAPTERS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND WE ARE COMING BACK NEXT MEETING, WHICH WOULD BE AFTER THE THREE MONTHS TO FINALIZE A RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING AREAS THAT YOU WANT CODE TO BE REVISED. SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, WE'LL HAVE TO COME BACK WITH ORDINANCE CHANGES. FIRST AND SECOND READING, IDENTIFYING ALL THE SPECIFIC SECTIONS OF THE CODE THAT YOU WANT CHANGED. AND SO FOR TODAY, WE'RE ASKING FOR THE RESOLUTION YOU WERE ASKED TO BRING BACK SO THAT WE CAN EXTEND IT FOR ANOTHER THREE MONTHS. MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MOVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 120 2024. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CLARK COLLINS. NO. COLLINS.

[01:05:06]

SORRY. I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JO. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? MADAM CLERK, YES, I HAVE DEB FRAZIER, WELCOME BACK. THANK YOU. AND I APPRECIATE THAT. I WAS GOING TO ASK THAT QUESTION. SO I'M DEB FRAZIER, I'M THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE TREASURE COAST BUILDERS ASSOCIATION. I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK YOU ALL HAVE PUT INTO ALL OF THIS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO REALLY EXPRESS THAT WE WOULD, AS THE BUILDERS ASSOCIATION AND I HAVE OVER 6000 MEMBERS THAT WE ASK THAT YOU VOTE THIS MOTION DOWN BECAUSE, AGAIN, THERE'S BEEN NO STUDY ON WHAT THE TAX IMPLICATIONS ARE. IF YOU GO ANOTHER THREE MONTHS, THERE HAVE BEEN NO STUDIES REALLY WHATSOEVER ON HOW THIS IS GOING TO AFFECT YOUR CITY. AND WHEN YOU HAVE TO RAISE TAXES TO YOUR CURRENT RESIDENTS. I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO SAY WHAT HAPPENED. I HAVE PEOPLE AGAIN IN THE AUDIENCE WITH ME THIS EVENING THAT THIS AFFECTS THEIR POCKETBOOK. AND IF YOU DO PASS THIS MOTION, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT ALL OF YOU AS WELL, FOR THE NEXT 90 DAYS, REFUSE YOUR SALARIES OR HOWEVER YOU MAKE MONEY, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING TO MY MEMBERSHIP. AND SO IF YOU'RE WILLING TO DO THAT TO YOUR OWN CONSTITUENCY, THE PEOPLE THAT DID VOTE FOR YOU, AND IF YOU'RE WILLING TO DO THAT TO THE BUILDERS AND ALL OF THE SUBS AND EVERYBODY WHO WORKS. I MEAN, RONNIE WAS HERE LAST WEEK AND COULD NOT BE HERE THIS EVENING, AND HE NAMED OFF YOU ALL KNOW RONNIE AND HIS PEOPLE AND SO THE PROBLEM BECOMES YOUR IT'S BASICALLY RESTRAINT OF TRADE. YOU'RE NOT ALLOWING THESE PEOPLE TO DO BUSINESS IN YOUR CITY. AND SO I'D LIKE TO RESPECTFULLY ASK IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW OUR MEMBERS TO MAKE MONEY IN THE CITY THAT MAYBE YOU SHOULD NOT ALSO AND UNDERSTAND HOW THAT FEELS. SO I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK COMMISSIONER CLARK FOR HER MOTION AT THE LAST MEETING, BECAUSE I FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT YOU WOULD HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE AGREE THAT THIS MOTION SHOULD NOT GO FORWARD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I HAVE NICK SCHROTH. NICK SCHROTH, RESIDENT OF THE CITY, ALSO HAVE AN OFFICE AND A COUPLE OF BUSINESSES IN THE CITY. AGAIN, THE ZIP CODE OF ERRONEOUSLY IN MY MIND AND WITHOUT REASON INCLUDES COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. YOU CAN TALK ABOUT HOW, YOU KNOW, WE'RE DISCUSSING PARKING AND THAT'S WHY COMMERCIAL IS PART OF IT.

BUT YOU'RE ALSO DISCUSSING SINGLE FAMILY LOT SIZES, AND YOU'VE EXCLUDED SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. SO KIND OF A CONTRADICTION THERE. IT'S BECOMING MORE AND MORE APPARENT THAT THIS IS REALLY JUST TO SHUT DOWN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. THE COLLATERAL DAMAGE HERE. YOU KNOW, YOU'VE HEARD IT IN IN SEVERAL MEETINGS. YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONERS HAVE HAVE EXPRESSED THAT AS COLLATERAL DAMAGE. AND IT'S THE COUPLE CARVE OUTS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT OUT THERE ARE PARTICULARLY CONFUSING. YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF A BUILDING? HOW ARE YOU EXPANDING? YOU KNOW, WHAT'S AN EXPANSION OF IT? WHAT'S AN INTENSIFICATION OF IT? IT'S REAL SIMPLE. IT SHOULD JUST NOT INCLUDE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE A RESIDENTIAL UNIT. IF IT'S COMMERCIAL AND IT DOESN'T INCLUDE A RESIDENTIAL UNIT. IT MOVES FORWARD. YES, SIR. THAT'S THE MOTION. IF YOU WANT TO STOP FOR STORY 30 UNIT PER ACRE OR HALF UNITS, WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, HAVE AT IT. NONE OF THAT'S HAPPENING FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, BECAUSE ALL OF IT THAT NEEDED TO HAPPEN HAPPENED IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, AND THAT HAPPENED FOR THE PREVIOUS 15 YEARS, WHERE THERE WAS NONE OF IT. SO YOU KNOW WHAT? WHAT'S BEING STOPPED RIGHT NOW IS THE DAY TO DAY WORKING ACTIVITY OF PEOPLE IN THE CITY OF TRADES, OF CONTRACTORS. YOU KNOW, THE HOTSHOT DEVELOPER FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY IS JUST GOING ELSEWHERE. HE'S JUST GOING TO A DIFFERENT TOWN. IT'S THE FOLKS IN MY OFFICE, THE FOLKS IN RONNIE'S OFFICE, THE FOLKS THAT ARE ALL 6000 MEMBERS OF THE CBA. AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S JUST A HIGH LEVEL OF CONFUSION WITH, YOU KNOW, JOHNNY'S PIZZA PARLOR GETS APPROVED, BUT FLORIDA COURT IS NOT, YOU KNOW, IT SHOULD BE SIMPLE. IF IT'S COMMERCIAL, IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE WRAPPED UP IN THE ZIP. EAT THE ELEPHANT. ONE BITE AT A TIME. YOU'VE YOU'VE TAKEN ON TOO MUCH. THERE'S NO WAY THAT THREE CHAPTERS, 7000 PAGES OR WHATEVER IT IS OF CODE GETS REWRITTEN AND THERE ISN'T A TREMENDOUS DISASTER THAT COMES OUT OF THAT. YOU CAN YOU CAN DO THIS ONE PIECE AT A TIME. THANK YOU. DUET PRICE. ALL RIGHT. DUET PRICE IS STUART 257 SOUTHEAST FAIRWINDS FAIRWINDS. THERE YOU

[01:10:16]

GO. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, SO I APPRECIATE WHAT NICK AND EVERYBODY ELSE IS SAYING HERE.

SO I WANT TO DO SOMETHING THAT I PULLED OFF LINE WHERE BEFORE I COME IN HERE AND I MADE THINGS PERSONAL. SO I'M GOING TO MAKE IT BASED ON THE HAT I WEAR WHEN I GO TO DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES.

AND I PRESENT AND STUDY CONCEPT OF ZONING TRACED BACK CENTURIES, RIGHT? CONTEMPORARY ZONING AND PLANNING ROOTS EMERGE AS A TOOL OF RACIAL, THEN SOCIOECONOMIC EXCLUSION. THAT'S IN THE WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENT. OKAY. THEY ALSO MADE A STATEMENT THAT SAYS GROWING SUBURBAN COMMUNITIES WERE NOT THE ONLY PLACES IMMUNE FROM FISCAL ZONING, WHICH IS WHAT I'M HEARING THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION IS FISCAL ZONING PROTECTING. THEY'RE HOLDING THE CITY HOSTAGE. WORD FROM THE COMMISSION, OFTEN MISUSED BY DOWN ZONING, WAS PARAMOUNT, OFTEN MIXED USE AND SMALLER LOT HOMES THAT WERE ALREADY EXISTING IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS WERE NO LONGER ALLOWED TO BE BUILT. SEE THE PATTERN UNDER EVOLVED VIEW OF FISCAL ZONING. A LARGE LOT SINGLE FAMILY COMMUNITY IS CONSIDERED TO HAVE LESS OF AN IMPACT. LARGER LOT HOMES PROVIDE SIMILAR TAX BASE AS THOSE WITH GREATER DENSITY. WE HEARD THAT TO THESE RESIDENTS ARE LIKELIER TO BE MORE AFFLUENT AS THOSE HOMES WILL BE MORE EXPENSIVE. SO AS WE'RE WATCHING THIS, YOU GUYS THINK IT'S HAPPENING JUST BECAUSE OF THE SHUTDOWN. THEY'RE TARGETING AREAS. SO EXCLUSIONARY ZONING LAWS IS WHAT I SEE HAPPENING HERE. AND IT WAS EVEN MORE EVIDENT I WAS AT HOME AND I'M WATCHING IT. AND SOMEONE BROUGHT UP EAST STEWART BOARD. AND THE FACT THAT THEY MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT A SKATE PARK. SO THEY'RE GOING TO ELIMINATE THAT PART OF IT. I WILL TELL YOU, AS I SIT HERE AND WATCH THIS MAJORITY COMMISSION UNDER THE GUISE OF THIS MANDATE, I WILL SAY THERE'S BEEN A MANDATE AGAINST MINORITIES SINCE 1917. AND THIS MAJORITY COMMISSION IS AGGRESSIVELY PUSHING THIS ON THIS COMMUNITY RIGHT NOW, UNFETTERED AND UNCHECKED BY STAFF THROUGH FEAR. I DON'T KNO, MAYBE THROUGH FEAR. AND IF IT CONTINUES TO MOVE FORWARD BY THIS COMMUNITY, IT MAKES ONE WONDER YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE THAT NICE LITTLE STICKER. WHAT DOES IT REALLY MEAN FOR THE CITY OF STEWART? THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I HAVE NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT.

