[00:00:02]
NEVER DID. FAIR ENOUGH. ARE WE READY, MADAM CLERK? SURE. GOOD EVENING. I'M CALLING THIS
[ROLL CALL]
REGULAR MEETING OF THE STUART CITY COMMISSION FOR THE 11TH OF AUGUST, 2025 TO ORDER. THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING PATIENT. ROLL CALL PLEASE. MAYOR RICH HERE, VICE MAYOR COLLINS HERE. COMMISSIONER CLARK HERE. COMMISSIONER GIOVI HERE. COMMISSIONER READ HERE. AND COMMISSIONER READ. WELCOME BACK. WE MISSED YOU AT THE LAST MEETING. OH, I WISH I WAS HERE. THIS EVENING. THE INVOCATION WILL BE PROVIDED BY PASTOR JAMES HART OF THE STUART'S ALLIANCE CHURCH. AND WILL YOU LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AFTERWARDS? PLEASE. PLEASE RISE. WON'T YOU JOIN ME IN PRAYER? HEAVENLY FATHER, WE THANK YOU FOR THIS DAY. THE GIFT OF THIS DAY, THE GIFT OF LIFE, AND JUST THE HEALTH AND THE ABILITY TO BE HERE. AND LORD, WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENCE WITH US. LORD, AS WE PRAY AND INVOCATION, WE KNOW THAT YOU'RE ALREADY HERE, SO WE WELCOME YOU, GOD, TO THIS PLACE.WE ASK FOR YOUR GUIDANCE OVER THIS MEETING. LORD, THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT YOUR WORD TELLS US THAT YOU ARE PROVIDER OF. YOU GIVE US WISDOM, UNITY, INTEGRITY AND LORD, WE PRAY THAT EACH OF THOSE THINGS WOULD BE MANIFEST HERE TODAY IN THE DECISIONS THAT ARE MADE. PROVERBS 1114 SAYS, WHERE THERE IS NO GUIDANCE, THE PEOPLE FALLS, BUT AN ABUNDANCE OF COUNSELORS. THERE'S SAFETY.
AND SO, LORD, WE THANK YOU FOR THESE COUNSELORS, THESE LEADERS THAT YOU HAVE RAISED UP FOR THE CITY OF STUART AND GOD. WE DO PRAY THAT YOU GIVE THEM WISDOM AND DIRECTION AND DISCERNMENT, AND THAT, LORD, THEY WOULD SERVE US WELL BECAUSE THEY ARE ULTIMATELY SERVING YOU. AND SO WE THANK YOU. GOD BLESS THIS CITY, BLESS ITS LEADERS, BLESS ITS RESIDENTS AND ALL THOSE THAT COME THROUGH THE STREETS OF THIS CITY. LORD, WE ASK YOU THAT YOU WOULD JUST BE WITH THEM AND BLESS THEM IN A MIGHTY WAY. WE THANK THEE. THANK YOU FOR THESE THINGS AND WE GIVE YOU PRAISE IN JESUS NAME. 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. FOR US THIS MORNING. WE ONLY HAVE ONE PROCLAMATION. OH. I'M SORRY, WE
[PROCLAMATIONS]
HAVE THE ARTS MOMENT, WHICH IS, OH, THE SINGING OF THE NATIONAL ANTHEM. THERE WE GO BY MISTER DARRELL MCGILL. LOVELY TO HEAR TWICE WHO'S PERFORMED OFTEN WITH OUR OWN JIM TROTSKY. YES.DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT MICROPHONE'S WORKING HERE. I'LL TAKE IT. IS IT MY THING? MAKE SOME NOISE. I'M NOT SURE. IT'S NOT BOTHERING ME, THOUGH. OH, YOU SHOULD BE STANDING. OKAY.
I'M JUST SAYING. NO. IT'S OKAY. HELLO? YOU STAND FOR THE. I'M GOING TO WAIT TILL HE'S GOING TO STAND FOR THE. APPARENTLY, YOU DON'T NEED A MICROPHONE, I DON'T NEED. PLEASE RISE FOR OUR NATIONAL. OH. SAY, CAN YOU SEE BY THE DAWN'S EARLY LIGHT. WHAT SO PROUDLY WE HAILED AT THE TWILIGHT'S LAST GLEAMING. WHOSE BROAD STRIPES AND BRIGHT STARS. THROUGH THE PERILOUS FIGHT. O'ER THE RAMPARTS WE WATCHED. WERE SO GALLANTLY STREAMING. AND THE ROCKETS RED GLARE, THE BOMBS BURSTING IN. AIR. GAVE PROOF THROUGH THE NIGHT THAT OUR FLAG WAS STILL THERE. OH, SAY DOES THAT STAR SPANGLED BANNER YET WAVE. O'ER THE LAND OF THE FREE. AND THE HOME OF THE BRAVE.
GREAT. THANK YOU, MR. THANK YOU. EXCUSE ME. CERTIFICATE, CERTIFICATE. THAT BLUE FOLDER UP. THANK YOU. DARYL. THANK YOU. DARYL. IT'S AWESOME. WE GOT A GREAT VOICE. DARYL. THANK YOU.
HE'S DONE A LOT IN THE CITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NOW, MR. BAGGOTT, IF YOU COULD
[00:05:09]
READ THE PROCLAMATION FOR NATIONAL FINANCIAL AWARENESS DAY, PLEASE NATIONAL FINANCIAL AWARENESS DAY, JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT OF THE PALM BEACHES AND TREASURE COAST IS AUGUST 14TH, 2025. WHEREAS THE CITY OF STUART RECOGNIZES THE MISSION OF JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT OF THE PALM BEACHES AND TREASURE COAST TO INSPIRE AND PREPARE YOUNG PEOPLE FOR SUCCESS THROUGH TRANSFORMATIVE PROGRAMS THAT PROMOTE FINANCIAL LITERACY, WORK AND CAREER READINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP. AND WHEREAS, THROUGH HANDS ON, VOLUNTEER LED IMMERSIVE EXPERIENCES LIKE A CAREER, EXPLORATION FAIRS, JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT IN PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS SUCH AS FELIX A WILLIAMS AND STEWART MIDDLE SCHOOL CONNECTS STUDENTS WITH LOCAL BUSINESS OWNERS AND CAREER PROFESSIONALS TO BRING CAREER POSSIBILITIES TO LIFE AND BUILD REAL WORLD CONFIDENCE. AND WHEREAS THIS OBSERVANCE HIGHLIGHTS AN EXCITING COLLABORATION BETWEEN JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT AND MARTIN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT TO PREPARE STUDENTS FOR FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES BY OFFERING COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL LITERACY AND DELIVERING CAREER READINESS PROGRAMS TO EVERY ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL. DURING THE 2025 2026 SCHOOL YEAR. AND WHEREAS, THE CITY OF STUART COMMISSIONERS AFFIRMED THEIR COMMITMENT TO YOUTH EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOGNIZE THE VITAL ROLE THAT EARLY FINANCIAL LITERACY AND REAL WORLD SKILL BUILDING PLAY IN PREPARING STUDENTS FOR LIFELONG SUCCESS. NOW, THEREFORE, I. CAMPBELL RICH, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM AUGUST 14TH, 2025 AS NATIONAL FINANCIAL AWARENESS DAY AND ACCEPTING THIS PROCLAMATION AND RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL FINANCIAL AWARENESS DAY. IS KATIE THOMPSON, THE PRESIDENT, I ASSUME, OF THE JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT OF THE PALM BEACHES AND TREASURE COAST, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. MISS THOMPSON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND MAKE A FEW REMARKS? SURE. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME.I'M KATIE THOMPSON, THE VERY PROUD PRESIDENT OF JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT OF THE PALM BEACHES AND TREASURE COAST. WE ARE SO PROUD TO PARTNER WITH STUART AND THE STUDENTS AND STUART TO HOPEFULLY GIVE STUDENTS THE SKILLS THAT THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND ALL CAREER POSSIBILITIES AND HOPEFULLY COME RIGHT BACK HERE TO THE TREASURE COAST AFTER THEY GO TO COLLEGE OR A TRADE SCHOOL AND COME BACK AND BE GREAT CITIZENS IN THIS COMMUNITY. WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR YOUR RECOGNITION TODAY AND VERY HAPPY TO BE HERE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
YES, BEST OF THE BEST. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DISHES. OKAY. WE HAVE THREE SERVICE AWARDS THIS
[PRESENTATIONS]
EVENING. I THOUGHT WE HAD JUST TWO. I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST TWO. OKAY, TWO I THINK. THE FIRST IS RECOGNIZING FIVE YEARS OF SERVICE IN THE UTILITIES AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. DEVIN PAYNE. UNDERSTANDS SPEECH HERE. YOU CAN SAY SOME WORDS. AND THE MAYOR'S GOT A LITTLE. CARD FOR YOU I BELIEVE TEN MINUTES SPEECH ARE THERE IS A CARD. YES. ALL RIGHT.IF YOU'D LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING. YOU'RE WELCOME TO. THANK YOU. GOOD JOB. YOU GOT US. HE LEARNED FROM MILTON. FIVE YEARS IS IMPRESSIVE, BUT THIS IS MORE TYPICAL OF THE CITY IN STUART. AND WE'RE VERY LUCKY. BUT FOR 20 YEARS IN THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GRACE ALVARADO. AFTER 20 YEARS, YOU HAVE TO SAY SOMETHING. LONG SPEECH. I JUST WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR THOSE 20 YEARS THEY'VE BEEN UPS AND DOWNS, BUT MAINLY GOOD. AND I'M HAPPY THAT
[00:10:07]
I'VE STARTED WORKING HERE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.THAT'S A QUIET ALL OF A SUDDEN. I'M NOT BEING QUIET. MAKES THE PICTURE BETTER. 20 MORE. THANK YOU. OKAY. COMMENTS BY CITY COMMISSIONERS. MR. REED WILL.
