[*MEETING JOINED WHILE ALREADY IN PROGRESS*]
[00:00:04]
YOUR TIME. CAN I GET A MOTION FOR THE APPROVAL? COMMENTS BY. OH, I WANT COMMENTS BY THE ACTING CITY MANAGER. CAN I WAIT TILL 530? OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU SAY YOU'RE HAPPY TO BE. I'M SO EXCITED TO BE HERE AT 530. OKAY. CAN I GET A MOTION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA, PLEASE?
[APPROVAL OF AGENDA]
SO MOVED. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION BY THE VICE MAYOR AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CLARK.ALL IN FAVOR? ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, I COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NON AGENDA RELATED ITEMS. STAY SEATED. HELEN. YEAH. SEEING NONE. COMMISSION ACTION.
[1. ATTORNEY - CLIENT MEETING]
DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION. MR. BAGGETT I BELIEVE. THANK YOU. MAYOR. YOU NEED TO SPEAK TO THIS. SO FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 286 .011, SUBSECTION EIGHT PROVIDES AN EXEMPTION EXEMPTION FROM THE PUBLIC MEETINGS LAW IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE CITY COMMISSION TO MEET IN PRIVATE WITH ITS ATTORNEYS TO DISCUSS PENDING LITIGATION. AS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE, THE SUBJECT MATTER OF AN ATTORNEY CLIENT SESSION MUST BE CONFINED TO SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR STRATEGY RELATED TO LITIGATION EXPENDITURES. IF YOU RECALL, ON JANUARY 27TH, 2025, AT OUR REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING, I HAD REQUESTED AN ATTORNEY CLIENT SESSION TO DISCUSS THREE DIFFERENT CASES WHICH WERE PENDING AT THE TIME. THE FIRST OF WHICH WAS THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CENTERS, LLC VERSUS CITY OF STUART. AND THAT WAS A CASE PENDING CASE NUMBER TWO FOUR CV 14316. AND IT WAS PENDING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. SINCE MY REQUEST, THE DEFENDANT HAD DECIDED TO DISMISS ITS CASE AGAINST THE CITY. SO WE DON'T HAVE NO NEED TO HAVE THAT ATTORNEY CLIENT SESSION FOR THAT. I PREVIOUSLY COMMUNICATED TO ALL OF YOU THAT THE CASE WAS DISMISSED. HOWEVER, WE STILL HAVE THE TWO OTHER CASES ON THE AGENDA TO DISCUSS. THE SECOND OF WHICH IS GIANT OIL INC VERSUS THE CITY OF STUART. THIS IS IN STATE COURT AND IT'S CASE NUMBER TWO 2023 CA 000949. AND IT'S PENDING HERE IN MARTIN COUNTY.AND THE THIRD CASE IS THE CITY OF STUART VERSUS NORTH POINT VENTURES LLC, WHICH IS PENDING IN THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. CASE NUMBER 4240011. AND THAT TOO IS IN STATE COURT. IN THE APPELLATE COURT. I ESTIMATE THAT THE ATTORNEY CLIENT SESSIONS FOR BOTH OF THESE WILL RUN PROBABLY ABOUT 30 TO 45 MINUTES. I KNOW WE SLOTTED A LOT LONGER TIME BEFORE, BUT WE LOST ONE OF THE CASES, SO WE'LL BE OUT OF HERE A LITTLE EARLIER. THE PEOPLE PRESENT WILL BE MAYOR CAMPBELL RICH, VICE MAYOR CHRISTOPHER COLLINS, COMMISSIONER. LORI JOBI, COMMISSIONER. ULLA CLARK, COMMISSIONER SEAN REED AND OUR SPECIAL LEGAL OUTSIDE COUNSEL, BOTH JAMES WILLIAMS AND CARRIE LEININGER. THEY'RE BOTH WITH THE SAME FIRM. SO WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO THE SESSION TOGETHER FOR BOTH CASES. WITHOUT VIOLATING THE ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE. AND OBVIOUSLY MYSELF, THE CITY ATTORNEY, THE CITY MANAGER WAS ADVERTISED TO BE THERE, BUT HE IS OUT AND NOT HERE TODAY. AND OUR COURT REPORTER WILL BE PRESENT. JUST TO GO OVER SOME OF THE GROUND RULES AND TO REMIND YOU GUYS, AND I THINK A COUPLE OF YOU MIGHT HAVE NOT BEEN IN AN ATTORNEY CLIENT SESSION, BUT WE WILL HAVE A COURT REPORTER IN THE MEETING WITH US, AND EVERYTHING THAT'S SAID WILL BE TAKEN DOWN. IT WILL NOT BE PUBLIC RECORD UNTIL THE CASE IS CONCLUDED AND OVER. SO JUST BE AWARE THAT COMMENTS THAT YOU MAKE, SAY MAY BECOME PUBLIC RECORD. YOU KNOW, SOMEWHERE DOWN THE ROAD. MAYOR AND THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS AT THIS TIME, I RECOMMEND THAT WE CLOSE THIS SESSION AND WE'LL GO INTO THE ANTECHAMBERS, AND WE CAN RECONVENE THIS PUBLIC MEETING AFTER WE CONCLUDE OUR CLOSED DOOR SESSION. SO WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO ADJOURN, RIGHT? YES. AND WE'LL GO INTO THE ANTECHAMBER AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK OUT IN THE SUNSHINE. I HAVE A QUESTION, MR. CLARK. YES, MR. BAGGETT. I JUST HAD TWO THINGS I WANTED TO BRING UP. SO WE HAVE THE POLICE CHIEF WHO'S ACTING AS OUR CITY MANAGER. YOU DIDN'T LIST HIM AS ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO WAS GOING INTO THE MEETING, CORRECT? WE'RE GOING TO EXCLUDE HIM. WILL NOT BE GOING TO THE SHADE MEETING. JUST JUST THAT. AND THE OTHER THING IS THAT I KNOW THAT AT OUR LAST MEETING ON THE 10TH, WE HAD A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO'S HAD A PREVIOUS CASE ONGOING WITH THE CITY, AND THEY JUST BROUGHT UP SOME THINGS. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY THINK THAT MAYBE THAT WAS GOING TO BE ONE OF THE ITEMS ON, ON THE ON THE SHADE MEETING OR NOT. THIS IS RAJ VERSUS PROBABLY CITY OF STUART. AT LEAST IT'S INCLUDED. BUT THERE ARE OTHER THINGS ON THAT CASE. AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE'RE ONLY DOING THOSE TWO
[00:05:03]
CASES THAT YOU LISTED. CORRECT. AND THEN THE OTHER ONE THAT WAS WITHDRAWN, IT WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. AND ANY LONG PENDING CASES SUCH AS THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING THROUGH THE COURT AND NOT ANYTHING THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE ANY NEGOTIATIONS OR DECISIONS ON. SO THERE'S NO NEED FOR A SHADE MEETING. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. WE HAVE OTHER CASES IN LITIGATION. AND IN FACT, I THINK I COMMUNICATED TO YOU ON FRIDAY THAT WE HAD TRIAL AND WE WON ONE OF THE CASES AND GOT A DEFENSE VERDICT FOR THE CITY. AND SO THAT IS AN EXAMPLE OF ANOTHER CASE THAT IT WAS PENDING. YES. AND THANK YOU. SURE. THESE TWO CASES, THERE'S A REASON TO DISCUSS WITH YOU JUST BECAUSE OF THE TIMING OF WHERE THE CASE IS. AND ONE OF THEM, WE DID RECEIVE A SETTLEMENT OFFER SO THAT THAT THERE'S A REASON WITH THE MRS. RUDGE'S CASE THERE CURRENTLY, THERE'S NO REASON TO HAVE A DISCUSSION UNLESS YOU GUYS WANT TO. I THINK THERE HAVE BEEN PRIOR MEETINGS OR DISCUSSIONS FOR HER CASE, AND IRONICALLY, CARRIE LEININGER, OUR APPELLATE LAWYER, IS HANDLING THIS CASE. BUT WE CAN'T DISCUSS THAT TODAY BECAUSE WE DIDN'T NOTICE IT. SO I THINK IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THAT CASE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO INSTRUCT ME TO DO SO LATER, UNLESS AT SOME FUTURE TIME THAT I FEEL THE NEED THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A MEETING FOR SOME REASON TO MAKE A DECISION, WE CAN CALL A MEETING FOR IT. OKAY. I MEAN, I THINK IT'S SAFE TO SAY THE MANNER IN WHICH WE ARE HANDLING THESE TWO CASES DOES NOT DICTATE HOW WE WOULD HANDLE ANY ADDITIONAL CASES THAT MAY COME BEFORE US AT THIS TIME. THIS IS NO, THESE ARE THE CASES THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS ON. SO. THANK YOU. WE NEED A MOTION TO ADJOURN. NO, I WOULDN'T CONSIDER ADJOURN. WE WILL RECESS TO CHAMBERS TO DISCUSS THE TWO CASES I WOULD AGREE, SO WE WILL. WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR? WE WILL RECONVENE THIS SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING. WHAT IS TODAY'S DATE? 24TH. 24TH OF OCTOBER. JANUARY. FEBRUARY. FEBRUARY 2025. UNLESS THE BOARD HAS ANY ACTION TO TAKE IN. MEETING IS TO BE ADJOURNED. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. I MOVE THAT WE ADJOURN THIS SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION. SIR, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CLARK AND A SECOND BY THE* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.