THAT'S ALL. THAT'S ALL. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BY THE BOARD, BY THE COMMISSION, I HAVE COMMENTS. DO YOU WANT TO GO FIRST OR I'LL GO FIRST? COMMISSIONER REED, I'D MUCH RATHER THIS COME ON DECEMBER 9TH. THE MOTION. AND THE ONLY REASON I SAY THAT IS THAT'S WHEN ALL THESE AGENDA ITEMS, IT'S GOING TO BE ON THE BOARD MEETING ON DECEMBER 9TH, WHERE WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON IT ONE BY ONE. BUT I DO KNOW THE CONSENSUS FROM THE BOARD, ANYTHING WE TALKED ABOUT THE ZONING IN PROGRESS, LIKE I HAD MENTIONED IN MY PUBLIC COMMENT, IT WAS ALL MULTIFAMILY. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH COMMERCIAL. THERE WAS NO COMMERCIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS. I DO SUPPORT THE MOTION. I'D RATHER SEE IT ON DECEMBER 9TH THOUGH. AND I ACTUALLY DID SPEAK TO RONNIE. BY THE WAY, RONNIE HAS NO CURRENT PROJECTS IN THE CITY OF STUART THAT ARE AFFECTE. COMMISSIONER REED YES, YOU GET CLARIFICATION. THE ZONING IN PROGRESS EXPIRES ON DECEMBER 4TH. CORRECT. SO IT SO IF WE WAIT TILL DECEMBER 9TH IT WILL BE EXPIRED. OKAY. SO EXTENDING IT I SUPPORT EXTENDING IT UNTIL DECEMBER 9TH. AND THEN WHEN WE DO VOTE ON IT ONE BY SORRY WE WON'T BE EXTENDING. WE'RE VOTING FOR THE EXTENSION TODAY.

CORRECT. AND THEN ON DECEMBER NINTH YOU'RE VOTING FOR THE ITEMS. ITEMS COME BACK. SO ON DECEMBER 9TH, I THOUGHT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE APPROPRIATE, BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPIRED.

GOTCHA. OKAY. AND IF YOU VOTE ON IT TODAY, YOU'RE VOTING FOR 90 DAYS. YEAH, BUT WE CAN ALWAYS GET RID OF IT ON DECEMBER 9TH. IF THE BOARD JUST SO HAPPENED TO DO THAT. BASICALLY, THERE'S A SMALL GAP. IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO FILL BECAUSE OF THE EXPIRATION. BECAUSE OF THE EXPIRATION, BECAUSE WHATEVER WE COME UP WITH HAS TO GO IN FRONT OF THE LPA AND CRA AND THEN COME BACK TO US FOR FINAL APPROVAL. I WAS GOING TO ASK MR. MARTELL TO ACTUALLY DESCRIBE THE PROCESS.

WE'LL HAVE TO GO THROUGH TO ADOPT ANY CHANGES. WELL, SO OBVIOUSLY WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK ON DECEMBER 9TH WITH A RESOLUTION FOR THE COMMISSION TO GO THROUGH THE ITEMS THAT THEY WANT CHANGED. WE WILL THEN TAKE THE RESOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT WILL START TO REVISE THOSE AT THE LAST WORKSHOP, THE BOARD SAID THAT IT WANTED TO HOLD SOME PUBLIC HEARINGS IN AT 10TH

[01:15:08]

STREET FOR ANY CHANGES RELATED TO THE EAST STUART PORTION OF THE CODE. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WANT TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR ANY OF THE OTHER PORTIONS, BUT IF WE COME BACK DECEMBER NINTH, THE LAST MEETING IN DECEMBER, IF WE COME BACK AND CAN GET THE CHANGES DONE BEFORE CHRISTMAS SO THAT THEY CAN BE ADVERTISED AND BE ON THE CRB AND THE LPA MEETINGS IN JANUARY, THEN THEY WOULD BE ON THOSE MEETINGS IN JANUARY IF WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY PUBLIC MEETINGS, AND WE RETURNED THEM TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR THE FIRST MEETING IN FEBRUARY. YOU COULD HAVE THE FIRST READING AT THE FIRST MEETING IN FEBRUARY, AND THE SECOND READING AT THE SECOND MEETING IN FEBRUARY, WHICH WOULD HAVE IT SO THAT THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE ADOPTED BEFORE MARCH 4TH, WHICH IS WHEN THE ZONING IN PROGRESS, IF YOU GRANT THE EXTENDED EXTENSION, WOULD EXPIRE BECAUSE IT CAN'T GO ANY LONGER AND CAN'T BE EXTENDED PAST MARCH 4TH. IF WE HAVE ANY OTHER PUBLIC HEARINGS OR PROVIDE ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL EXTENSIONS, WE WILL NOT HAVE ANY ORDINANCES ADOPTED BY MARCH 4TH, AND WE'LL HAVE SOME DIFFICULTY MEETING THE TIME FRAME. YEAH, BUT IN IN RESPONSE TO YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THE DECEMBER 9TH, THE ONLY THING ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS INSTRUCTED TO BRING THE EXTENSION BECAUSE IT EXPIRES DECEMBER 4TH. THERE'S THAT GAP. IF IT GETS IF IT GETS EXTENDED, THEN THE COMMISSION NUMBER ONE DOESN'T HAVE TO EXTEND IT FOR 90 DAYS. YOU CAN DO IT FOR TWO DAYS IF YOU WANT IT. IT'S WHATEVER THE COMMISSION'S PLEASURE. UP TO 90 DAYS. UP TO 90 DAYS. CORRECT. IT'S ACTUALLY THREE MONTHS, BUT WELL, RIGHT. WE SAY 90 DAYS, BUT IT COULD BE THREE MONTHS. IT'S THREE MONTHS. IT SAYS THREE MONTHS IN THE CODE. BUT WHAT WE'VE DONE IS ALWAYS PUT SPECIFIC DATES IN THE RESOLUTION BECAUSE AGAIN, THE COMMISSION HAS THE RIGHT TO PICK THE DAYS SHORT MONTHS, FEBRUARY. AND YOU ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY TO TERMINATE IT. SO AT ANY TIME A VOTE OF THE BOARD COULD, COULD CANCEL IT. I THINK THE COMMISSION IS AWARE THAT WE CAN TERMINATE IT. I ALSO WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY YOU VOTED FOR THE FOURTH EXCEPTION, WHICH WAS ANY COMMERCIAL PROJECT THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE A RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT AND THAT DOES NOT INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ANY STRUCTURE.

YEAH. THIS WILL BE THE FIRST TIME IT'S INCORPORATED IN A RESOLUTION IN THIS RESOLUTION.

THAT'S NOT BEEN YOU GUYS VOTED ON THAT, BUT IT WASN'T BY RESOLUTION. I HEAR YOU SO THE FACT THAT IT WAS EFFECTIVE, I'M JUST POINTING IT OUT THAT THAT MR. SCHROTH MADE A COMMENT.

YEAH, I HEAR THAT ON THAT PARTICULAR EXCEPTION. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. I'M NOT I'M NOT FINISHED YET, BUT I MEAN, IT DOES MAKE SENSE, I GUESS, TO EXTEND IT UNTIL DECEMBER 9TH TO WHERE WE'RE VOTING ON EACH THING. AND IF THERE'S NO COMMERCIAL COMPONENT, BUT ON DECEMBER NINTH, WHEN YOU SAY YOU'RE VOTING ON EACH THING FOR EXAMPLE, IF ON DECEMBER 9TH YOU VOTE AND INSTRUCT STAFF TO REMOVE HALF UNITS, YOU'RE NOT ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE ON DECEMBER NINTH, WE STILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE LPA AND WE STILL HAVE TO COME BACK. SO, WELL, I THINK THAT'S WHERE WHERE IF YOU COULD AMEND IT, BUT IF YOU LIFTED THE ZONING AND PROGRESS ON THE NINTH AND MADE IT END, THEN SOMEBODY COULD COME IN ON THE 10TH AND APPLY FOR HALF UNITS, EVEN THOUGH YOU CORRECT. AND YEAH. AND THAT'S WHEN I SAY ENDED IT. IF, IF LIKE WHAT NICK HAD SAID, YOU KNOW, I KNOW AS A BOARD WE'RE TARGETING MULTIFAMILY. I DON'T RECALL ANYTHING REALLY BEING DISCUSSED FOR COMMERCIAL BESIDES STORAGE UNITS. SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, THE COMMISSION HAS ALSO THE RIGHT TO NOT EXTEND IT. RELATED TO COMMERCIAL TONIGHT, WHICH IS WHAT'S ON THE THAT'S IN. SO I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS. BUT AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE'S NEVER BEEN ANY COMMERCIAL DISCUSSION BESIDES STORAGE UNITS. THERE COULD POTENTIALLY BE PARCELS THAT ARE BROKEN UP INTO PHASES THAT ARE CURRENTLY COMMERCIAL. YOU MEAN SUBDIVISION? SO YOU JUST BUT THE NEXT PHASE WOULD INCLUDE POTENTIALLY MULTIFAMILY. SO MAKING SURE THAT WE WOULDN'T BE INVOLVED BECAUSE IT WON'T MATTER ANYWAY. PARKING THE PARKING THAT WE WOULD. SO JUST DON'T ALLOW PEOPLE TO SUBDIVIDE LOTS THEN IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IT ALREADY IS. IT'S THE WAY IT IS THOUGH. BUT SO JUST GOING THROUGH WITH THIS, COMPLETING IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. WE JUST CAN I JUST ASK IF YOU'RE I MEAN, I'M CURIOUS. UNLESS YOU'RE FINISHED WITH YOUR REMARKS. I'M NOT FINISHED YET. WE'RE GOING BACK AND FORTH RIGHT NOW, BUT THERE STILL HASN'T BEEN ANYTHING BROUGHT TO THE BOARD BESIDES WHAT I'M SAYING. IT MAKES SENSE, AND I REALLY HAVEN'T HEARD ANY OTHER ARGUMENT ON WHY COMMERCIAL WOULD BE INCLUDED. BECAUSE COMMERCIAL, WHEN WE HAVEN'T TARGETED COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT, HANG TIGHT AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FAR RATIO AND HOW IT RELATES TO MULTIFAMILY. SO RIGHT NOW, IF YOU WERE TO EXCLUDE COMMERCIAL FROM THE ZONING AND PROGRESS GOING FORWARD, THE NEW UPDATES THAT