[COMMENTS BY CITY COMMISSIONERS]
COMMISSIONER REED WILL STILL START WITH YOU DESPITE YOUR CLOSER PROXIMITY. JUST TEMPORARY. RIGHT? YEAH. I WANTED I GOT A COUPLE THINGS. SO I WANTED TO SUM UP BRIGHT LINE IN TWO THINGS AS WELL. I KNOW IT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT HEAVILY, SO I'LL GIVE SOME FACTS ON BRIGHT LINE DECEMBER 11TH, 2023. THERE WERE MEANT TO BE. YEP. SO THERE THERE WAS A DISCUSSION. THERE WAS AN AGENDA ITEM ON DECEMBER 11TH, 2023, THE CITY OF STUART SIGNED AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THAT NIGHT, AND THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WAS NOT IN THE AGENDA PACKET. SO HOW WOULD YOU AGREE TO SOMETHING THAT YOU NEVER SAW? BUT IT WAS SIGNED. CITY MANAGER MIKE MORTEL MENTIONS THIS IS NO FINANCIAL OBLIGATION ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, BUT THE PARKING GARAGE WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY. PER THE RFP. THE MOTION WAS MOVED BY VICE MAYOR MCDONALD AT THE TIME AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CLARK. THE MOTION PASSED 4 TO 1, WITH THE YES VOTES BEING MAYOR BRUNER, VICE MAYOR MCDONALD, COMMISSIONER CLARK AND COMMISSIONER RICH, AND COMMISSIONER COLLINS DISSENTING. COMMISSIONER RICH, IN HIS OWN WORDS, STATED AT THE TIME, THERE WERE OPPORTUNITIES FOR US TO GET OUT IF WE SO CHOOSE TO, THAT HE DOESN'T BELIEVE WE ARE SIGNING A BLANK CHECK. WELL, GUESS WHAT? ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR GEORGE STOKES PRESENTED TO THE BOCC THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. FOR THOSE NOT FAMILIAR. THE VERY NEXT DAY, ON DECEMBER 12TH OF 2023 INSTEAD, AND I QUOTE, I COULD NOT STAND HERE AND GIVE YOU A COST ON WHAT YOUR PARKING GARAGE IS GOING TO COST. HE DOESN'T KNOW HOW BIG IT WILL BE. THAT WAS DECEMBER 11TH OF 2023. NOW LET'S MOVE TO DECEMBER 12TH OF 2023. THIS WAS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION MEETING. THERE WAS AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE CITY THAT WAS EXECUTED, WHERE THE CITY WAS PUT ON THE HOOK FOR $30 MILLION. AND PER THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, BRIGHTLINE AND MARTIN COUNTY WOULD SPLIT THE STATION. ACCORDING TO GEORGE STOKES, THE MOTION WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SMITH AND SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HETHERINGTON, AND THAT MOTION PASSED FIVE ZERO. ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR GEORGE STOKES ALL OF A SUDDEN PUT US ON THE HOOK FOR $30 MILLION FOR THE PARKING GARAGE, BY THE WAY. AND HE MENTIONS, ACCORDING TO THE RFP WITH BRIGHTLINE, THAT THEY REQUESTED 200 PARKING SPACES. YET THE NIGHT BEFORE, WHEN IT WAS PRESENTED TO THE CITY OF STUART, NONE OF THIS WAS MENTIONED. AND THEN TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING ALSO DESIGNED A PRELIMINARY PARKING GARAGE THAT THEY DESIGNED FOR THE MAXIMUM PARKING SPACES, WHICH WOULD BE 451. THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE ON THAT PARCEL. SO I FIGURED I'D GIVE SOME FACTS WHERE IT WAS PRESENTED TO THE CITY ONE WAY. AND THEN THE VERY NEXT DAY, ALL OF A SUDDEN, HE KNEW THE SIZE OF THE PARKING GARAGE AND THE $30 MILLION. AND I THINK THE PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW THAT. SO THAT CLARIFIES THAT IF ANYONE WANTS TO FACT CHECK THAT AND LOOK UP THE MEETING MINUTES. LET'S SEE. I GOT ONE MORE THING. WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE FROM OUR COMMISSION BOARD UP HERE AS WELL, IS TO FINALLY GET THE HAMILTON CHURCH PROJECT MOVING.I WAS ON A TEAMS MEETING WITH WITH THE STATE. AND BASICALLY FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THE SCOPE OF SERVICES NEEDS SUBMITTED THROUGH AN RFP PROCESS SO THAT CAN COME IN FRONT OF OUR BOARD. SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET SOME CONSENSUS ON THAT TO FINALLY GET RID OF THAT. I'D ALSO LIKE TO SEE EMAILS ONLINE IN THE CITY. THE COUNTY HAS THEM ONLINE. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH TIME AND EFFORT OUR CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PUTS INTO FULFILLING PUBLIC RECORD REQUESTS, BUT I
[00:15:05]
BELIEVE IN OPEN GOVERNMENT. IF SOMEONE IN THE PUBLIC HAS A QUESTION, CALL ME ON MY CELL PHONE. I'D BE GLAD TO CLARIFY IT. I BELIEVE IN TRANSPARENCY. THAT'S WHY I'M HERE. SO I'D LIKE TO SEE EMAILS ONLINE. I'D LIKE TO SEE CODE ENFORCEMENT ONLINE. I THINK THE PUBLIC AND MYSELF UP HERE DESERVE TO SEE THIS INFORMATION WITHOUT ASKING STAFF TO GET SIMPLE TASK DONE TO FULFILL OUR OBLIGATION AS PUBLIC OFFICIALS. FOR CLARIFICATION ON THE CODE ENFORCEMENT. ARE YOU SAYING ACTIVE CODE ENFORCEMENT? SO IF SOMEBODY CALLS AND MAKES A COMPLAINT ABOUT SOMEONE'S YARD.SO IF WE ROLL BACK TO WHERE WE HAD THE PRIOR CODE ENFORCEMENT STUFF, YOU COULD SEE PAST CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATIONS TO WHERE IF YOU SEARCHED OFF OF A STREET, A PROPERTY ADDRESS, YOU COULD SEE ALL THIS INFORMATION. IT WAS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. IT WAS VERY GOOD INFORMATION. I LIKE KNOWING THE HISTORY OF THINGS. AND THAT'S THAT'S WHY I APPRECIATE YOU UP HERE, MIKE.
ANYTIME WE HAVE QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW THE HISTORY OF THE CITY, BUT SOMETIMES IT'S HARD TO KNOW DETAILS AND SOMETIMES CLARIFYING, THOUGH I WAS WONDERING SOMETHING NEW, BUT IT WAS LIKE THE PAST. WHAT YOU WANT IS THE ADJUDICATIONS AND STUFF THAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST.
CORRECT? I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT INFORMATION, JUST LIKE HOW WE CAN SEARCH PERMITS. BACK IN THE DAY, PERMITS WERE VERY DETAILED. NOW THEY'RE VERY VAGUE. NOW WE CAN LOOK THEM UP, BUT MAYBE THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. WE CAN STILL LOOK THEM UP, BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY GO INTO DETAIL ON WHAT THE PERMIT WAS FOR. IT'S JUST A PERMIT DATE. SOMETIMES I LIKE TO KNOW THIS INFORMATION. AND THEN I HAD A SPEECH REGARDING SENATE BILL 180, WHICH I WOULD HAVE GIVEN WHEN I WASN'T HERE, BUT I WAS ON MY YEARLY VACATION THAT MY FAMILY GRANTS ME ACCESS TO.
SO I WANTED TO SAY TODAY, JUST NOT AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, THE CITY OF STUART, BUT AS SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY HAS A MARTIN COUNTY BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND WHO HAS CHOSEN WHO WAS CHOSEN BY THIS COMMUNITY TO REPRESENT YOUR VOICE, YOUR NEEDS, AND YOUR QUALITY OF LIFE. I CANNOT, IN GOOD FAITH, REMAIN SILENT ABOUT SENATE BILL 180, A PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT REPRESENTS A DIRECT ASSAULT ON HOME RULE AND THE FOUNDATION OF LOCAL DEMOCRACY. WE WERE NOT ELECTED.
WE WERE NOT HIRED TO RUBBER STAMP DECISIONS MADE IN TALLAHASSEE. WE WERE CHOSEN BY VOTERS TO GOVERN HERE IN STUART WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND INSIGHT THAT ONLY COMES FROM LIVING AMONG THE PEOPLE WE SERVE. SENATE BILL 180 TELLS US THAT OUR JUDGMENT DOES NOT MATTER, THAT OUR COMMUNITY'S UNIQUE CHALLENGES CAN BE TOTALLY IGNORED, THAT DISTANT LAWMAKERS WHO MAY HAVE NEVER SET FOOT IN THE CITY OF STUART, THEY KNOW BETTER THAN WE DO AND OUR CONSTITUENTS THAT WE REPRESENT. THIS BILL STRIPS US OF THE TOOLS WE NEED TO GOVERN EFFECTIVELY.
IT IMPOSES A ONE SIZE FITS ALL SOLUTION TO PROBLEMS THAT ARE OFTEN DEEPLY LOCAL. IT SILENCES THE WILL OF OUR CONSTITUENTS, YOUR NEIGHBORS, YOUR BUSINESS OWNERS AND YOUR FAMILIES, AND YOUR QUALITY OF LIFE. AND WHAT'S WORSE, THERE ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS PROUD OF THIS BILL, PROUD OF A LAW THAT SILENCES COMMUNITIES, PROUD OF A MEASURE THAT ERODES THE PRINCIPLE OF SELF-GOVERNING MUNICIPALITIES. I SAY THIS CLEARLY THERE IS NO PRIDE IN UNDERMINING DEMOCRACY.
HOME RULE SHOULD NOT BE A PARTIZAN ISSUE. ISN'T A PARTIZAN ISSUE, IT'S A PRINCIPLE. IT MEANS THAT DECISIONS SHOULD BE MADE AS CLOSE TO THE PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE, THAT WE HERE IN STUART SHOULD HAVE THE POWER TO SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS, WHETHER IT'S ZONING, ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, PUBLIC SAFETY OR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. I URGE MY FELLOW ELECTED OFFICIALS ACROSS THE STATE STAND UP FOR YOUR CITIES. THAT'S WHO YOU REPRESENT AS YOUR LOCAL CITIES. STAND UP FOR THE RESIDENTS. STAND UP FOR THE BASIC RIGHT OF COMMUNITIES TO GOVERN THEMSELVES. LET'S SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE REGARDING SENATE BILL 180. IT'S A SHAME ON HOME RULE, AND I'D LIKE TO THANK. THE MAJORITY OF US WILL NOT BE SILENT. WHILE THE LOCAL FOUNDATION OF LOCAL DEMOCRACY IS SLOWLY CHIPPED AWAY. SO IF YOU'RE TIRED OF SITTING IN TRAFFIC ON KANTER AND MONTEREY, STUCK BEHIND THE CONSEQUENCES OF UNCHECKED GROWTH WITH A BILLBOARD THAT CLEARLY STATED, LET'S PUT A PAUSE ON DEVELOPMENT. I URGE YOU TO JOIN US IN THE FIGHT. LET'S TRULY REPRESENT THE CONSTITUENTS WHO GAVE US THE HONOR AND PRIVILEGE TO STAND UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT IN THE CITY OF STUART. LET'S FIGHT FOR A FUTURE WHERE LOCAL VOICES STILL MATTER, AND WHERE
[00:20:01]
DECISIONS ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY ARE MADE IN OUR COMMUNITY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY FOR NOW. THANK YOU GUYS. COMMISSIONER JOB. YES. HI EVERYONE. IT'S GREAT TO SEE THE GALLEY FILLED. I LIKE WHEN EVERYBODY COMES. IT'S GREAT. THANK YOU. FIRST I WANT TO I HAVE THREE THINGS TO ADDRESS. ONE IS SEACOAST BANK. AND I FIRST WANT TO THANK COMMISSIONER REED FOR REACHING OUT TO THE PUBLIC FOR INPUT ON THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SEACOAST PROPERTY ON THE CORNER OF US AND COLORADO AVENUE. I'VE RECEIVED MANY EMAILS FROM CONSTITUENTS WHO'VE MADE SOME EXCELLENT SUGGESTIONS. ONE SUGGESTION I RECEIVED FROM MANY RESIDENTS IS TO PRESERVE AND REPURPOSE THE EXISTING FACADE FROM THE ORIGINAL 1961 STRUCTURE. NOT ONLY IS IT ICONIC EXAMPLE OF THE MID-CENTURY MODERN DESIGN AND ONE OF THE FEW REMAINING ARCHITECTURAL EXPRESSIONS OF THAT ERA IN DOWNTOWN STUART, ESPECIALLY SINCE THIS YEAR WE HERE IN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY ARE CELEBRATING A HISTORICAL MILESTONE. I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE SOME OF THESE IDEAS WITH MR. HUDSON AND HIS STAFF, WHO HAVE WORKED ON THE REDESIGN OF THE SEACOAST PROPERTY. AND THANK YOU FOR ALL THE CONSTITUENTS WHO FOLLOWED. MR. COMMISSIONER REED'S LEAD AND SENT IN EMAILS SUGGESTING THINGS TO BE DONE WITH THAT PROPERTY. MY NEXT THING THAT I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS IS ALSO THE 1895 CHURCH OF POTSDAM STUART. A MEETING TOOK PLACE WITH MR. AND MRS. HAMILTON, COMMISSIONER REED, DEREK HANKERSON FROM BRIAN MANN'S OFFICE, LUCIA BRIANA, THE BUREAU CHIEF OF THE FLORIDA COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, AND SAHARA JACKSON AND GRAHAM MACRIAN, PLUS ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUALS FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.REGARDING THE CBG GRANT FOR THIS PROJECT. PRIOR TO ANY RFP GOING OUT ON THIS PROJECT, I INSIST THAT THE RFP GO OUT TO DESIGNATED CONTRACTORS WHO ARE SPECIFICALLY LICENSED TO WORK ON HISTORICAL BUILDINGS. I WAS NOT ABLE TO GET A COMPLETE LIST OF THE AUTHORIZED CONTRACTORS WHO SPECIALIZE IN HISTORIC RESTORATIONS, BUT I WILL PROVIDE THE LIST TO THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE AS SOON AS I CAN. THE COMMISSIONERS SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND EDIT THE SCOPE OF WORK ON THIS PROJECT PRIOR TO THE RFP, AND TO REVIEW AGAIN ONCE THE RFP HAS BEEN SELECTED. THE HAMILTONS HAVE HAD MANY THREE MINUTE SESSIONS DURING PUBLIC COMMENTS BEFORE THE COMMISSION OVER THE LAST YEAR. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THE HAMILTONS TO THE AGENDA, SO THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE AMPLE TIME TO ADDRESS THEIR ISSUES. AS ALWAYS, WE HERE ON THE DAIS WILL PURPORT OURSELVES AT THE MOST PROFESSIONAL LEVELS. THE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED IN THE BEST WAY POSSIBLE WITH CERTIFIED HISTORICAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS AS TO NOT REPEAT THE MISTAKES OF THE PROJECTS AS MADE IN THE PAST. AFTER ALL, LIKE YOU AND I, THIS IS A CONSTITUENT'S PROPERTY AND WE NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT. THANK YOU. I ALSO WANT TO ADDRESS SB 180 OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS, MANY LAWS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC HAVE BEEN OVERTURNED BY BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE LEVELS, RANGING FROM ELECTION LAWS, HEALTH CARE, CIVIL RIGHTS, EDUCATION TO NAME A FEW. AT THE PREVIOUS COMMISSION MEETING, TWO OF OUR COMMISSIONERS FELT THAT THEY WERE HOLDING TRUE TO THE OATH THEY TOOK TO OBEY THE LAW. IN 1968, THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE AMENDED THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZING HOME RULE POWERS FOR BOTH CITIES AND CHARTERED COUNTIES. I AM ALSO HOLDING TRUE TO THE OATH THAT I TOOK IT LAST AUGUST. SO TO SUPPORT AND PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, WHICH PREDATES SB 180 BY 57 YEARS, I'M IN FAVOR OF THE CITY OF STUART JOINING THE GROWING NUMBER OF COUNTIES AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE GOING AGAINST THE STANCE AGAINST SB 180 PARTIAL LIST TO DATE ARE.
DELTONA, VOLUSIA COUNTY, MIAMI DADE, ORANGE COUNTY, MANATEE COUNTY, NEW SMYRNA BEACH, SARASOTA COUNTY, 1000 FRIENDS OF FLORIDA, FLORIDA CHAPTER OF AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION, FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES, REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS, AND THE CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, PLUS MANY OTHERS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONER. THE CITY OF STUART ALSO DID PASS A RESOLUTION, JUST LIKE THOSE OTHER CITIES AND SUBMITTED TO THE STATE. THOSE ONES THAT THAT THE LEAGUE OF CITIES. THE RESOLUTION YOU THE BOARD PASSED IS IDENTICAL TO THE LEAGUE OF CITIES. OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CLARK. I THANK YOU FOR INCLUDING THE ARTS MOMENT. I KNOW THAT IT WASN'T ON THE AGENDA THIS TIME, BUT WE'LL GET IT BACK ON THE AGENDA AGAIN THE NEXT TIME. THANK YOU. I WANT TO WELCOME OUR ENVIRONMENTAL ATTORNEY WHO'S I THINK IT'S HER FIRST DAY TODAY, MISS HOLMES. AND I ALSO WANT TO THANK JODY FOR THE BUDGET WORKSHOP THAT WE DID EARLIER ON. I KNOW THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED WHETHER OR NOT ANYTHING IN THE CITY WILL CAUSE THEIR SERVICES TO BE EITHER TERMINATED OR REDUCED, OR WHETHER THEY MAY
[00:25:02]
EVEN BE PAYING ADDITIONAL FOR ANY SERVICES THAT THEY GET. SO WITH THAT, IN THAT REGARD, I KNOW THAT THIS WAS A WORKSHOP AND WE HAVE UNTIL SEPTEMBER. DID WE HAVE ANY ANY OF THE OTHER TWO DATES? MR. MORTAL, FOR THE NEXT HEARINGS ON THE BUDGET? WELL, WE THE HEARINGS ON THE BUDGET WILL HAPPEN IN SEPTEMBER. BUT DURING MANAGER COMMENTS, I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST THAT WE HAVE THE SECOND BUDGET WORKSHOP ON THE 25TH OF AUGUST. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT WAS THAT WAS MY OTHER TWO THINGS. I THINK WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE TIME TO BRING THIS UP. BUT SINCE THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS, I'M NOT AGAINST HOME RULE, I JUST THINK THAT FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE CITY OF STUART AND THE WAY THAT OUR ZONING CHANGE OCCURRED, THAT THIS GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK AND TO DO THINGS PROPERLY. BUT I DO AGREE THAT WE NEED TO MAINTAIN HOME RULE. AND IT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CLARK. MR. VICE MAYOR, YES, ALONG THE SAME LINES AS COMMISSIONER JOB, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT NEXT MEETING WE HAVE AN AGENDA ITEM WHERE WE CAN VOTE FOR OR AGAINST JOINING THAT. YEAH, THAT'S IT'S ON THE AGENDA. OKAY. NOT AS A DAD, BUT WHERE WE CAN VOTE. I DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S GOT PUT ON. I KNOW THAT IT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE LAST STAFF MEETING BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, BUT I CAN VERIFY THAT IT WILL BE A RESOLUTION. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE A VOTE SO WE CAN GET MOVING ON THAT. AND THAT WAS ALL? THAT'S ALL. THAT'S IT. I ONLY HAVE A BRIEF COMMENT THIS EVENING. A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, I FORGET, BUT I WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO BE ASKED TO DO A RIBBON CUTTING AT STUART STEWART'S BRAND NEW FREESTANDING EMERGENCY CENTER, WHICH IS ON KANNER HIGHWAY. IT IS RUN BY HCA AND IT'S A VERY IMPRESSIVE FACILITY BUILT IN AN AMAZINGLY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. IT'S A NEW FORM OF MODULAR CONSTRUCTION. IT'S NICE TO HAVE IT ON THAT SIDE OF THE TRACKS. I WAS ESPECIALLY IMPRESSED WITH. THEY TOOK ME INTO THE TESTING ROOM AND BECAUSE OF NEW COMPUTING POWER AND MINIATURIZATION, THE RANGE OF TESTING THEY CAN DO ON YOU NOW TO DIAGNOSE WHAT YOU HAVE IS DAZZLING. SO WE'RE VERY LUCKY THAT THAT COMPANY MADE THAT COMMITMENT TO OUR COMMUNITY. AND I HOPE NONE OF YOU HAVE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF[COMMENTS BY CITY MANAGER]
IT. BUT THANK YOU. OKAY, MR. MORTEL, I TOO, WANT TO WELCOME RUTH HOLMES, OUR NEW ENVIRONMENTAL ATTORNEY, TO THE CITY OF STUART. TODAY IS HER FIRST OFFICIAL DAY AS A FULL TIME EMPLOYEE WITH US AS A CITY ATTORNEY. I WAS GOING TO PUT ON TO THE AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING AS WELL, THAT SHE WOULD BE SWORN IN AND TAKE HER OATH OF OFFICE AS A FORMALITY BEFORE THE CITY, SO WE WILL WELCOME HER TO THAT. I'M SURE SHE WANTS TO GET UP IN FRONT OF EVERYBODY AND DO THAT, BUT NONETHELESS, SHE WILL. BUT THANK YOU FOR COMING. ALSO, THE OTHER THING I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WAS THE BUDGET WORKSHOP. SPEAKING WITH JOLIE. WE CAN SET A SPECIAL MEETING, BUT IT'S HE THINKS IT PROBABLY BEST TO GO AHEAD AND DO IT FOR THE 25TH, UNLESS YOU GUYS WANT TO DO IT EARLIER THAN THAT. IT'LL GIVE US TIME. AND JUST LIKE TODAY, JUST BEFORE THE MEETING ON THE 25TH, THE SAME WAY OUR BUDGET. YEAH. JUST CLARIFYING WHAT THE 25TH WOULD BE BETTER. YEAH. AS I SAID, RATHER THAN THE 25TH. YEAH. TODAY. LIKE LIKE TODAY. BUT FOR THE 25TH. RIGHT. SO IS THAT A 2 P.M. ALSO. WELL THAT'S YOUR CALL. ISN'T THAT A REGULAR MEETING TOO. SO YES, THAT'S WHY I'M PUTTING IT FOR THE 25TH BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN OUR MEETINGS ARE ALREADY SCHEDULED. THERE'S A CRA MEETING NORMALLY THAT DAY I DON'T KNOW. I'M LOOKING I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT IS OR WHEN IT STARTS, BUT WE COULD START AT 230. AND I THINK THE CRA NORMALLY STARTS AT 430. AND THEN THE CITY COMMISSIONS AT 533 OR 4. RIGHT. SO WE COULD START AT TWO. RIGHT. TWO IT IS OKAY. 2:00 OKAY. I THINK I, I HEARING THAT TAYLOR VICE MAYOR WON'T BE SHOWING UP AT. THIS I'LL PROBABLY BE IN SCRUBS. ARE YOU GOOD. SO PROBABLY IT'LL BE A WORKSHOP. SO. AND LET ME JUST MAKE SURE. AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE. WOW. VERY CONCISE. I'VE BEEN WORKING ON THE BUDGET. I[APPROVAL OF AGENDA]
DON'T THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON. MOVE. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MAYOR RICH, MAY I. YES. AS FAR[00:30:04]
AS THE APPROVAL OF AGENDA, I'D LIKE TO PULL RESOLUTION ZERO SEVEN 2025. IT IS. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE AGENDA. OH, FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR. IS THAT ON THE NEXT ONE? YEAH. OKAY, I'LL WAIT THEN. OKAY. ARE YOU SECONDING THE AGENDA? YEAH, I'LL SECOND IT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CLARK AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER REID FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR?[COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC (Non-Agenda Related) (3 Minutes Max.]
AYE. OKAY. COMMENTS. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, MADAM CLERK, ON NON AGENDA RELATED ITEMS? YES, I HAVE ROBIN CARTWRIGHT. GOOD EVENING, MISS CARTWRIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. THERE WAS A POST YESTERDAY ON SOCIAL MEDIA BY SOMEONE ABOUT THE CITY MANAGER, AND I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF COMMENTS MADE IN THAT POST BECAUSE MY NAME WAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED. AS YOU'LL RECALL, THERE WAS A BREACH OF SUPPOSEDLY CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT TALKS AROUND THE CORNER WHERE COSTCO IS, AND IT HAS BEEN LONG SUSPECTED AS TO WHO WHO IT WAS THAT LEAKED THAT CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION TO EVERYBODY'S FAVORITE FRIEND AND NEIGHBOR WHO SHARED IT PUBLICLY, POSSIBLY DERAILING ANY MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT TALKS TO MITIGATE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE CANTER. CPWD. I WAS ASSURED BY MR. NICOLETTI, ACTING AS CITY ATTORNEY, THAT THIS BREACH WOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AND THE CULPRIT WOULD NOT ONLY BE ROOTED OUT, BUT DISCLOSED. BUT I GUESS THAT'S JUST ATTORNEY SPEAK FOR BASICALLY. YEAH, NOTHING'S GOING TO HAPPEN. WHAT I FIND MOST INTERESTING IS THAT MR. MORTEL STATED IN AN EMAIL TO IKE CRUMPLER, WHO WORKED SIMULTANEOUSLY FOR THE CITY AS A SPEECHWRITER WHILE HE WORKED FOR THE COSTCO DEVELOPER. QUOTE AS A BRIEF EXPLANATION, IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN MY OPINION THAT THEY DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THE LAND USE AND WERE USING THIS AS A POLITICAL PLATFORM TO ATTACK CANDIDATES, THE CITY MANAGER CASTING ASPERSIONS ON ANY OF MY MOTIVES IS AN INSULT. AND LET'S BE CLEAR, THIS WASN'T THE FIRST TIME THAT MY MOTIVATIONS WERE QUESTIONED. BY MAKING THIS AND OTHER STATEMENTS, WHICH WERE SHARED WITH SELECTIVELY WITH CERTAIN COMMISSIONERS AND SUPPOSED NEWS OUTLETS, MY INTEGRITY WAS CONSISTENTLY CALLED INTO QUESTION. THIS MANIPULATION WAS AND IS COMPLETELY STRATEGIC. AND I GET IT. THE CITY HAD A CASE TO WIN, BUT IT WAS DONE AT THE EXPENSE OF ME. MY MOTIVES, MY REPUTATION, AND MY JOB. BUT LET'S TAKE ME OUT OF THE EQUATION. AND HERE ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THESE KINDS OF COMMENTS MADE BY SOMEBODY IN A LEADERSHIP POSITION. IT HAS BECOME VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY PUBLIC MEMBER TO BE TAKEN AT FACE VALUE, THAT THEIR MOTIVATIONS ARE PURE AND INTENTIONAL. PEOPLE HAVE GROWN FRUSTRATED WITH THE PROCESS AND MEANINGFUL CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THINGS LIKE ETHICAL REFORM. STOP AT HIS DESK. I'LL REMIND YOU THAT I, ALONG WITH ANOTHER RESIDENT WHO IS ALSO AN ATTORNEY, MET WITH MR. MORTEL ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A COMMITTEE FOR PEOPLE TO NAVIGATE CONCERNS WITH THE COMMISSION. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PRESENTED TO YOU AS AN AGENDA ITEM, AND IT NEVER WAS. THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE. PROVING WHAT YOU ARE PRESENTED WITH ARE SUGGESTIONS GUIDING YOU ON HOW TO HANDLE SOMETHING VERSUS THERE BEING HONEST DIALOG. YOU ONLY KNOW WHAT STAFF WANTS YOU TO KNOW, AND WHAT STAFF SHARES, AT LEAST PUBLICLY, IS OFTEN INCOMPLETE AND WITH A GOAL TO GET YOU TO VOTE A CERTAIN WAY.THE PUBLIC IS LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES COMPARED TO UNRESTRICTED TIME ALLOTMENTS FOR PRESENTATIONS AND DIALOG FROM DEVELOPERS AND THEIR EXPERTS, EVEN EXPERTS WHO BASICALLY FUDGE THEIR QUALIFICATIONS. I'VE SAID IT BEFORE AND I'LL SAY IT AGAIN THERE NEEDS TO BE CHANGE AT THE CITY AND AT THE COUNTY BEYOND THOSE WHO SIT AS ELECTED OFFICIALS ON THE DAIS. AND THE ONLY WAY TO CHANGE WHO IS ON STAFF IS TO CHANGE WHO SITS AS A COMMISSIONER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ROBERT, I HAVE NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. MOVING ON TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
[CONSENT CALENDAR]
COMMISSIONER READ. YEAH, AND I DON'T KNOW IF I SHOULD DO THIS AT MY COMMISSION COMMENT, BUT I'M GOING TO SAY IT NOW ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR WHERE IT SAYS IT ON THE AGENDA. IS THERE ANY WAY TO PUT THE WORD APPROVAL RIGHT BEFORE THERE. SO IT'S CLEAR AND CONCISE, LIKE SO WHEN WE LOOK AT APPROVAL OF AGENDA THEN WE KNOW. BUT IT JUST SAYS CONSENT CALENDAR. I THINK IF THE WORD APPROVAL WAS PRIOR TO THAT, IT WOULD BE EASY. IT'S JUST AN EASY CHANGE. JUST A SURE. BUT YOU'RE SAYING LIKE WHERE IT SAYS APPROVAL OF AGENDA, YOU WANT IT TO SAY APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR. YEAH, THAT'S SIMPLE ENOUGH. IT'S IN OUR CODE. IT'S LISTED OUT. THE CATEGORIES ARE IN OUR CODES. BUT HE CAN CHANGE IT OKAY. YEAH I MEAN IT'S MISLEADING SOMETIMES. YES I'D LIKE TO PULL FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR NUMBER FOUR. IT'S A RESOLUTION ZERO SEVEN 2025.WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FIRST? YEAH, SURE. A MOTION TO PULL RESOLUTION ZERO SEVEN 2025.