[01:20:04]

WE'RE MAKING TO COMMERCIAL FAR AND HOW IT RELATES TO MULTIFAMILY WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED FOR ALL THE APPLICATIONS THAT COME IN. SO THE WHAT YOU SAID, IF YOU GUYS ARE, IF YOU'RE NOT ALLOWING THEM TO COME FORWARD WITH ANYTHING RELATED TO MULTIFAMILY, THEN THE BALANCE OF FAR WOULD NOT COME INTO EFFECT UNTIL THEY CAME FORWARD WITH THE BALANCE OF MULTIFAMILY, AT WHICH TIME WHATEVER NEW LAWS YOU ADOPT WOULD BE IN PLACE. BUT THERE ARE PROJECTS THAT ARE BROKEN UP INTO PHASES, POTENTIALLY, THAT LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, SEACOAST BANK, THEY HAVE THEY HAVE AN EIGHT ACRE PARCEL AND IT'S ZONED DOWNTOWN AS ITS ZONING AND LAND USE. THEY HAVE AN APPLICATION FOR A COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND A PARKING GARAGE, IF THAT COMES IN, AND IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT TO IT, AND THEY BUILD A 100% OF WHATEVER FAR THEY'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, A FAR OF THREE OF THE WHOLE SITE, WHICH WOULD BE EIGHT TIMES, THREE TIMES 43,000, BE A HUMONGOUS BUILDING. THEN WHEN THEY CAME IN FOR THE RESIDENTIAL, IF THE CODE SAID THEY WOULD MEET ALL THE YOU COULDN'T MEET IT, THEY COULDN'T MEET IT. BUT RIGHT NOW, IF THEY APPLIED AND IT INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL, THAT WOULDN'T BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T THAT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ACCEPTING RESIDENTIAL. BUT IF THE BOARD'S INTENTION IS NOT TO ADDRESS COMMERCIAL AT ALL, THEN EVEN THOUGH SEACOAST MIGHT HAVE THE DESIRE TO ADD RESIDENTIAL IN PHASE TWO OR PHASE THREE, AND THEN THEY WOULD MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE THEY HAD A PARKING GARAGE OR WHATEVER THE LAW IS, THEN THE CHANGES. BUT THAT'S BUT THE CHANGES THAT WE MAKE IN THIS ZIP WOULD NOT APPLY TO THAT FIRST PHASE. YES IT WOULD. WOULD THE APPLICATIONS COME IN AS IT AS IT RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL? IT WOULD IT WOULD JUST NOT APPLY AS IT RELATED TO THEIR COMMERCIAL APPLICATION. SO YOU COULD JUST ADD A PARKING GARAGE IN THERE, I MEAN, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. I MEAN, SO WHEN THEY GO TO HAVE AN ENTIRE PUD. SO RIGHT NOW, IF THEY APPLIED FOR A PUD AND THEIR PUD CAME IN TODAY AND IT SAID WE JUST WANT A COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND A PARKING GARAGE OR NO PARKING GARAGE, WHETHER IT MATTERS DOESN'T MATTER. THE CITY COULD PROCESS THAT. IF THEY THEN WENT TO AMEND THE PUD TO ADD RESIDENTIAL, WE COULD SAY, SORRY, WE'RE IN A ZONING IN PROGRESS. YOU CAN'T AMEND IT.

YOU CAN WITHDRAW IT. IF THEY WENT THROUGH THE PUD AND GOT APPROVED, WHATEVER THEY GOT APPROVED FOR, THEY GET APPROVED. AND THEN IF THREE YEARS LATER THEY CAME BACK AND SAID, SAME LAND, WE WANT TO AMEND THIS PUD WHEN THEY APPLY FOR THE AMENDED PUD, WHATEVER THE CODE IS ON THAT DAY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET, THEY HAVE TO MEET. BUT HOW DOES THAT WORK? WHEN YOU HAVE FA THAT IS OLD? WELL AND WELL RIGHT NOW PORTION OF THAT PARCEL, HOW DOES THAT NOT AFFECT THE SECOND? THE ONLY THING, THE ONLY THING WE DISCUSSED SO FAR AS A BOARD AS IT RELATED TO FA, WAS TO SAY THAT IF YOU HAD 100% FA, THAT WHATEVER THAT IS, THAT YOU'RE ENTITLED TO AS A COMMERCIAL, THAT IF YOU'RE ADDING RESIDENTIAL, THAT IT HAS TO BE BALANCED. SO IT HAS TO FOR EVERY FOOT OF FA, YOU HAVE TO LOSE A FOOT OF RESIDENTIAL OR WHATEVER THAT MIGHT BE. WELL, RIGHT NOW UNDER THE DOWNTOWN ZONING, I BELIEVE IT'S A FA OF THREE. SO IF. USING A AN EXAMPLE OF AN EIGHT ACRE PARCEL, AN EIGHT ACRE PARCEL WOULD HAVE EIGHT TIMES 43 FIVE, 60 TIMES THREE EQUALS 1,045,000FT■!S OF OFFICE SPACE. THAT WOULD BE A LOT. I MEAN, LIKE WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE WALMARTS, 166,000FT■!S. SO IT WOULD BE TEN WALMARTS OR ACTUALLY NINE WALMARTS. BUT THEN IF THEY CAME BACK IN, BUT LET'S SAY THEY BUILD A 60,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE SPACE, WELL, THEY'RE NOT EVEN REACHING A FA OF ONE ON THAT EIGHT ACRES, SO THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO BE TO WHERE THEY OVERUSE THE FA. THE ONES THAT BECOME MORE COMPLICATED IS THE TWO ACRE SITE THAT BUILDS THE 80,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, AND THEN WANTS TO BUILD 300 APARTMENTS OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, AND YOU RUN INTO THOSE EVEN SO, USING ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF ONE, IF SOMEBODY HAD RIGHT NOW WHAT OUR POSITION IS OR THE DIRECTION TO STAFF IS, IS THAT THEY WANT THE COMMERCIAL PROJECTS FOR EVERY SQUARE FOOT OF COMMERCIAL THAT THEY USE. IT HAS AN IMPACT ON THE AMOUNT OF DENSITY THAT THEY CAN ADD TO THAT PROPERTY LATER. WHATEVER YOU GUYS ADOPT, YOU ADOPT. SO IF YOU ADOPT THAT, IT'S A 200% REDUCTION IN DENSITY AND THEY BUILD A 60 ZERO ZERO ZERO SQUARE FOOT BUILDING IF THEY COME BACK IN FIVE YEARS TO APPLY FOR THE RESIDENTIAL, WHATEVER THAT FAR ADOPTION IS, YOU BOUGHT OR APPROVED, THEY COULD BE TOO LATE. THEY MAY HAVE ALREADY OVERBUILT THEIR COMMERCIAL, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE A PUD. THAT'S THE PUD ONLY VESTS. THEY ONLY

[01:25:03]

VEST THE RIGHTS LISTED IN THE PUD. SO THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY RESIDENTIAL RIGHTS. IF THEY'RE ONLY APPLYING FOR COMMERCIAL. YES. IF THEY APPLY FOR RESIDENTIAL RIGHTS IN THE PUD, THE RESIDENTIAL RIGHTS WOULD VEST WHICHEVER YOU GRANTED. BUT IF THEY DON'T APPLY FOR RESIDENTIAL RIGHTS, A PUD IS BASICALLY ITS OWN LAW FORM OF ZONING. SO HOW DOES THAT WORK? SO LIKE IN DOWNTOWN STUART, WHEN YOU HAVE A PARCEL THAT'S SPLIT UP INTO PHASES, IT'S TWO PUDS OR IT'S AN OVERALL PD ONE PD. THAT MIGHT BE AMENDED FOUR TIMES. RIGHT. SO THAT BUT THAT THAT AS SOON AS YOU DO THAT THEN YOU HAVE VESTED RIGHTS UNDER OUR UNDER THAT ENTIRE BUT UNDER AVONLEA, WE GRANTED THE CITY GRANTED 300 AND SOME RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND EX COMMERCIAL, AND IT WAS ALL DONE IN 97. AND IT WAS ALL VESTED THEN. SO WHEN IT COMES BACK FOR THE AMENDMENTS, IT'S STILL PLAYING WITH THOSE VESTED RIGHTS THAT WERE VESTED IN THE ORIGINAL PUD. IF IN FACT, THE APPLICATION DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY RESIDENTIAL RIGHT NOW, THEN THEY DON'T VEST ANY RESIDENTIAL.