WHICH WHICH ITEM NUMBER IS THAT NUMBER FOUR FOR CONSENT CALENDAR. IT'S REGARDING PROJECT LIFT. OKAY. SO YOU'RE MOVING YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR PULLING ITEM FOUR. CORRECT. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE YOU'RE PULLING ANYTHING ELSE. THAT'S ALL I IT'S A LONG CONSENT CALENDAR IS WHAT I'M ASKING OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER READ. WE HAVE A SECOND BY THE VICE MAYOR FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT
[4. AWARD OF ITB 2025-102 - CITY OF STUART VOCATIONAL PROJECT (RC): RESOLUTION No. 07-2025; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA APPROVING THE AWARD OF INVITATION TO BID #2025-102, CITY OF STUART’S PROJECT LIFT VOCATIONAL PROJECT TO PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LLC OF VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, THE LOWEST, MOST RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER WITH A TOTAL UNIT PRICE OF $6,474,356.85; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]
CALENDAR. PULLING ITEM FOUR. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE. ROLL CALL[00:35:08]
PLEASE. COMMISSIONER JOB. YES. VICE MAYOR COLLINS. YES, COMMISSIONER. REED. YES, COMMISSIONER. CLARK. YES, MAYOR. RICH. YES. MOTION APPROVED. SO, MR. BHAGAT, WILL YOU READ ITEM FOUR FOR OUR CONSIDERATION, PLEASE? RESOLUTION NUMBER ZERO SEVEN 2025, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE AWARD OF INVITATION. INVITATION TO BID NUMBER 2020 5-102. CITY OF STUART'S PROJECT LIFT VOCATIONAL PROJECT TO PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC OF VERO BEACH, FLORIDA. THE LOWEST, MOST RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER WITH A TOTAL UNIT PRICE OF. $6,474,356.85, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. THANK YOU. MY TURN. WELL, IF WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION ZERO SEVEN 2025 UNDER THE STIPULATION THAT GUARDIAN OR PATRIOT RESPONSE GROUP IS NOT A PART OF THIS RESOLUTION. SECOND, OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION ON BEFORE WE DO THAT THAT THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE LAW. RFP WE WENT OUT FOR RFP. THE WHOLE THING IS OVER. YEAH. THE GUARDIAN PROGRAM THROUGH CDBG GROUP, AND WE CAN'T UNDO THAT. AND IF I UNDERSTAND.SO IT WOULD BE OVER. YEAH. AND I ALSO DON'T THINK IN AN RFP RFP PROCESS YOU CAN EXCLUDE ANY BIDDERS UNLESS THEY HAVE BEEN BANNED BY SOME FELONY OR SOMETHING. AS TO A BIDDING LIST, BECAUSE YOU'RE ACTUALLY MANIPULATING THE RFP, BUT I WOULD DEFER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. YEAH, I JUST I PERSONALLY CAN'T STAND UP HERE AND VOTE LIKE I UNDERSTAND ZACCHEO I GET THE PROJECT. BUT AS FAR AS THIS CONTRACTOR, I RESPECT YOU GUYS. I'VE SEEN THE WORK YOU'VE DONE. BUT IF GUARDIAN IS OVERSEEING IT, THAT'S NOT WHAT I. I'M SORRY. I ACTUALLY HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WOULD ACHIEVE THAT. MIKE, YOU CAN JUST VOTE NO AND SEND THE MONEY BACK. WELL, YOU HE COULD REWORD THE MOTION. HE CAN'T EXCLUDE GUARDIAN. GUARDIAN IS THE MANAGER OF THE CDBG GRANT. NO MATTER WHAT. NO MATTER WHAT.
YEAH, THERE'S NO IFS, ANDS OR BUTS. THAT'S ALREADY HAPPENED. GUARDIAN GETTING ANY TAXPAYER MONEY? WHAT STEPS WOULD THE COMMISSION. OKAY. HOLD ON. OKAY. HE'S MADE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? IS THERE ANY CLARIFICATION ON HOW TO SETTLE THIS TO WHERE GUARDIAN IS NOT OVERSEEING THIS PROJECT? THEY'VE FAILED MULTIPLE IN THE CITY OF STUART BEFORE WE BEFORE WE SAY THE GUARDIAN HAS FAILED MULTIPLE THE CITY OF STUART. I KNOW THAT YOU'VE MET WITH THE HAMILTONS ON MANY OCCASIONS, BUT I ALSO WENT THROUGH THAT STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AND OTHER STUFF. AND I ACTUALLY HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT GUARDIAN HAS BEEN THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS BEEN HELPING THE CITY AND POINTING OUT TO THE CDBG THAT THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE, LIKE THE TEARING OUT OF THE AIR CONDITIONING AND STUFF LIKE THAT WITHIN IT, AS FAR AS THE CRAFTSMANSHIP OF THAT GUARDIAN DIDN'T DO ANY, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THEY OVERSAW IT. THEY DON'T. THEY WERE THE PROJECT MANAGER, CORRECT? THEY WERE THE PROJECT, YES. BUT THE ISSUE WAS PATRIOT AND PATRIOT IS NOT GOING TO BE ON THIS JOB. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IF THEY FAILED IN THAT SENSE, BY LETTING THAT WORK, OKAY, WE CAN'T HAVE A DISCUSSION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR COMMISSIONER REED'S MOTION? WELL, HE CAN SEEK CLARIFICATION. YEAH, HE'S SEEKING IT FROM THE ATTORNEY AS HE CAN. AS SOON AS WE HAVE. THERE'S NO REASON TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PARTICULARS. IF THERE'S NO SECOND. IS THERE A SECOND TO HIS MOTION? POINT OF ORDER. CAN I ASK THE ATTORNEY WHAT IS WHAT IS YOUR POINT OF ORDER? I JUST WANT TO ASK THE ATTORNEY, SINCE WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A VOTE. OKAY? NO, WE'RE NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF A VOTE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A SECOND. THEN CAN I ASK, CAN I ASK THE ATTORNEY A QUESTION WITH WITHOUT HAVING A SECOND? RIGHT? WITHOUT HAVING A SECOND? CAN I DOES IT RELATE TO THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IT IS PERTAINING OKAY THEN. NO. IF YOU WANT TO SECOND THE MOTION YOU CAN ASK ANY QUESTION YOU WANT. COULD THE CITY CLERK PLEASE READ HOW THE MOTION IS CURRENTLY, HOW IT READS MOTION TO APPROVE WITHOUT GUARDIAN OR PATRIOT GROUP NOT BEING A PART OF THE RESOLUTION? HOW WOULD I CAN YOU GIVE ME SOME ADVICE? RIGHT? I MEAN, THAT'S THE POINT. WE'RE BEING TOLD BY THE CBG. I'D LIKE TO SEE THE PROJECT MOVE FORWARD, BUT NOT WITH THOSE. I'LL SECOND IT FOR PURPOSES. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. VICE MAYOR. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER REED. IS IT CLEAR, COMMISSIONER, WHAT? THE MOTION IS JUST TO BE. YES.