THE ONLY WAY IT VESTS IS IF THEY COME BACK TO AMEND THE PUD AND SAY, WELL, WE'D LIKE TO ADD RESIDENTIAL. THE CITY COMMISSION CAN SAY, OKAY, WELL, THE CURRENT LDR SAYS FOR EVERY 1000FT■!S OF COMMERCIAL, YOU LOSE A RESIDENTIAL UNIT AND YOU HAD ENTITLED TO 80 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, BUT YOU HAVE 70 ZERO ZERO ZERO SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL. SO YOU LOSE 70 OF THOSE 80 UNITS. YOU CAN ONLY DO A MAXIMUM OF TEN. OR EVEN WORSE SITUATION WOULD BE IF THEY HAD BUILT AN 80,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, AND THEY WERE ONLY ENTITLED TO 60 UNITS. AND YOU SAID, WELL, YOU'RE YOU'VE GOT 80,000 UNITS. YOU, YOU THAT SUBTRACTS 80 UNITS FROM IT. AND YOU ONLY HAD 60 TO BEGIN WITH. UNDER OUR NEW CODE, YOU DON'T GET ANY RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THERE ARE NO UNITS TO AWARD. THE CALCULATION IS OVER. THE QUESTION IS HOW YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO DO THOSE UNITS. BUT EITHER WAY, THAT WON'T AFFECT. IF IT'S A PURE COMMERCIAL, UNLESS YOU GUYS ARE AFFECTING PURE COMMERCIAL. SO THEN THE REASONABLE THING TO DO WOULD BE EXTEND THIS FOR NOW. AND THEN ON THE NINTH, WHEN WE GO THROUGH THAT, IF THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S TOUCHING COMMERCIAL, THEN WE WOULD RELIEVE CORRECT THAT. THAT'S MY THOUGHT PROCESS AND I THERE'S NOTHING WRONG ABOUT THAT. ALL RIGHT. PARKING WISE OR IT'S TOUCHING COMMERCIAL. THAT'S THAT'S ACCURATE. THAT'S JUST HOW I FELT. IT'S DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS I HAVE COMMENTS, YOU HAVE COMMENTS. GO RIGHT AHEAD OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO LET ME SEE IF I CAN READ WHAT I HAVE. YEAH OKAY. SO LET'S START WITH THE COMMERCIAL. AS FAR AS I KNOW IN THE 3 OR 4 MEETINGS THAT WE'VE HAD, LET ME SAY FIRST THAT I VOTED, WE HAD NEW MEMBERS ON THE BOARD. I VOTED TO LET'S LOOK AT THE CODE, CHECK OUT EVERYTHING.

BUT THIS IDEA OF AFFECTING THE POCKETBOOKS AND HAVING A EFFECTIVELY A MORATORIUM. I'VE ASKED TWICE TO RECONSIDER THAT AND TRY TO DO ANOTHER WAY, WHICH IS TO STILL GET COMMUNITY INPUT.

BUT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, MAYBE SET A TIME WHERE WE CAN WORK ON WE'VE CHANGED THE ZONING CODE AT TIMES IN DIFFERENT WAYS, AND NOT NECESSARILY WITH A ZONING IN PROGRESS. SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT WITH REGARD TO THE COMMERCIAL. I THINK AFTER THE SECOND TIME WHEN SOMEBODY CAME IN WITH COMMERCIAL AND ALSO THE CITY ATTORNEY, CITY ATTORNEY JUST BROUGHT UP TODAY THAT THERE'S A NEW RESOLUTION ON PAGE TWO THAT SAYS WE ARE DOING THE EXEMPTION WITH REGARD TO COMMERCIAL. AND THEN LET ME SEE WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS. MR. BAGGETT, YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE TITLE. COMMISSIONER. CLERK. OKAY. AND I'LL SEE IT IN THE IN THE TITLE TO THE IN THE MIDDLE PART OF THE TITLE AS IT RELATES TO NEW DEVELOPMENT, WITH THE EXCEPTION FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS REQUESTS THAT DO NOT INCREASE THE DENSITY OR INTENSITY OF AN EXISTING USE OR STRUCTURE OR ANY COMMERCIAL PROJECT THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE A RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT AND THAT DOES NOT INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. AND I KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD COMMENTS AS TO WHAT, BUT I THINK IT'S CLEAR NO RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT, NO SQUARE FOOTAGE. HOWEVER, IN ALL THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE BEEN HAVING, THERE HAS BEEN SOME PARKING TALK WITH REGARD TO SOME COMMERCIAL OR PARKING IN GENERAL, BUT SO FAR WE HAVE NOT HAD THAT INPUT AS TO A LOT OF THINGS WITH REGARD TO, TO COMMERCIAL. AND SO I, I AGREE WITH THIS AND I THINK THAT WE

[01:30:05]

SHOULD KEEP IT AS THAT. THE OTHER THING IS THAT IN THE 3 OR 4 MEETINGS THAT WE'VE HAD FOR THE ZONING IN PROGRESS, WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT MUCH INPUT FROM OUR FIVE COMMISSIONERS HERE. AS TO CERTAIN SPECIFIC THINGS THAT WE THINK ARE NEEDED AND ARE NEEDED FOR OUR COMMUNITY TO FUNCTION AND TO BE VIBRANT AND TO REDEVELOP OR DEVELOP. AND I JUST HAVEN'T SEEN IT, WHICH IS WHY TWICE I'VE ASKED TO LET'S PULL BACK AND GO TO ANOTHER METHOD OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT EACH NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS AND WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IN CERTAIN CATEGORIES SO THAT WE CAN TRY TO REALLY MAKE CHANGES THAT PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD UNDERSTAND AND OR AND AGREE WITH. OKAY, LET ME DO NUMBER THREE THAT I HAVE HERE. I SEE THIS AS A PLACE TO REPLACE HOUSES. IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO REPLACE THEIR SMALL LOT HOUSE, IF THERE'S A HURRICANE, IF THERE'S SOMETHING AND THEY CAN'T DO IT WITHIN 90 DAYS, OR WHATEVER HAPPENS IF THEY IF WE MAKE EVERYTHING LARGE, LOTS, 6000FT■!S, THEN THOSE PEOPLE, TY JUST CAN'T GO BUY THEIR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR'S LOT AND SAY, HEY, GO BUY YOUR LOT SO THAT I CAN HAVE A BIGGER LOT TO, TO DEVELOP. SO I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MAKING EVERYTHING ONE SIZE FITS ALL AND HAVING SMALLER LOTS, I MEAN SMALL LOTS NOT BE ABLE TO COME BACK AND REDEVELOP AND THEY NOW THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SELL THEIR LOT TO SOMEBODY WHO'S GOING TO BUY TWO LOTS TOGETHER TO DO SOMETHING. THEY'RE OUT OF THEIR HOME THAT THEY'VE LIVED IN FOR 30, 40 YEARS. IF THEY HAVE A FIRE, IF SOMETHING IS HAPPENING OR WHATEVER IS GOING ON AND THE PROPERTY HASN'T, WHATEVER THE RULES ARE THAT THEY'RE FOLLOWING, ESPECIALLY IF IT HASN'T BEEN ACTIVE FOR 90 DAYS AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME IN. SO I THINK THAT WE'RE LOSING THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SHAW RESIDENTIAL NOW, WHEN WE CHANGE SOME OF THESE LOT SIZES, WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL. AND THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING THAT. I DON'T THINK THAT WE NEED TO I DON'T THINK THAT WE NEED TO GO FORWARD. WE HAVE ENOUGH RULES IN OUR IN OUR LAWS AND, AND, YOU KNOW, WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT TEACHING BOARDS AND, AND HOW BOARDS NEED TO LEARN THE RULES AND, AND THE REGULATION. AND I THANK YOU, MR. MORTAL, FOR TAKING THE TIME OUT TO TALK ABOUT THIS AND ABOUT THE PUDS. BUT MEETING WITH STAFF, MEETING WITH, WITH THE WITH THE ACTUALLY MEETING WITH SOME OF THE DEVELOPERS IN THE COMMUNITY WHO HAVE TO COME IN WITH THEIR PROBLEMS. IT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT. BUT I THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH GUIDELINES IN OUR LAWS AS IT IS IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THAT WE CAN DEAL WITH THINGS INSTEAD OF WRECKING THE LIVELIHOOD. WE'VE SEEN THE CHANGE. WE'VE SEEN THE CHANGE IN THE POLITICAL CLIMATE. WE SEE THE CHANGE THAT'S EMINENT IN THE ECONOMY. THESE PEOPLE NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING IN ORDER TO ACTUALLY JUST GO FORWARD WITH SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD HAVE GONE FORWARD WITH ANYWAY. AND IF WE DO ADOPT THIS TODAY, IT SEEMS AS IF WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR COMMERCIAL, THEY'RE GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH ANYHOW AS LONG AS IT MEETS THESE, THESE REQUIREMENTS, IF WE AGREE WITH IT. BUT I'M SAYING THAT I THINK, HONESTLY, THAT WE NEED TO HAVE ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, TO LOOK AT OUR COMMUNITIES. WE ALWAYS KEEP HARPING TOWARDS THE DOWNTOWN OR MAYBE TOWARDS THE CRA AREA, BUT WE HAVE SOME COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS WHEN WE HAVE OUR HAZARDOUS PICKUP WEEKENDS OR CLEANUPS, AND THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE REALLY NICELY SET OUT. AND I THINK FOR ZONING PURPOSES, JUST TO LOOK AT SOME OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS, TO LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING ON WITH HOME BASE, HOME BASE, COTTAGE, INDUSTRIAL TYPE THINGS AND OTHER THINGS THAT PEOPLE MAY NEED CHANGES IN CERTAIN THINGS IN THE CODE. AND I KNOW THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT ALSO, BUT I THINK THAT DOING THAT KIND OF STUDY IS MORE IMPORTANT, AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE WITH A ZIP IN THERE. THE PLANNERS, WE CAN LOOK AT THAT AND WE CAN DO THAT WITHOUT HAVING TO REALLY STOP EVERYTHING AND SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN. SO I JUST, I REALLY I HEAR YOU, COMMISSIONER REID. I REALLY THINK THAT WE HAVE ADEQUATE LAWS TO DEAL WITH WHAT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH. AND IF WE DO COME IN WITH NEW CODES, WHENEVER THOSE CODES COME IN, THEY'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO LIVE WITH IT AT THAT TIME AND WORK WITH IT, AND WE WILL DEAL WITH IT. I THINK