[00:40:03]
AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY THE VICE MAYOR. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. I'M SORRY. HELLO AGAIN, MISS CARTWRIGHT. I LIKE COMMISSIONER REED. WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT I AM A BIG FAN OF PROJECT LIFT AND THE WORK THAT THEY DO WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO LEARN A SKILL WHILE IT'S PARTNERED WITH THEIR SOCIAL. EMOTIONAL WELLNESS IS AMAZING, AND WHAT THEY DO IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL, ESPECIALLY FOR SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY WHO WOULD NOT GET ANY JOB ASSISTANCE OR SOCIAL OR MENTAL HEALTH OTHERWISE. BUT ABOUT THE CDBG GRANT AND HAVE MONEY HAVING TO GO THROUGH GUARDIAN, IT IS NOT STATED AT ALL IN ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED AS PART OF THE AGENDA THAT I COULD FIND THAT GUARDIAN WAS ACTUALLY A PART OF THIS PROJECT. SO THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT THEY ARE. BUT LIKE COMMISSIONER REED, I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT HOW MUCH TAXPAYER MONEY IS BASICALLY GOING TO A COMPANY THAT IS BASICALLY A PASS THROUGH OF ALL FINANCIAL FUNDS. THAT IS OUR TAX DOLLARS BEING SPENT TO SOMEBODY WHO DID A VERY POOR JOB OVERSEEING THE HAMILTON'S CHURCH. EVEN IF PATRIOT RESPONSE GROUP WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INPUTTING OF THE WINDOWS, IT IS ABSOLUTELY GUARDIANS RESPONSIBILITY, ALONG WITH CITY STAFF, TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WAS DONE WAS DONE CORRECTLY AND IT WAS NOT DONE CORRECTLY. SO WHETHER IT'S A HISTORIC BUILDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED, OR REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU THINK OF THE HAMILTON'S, THE CHURCH'S PROJECT WAS CLEARLY MISMANAGED ON EVERY LEVEL, ESPECIALLY AND INCLUDING GUARDIAN. AND WHILE WE CAN'T ALLOCATE HOW GRANT MONEY IS SPENT, IT'S TOO BAD THAT WE CAN'T TAKE THAT MONEY THAT IS INTENDED FOR GUARDIAN AND USE IT WHERE IT'S INTENDED TO HELP THE RESIDENTS OF OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WHAT IS THE MAKER OF THE MOTION? COMMISSIONER? YOU MAY GO. OKAY, SO, LEE, I SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT MY MANILA FOLDER WITH ME, BUT I BELIEVE THEY CAN BE REMOVED FROM THIS IF I CAN. IF I CAN HAVE A MANILA FOLDER, IF I CAN, IF I CAN CHIME IN AND JUST PROVIDE SOME BACKGROUND ON WHAT HAPPENED. SO EVERYONE'S BROUGHT UP THE HISTORY. WHEN WE APPLIED FOR THE CDBG GRANT PROGRAMS, WE WENT OUT TO AN RFP ON WHO WOULD BE THE MANAGER FOR THE CDBG GRANT PROGRAMS, AND GUARDIAN WAS SELECTED. SO UNDER A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS THAT HAPPENED. NOW, IF IN FACT, YOU COULD DEMONSTRATE THAT GUARDIAN BREACHED THEIR CONTRACT, YOU COULD TERMINATE THAT CONTRACT WITH GUARDIAN. BUT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BASING IT ON SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED THAT YOU'VE BEEN AWARE OF SINCE LAST SEPTEMBER AND WAITING UNTIL THE NIGHT OF US AWARDING THE PROJECT LIFT TO CLAIM THE BREACH, WE CAN'T DO THAT. WE WILL HAVE TO CLAIM THE BREACH, SCHEDULE THE AGENDA, DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S A BREACH, HAVE SOMEBODY INDEPENDENTLY REVIEW IT TO SEE IF IT'S A BREACH, AND THEN GO DOWN THE PATH OF THE BREACH. SEPTEMBER 1ST IS THE DEADLINE, SO WE WILL BE OUT OF TIME. THAT'S FINE. I ALSO WANT TO MENTION THAT GUARDIAN IS ONLY GOING TO BE INVOLVED DOING ADMINISTRATION PART WITH THIS GRANT. WITH THIS PROJECT, WE HAVE KIMLEY-HORN THAT'S GOING TO BE OVERSEEING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. SO THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE ON SITE DOING ANY MONITORING OF CONSTRUCTION. HOW MUCH TAXPAYER MONEY IS GUARDIAN GOING TO BENEFIT FROM THIS PROJECT? SO THIS IS GOING TO COME FROM THE CDBG GRANT. WHEN THEY APPLY FOR THE GRANT, THEY WERE THE LOWEST BIDDING. THEY'RE GOING TO GET 220,000. YEAH. NO WAY TO ADMINISTER THE GRANT, WHICH THEY'VE BEEN HELPING US SINCE 2021 TILL NOW I UNDERSTAND. SO IS THIS SOMETHING WHERE I SHOULD AMEND MY MOTION? LEE THEN TO WHERE WE TABLE THIS AGENDA ITEM WILL MATTER. NO, THE FIRST IS THE DEADLINE. YEAH, BUT WE HAVE A MEETING ON 25TH. I HAVE TO GET STARTED ON CONSTRUCTION BECAUSE WE HAVE A DEADLINE WITH FLORIDA COMMERCE. AND FLORIDA COMMERCE HAS AGREED, ACTUALLY TOLD US THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE MORE INVOLVED WITH THIS PROJECT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO HAVE MONTHLY GUARD FLORIDA COMMERCE. SO, YEAH, THEY WANT TO HAVE LIKE MONTHLY MEETING WITH STAFF AND GUARDIAN. AND WHOEVER IS CONSTRUCTING THE PROJECT. SO THEY'RE GOING TO BE THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT MORE INVOLVEMENT FROM FLORIDA COMMERCE. AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT FLORIDA COMMERCE IS MUCH MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE HISTORIC CHURCH CASE THAN EVERYBODY HERE IS, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T DONE A FULL PRESENTATION. FLORIDA COMMERCE IS ALSO AWARE OF GUARDIAN, BUT DOES NOT FEEL AS STRONGLY AS YOU DO ABOUT GUARDIAN THEMSELVES BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN INVOLVED AT A MUCH IN MUCH DEEPER CONVERSATIONS WITH ALL OF THE CONTRACTORS AND KNOW THE WHOLE STORY, AND INCLUDING THAT FROM THE HAMILTONS. I'M NOT TRYING TO DISCREDIT THE HAMILTONS AT ALL. GET INTO THE WEEDS OF IT. BUT BUT IF FLORIDA COMMERCE THOUGHT THAT GUARDIAN WAS DOING SOMETHING WRONG, FLORIDA[00:45:05]
COMMERCE WOULDN'T HAVE GIVEN US THE EXTRA 4 TO $6 MILLION THAT THEY'VE GIVEN US SINCE THIS ISSUE HAS ARISEN, BUT INSTEAD THEY HAVE, IN REVIEWING IT, LITERALLY TRIPLED THE AMOUNT OF THE GRANT DURING THIS PROCESS. I JUST I CAN'T SIT HERE IN GOOD FAITH KNOWING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BENEFIT OFF OF TAXPAYER MONEY. IF THAT WORK THAT THEY DID, IT'S TOTALLY DEPLORABLE. I SUGGEST EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM TO GO CHECK IT OUT, BECAUSE WHETHER IT'S TAXPAYER MONEY OR IT'S COMING OUT OF MY POCKET OR YOUR POCKET OR YOUR POCKET OR ANYONE'S POCKET IN THIS ROOM, YOU WOULDN'T PAY FOR THAT WORK. NO WAY. AND I CAN'T SIT UP HERE AND SUPPORT THAT AT ALL. SO I DON'T KNOW YOUR OPINION, LEE ON IT AS WELL. BUT GUARDIANS OPINION WAS THAT THEY SHOULDN'T PAY FOR THE WORK AND THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE PAID THE. DON'T THEY DO IT AS AN IOU THEN? BUT GUARDIANS OPINION WAS THAT FIRST THEY THEY ANSWERED TO THE REQUEST OF THE HAMILTONS TO DO THE CHANGE ORDER FOR THE WINDOWS. AND THAT WAS THE HAMILTON'S REQUEST TO DO THE CHANGE ORDER FOR THE ROOF. GUARDIAN WAS THE ONE THAT WAS SAYING THEY SHOULDN'T PAY FOR THE AIR CONDITIONING AND SHOULDN'T PAY FOR THE CHANGES THAT HAPPENED IN THE TRUSSES.WELL, WHEN YOU SAY THE WORKMANSHIP ITSELF, WORKMANSHIP, IF YOU QUALITY, I KNOW. BUT BEFORE YOU GO ON, WHAT HAPPENED WAS WHEN PATRIOT WENT IN AND THE CEILINGS AND WALLS HAD BEEN CUT OUT, THEY WERE CONCERNED AND THEY SAID, WE CAN'T MOVE FORWARD UNTIL A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER REVIEWS THIS. AND THEN THE HAMILTON'S KICKED THEM OFF THE JOB AND THEY WERE NEVER ALLOWED BACK. THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO FINISH THE JOB. IF I HIRED YOU AND YOU WERE HALFWAY FINISHED INSTALLING A WINDOW AND THEN TOLD YOU YOU COULDN'T COME BACK TO MY HOUSE AND THEN TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY TO FIX IT. AND THEN I TOOK PICTURES OF THE WINDOW AND SAID, THIS IS THE JOB YOU DID. YOU CAN'T. I CAN'T BLAME GUARDIAN BECAUSE GUARDIAN WAS WAITING TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING WAS FINISHED. AND THEN LITERALLY THE JOB WAS STOPPED. AND GUARDIAN IS THE ONE THAT'S MADE SURE THE WINDOWS ARE REPLACED, RIGHT? MADE SURE THE BIDS BEING DONE RIGHT, MADE SURE IT'S BEING FOLLOWED. THEY'RE ACTUALLY THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN WALKING THROUGH AND POINTING OUT WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. WE CAN GET INTO THE DEBATE ABOUT PATRIOT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE TOO.
BUT PART OF THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE REST OF THE BOARD DOESN'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF WHATEVER CONVERSATIONS YOU'VE HAD WITH THE HAMILTONS. IT'S NOT CONVERSATIONS. I MEAN, I'VE SEEN THE PICTURES WELL, OF, BUT THEY'RE HALF FINISHED. THAT'S THE THING. THAT'S NOT THE FINISHED WORK. THESE GUYS ARE REAL CONTRACTORS OVER HERE. I SUGGEST YOU GO VISIT IT AND YOU GIVE ME YOUR OPINION. WELL, I MEAN, I GET IT. IF YOU FEEL THAT WAY, I WOULD RECOMMEND TO JUST VOTE NO. YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO HAVE TO DO THEN. IT'S NOTHING AGAINST YOU, ZADKIEL OR PROJECT LIFT. BUT THAT'S DEPLORABLE. AND THEY SHOULDN'T BENEFIT OFF OF TAXPAYERS. ONCE AGAIN, I'M SORRY. AND I JUST WANT TO REMIND THE BOARD THAT IT'S NOT OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION. OKAY. COMMISSIONER REED, ARE YOU. I'M FINISHED. BUT THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. OKAY, COMMISSIONER JOB. OKAY. WHAT STEPS WE WOULD NEED TO TAKE. AND OBVIOUSLY WE COULDN'T FOR THIS PROJECT TO REMOVE GUARDIAN AND PATRIOT FROM THESE RFPS. YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE ARE LOCKED INTO IT, BUT IT CAME UNDER INITIAL RFP. COULD WE DO ANOTHER RFP SO THAT WE COULD LOOK FOR A DIFFERENT PERSON TO OVERSEE THESE PROJECTS? THIS IS WE WENT OUT TO RFP ON PROJECT LIFT, AND WE'VE ALREADY AWARDED IT TO A DIFFERENT CONTRACTOR THAT'S NOT PATRIOT. SO THAT'S ALREADY HAPPENED. PATRIOTS OUT OF THE PICTURE. BUT GUARDIAN IS OVERSEEING THE CDBG GRANT RIGHT.