[01:35:04]

THAT STOPPING EVERYTHING NOW, JUST BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE ONE THING, WE ARE BUILT OUT. I THINK I HEARD MR. MARTEL SAY THAT WE'RE LITERALLY PRACTICALLY BUILT OUT. FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF MULTIFAMILY READY TO BE BUILT IN THE CITY OF STUART. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY MULTIFAMILY UNDEVELOPED ZONING, AND IT WOULD ONLY COME IF SOMETHING GOT CHANGED OR COMMERCIAL OR AND THOSE ARE WHAT WE DEAL WITH EVERY DAY. CHANGES IN LAND USES CHANGE, AND THAT'S WHEN WE USE OUR JUDGMENT AND WE USE THE CODES THAT WE HAVE. I, I REALLY I HEAR YOU, COMMISSIONER REID. I AM ASKING DON'T DO IT TODAY. YOU'RE ASKING MAYBE NEXT WEEK WE CAN LOOK AT IT. I'M JUST SAYING THAT I KNOW HOW I'M GOING TO VOTE IF WE HAVE TO DO IT. BUT I THINK YOU WERE TRYING TO PUT FORWARD TABLING TODAY. BUT I HEAR MR. MARTEL SAYING THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS DECEMBER 4TH DEADLINE, WE STILL HAVE TO MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATION TODAY.

I JUST TO APPEASE THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND WERE CONCERNED WE DO HAVE A NEW RESOLUTION, WHICH IS NOT REALLY NEW. WE'VE WE'VE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, BUT MR. BAGGETT JUST GAVE US SOMETHING NEW THAT DOES DESCRIBE THE COMMERCIAL PROJECT WITHOUT ANY RESIDENTIAL AND WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL INCREASE IN SQUARE FOOTAGE. SO THAT IS ACTUALLY TAKEN CARE OF. BUT I THINK THAT WE DO HAVE LAWS ON THE BOOKS NOW THAT DEAL WITH ANY QUIRKS THAT CAN COME IN. AND IF WE NEED TO MAKE CHANGES, LET US MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE INVOLVING OUR PUBLIC IN A PROPER MANNER INSTEAD OF THE TOP DOWN APPROACH WHERE WE MAKE THE SUGGESTIONS AND WE SEND IT BACK TO THE LPA. I JUST THIN, I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S MY COMMENT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CLARK. YEAH. COMMISSIONER COLLINS.

MIKE, DO YOU MIND FOR COMMISSIONER CLARK TOUCHING ON COTTAGE LOTS? I KNOW THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS. IS THAT SOMEBODY WITH A SMALLER THAN 6000 SQUARE FOOT LOT WOULD SOMEHOW BE BOXED OUT OF REBUILDING THEIR BURNED DOWN OR HURRICANE DAMAGED HOUSE. WELL, THE CITY IN 2010, OR IT WAS EITHER 2007 OR 2010, BUT THEY ADOPTED THE COTTAGE LOT ORDINANCE THAT SAID ANY LOTS THAT WERE 5000FT■!S AND THAT WEE IN EXISTENCE ON DECEMBER 10TH, 2007 WOULD BE CONSIDERED LEGAL. LOTS OF RECORD. AND THAT MEANS THAT IF THEIR HOUSE BURNED DOWN, THEY'RE NOT CONSIDERED A NON-CONFORMING LOT. THEY ARE CONSIDERED A LEGAL LOT OF RECORD. IT WOULD JUST PREVENT ANYBODY FROM SPLITTING A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT INTO TWO 5000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T CREATE A NEW LEGAL LOT OF RECORD, RIGHT. WHAT YEAR WAS THIS, MIKE? IT'S IN THE CODE UNDER COTTAGE LOTS, BUT IT SAID DECEMBER OF 2007. SO I'M ASSUMING IT WAS DECEMBER OF 2007. IN ANY EVENT, CURRENTLY YOUR PROPOSAL TO MAKE THE LOTS 6000FT■!S, IT DOESN'T HAVE THE LANGUAGE, BUT YOU COULD SAY THAT ANY LOTS OF RECORD WOULD BE CONSIDERED VALID. LOTS OF RECORD AND WOULD NOT BE NONCONFORMING OR WHATEVER, AND WOULD WOULD REMAIN AS BUILDABLE LOTS. HOWEVER, WE HAVE SEVERAL HUNDRED LOTS THAT ARE LESS THAN 6000FT■S AND SO IT MIGHT BE EASIER. AND AGAIN, THIS IS A SUBJECT FOR THE NINTH. IT MIGHT BE EASIER FOR YOU TO GIVE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO SAY ALL OF THE CURRENT PULSAR PULSAR PARCELS OF RECORD ARE PARCELS OF RECORD AS OF TODAY. AND MOVING FORWARD, THE CITY WILL NOT ALLOW ANY LOT SPLITS THAT CREATE PARCELS LESS THAN 6000FT■!S OR WHATEVER SQUARE FOOTAGE NUMBER YOU GUYS WANT TO PICK. AND IT WOULD. BUT AGAIN, THOSE ARE DISCUSSIONS FOR HOW WE WANT TO DO IT. IN THE PAST, WHEN THE CITY ADOPTED THE COTTAGE LOT SUBJECT, IT WAS BECAUSE IT RECOGNIZED THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL LOTS THAT DIDN'T MEET THE SINGLE FAMILY STANDARD BECAUSE THEY WERE BELOW THE THING. AND SO ON THE NINTH, NO MATTER WHAT DISCUSSIONS WE HAVE, BECAUSE FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT THE MULTIFAMILY PARKING, I'M NOT WISHING THIS ON ANY PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. BUT IN THE EVENT AND WE'LL HAVE THE EXAMPLES OF ALL OF THEM AND WE'LL RUN THE

[01:40:02]

MATH. BUT IN THE EVENT HARBOR RIDGE GOT WIPED OUT IN A HURRICANE, IT DEVIATED FROM THE ONLY PROJECT I'M FAMILIAR WITH THAT DIDN'T DEVIATE FROM PARKING WAS COSTCO. SO EVERY PROJECT DEVIATED FROM PARKING IN SOME WAY OR ANOTHER. IF YOU ADOPTED THE 2.5 PARKING FOR HARBOR RIDGE AND YOU REDUCED THE DENSITY DOWN TO 20 UNITS AN ACRE. HARBOR RIDGE IS 28 UNITS AN ACRE, AND IT'S 130 OR 129 UNITS. I BELIEV. AS A RESULT, IF IT GOT KNOCKED DOWN BY A HURRICANE, IT WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO BUILD BACK 102 UNITS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO 40 OR 30 OF ITS UNITS WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE BUILT BACK. IN ADDITION TO THAT, IT HAD ALREADY DEVIATED FROM PARKING, SO IT WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BUILD. IF YOU HAVE 129 UNITS, THAT'S 130 UNITS TIMES 2.5. IT'S 300 PARKING SPACES. BUT BECAUSE IT DID BELOW THAT, IT WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO BUILD ANOTHER 100 PARKING SPACES. BUT BECAUSE IT CAN'T, IT WOULD ALSO HAVE ANOTHER 50 UNITS THAT IT COULDN'T BUILD BACK. SO OUT OF THE 129 UNITS, IT WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BUILD BACK 25 TO 30 BECAUSE OF THE DENSITY CHANGE. AND IT WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BUILD BACK ANOTHER 50 BECAUSE OF THE PARKING CHANGE. AND THE SAME GOES FOR ALL OF THE MULTIFAMILY UNITS IN THE CITY. UNLESS THE COMMISSION SAYS THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO APPLY RETROACTIVELY, AND WE'RE GOING TO DEEM THESE UNITS AS CONFORMING, NOT NON-CONFORMING, BUT VALID, LOTS BASED UPON THE CALCULATION, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T EXPAND AND ADD MORE UNITS. SO THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD AS IT RELATES TO THE NUANCE TO THAT IS WHAT'S GOING TO TAKE TIME TO TALK ABOUT. BUT THAT'S ALSO AVAILABLE TO RECTIFY SOME OF THE EXTREME EXAMPLES THAT YOU HEAR. BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT OUR INTENTION TO MAKE EVERY CONDO IN STUART NOT BE ABLE TO GET TITLE INSURANCE AND NOT BE ABLE TO BE SOLD AND NOT GET A MORTGAGE, RIGHT? CORRECT. GET LOANS ON THEIR PROPERTY. YEP. LOTS OF CONSEQUENCES. WHICH IS WHY WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS TONIGHT SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THAT ROBUST DISCUSSION, AND THEN WE CAN SEE IF POTENTIALLY THERE, YOU KNOW, NOTHING COMES UP COMMERCIAL IF WE'RE GOING TO RELIEVE THAT COMMERCIAL ASPECT OF IT. BUT MY HOPE WOULD BE I KNOW COMMISSIONER CLARK, YOU'D LIKE THIS TO END TONIGHT, BUT TO ME IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE ON THE NINTH. IT'S AN ENTIRE AGENDA SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT. AND HERE WE'RE JUST EXTENDING IT. IT'S COMING BACK ON THE NINTH. AND IF ON THE NINTH, IF THERE'S NOTHING COMMERCIAL TO ME, IT WOULD MAKE SENSE. THEN TO NOT HAVE THAT, TO NOT HAVE WHAT THE COMMERCIAL SIDE OF IT. RIGHT. IF WE DON'T TOUCH ANYTHING COMMERCIAL. CORRECT. BETWEEN NOW AND THE NINTH, IT WOULDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO CONTINUE IT UNTIL MARC. THEN FOR THE COMMERCIAL, TO ME, IT WOULD JUST BE MORE APPROPRIATE THEN, BECAUSE WE JUST SO HAPPEN TO HAVE A LITTLE GAP AT THIS POINT. THAT'S MY OPINION, BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO EXPIRE ON THE FOURTH. RIGHT? SO WE HAVE TO EXTEND IT. NOT IF THIS MOTION PASSES. NO, IT WILL NOT EXPIRE ON THE FOURTH. CORRECT? YEAH. I THINK HE WAS REFERENCING IF HE WERE. YEAH. THEN AT SUCH TIME, IF WE WANT TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION FOR TO ME IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE IT AT LEAST UNTIL THE NINTH. OBVIOUSLY I KNOW IT'S FOR 90 DAYS, THREE MONTHS, HOWEVER THEY WANT TO WORD IT, BUT I THINK ON THE NINTH IT'D BE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR IT TO BE BROUGHT UP. IF THERE'S NOTHING THAT FALLS INTO THIS FOR COMMERCIAL BETWEEN NOW AND THE NINTH, IT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE TO EVEN HAVE IT. THAT'S MY OPINION. VERY CLEAR, COMMISSIONER JOB. YES, I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY. THERE'S A LOT OF TALK AT THE DAIS HERE AS TO.

WE DIDN'T NEED ZIP. IT DIDN'T NEED TO GO FORWARD. WE HAD RULES AND REGULATIONS AND CODING TO COVER ALL OF THAT. BUT HERE WE ARE TODAY IN STUART WITH OVERDEVELOPMENT. AND THE REASON THERE IS OVERDEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE THOSE CODES WEREN'T FOLLOWED. OKAY. THEY WERE THEY WERE GRANTED EXCEPTIONS. THEY WERE GRANTED ALL SORTS OF ITEMS THAT WOULD NOW PUT THEM IN NONCOMPLIANCE IF WE WENT BACK AND MADE A CONSERVATIVE EFFORT TO CONTAIN WHAT HAPPENS HERE IN STUART. SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THERE ARE CODES THERE, BUT THEY WEREN'T FOLLOWED. SO MAYBE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IS MAKE SURE IN THE FUTURE THAT THEY ARE. AND I'M NOT ADVERSE TO MAKING EXCEPTIONS WHERE THEY NEED TO BE MADE IN THIS THIS PROCESS. AND BUT I THINK THAT WE SHOULD CERTAINLY MOVE FORWARD WITH IT. AND MAKE THOSE EXCEPTIONS AS NEEDED. THANK YOU. I WAS GOING TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE. MR. CLARK. I WAS GOING TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE, BUT I, I FORGOT RIGHT NOW. GO ON, GO ON. COMMISSIONER. YOU KNOW, MY VIEWS ON THIS ARE CLEAR. I'VE NEVER BEEN FOR IT. I THINK IT'S EXCESSIVE AND OVERREACH AND. OH,

[01:45:02]

YEAH. MAYOR RICH, MAY I. I THINK THE PUBLIC SPEAKS MORE CLEARLY AND THE UNNECESSARY DIFFICULTY WE'VE CREATED FOR THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE SO IMPORTANT TO THIS CITY AND THE JOBS THAT ARE SO IMPORTANT TO OUR RESIDENTS. I REMEMBER WHEN I LET COMMISSIONER, MAYOR RICH, MAY I FIRST, I KNOW YOU SAY YOU'VE NEVER BEEN FOR THIS, BUT WHEN YOU CAMPAIGNED TWO YEARS AGO, YOU DID HAVE A BILLBOARD ON CANTOR AND MONTEREY THAT SAID, ARE YOU TIRED OF SITTING IN TRAFFIC? LET'S PUT A PAUSE ON DEVELOPMENT. SO YOU CAMPAIGNED ON THAT. WE'RE HERE NOW SPECIFICALLY MULTIFAMILY. IT WAS JUST ON MULTIFAMILY, NOT THIS BROAD BRUSH BILLBOARD DIDN'T SPECIFY THAT. OKAY, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. READ. YEAH. YOU'RE DONE. COMMISSIONER. READ. YEAH.

SO AGAIN I WAS GOING TO YOU YOU I IT'S ABOUT THE GREATER PUBLIC GOOD AND I KNOW WE HAVE TO BALANCE THIS THING. AND I HEAR ABOUT TRAFFIC AND I THERE'S LOTS OF TRAFFIC IN MARTIN COUNTY THAT'S COMING IN AND OUT OF STUART AND IT'S NOT NECESSARILY FROM STUART DEVELOPMENT. AND SO WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE GREATER PUBLIC GOOD FOR THOSE WHO ARE CREATING OUR TAX BASE, FOR THOSE WHO ARE INVESTING IN OUR CITY. AND WE CAN'T IT'S NOT THAT YOU'RE AGAINST DEVELOPMENT. WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT SO THAT WE CAN KEEP A VIBRANT CITY AND KEEP THINGS GOING. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. IF NO DEVELOPMENT IS NOT GOOD. WE JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S DONE APPROPRIATELY. AND I THINK THAT FOR THE GREATER PUBLIC GOOD AND FOR THE TIMES THAT WE'RE IN AND FOR WHAT WE'RE GOING TO ACHIEVE WITH WAITING ANOTHER THREE MONTHS OR EVEN SIX MONTHS, I THINK THAT WE WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITH OUR PUBLIC STOPPING THE ZIP RIGHT NOW, AND THEN WORKING ON SOME SPECIFIC THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DO IF WE NEED TO WORK ON JUST MULTIFAMILY. LIKE I SAID, AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE'S NOT ANY MULTIFAMILY LAND USE THAT NEEDS TO THAT THAT'S VACANT AS FAR AS I KNOW, OR VERY LITTLE. SO AGAIN, THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS IT IS NEIGHBORHOODS. IT'S, IT'S WORKING WITH THE CRA. IT'S WORKING WITH NEIGHBORHOODS FOR PARKING AREAS OR MAKING THINGS BETTER WITHIN THAT PART OF THE COMMUNITY. I THINK THAT THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO WORK ON. AND I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO STRESS IT ANYMORE. DID WE HAVE A MOTION? WE DO, AND WE HAVE A SECOND. JUST TO CLARIFY, COMMISSIONER CLARK, THERE'S THERE HAS BEEN NO MOTION TO END IT TONIGHT. IT IS SIMPLY WHAT I'M SAYING. THE MOTION IS ONLY TO NOT EXTEND IT. RIGHT. I COULDN'T MAKE ANOTHER MOTION ON DECEMBER 5TH. IS THAT CORRECT? IT WOULD START DECEMBER 5TH. THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE THIS RESOLUTION. CORRECT. IT'S NOT TO END IT TONIGHT. YEAH. THAT'S VERY CONFUSING WHAT YOU'RE DOING RIGHT NOW. I HAVE A APPROVED RESOLUTION ONE 2024 TO EXTEND FOR NOW, BUT IF CHOOSE TO REMOVE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT ON DECEMBER 9TH. NO NO NO NO NO, THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT IS THAT CAN'T BE INCLUDED. THAT'S NOT INCLUDED. IT'S SIMPLY THE MOTION AS IT READS. IT'S SIMPLY THE MOTION AS IT READS. THERE HAVE BEEN NO AMENDMENTS TO IT AS THE RESOLUTION READS, WHEREAS THE RESOLUTION. THANK YOU. IT'S GOT THE ZIP WILL BE EXTENDED FOR ANOTHER THREE MONTHS. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON WITH THE FOUR EXCEPTIONS. YES. CORRECT. THERE'S NO AMENDMENTS TO THAT RESOLUTION. CORRECT. AND THEN ON THE DECEMBER 9TH MEETING, IF NOTHING IN BETWEEN, IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE NOT DISCUSSING WHAT. CORRECT. JUST STATING IT. THAT'S ALL. THANKS. OKAY. ROLL CALL PLEASE. CAN I ASK A QUESTION? PUBLIC COMMENT? NO. PUBLIC COMMENT IS OVER. I HAVE A QUESTION. SO WE SAID VOTED. YET IN THE CURRENT MOTION IT SAYS ON COMMENT IS HEARD IN ORDER. OKAY. WHEN WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND THEN WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. THEN WE DISCUSS, THEN WE VOTE UNTIL WE HAVE ALWAYS DONE IT. AND HOW WE WILL DO IT THIS EVENING. OKAY, ON NOVEMBER SEVENTH, 2024, WE VOTED TO THERE'S NO NOVEMBER. WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADD ANOTHER EXCEPTION TO THE ZONING IN PROGRESS, WHICH ALLOWS THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO ACCEPT AND PROCESS APPLICATIONS FOR ANY COMMERCIAL PROJECT THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE A RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT AND THAT DOES NOT INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ANY STRUCTURE THAT'S ALREADY EMBEDDED IN THIS. IN THIS MOTION AND IN THIS AND IN THIS RESOLUTION. CORRECT. BUT I'VE HEARD FROM PEOPLE THE LAST TIME THEY CAME WITH A COMMERCIAL PROJECT, AND MAYBE BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME SPLITTING OR SOME OTHER

[01:50:06]

THINGS THAT THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT RELATES TO DEVELOPMENT ITSELF. THEY SAID THAT THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR COMMERCIAL PROJECT. AND SO I WANTED TO BE SURE THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE TONIGHT, IF THERE'S A VOTE FOR THIS RESOLUTION. 120 DASH 2024 THAT IT SAYS THAT COMMERCIAL PROJECTS THAT DO NOT INCREASE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THAT DO NOT ARE NOT TIED TO RESIDENTIAL, CAN MOVE FORWARD. IS THAT CORRECT? MISS KOOGLER? IS THAT HOW YOU WILL IMPLEMENT THIS? YES. AND I THINK THOSE PROPERTIES THAT TO WHICH THIS WOULD APPLY ARE PROBABLY WELL AWARE OF THAT EXCEPTION. I THINK IT'S A FAIRLY SMALL NUMBER. JUST TO CLARIFY, MADAM CLERK, AFTER THE MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED, WE DID HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT, DID WE NOT? WE DID. THANK YOU. CAN YOU ALLOW THEM AGAIN JUST TO BE. NO, I DON'T SEE ANY NEED TO. WE DON'T WANT TO START OPENING THAT DOOR. OKAY. ROLL CALL PLEASE. COMMISSIONER CLARK. NO.