THAT ALREADY HAPPENED TO SEPARATE RFP. RIGHT. BUT THAT BUT THAT HAPPENED MONTHS AGO OR YEARS AGO. NOT GOING TO BE THE ONLY CBG GRANT WE EVER GET GOING FORWARD. WHAT CAN WE DO TO REMOVE GUARDIAN FROM THIS POSITION? NUMBER ONE, YOU'D HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE THEY'VE DONE SOMETHING WRONG. YOU CAN'T HAVE SOMEBODY ON A NO. YOU CAN'T JUST PUT THEM ON A NO BID LIST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THEM. WE COULD DO AN RFQ. TECHNICALLY. THEY'VE GOT THEY DEFINITELY BREACHED THAT CONTRACT. THAT'S NOT TRUE. GUARDIAN HAS NOT. THAT'S ALL OUT OF CONTEXT. THAT IS NOT TRUE. BE CAREFUL ABOUT ASSERTIONS ABOUT THE CONDUCT OF A BUSINESS. MAYOR RICH, PLEASE DON'T TELL ME THAT YOU ACCUSE SOMEONE OF WHAT THEY DO THREATEN SOMEONE. SO THANK YOU. JUST TO BE CLEAR, COMMISSIONER JOB, THERE ARE. THERE'S A SEPARATE CONTRACT WITH GUARDIAN. THE CONTRACT HERE TODAY IS WITH PROCTOR. AND SO THIS IS AN INVITATION TO BID THAT WE HAD GONE OUT. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS CONTRACT IS ABOUT. THERE WAS A SIMILAR CONTRACT THAT WENT OUT FOR BID. AND GUARDIAN WAS THE PREVAILING BIDDER. I DON'T REMEMBER. IT WAS 2021. IT PREDATED ME. SO THERE'S A CONTRACT IN PLACE THAT THEY ARE TO ADMINISTER ALL OF THE CBD GRANT MONEY, AND THAT CAN NEVER CHANGE. WELL, IT COULD CHANGE IF THEY DID SOMETHING WRONG OR
[00:50:04]
BREACHED THAT CONTRACT ALONG THE WAY. BUT FLORIDA COMMERCE HAS NEVER ACCUSED THEM OF DOING ANYTHING WRONG. NEITHER HAS THE CITY. I DON'T THINK THE GUARDIAN HAS DONE ANYTHING WRONG. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING. AS FAR AS PATRIOT, THEY WERE AWARDED GRANT FOR REHABBING OTHER HOMES, BUT WE REMOVED THEM FROM THOSE PROJECTS, SO WE DID. WE CAN REMOVE PATRIOT AND HOW MUCH OVERSEE DO WE HAVE OVER GUARDIA, THE CITY, OUR DEPARTMENTS OR. WELL, IF IN FACT SOMETHING WAS FINISHED AND GUARDIAN SAID IT WAS FINISHED AND OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL WENT THERE AND SAID IT DOESN'T MEET CODE, HE COULD FAIL THE FINAL INSPECTION OR FAIL THE INSPECTIONS ALONG THE WAY. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS SITUATION ARE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT, BECAUSE GUARDIAN'S JOB IS TO KIND OF TELL THE FLORIDA COMMERCE HOW MUCH THIS SHOULD COST, OR HOW MUCH THAT SHOULD COST, OR WHAT'S THE REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU HAVE TO REPLACE THIS WINDOW.IF YOU PULL OUT THE WINDOW AND THE FRAMING IS ALL ROTTEN OUT, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE DONE? BUT DOES THAT MEAN YOU HAVE TO REPLACE THE FLOOR TOO, OR IS IT JUST THE WINDOW FRAMING? AND SO IT'S A RELATIONSHIP THAT I, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T POSSIBLY GO IN AND SAY THAT I HAVE A LICENSE TO KNOW WHETHER THE BOARD WAS THE RIGHT TEXTURE OR WHATEVER IT WAS THAT WAS USED. BUT BUT WE DO HAVE PEOPLE THAT DO THOSE INSPECTIONS. RIGHT. AND GUARDIAN WASN'T DETERMINED TO HAVE DONE ANYTHING WRONG. THE ISSUE WITH PATRIOT IS MORE COMPLICATED, BUT THEY WERE REMOVED FROM THE JOB, SO THEY OBVIOUSLY MOVED FROM OTHER JOBS, AND THAT'S FINE AND WE'RE HAPPY ABOUT THAT. BUT I STILL THINK THAT WE SHOULD HAVE SOME MAJOR, MORE OVERSIGHT OVER GUARDIAN IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE THE MAIN OR ONLY CONTRACTOR. I MEAN, OVERSEER OF THE CONTRACTORS FOR THESE CBG GRANTS. IT IS A LOT OF TAXPAYER MONEY. IT'S OUR MONEY. AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO OVERSEE, IF WE'RE A LITTLE NOT HAPPY WITH HOW MAYBE GUARDIAN PERFORMS, MAYBE WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE OVERSIGHT. REALISTICALLY, WHEN WE GO, LET'S SAY WHEN WE BUILT, LET'S SAY, THE STATION THREE OF THE WE DIDN'T USE A CDBG GRANT MONEY. WE WENT OUT TO RFP AND WE HIRED A CONTRACTOR DIRECTLY, AND WE WORKED WITH THAT CONTRACTOR. AND IT HAPPENED TO WORK OUT, IN THIS CASE, THE CDBG GRANT WENT OUT TO RFP. THREE CONTRACTORS RESPONDED. THE HAMILTONS NEGOTIATED WITH ALL THREE CONTRACTORS. I KNOW, BUT I'M JUST EXPLAINING. I'M TALKING ABOUT GUARDIAN. THEY PICKED PATRIOT. WE DIDN'T PICK PATRIOT. THEY DID. AND THEN IT DIDN'T WORK OUT WITH PATRIOT. AND GUARDIAN WAS WHO HAD PATRIOT REMOVED FROM THE JOB AND WENT IN AND TOOK IT OVER AND STOPPED IT FROM GOING IN THAT DIRECTION. GUARDIAN DIDN'T PUT PATRIOT ON THE JOB. GUARDIAN DIDN'T TELL PATRIOT TO DO ANYTHING OR DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THEY ACTUALLY WERE THE ONES THAT TOOK PATRIOT OFF THE JOB AND PUT IT IN THE DIRECTION TO GO THE OTHER WAY. WE HAVE DIRECT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CONTRACTOR OF PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC OF VERO BEACH, BECAUSE YOU'RE AWARDING THE CONTRACT DIRECTLY TO THEM, RIGHT? WE HAVE DIRECT LINE OF SIGHT WITH PROCTOR THAT WE HAVE. SO THAT'S THE OVERSIGHT I'M LOOKING FOR. THEN YOU HAVE OVERSIGHT. SO WE HAVE THAT DIRECTLY WITH THE CONTRACTOR THAT'S BEING BID FOR THE JOB.
YOU ALSO HAVE PROJECT LIFT THAT IS IN THE CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS THAT HAS BUILT A BUILDING IDENTICAL TO THIS BUILDING ALREADY. SO THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR. AND I'LL GUARANTEE YOU MR. ZACCHIA WILL BE THERE EVERY DAY PLUS. CORRECT. PLUS, THEY'RE BENEFITING OFF TAXPAYERS. GUARDIAN ONCE AGAIN. AND LISTEN, I UNDERSTAND PROCTOR I RESPECT YOU AS WELL. YOU GUYS ARE NOT GOING TO LET THE PROJECT FAIL, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO WALK AWAY WITH ALMOST A QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS. BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY OR CHANGE THEM OUT AT THIS POINT. AT SOME POINT, WHAT I'M ASKING AND YOU'RE SAYING WE'D HAVE TO HAVE GROUNDS AND REASON THAT WE COULD REMOVE THEM AS THE PROJECT AND FOR THE CBG. NOW, WHY WOULD YOU? AND RIGHT NOW, COMMISSIONER REED, WHY DO YOU THINK THEY SHOULD BE REMOVED? AN HOUR OR TWO? I'LL GO TO MY TRUCK AND GO THROUGH MY I DO. WE CAN MEET AFTER THE MEETING. I'D BE HAPPY TO BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT. MR. VICE MAYOR, SOMETIMES YOU'RE IN YOU'RE IN DIFFICULT POSITIONS WHERE IT SEEMS LIKE BOTH WAYS, YOU KNOW, CAN BE JUST NOT RIGHT. IT'S NOT RIGHT. I DON'T WITH THE VICE MAYOR TO CONCLUDE HIS REMARKS. PLEASE. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER REED. OH, IT'S A TRAGEDY WHAT'S HAPPENED TO THAT CHURCH. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE CHURCH,
[00:55:01]
THOUGH. JUST IN GENERAL, UNDER THE EYE OF WHO WAS WATCHING. BUT AT THIS POINT, WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT TODAY, RIGHT NOW, I WOULD HATE FOR THIS TO LOSE OUT ON THIS BECAUSE OF PAST SINS. THIS IS A HUGE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY, FOR PROJECT LIFT, AND I. I CAN TOTALLY APPRECIATE NOT WANTING TO GIVE GUARDIAN ANOTHER PENNY, BUT THAT'S THAT'S ABOUT WHEN RIGHT NOW, IF THIS IS GOING TO GO FORWARD, IT'S GOING TO BE WITH GUARDIAN. AND IF MAYBE AS PART OF AN AGENDA ITEM WITH THE HAMILTONS WE START, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT IF THERE IS SOME KIND OF CASE AGAINST GUARDIAN AND HAVING THEM BE ON SITE, THEN WE MOVE TO REMOVE THEM THAT THAT'S, THAT'S BUSINESS FOR TOMORROW. BUT TODAY I JUST WOULD HATE TO SEE US MISSING OUT ON THIS OPPORTUNITY.SO FOR ME, I'M GOING TO WITHDRAW MY SECOND FOR THIS MOTION BECAUSE MY HOPE IS WE'VE HAD WE'VE HAD DISCUSSION ON THIS, WE'VE HAD OUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED. BUT I REALLY DON'T EVEN WANT TO VOTE ON THIS. ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH MORE OVERSIGHT FROM THE CITY? REGARDING WHAT I KNOW? I KNOW IT'S ABOUT THEM GOING TO BE I'M SORRY, CAN I JUST GET CLARIFICATION ON I GUESS THE VICE MAYOR'S REMOVED, WITHDREW HIS SECOND. SO WE NEED TO LOOK IF THERE'S ANOTHER SECOND. SO WE'RE AFTER A SECOND, OKAY? IF THERE'S NO OTHER SECOND, THEN IS THERE A SECOND FOR THIS MOTION? SEEING NONE, NO ACTION IS TAKEN. BUT CAN I MAKE A MOTION? CAN I MAKE IS IT. OH WE HAVE THAT WAS WITHDRAWN. THAT WAS TAKEN OUT OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 072025. SECOND, A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CLARK, A SECOND BY THE VICE MAYOR. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM, MISS MCBRIDE? THANK YOU. IT WERY PROJECT? YES. I WILL JUST SAY. AND I SAID IT HERE BEFORE. THEY WERE WONDERFUL. I, I KIND OF GET A LITTLE UPSET WHEN THINGS DON'T GO MY WAY. I CALL IN THAT AFTERNOON. GUARDIAN WAS RIGHT THERE TO CLARIFY AND MAKE SURE IT WAS DONE PROPERLY TO BEGIN WITH. I PICKED OUT THE CONTRACTOR I WANTED. THEY PICKED OUT THE CONTRACTOR THEY WANTED. I WAS VERY FORTUNATE BECAUSE I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW MR. DESANTIS, BUT I, I DID PICK UP THE RIGHT CONTRACT. BUT I WILL TELL YOU, GUARDIAN WAS THE YOUNG LADY, EVEN THE GENTLEMAN HIMSELF. I MAKE A CALL AND I SAY, YOU KNOW, I WAS NERVOUS ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE DOING. GUARDIAN WAS RIGHT THERE ALL, ALL THE WAY THROUGH MY PROJECT. THEY GAVE ME THE HE GAVE ME A CARD, SHE GAVE ME A CARD. I MEAN, I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT CHURCH, BUT THEY PICKED OUT THEIR OWN CONTRACTOR. MAYBE THEY WEREN'T HOME LIKE I WAS WATCHING EVERYTHING THEY DID, BUT I DID. I WAS THEIR GUARDIAN. I MEAN, I CAN STAND HERE AND SAY THEY DID A FANTASTIC JOB BACKING ME UP WHEN I THOUGHT THEY WERE DOING SOMETHING WRONG. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER MADAM CLERK? NO. ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? SEEING NONE. ROLL CALL PLEASE. COMMISSIONER. CLERK. YES. VICE MAYOR. COLLINS.
YES. COMMISSIONER. GIOVI. YES. COMMISSIONER. REED. NO. MAYOR. RICH. YES. MOTION PASSES.
[12. AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE AMENDMENTS TO LEASES WITH TENANTS AT 301 SE OCEAN BLVD (RC): RESOLUTION No. 63-2025; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AMENDMENTS TO LEASES BETWEEN THE CITY AND VARIOUS TENANTS AT 301 SE OCEAN BLVD. TO INCLUDE THE ALLOWANCE FOR THE TERMINATION OF LEASES IN THE YEAR 2028; FURTHER AUTHORIZING CITY STAFF TO RELOCATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRIOR COMMISSION ACTION; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES]
COMMISSION. ACTION. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. MR. BAGGETT, WILL YOU READ ITEM 12 FOR CONSIDERATION, PLEASE? RESOLUTION NUMBER 63, DASH 2025, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AMENDMENTS TO LEASES BETWEEN THE CITY AND VARIOUS TENANTS AT 301 SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD TO INCLUDE THE ALLOWANCE FOR THE TERMINATION OF LEASES IN THE YEAR 2028. FURTHER AUTHORIZING CITY STAFF TO RELOCATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRIOR COMMISSION ACTION, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. MR. MARTELL, I'M PRETTY SURE YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE THIS. THIS WOULD BE BALANCED, AND IT'S. THE I'M STARTING OVER WHAT WE ORIGINALLY HAD THE AGENDA ITEM. IT WAS FOR THE TWO LEASES AT WELLS FARGO.THE VICE MAYOR ASKED TO BRING IT BACK AND INCLUDE THE LEASES. THE CANCER CENTER HAS STILL NOT SIGNED THEIR LEASE YET, SO I DID NOT INCLUDE IT, BUT I DID INCLUDE THE BOWMAN LEASE. THE THING ABOUT IT IS JUST FOR TECHNICALITY PURPOSES, THE BOWMAN LEASE EXPIRES THIS
[01:00:06]
NOVEMBER AND THEY WERE LOOKING FOR AN EXTENSION TO NOVEMBER OF 28. THE CANCER CLINIC WAS THE ONE THAT WE WERE GETTING TO SHORTEN THEIR LEASE. IT REMAINS MY OPINION THAT IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SHORTEN THEIR LEASE, IT DOESN'T MATTER. IT STILL BENEFITS THE CITY TO GO FORWARD TO THE 28TH. BUT I JUST WANTED TO FULLY DISCLOSE THAT, THAT IF THEY DIDN'T SIGN IT, THAT, YOU KNOW, THE COMMISSION MAY SAY, WELL, THEN I WANT THE CITY TO LEAVE CITY HALL AND GO TO THE TO THE TAKE OVER THE BOWMAN FOURTH FLOOR OF WELLS RIGHT AWAY. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'D BE THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY, BECAUSE IT WOULD LEAVE ONE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL AND THEN HAVE THE CLERK, CITY MANAGER, AND CITY ATTORNEY NOT AT CITY HALL AND 120. AND WE'D BE GIVING UP THE REVENUE. SO IT TO ME, IT'S TO YOUR BEST INTEREST TO GO FORWARD. I'VE ATTACHED THE LEASE AMENDMENT TO THE AGENDA ITEM. AND LIKE I POINTED OUT, IT'S REALLY ONE PAGE. THE ONLY REAL CHANGE IN THE LEASE IS THAT IT'S UNTIL FEBRUARY OF 28. THANK YOU MIKE. DO WE HAVE A MOTION RESOLUTION NUMBER 6 TO 3 2025 MOVE APPROVAL OKAY I MOVE THAT. WE APPROVE THIS. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CLARK. A SECOND BY THE VICE MAYOR. IS ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE. I HAVE A QUESTION. AS THE MAKER OF THE MOTION, COMMISSIONER CLARK, THERE'S A QUESTION, A QUESTION, BUT YOU GET TO GO FIRST. YEAH. OH, I DIDN'T HAVE ANY QUESTION.OH THAT'S OKAY. YOU DON'T HAVE TO QUESTION IS WHAT IS WHAT IS COMMISSIONERS QUESTION. ALL RIGHT. MY OBLIGATION. MY QUESTION IS TO YOU LEE AND MIKE I NOTICED THAT THEY CAN TERMINATE THE LEASE AGREEMENT ANYTIME AFTER JANUARY 1ST OF 27. SHOULD THAT BE IN THERE OR SHOULD WE JUST RUN IT TO FEBRUARY OF 28? WELL, WE DISCUSSED THIS LAST MEETING. I'M SORRY, BUT YOU WEREN'T HERE. BUT WITH THE ISSUE BEFORE THAT IS THAT THEY'RE LITERALLY RIGHT NOW THEY WERE LOOKING TO GET OUT. THEN I SAID I COULD GIVE THEM THE EXTENSION. THEY'RE JUST GOING TO BE TRYING TO FIND A PLACE TO GO. AND IF THEY SIGN A LEASE, RIGHT. AND SO WHAT WE FIGURED IS, WELL, THIS IS KIND OF BONUS FOR US. AND IT'S A GAP THAT WE'RE FILLING ANYWAY. SO YEAH, WE COULD HOLD THEM TO IT, BUT THEY MIGHT NOT AGREE TO THE 28. RIGHT OKAY. THAT'S GREAT.
THANKS GUYS. YEAH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. NO I'M GOOD OKAY. SEEING NONE. ROLL CALL PLEASE.
PUBLIC. NO WE ALREADY DID PUBLIC. THERE WAS NO PUBLIC COMMENT. COMMISSIONER DOBEY.
YES, COMMISSIONER. YES, COMMISSIONER. CLARK. YES. VICE MAYOR. COLLINS. YES. MAYOR.
RICH. YES. OKAY. IS APPROVED. MR. BAGGETT, COULD YOU PLEASE READ ITEM 13 FOR CONSIDERATION,
[13. RESCISSION OF CITY OF STUART'S ORDINANCE NO. 2539-2025 (RC): ORDINANCE No. 2543-2025; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, RESCINDING CITY OF STUART ORDINANCE NUMBER 2539-2025 PURSUANT TO SECTION 28 OF FLORIDA SENATE BILL 180 WHICH WAS ADOPTED AND EFFECTIVE AS OF JULY 1, 2025; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]
PLEASE? SURE. ORDINANCE NUMBER 2543 DASH 2025, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, RESCINDING CITY OF STUART ORDINANCE NUMBER 2539 DASH 2025 PURSUANT TO SECTION 28 OF THE FLORIDA SENATE BILL 180, WHICH WAS ADOPTED AND EFFECTIVE AS OF JULY 1ST, 2025.PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. AND THIS IS MY AGENDA ITEM. I WOULD HOPE SO. I WANT TO REMIND THE BOARD THAT THIS IS THE SECOND READING WE HAD FIRST READING. LAST MEETING. SO WE WILL BE LOOKING FOR FINAL ACTION TODAY AS A RECAP. AS YOU RECALL, THE CITY COMMISSION INITIATED A MORATORIUM IN OUR ZONING IN PROGRESS LAST SEPTEMBER. WHEN IT INITIATED, WE DID A THREE MONTH INITIAL AND THEN A THREE MONTH EXTENSION, A TOTAL OF SIX MONTHS OF A MORATORIUM. DURING THAT TIME, THE CITY COMMISSION HAD HELD NUMEROUS MEETINGS, PUBLIC MEETINGS, WORKSHOPS, AND WHICH RESULTED IN SEVERAL AMENDMENTS TO OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE VIA ORDINANCE 2539 2025, WHICH IS THE ORDINANCE UP FOR RESCISSION TODAY. MANY OF THESE AMENDMENTS CAN BE ARGUED THAT ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE OR BURDENSOME ON APPLICATION APPLICANTS AND FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY. I THINK IT WOULD. IT'S DEFINITELY ARGUABLE BY AN ATTORNEY. SENATE BILL 180 WENT INTO EFFECT ON JULY 1ST, AND OBVIOUSLY, SECTION 28 OF SENATE BILL 180 PROHIBITS THE CITY FROM ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE OR BURDENSOME, THROUGH JUNE 30TH, 2028. THEY
[01:05:05]
EVEN MADE THE LAW RETROACTIVE TO GO BACK TO AUGUST BEFORE OUR MORATORIUM STARTED. BY ABOUT A MONTH, THE STATE LAW THAT WENT INTO EFFECT ON JULY 1ST ALSO MAKES OUR PROGRESS AND MORATORIUM, AND THE SUBSEQUENT ORDINANCE NULL AND VOID. AND SO I'VE PUT TOGETHER THIS ORDINANCE TO RESCIND IF THE CITY DOES NOT RESCIND THE ORDINANCE 2539, THERE'S GOING TO BE A CONSEQUENCE. I SEE, UNDER THE LAW, ANY RESIDENT OR RESIDENTS OR ANY BUSINESS OWNER IN THE CITY HAVE THE OPTION OF SUING THE CITY FOR DECLARATORY OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. DECLARATORY RELIEF IS TO DECLARE THAT WE VIOLATED THE LAW, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS TO PREVENT US FROM DOING SOMETHING UNDER THE LAW. THERE'S A CLAUSE ABOUT A 14 DAY NOTICE. SO WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS, I THINK THE LAW WAS POORLY WRITTEN ON THE ATTORNEY'S FEES. BUT IF A RESIDENT OR BUSINESS OWNER DOES PROVIDE US WITH NOTICE OF THEIR INTENT TO MOVE FORWARD AND CHALLENGING OUR ORDINANCE, WE HAVE 14 DAYS TO NOTICE THAT WE ARE GOING TO TAKE ACTION TO REPEAL IT. AND IF WE DO DO SUCH NOTICE, THEN WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER 14 DAYS THEREAFTER AND IN WHICH TO TAKE ACTION AND TO REPEAL. I HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED NOTICE FROM TWO RESIDENTS SLASH BUSINESS OWNERS IN THE CITY, AND I, I RECEIVED THEM. I GUESS ONE'S PROBABLY ARGUABLE. HE'S ARGUING. HE SENT IT TO ME A WEEK AGO, BUT I DIDN'T GET IT. IT LOOKS LIKE HE SENT IT TO THE WRONG EMAIL, BUT I DEFINITELY GOT BOTH OF THEM TODAY. SO I IT'S MY OPINION THAT OUR NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL IS CLEARLY IN THIS ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE SEEKING TO RESCIND. AND AS I SAID LAST WEEK, RESCIND RESCISSION SLASH REPEAL ARE THE SAME. THEY'RE SYNONYMOUS. I CHOSE RESCIND BECAUSE WE DID THAT WITH BRIGHTLINE. AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS A TERM MORE THAT YOU GUYS WOULD BE FAMILIAR WITH. BUT REPEAL IS THE SAME WAY. IT ACTS THE SAME WAY. SO IT'S MY OPINION THAT WE'RE PUT ON NOTICE TODAY. WE'VE GOT 14 DAYS FROM TODAY TO TAKE THIS ACTION TO REPEAL, SLASH, RESCIND ORDINANCE 2539. OTHERWISE, WE COULD HAVE MULTIPLE LAWSUITS. IT DOESN'T GIVE A CAP TO HOW MANY LAWSUITS THERE ARE. SO IT'S ARGUABLE THAT MULTIPLE PEOPLE CAN SUE THE CITY IF WE RESCIND THIS ORDINANCE. 2539 I KNOW THERE'S TALK ABOUT JOINING A LAWSUIT. WE TALKED ABOUT IT LAST TIME. AND I KNOW WE'VE ALL GOTTEN EMAILS ABOUT JOINING THE LAWSUIT CHALLENGING SENATE BILL 180. AND BY RESCINDING OUR ORDINANCE 2539 WOULD HAVE NO BEARING ON WHETHER OR NOT WE DO JOIN THAT LAWSUIT. SO I THINK IT'S MY OPINION THAT WE SHOULD GO FORWARD WITH RESCINDING ORDINANCE 2539, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE PEOPLE ALREADY CHALLENGING IT AND THREATENING TO SUE US. THERE'S, YOU KNOW, IF A COURT FINDS THAT OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE OR MORE BURDENSOME, IT'S AN EASY CASE TO MAKE. FROM THE OTHER SIDE, IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO DEFEND THAT, WHETHER IT'S MYSELF OR WE END UP GETTING OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO DEFEND THE CITY ON THESE SUCH LAWSUITS. I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE LAWYERS THAT ARE ARE PROPOSING TO DO THE LAWSUIT, AND THERE IS NO IN MY DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM, THERE IS NO HARM TO JOINING THE CASE FROM THEM OR MYSELF. IF WE RESCIND THIS ORDINANCE, IT'S IT ACTUALLY, IN MY OPINION, LOOKS BETTER BECAUSE WE HAVE FACTS THAT WE'RE BEING HARMED BY SENATE BILL 180, BECAUSE WE WENT THROUGH MONTHS OF MAKING THESE CHANGES, AND WE'RE ACTUALLY HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF PROCESS OF RESCINDING THE LAW. AND IT, I THINK, MAKES US HAVE BETTER FACTS. YOU KNOW, THERE MIGHT BE OTHER CITIES OR COUNTIES THAT MIGHT JOIN THIS LAWSUIT. THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING YET. SO IT'S MORE OF A WHAT IF. BUT WITH US, IT HAS CLEARLY BEEN IMPACTED. AND ALSO BY RESCINDING THE LAW NOW WE AVOID HAVING TO PAY OUT ANY ATTORNEY'S FEES. IF, IF, IF THE CASE THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED GOES FORWARD AND UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THE CASE WILL GO FORWARD. BECAUSE IN MY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COUNCIL, THEY'RE LOOKING TO HAVE TEN ENTITIES, MUNICIPALITIES OR COUNTIES TO GO FORWARD, AND THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT THEY WILL GET TEN. BUT THAT SEEMS TO BE THEIR MINIMUM NUMBER. THEY NEED TO GO FORWARD WITH IT. IF[01:10:02]