COMMISSIONER. JOB. YES, COMMISSIONER. READ. YES, MAYOR. RICH. NO. COMMISSIONER. COLLINS.

[5. OPIOID SETTLEMENT EXPENDITURES, AED’S AND PSA (RC): RESOLUTION No. 122-2024: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING BUDGET AMENDMENT No. 3 TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2025 BUDGET; APPROPRIATING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FROM THE OPIOID SETTLEMENT TO PURCHASE AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATORS, OTHER FIRST AID SUPPLIES, AND CREATING A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

YES. MOTION PASSES 3 TO 2. MR. BARRETT, WILL YOU PLEASE READ ITEM FIVE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION? RESOLUTION NUMBER 122, DASH 2024, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE TO FISCAL YEAR 2025. BUDGET APPROPRIATING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FROM THE OPIOID SETTLEMENT TO PURCHASE AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATORS AND OTHER FIRST AID SUPPLIES, AND CREATING A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. DO WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM STAFF? WE DO NOT. CHIEF TUMMINELLI DO YOU WISH TO ADDRESS? SO OKAY, THE SHORT ANSWER IS THERE'S EIGHT DEFIBRILLATORS BEING PURCHASED WITH THE OPIOID MONEY THAT ARE GOING TO BE IN THE CARS AND ROTATE IN AND OUT FOUR AT A TIME, BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO BE CHARGED. AND WE HAVE THE OPIOID FUNDS THAT CAN BE USED FOR THIS EXACT PURPOSE, BUT IT REQUIRES A BUDGET AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT'S THE OPIOID MONEY. THE OPIOID OPIOID MONEY HAS RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT IT CAN BE USED FOR, WHICH CAME FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA OR THE NATIONAL SETTLEMENT. SO IT'S THERE WAS A CLASS ACTION OPIOID CASE THAT WE HAD AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTED THE CITY ON, BUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DECLARED IT A CASE OF GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE AND TOOK OVER ALL OF THE OPIOID CASES ON BEHALF OF ALL OF THE COUNTIES AND CITIES IN THE STATE AND SETTLED IT IN TALLAHASSEE AND THEN DISPERSED THE FUNDING OR FUNDS FROM THE SETTLEMENT BASED UPON A FORMULA. AND WE IT'S LIKE A 7 OR 8 YEAR PAYMENT, AND WE HAVE 30 OR 30 YEAR PAYMENT, AND WE HAVE YEARS OF PAYMENTS COMING. RIGHT. BUT IT WAS ALL DONE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. SO IT'LL ALLOW LIKE FASTER RESPONSE TIME. IF WE HAVE ROAD PATROL WITH AEDS, WE'RE NOT WAITING ON FIRE RESCUE BASICALLY. RIGHT. YEAH, THAT MAKES SENSE ON THE ROAD. BUT THEY'RE BEING ANTIQUATED AND WE'RE GOING TO GET THE SAME ONES THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS. I THINK I'D LIKE TO MOVE FOR APPROVAL FOR RESOLUTION ONE, TWO, TWO DASH 2024. THEN SECOND. OH, GEEZ.

THREE SECONDS. THIS IS THE SECONDS. SECOND MOTION BY COMMISSIONER READ. AND A SECOND, WHO THE WHO THE TIE GOES TO COMMISSIONER CLARK. COMMISSIONER COLLINS, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ISSUE? SEEING NONE ARE THERE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BY THE COMMISSION? I THINK IT'S A GREAT THING TO HAVE ROAD PATROL AEDS THAT CAN HAPPEN VERY SUDDENLY. AND I WILL SAY FOR THE ROAD PATROL WE HAVE ON THE ROAD, WHEN YOU CALL 911, DEPENDING ON THAT SEVERITY LEVEL, YOU GUYS ARE THERE FAST FOR SURE. SO THANK YOU. HAPPY THANKSGIVING COMMISSIONER. I MEAN, CHIEF TIMOTHY CHIEF NEXT JOB, CHIEF TUMINELLI. AND FOR YOUR STAFF, WE APPRECIATE ALL THE SERVICE THAT THEY DO. AS FIRST RESPONDERS. CHIEF, HOW MANY INSTANCES HAVE THERE BEEN THAT THE POLICE HAVE HAD TO USE THESE DEVICES WITHOUT RUNNING A REPORT? I CAN SAY, WELL, JUST YEAH, I WANT TO SAY WITH SINCE WE'VE HAD AEDS WHEN THEY FIRST STARTED BECOMING PUBLIC USE, I WANT TO SAY DOZEN, TWO DOZEN PERHAPS. SO WE'VE HAD THEM FOR A WHILE. OVER HOW MANY YEARS? THIS IS. I WAS A SERGEANT, SO WE'RE TALKING WELL OVER TEN YEARS NOW. SO JUST OVER ONE A YEAR. WE'LL

[01:55:05]

SAY GIVE OR TAKE. BUT IT'S A REALLY GOOD TOOL. YEAH. NO, NO I'M JUST WE'RE THE FIRST ONES THERE JUST WONDERING. AND IT TELLS YOU WHAT TO DO IF SOMEBODY OUT. NO. THEY'RE VERY SIMPLE DEVICES. NOW YOU'RE SAYING THE COUNTY DOESN'T HAVE THIS YET? I'M SURE THEY DO. IF THEY DON'T, I'M CHAMPIONING IT. SO. BUT OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS REGARDING THIS ROLL CALL, PLEASE. MAYOR. RICH? YES, COMMISSIONER. COLLINS. YES, COMMISSIONER. CLARK. YES, COMMISSIONER. REED. YES, COMMISSIONER. GOBI. YES, IT IS UNANIMOUS. MR. BAGGETT, PLEASE

[6. SHOP WITH A COP EXPENDITURE (RC): RESOLUTION No. 123-2024; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING BUDGET AMENDMENT No. 4 TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2025 BUDGET; APPROPRIATING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR SHOP WITH A COP; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

READ ITEM SIX FOR OUR CONSIDERATION, PLEASE. RESOLUTION. I GUESS YOU SHOULD SAY THEIR CHIEF. YES, SIR. YES. RESOLUTION NUMBER 123 DASH 2024, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR TO THE FISCAL YEAR BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025. BUDGET APPROPRIATING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR SHOP WITH A COP PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. MR. MAYOR, ARE YOU GOING TO ASK FOR. OH, CAN I MAKE A MOTION? YOU CERTAINLY MAY. I LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION WITH THE STIPULATION THAT MAY OR MAY NOT GO INTO THE MOTION WITH REGARD TO RESOLUTION, NUMBER ONE 2324, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE IT, BUT THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT PICKS A DAY WHEN WALMART IS NOT BUSY AND THAT THE CUPCAKES ARE READY WHEN WE FIRST GET THERE. WHEN WALMART IS NOT BUSY JUST PRIOR TO CHRISTMAS. I'M THERE EVERY DAY. DO YOU REALLY WISH TO ADD THAT TO COMMISSIONER? OKAY, I'D LIKE TO ATTEND THOUGH. MOVE APPROVAL? YEAH. I'VE ATTENDED.

THAT'S WHY I WAS SAYING THAT. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CLARK. WILL YOU, WITH YOUR ENTHUSIASM, COMMISSIONER READ. WILL YOU SECOND IT? SECONDED. SECOND, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE. ARE THERE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BY THE COMMISSION? CAN YOU TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SHOP WITH THE COP AND HOW MANY STUDENTS? I MEAN, HOW MANY CHILDREN YOU SERVE? SO IT STARTED PROBABLY I WANT TO SAY ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO, WALMART GAVE US DONATIONS. US AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. SO EVERY YEAR OUR YOUTH INTERVENTION OFFICER KATHLEEN LANNON PICKS OUT, ALONG WITH SOME SCHOOL STAFF, PICKS OUT SOME NEEDY CHILDREN THAT WOULD PROBABLY NEED HELP DURING THE HOLIDAYS. SO WE AVERAGE ABOUT ANYWHERE BETWEEN 12 AND 15 KIDS. AND THE MONIES THAT WE GET, WE GIVE, WE ALLOCATE ANYWHERE BETWEEN 2 AND $300 FOR THEM TO GO SHOPPING WITH AN OFFICER, WITH A SCHOOL TEACHER, WITH A COMMISSIONER, PERHAPS TOTAL OR PER CHILD PER CHILD. OKAY, YES A LOT. SO THEY GET THEY COME UP WITH SOME GOODIES.

SO AND SOME OF THE KIDS ARE REALLY, REALLY GOOD. THEY'LL BE SHOPPING FOR THEIR MOTHER INSTEAD OF THEMSELVES. SO IT'S ACTUALLY A VERY GOOD EVENT. SO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS ALSO INVOLVED. BUT IT'S A VERY GOOD SUCCESS AND A VERY GOOD, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY, FEEL GOOD STORY BECAUSE WE'RE GIVING BACK TO THE COMMUNITY THROUGH WALMART AND YES, I WILL MAKE SURE THE CUPCAKES ARE READY FOR YOU WHEN YOU GET THERE. DID YOU HAVE A PREFERENCE ON THAT? BUT SO I, I HAVE ATTENDED THIS, I WOULD URGE YOU TO DO IT. IT'S REALLY FUN. I THINK THE COPS ENJOY IT AS MUCH AS THE KIDS. THE CHILDREN. ABSOLUTELY. BUT YEAH, IT'S SO IMPORTANT THAT THEY HAVE A GOOD INTERACTION WITH THE POLICE AND IT'S JUST TERRIFIC. YEAH. AND I THINK DIDN'T YOU DRESS UP IN A RIDICULOUS COSTUME? NO, SIR. SOMETIMES THEY HAVE. WHO DID? OR WAS THAT TROY? COMMISSIONER MCDONALD, I THINK. NO, THAT WAS ONE OF THE EMPLOYEE STAFF. SO IF YOU CAN FIND THE TIME, I WOULD I WOULD URGE YOU TO GO. AND SO SEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, PUBLIC. SO WE DID PUBLIC COMMENT. OH YEAH. ROLL CALL PLEASE. COMMISSIONER REED. YES, COMMISSIONER. JOB. YES, COMMISSIONER. CLARK. YES, COMMISSIONER. COLLINS. YES, MAYOR. YES. THANK YOU, THANK YO.

[7. LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES FOR THE 2025 LEGISLATIVE SESSION (RC): RESOLUTION No. 116-2024; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE ADOPTION OF LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES FOR THE 2025 LEGISLATIVE SESSION; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

CHIEF. MR. BAGGETT, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN FOR OUR CONSIDERATION, PLEASE. RESOLUTION NUMBER 116 DASH 2024, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE ADOPTION OF LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES FOR THE 2025 LEGISLATIVE SESSION, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. I TAKE IT MR. HOGARTH WILL BE PRESENTING FOR THE STAFF. YES, SIR. UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T HAVE A 30 MINUTE PRESENTATION FOR THE COMMISSION, SO I'M VERY DISAPPOINTED. VIDEO FROM TALLAHASSEE. YEAH, YEAH, EXACTLY. ACTUALLY, TO MAKE THINGS REAL SIMPLE, JUST A QUICK BRIEF UPDATE, ESPECIALLY FOR THE

[02:00:03]

NEW COMMISSIONERS LAST YEAR DURING THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION FOR 2024, CITY COMMISSION HAD MADE THREE REQUESTS TO THE STATE FOR APPROPRIATIONS. TWO OF THOSE WERE APPROPRIATED BY THE STATE.

ONE, AS YOU KNOW, GUY DAVIS PAR. AND THEN TWO WAS A STORMWATER CONNECTION ASSISTANCE.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE STORMWATER WAS VETOED BY THE GOVERNOR, UNDERSTANDABLY SO. THEY'RE TRYING TO PUSH ALL THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO THESE GRANT PROGRAMS THAT THEY'VE CREATED.

AND SO I'M BRINGING THAT UP FOR THIS REASON. IS THAT WHAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU IS ONLY ONE REQUEST THIS YEAR. AND PART OF THAT WAS WE WERE ALSO UNSURE WHERE WE WERE GOING TO LAND WITH THE TRAIN STATION, WHERE WE COULD TARGET AS FAR AS GETTING MONEY FROM THE STATE, BECAUSE THE STATE'S KIND OF BOXED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN ON ON WHAT WE CAN ACTUALLY REQUEST THROUGH APPROPRIATIONS. THEY'RE TRYING TO PUSH EVERYBODY TO THESE GRANT PROGRAMS. SO THE ONLY THING THAT WE IDENTIFIED FOR THIS COMING YEAR FOR THE REQUEST WOULD BE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE GUY DAVIS PROJECT. IT WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE CALL A SECOND PHASE FOR CONSTRUCTION PLANNING. AND WE KNOW THE PROJECT'S GOING TO TAKE UP TO TWO YEARS TO CONSTRUCT. SO AS A RESULT OF THAT, BY THE TIME THIS MONEY WOULD BE APPROPRIATED, IF WE'RE SUCCESSFUL, JULY FIRST OF NEXT YEAR WOULD BE THE STATE'S BUDGET. BY THEN, WE COULD POTENTIALLY BE IN CONSTRUCTION OR STARTING CONSTRUCTION. THE REASON I'M BRINGING THAT UP IS, I'M SURE ON EVERYONE'S MIND IS THE SKATE PARK AND ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S BEEN ADDED TO THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT. SO IF THE SKATE PARK WERE TO INCREASE IN COST OR ANYTHING, THAT'S UNKNOWN, WHAT WE'RE DOING THIS YEAR IS WE'RE ENSURING THAT THE SKATE PARK IS INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF WHAT THIS MONEY WOULD BE REQUESTED.

SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE AN ELEMENT IN WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING, BUT ALSO EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WAS KIND OF IN THERE FROM THE FIRST YEAR. SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT CAVEAT IN THERE, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT'S BEEN UP A LOT. SO BUT THAT'S THAT'S ALL I HAVE TONIGHT.

THAT'S IT. YEAH. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I KNOW IT'S EARLY, MR. HOGARTH, BUT BUT YOU'VE BEEN DOING THIS A LONG TIME. DO YOU DO YOU WANT TO CHARACTERIZE THE MOOD OF THE LEGISLATURE THIS YEAR VERSUS PRIOR YEARS FOR THE CITY? I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE MY 10TH SESSION COMING UP. I'VE, YOU KNOW, BEEN FOLLOWING FLORIDA LEGISLATURE FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS.

I KNOW I LOOK YOUNG, BUT I'VE BEEN DOING IT A WHILE AND I CAN SAFELY SAY THAT ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE'RE NOT AS INVOLVED AS A CITY AS WE USED TO BE, AND I MEAN, IN POLICY DECISIONS, ALL THAT IS THE STATE HAS JUST BECOME MORE KIND OF ENCLOSED UNTO ITSELF. AND I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE A POLITICAL STATEMENT BY SAYING THAT IT'S JUST IT'S MORE DIFFICULT FOR US AS INDIVIDUAL CITIES TO KIND OF ADVOCATE FOR SPECIFIC ISSUES. SO WHAT WE'RE FINDING NOW IS THE LEAGUE OF CITIES, THE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES. IF YOU'RE A COUNTY GOVERNMENT, AND I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH BOTH IN MY CAREER, THAT'S REALLY THE ARM BRANCH OF THE CITIES AND THE COUNTIES TO GET IN THE DOORS OF, YOU KNOW, THE REPRESENTATIVES AND OF COURSE, REALLY YOU ALL ON PHONES IS WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR FROM STAFF HAVE TRIED TO REACH OUT TO STAFF IN THE IN THE YEARS PAST, THERE'S BEEN SOME SUCCESS WITH THAT THAT'S BECOME LESS AND LESS COMMON. SO NOT TO NOT TO DISCOURAGE YOU FROM REACHING OUT BY PHONE. IN FACT, YOU GUYS ARE THE VOICES THEY DO STILL WANT TO HEAR FROM. BUT BUT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO STILL STATE THAT THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES IS OUR PRIMARY ARM TO OF ADVOCACY. SO AS AS AS BUSY AND PRODUCTIVE AS WE WANT TO BE, WE REALLY NEED TO WORK WITH THEM TO MAKE SURE OUR MESSAGE IS KIND OF UNIFORM. SO THAT'S ON THE POLICY SIDE.

BUT BUT ESPECIALLY WITH ASKING FOR THESE APPROPRIATIONS TO MAKE SURE THE STATE LEGISLATURES KNOW THAT OUR LEGISLATORS, I SHOULD SAY, KNOW THAT WHAT'S WHAT'S IMPORTANT FOR US. AND THIS YEAR, WE ONLY HAVE ONE ITEM. SO, YOU KNOW, LAST YEAR WE GOT 500,000. WE HAD $1 MILLION REQUEST. THE REQUEST IN FRONT OF YOU IS $1 MILLION. IF THEY ONLY APPROPRIATE, A LOT OF TIMES THEY'LL CUT IT IN HALF. IF THEY CUT THAT IN HALF, WE WOULD END UP ESSENTIALLY WITH OUR $1 MILLION AT THE END OF THE DAY THAT WE WERE ASKING FOR TO BEGIN WITH. SO THAT'S THE THOUGHT PROCESS, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. YES, COMMISSIONER. IF THEY HISTORICALLY JUST CUT IT IN HALF, WHY AREN'T WE ASKING FOR 1.5 MILLION? I MEAN, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. AND WE TRY TO. SO WHAT HAPPENS IS WHEN YOU'RE WHEN YOU'RE A STATE REPRESENTATIVE OR SENATOR AND YOU GET UP THERE, SENIORITY ALSO MATTERS. WHAT YOU'RE TOLD IS THIS IS HOW MUCH YOU'RE YOU KIND OF ARE ALLOCATED THIS YEAR BASED ON THE PROJECTIONS AND ALL THAT. AND A CITY OF OUR SIZE AND OUR AND OUR HISTORIC REQUESTS, WE'RE KIND OF I DON'T WANT TO SAY COMPLETELY BOXED IN. IT DEPENDS ON THE PROJECT. OVER THE COURSE OF FOUR YEARS, WE GET 2.25 MILLION FOR THE ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY PROJECT. I COULD SAY THAT BEFORE THEN, I WASN'T AWARE OF ANY SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION REQUESTS THAT THE CITY HAD EVER GOTTEN BEFORE THAT AND MIKE OR MIKE, SOMEONE ELSE MIGHT BE MORE FAMILIAR. IN YEARS PAST, I WASN'T HERE, SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY HAVE BEEN TARGETING. WE'VE BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL WITH THE LAST, YOU KNOW, EIGHT, NINE YEARS, AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO CONTINUE THAT. JUST IF YOU ASK TOO MUCH,