THEY DO GO FORWARD WITH IT AND WE HAVE RESCINDED THIS ORDINANCE AND THEY PREVAIL, WHETHER WE'RE A PARTY TO IT OR NOT, WE CAN ALWAYS THEN RE-ADOPT OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGES THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH. WE'VE ALREADY HAD THE WORKSHOPS, WE ALREADY HAVE THE ORDINANCE DRAFTED. WE CAN JUST DO FIRST AND SECOND READING AND ADOPT THEM. SO THAT'S WHY IT'S IN MY OPINION THAT WE SHOULD RESCIND AND WE CAN ALWAYS RE ADOPT JUST TO AVOID THESE LAWSUITS THAT ARE CLEARLY GOING TO BE COMING. MR. VICE MAYOR, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, MR. BAGGETT? NO, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE COMMENTS. OKAY. SO ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. BAGGETT? IF NOT, HE ANSWERED MY QUESTION, WHICH WAS IF WE WERE TO RESCIND, THEN WOULD WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD? AND I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT, AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY ELSE DOES EITHER. SO YOU'RE SAYING IT WOULD JUST BE A MOTION TO BRING BACK WHAT WE HAD DONE DURING ZIP? IT'D BE AN ORDINANCE. YOU'D HAVE TO YOU'D HAVE TO INSTRUCT US AND WE'D HAVE TO DO FIRST AND SECOND READING. I'D SAY IT'S ARGUABLE WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE ADVISORY BOARDS, BUT TECHNICALLY THE LAW SAYS WE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE ADVISORY BOARDS, BUT YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO THE WHOLE ZONING IN PROGRESS AND ALL THE WORKSHOPS, BUT YOU WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW THE DUE PROCESS OF THE ADVISORY BOARDS. WE WOULD HAVE FIRST READING, JUST LIKE WE DID IN THIS LAST MEETING AND THEN SECOND READING, BECAUSE THIS IS AN ORDINANCE RESCINDING. SO IT'S THE SAME PROCESS. IT'S AN ORDINANCE. BUT WE'VE ALREADY GONE THROUGH AND I DON'T EVEN HAVE TO WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO DRAFT CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY DRAFTED AND WE'VE DONE IT. SO WE WOULD JUST NEED DIRECTION FROM THE COMMISSION TO RE ADOPT IT. AND WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF DOING FIRST AND SECOND READING. BUT IF IT'S MORE RESTRICTIVE, I'M SAYING HYPOTHETICALLY, IF THE CASE PREVAILS AND IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL THE LAW, THEN WE CAN JUST GO BACK AND RE ADOPT IT. IN THE MEANTIME, WE'RE DEFLECTING ANY LAWSUITS THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET SUED WITH. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. OKAY. THE CITY ATTORNEY. SO YOU'RE SAYING IF IT GOES FORWARD AND THEY THE FLORIDA STATE SAYS, OKAY, IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WHAT IF THEY AMEND THE SB 180? THEY TAKE OUT THAT LAST BIT OF LANGUAGE, THE LAST 58 PAGES, WHICH IS REALLY THE ONE TAKING AWAY HOME RULE. WOULD WE STILL BE IN THE SAME POSITION TO BE ABLE TO JUST ADOPT THE ORDINANCES? AGAIN, WHEN YOU SAY THE LAST SECTION, YOU TALK ABOUT THE ENTIRE SECTION 28. WHEN YOU SAY WHAT? WHAT, WHAT ARE YOU SAYING? HYPOTHETICALLY? SB 180 I MEAN, FOR THE MOST PART, IT'S A PRETTY GOOD EMERGENCY BILL. IT WAS THE LAST SECTIONS THAT WERE ADDED WHICH ARE RESTRICTIVE TO THE HOME RULE. WELL, SECTION 28 IS WHAT IS AT ISSUE NOW. AND IT SAYS THAT EACH COUNTY LISTED IN THE FEDERAL DISASTER DECLARATION FOR HURRICANES DEBBIE, HELENE AND MILTON AND EACH MUNICIPALITY WITHIN THOSE COUNTIES MAY NOT PROPOSE OR ADOPT MORATORIUMS. SO THAT'S WHICH IS WHAT WE FELL UNDER, AT LEAST, MILTON, THAT I'M AWARE OF. SO IT SAYS THAT AND THAT THAT COULD GO INTO FOREVER BECAUSE THERE ISN'T A TIME I CAN REMEMBER THAT ONE PART OF MARTIN COUNTY WASN'T UNDER THE DISASTER OF A HURRICANE. SO AGAIN, MY QUESTION IS IF THAT THAT PART THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT, BECAUSE THERE'S ADDITIONAL PARTS THAT SAY IF THERE AFTER WITHIN A IF, IF THEY FALL WITHIN A YEAR, THEY, THEY'RE ALSO BARRED FROM THE YEAR. BUT THIS INITIAL DATE IS THROUGH THE 20 2028 I IF THEY IF THEY SAY THAT WHOLE SECTION, SECTION 28 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THEN WE JUST AGAIN WE JUST RE ADOPT OUR 2539, WHICH IS THE ZONING AND PROGRESS STUFF. LIKE MR. MORTEL SAID, WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL THE WORKSHOPS AND WE DON'T HAVE TO DO A MORATORIUM BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY IDENTIFIED THE LAWS THAT WE CHANGED. AND SO WE JUST GO FORWARD WITH THE FIRST AND SECOND READING OF THOSE CHANGES, JUST LIKE WE ALREADY HAVE. BUT ACTUALLY WE WENT TO MORE THAN FIRST AND SECOND READING WITH OUR ZONING IN PROGRESS. BUT I THINK WE HAD FOUR READINGS, BUT WE WOULD JUST HAVE TO GO THROUGH ONE AND TWO READINGS. HOW LONG COULD COULD THIS LITIGATION LAST POTENTIALLY. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT IT HAS TO GO TO A TRIAL COURT BETWEEN WITH WEISS AND SEROTA AND THE STATE, MY UNDERSTANDING AND MY SPEAKING TO THEM, THEY WANT TO START AS EARLY AS SEPTEMBER, BUT HOW LONG COULD THEY WOULD FILE A LAWSUIT? COULD IT TECHNICALLY LAST? SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD BE EXPEDITED. SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A JURY TRIAL. IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE A HEARING. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT IT COULD LAST FOR MORE THAN A YEAR? I DON'T THINK SO. BUT IS IT POSSIBLE THE SUPREME COURT, RIGHT. LIKE THE INITIAL RULING IS GOING TO COME OUT, IT COULD BE APPEALED. AND THIS WHOLE PROCESS, WELL, IT'S GOING TO GO TO APPEAL. THERE'S NO WAY A TRIAL JUDGE IS GOING TO MAKE, BUT IT HAS TO GO TO A TRIAL JUDGE FIRST. SO HYPOTHETICALLY, IF THE COMPOSITION OF THIS COMMISSION WAS DIFFERENT. AND TWO OF US HAVE BEEN VERY AGAINST THE ZONING IN PROGRESS, IF THERE WAS A DIFFERENT COMPOSITION UP HERE AND IT AND WE RESCINDED OUR ZONING IN PROGRESS, YOU MAY NOT[01:15:05]
HAVE A COMMISSION THAT WAS FAVORABLE TO REINSTITUTE IT RIGHT IN THE NEXT. YOU'RE RIGHT ALSO. LEE, IS THERE ANY BENEFIT TO GETTING INTO THIS CASE? I KNOW IT'S A SEPARATE MATTER, BUT IT IS RELATED GETTING INTO THIS CASE AND EACH OF US HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO THOSE LAWYERS AND GET A SENSE OF WHETHER OR NOT RESCINDING THIS IS THE BEST MOVE INSTEAD OF PREEMPTIVELY DOING IT. IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT US, EACH INDIVIDUALLY GETTING TO TALK TO THOSE ATTORNEYS BEFORE MAKING THIS DECISION, MIGHT PREPARE US TO MAKE A BETTER DECISION ON RESCINDING THIS? IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT SOME OF YOU HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN TO AT LEAST ONE OF THE LAWYERS, BUT AS, AS A AS AS A MUNICIPALITY THAT HAS SIGNED ON TO THE CASE AND JOINED THE CASE. NOW HAVING THAT KIND OF A RELATIONSHIP WITH THAT FIRM. IF SO, I DON'T KNOW THAT I WHEN I SPOKE TO HER, I ACTUALLY POSED THE QUESTION. SHE WOULDN'T ANSWER IT FOR ME. SHE GOES, YOU NEED TO MAKE THAT CALL BASICALLY POSSIBLE. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THAT COULD GIVE THIS BOARD MORE INFORMATION TO MAKE A BETTER DECISION WITH WHETHER OR NOT TO RESCIND THIS? I IT OBVIOUSLY ANYTHING'S POSSIBLE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE LIKE A WHEN WE HIRE LAWYERS HERE AT CITY OUTSIDE LAWYERS WE HAVE LIKE THE ATTORNEY CLIENT SESSIONS AND SO FORTH. WE HAVE A DIRECT INDIVIDUAL RELATIONSHIP. YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO BE IN A GROUP OF MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTIES, AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE SAME RELATIONSHIP. HOW SHE DESCRIBED TO ME, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT EVEN GOING TO HAVE MUCH DECISION RIGHTS IN THE CASE THAT THE LAW FIRM, HOW IT WAS DESCRIBED TO ME IS GOING TO BE MAKING THE MAJORITY OF THE DECISIONS. THEY WILL BE COMMUNICATING WITH THE CITIES, BUT IT WOULD BE A LITTLE DISORGANIZED TO HAVE, LET'S SAY, TEN JOIN OR 20. I MEAN, YOU CAN'T HAVE 20 BOARDS APPEAR AT AN ATTORNEY CLIENT SESSION AND BE ALL WHO WHO MAKES THE DECISION TO DO WHAT. SO IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE WE WOULD HAVE A DIRECT. DIRECT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE LAW FIRM IN. BUT RIGHT NOW WE DON'T KNOW. AND IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THAT COULD INFORM US TO MAKE A BETTER DECISION HERE. IS IT ALSO TO RESCIND OR JOIN THE LAWSUIT? IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO SEPARATE. NO, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RESCINDING. IS IT ALSO POSSIBLE THAT JOINING THAT CASE MIGHT PROVIDE US SOME AMOUNT OF SHIELD WITH REGARD TO LAWSUITS COMING IN? IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO ME THAT IF YOU ARE SOMEBODY WHO IS LOOKING TO SUE THE CITY, LOOKING AT THAT CASE TRANSPIRING, IT MAY MAKE MORE SENSE TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS FROM ALL PARTIES EXCEPT FOR, YOU KNOW, UNLESS YOU GOT AN AX TO GRIND, WHICH I'M SURE THERE'S SOME OF THAT. WE COULD ALWAYS RAISE A DEFENSE IN A LAWSUIT SAYING, HEY, WE ARE FILING A LAWSUIT CLAIMING IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL. CORRECT. BUT I WANT TO GIVE YOU, I DON'T KNOW, LET'S SAY I'M LET'S SAY THE STATE. I'M JUST GOING TO GIVE YOU A CRAZY EXAMPLE, AN EXAMPLE OF, YOU KNOW, IN MY MIND, LET'S SAY THAT THE STATE LOWERED THE DUI LIMITS AND I GET PULLED OVER FOR DUI AND WELL, JUDGE, I SHOULDN'T HAVE THIS CASE. I'M A I'M CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS LAW OVER HERE. I MEAN, THE LAW OF THE LAND IS STILL WHAT IT IS. AND RIGHT NOW, THE LAW SAYS THAT WE NEED TO RESCIND, ESPECIALLY IF SOMEONE IS REQUESTING US TO. AND FOR ME TO SAY OVER HERE THAT WE'RE WE HAVEN'T FILED A LAWSUIT YET, AND THEY COULD PROBABLY FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST US BEFORE THIS LAWSUIT WITH THE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES GETS INITIATED. BUT IT'S A DEFENSE YOU CAN RAISE. BUT I'M NOT SURE. LIKE A TRIAL COURT JUDGE WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO JUST STAY IT. IT'S THE ONLY THING I CAN SAY COMPARATIVELY, IF, LIKE, IF WE LOSE AT A TRIAL COURT AND WE'RE APPEALING THAT CASE, YOU CAN STAY THE JUDGMENT PART OF IT MIGHT INTEREST LATER, BUT YOU CAN STAY THE JUDGMENT PART OF IT WHILE IT'S PENDING ON APPEAL. RIGHT. BUT THIS IS DIFFERENT.SOMEONE'S GOING TO SUE US BECAUSE THE VIOLATION OF A CURRENT LAW AND WE'RE GOING TO SAY, WELL, WE'RE CHALLENGING IT OVER HERE WITH THIS OTHER LAWSUIT. I THINK IT THAT THAT CASE IS GOING TO GO FORWARD AND THEY'RE GOING TO PURSUE PROSECUTING US FOR VIOLATING THE STATE LAW. AND WHEN I SAY PROSECUTING, I MEANT CIVILLY FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS. IF WE DO CHALLENGE IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE RAISED LATER. I MEAN, IF WE IF WE GOT A JUDGMENT AGAINST US FOR THE ATTORNEY'S FEES, WE CAN JUST
[01:20:02]
APPEAL IT. AND HOPEFULLY BY THAT TIME THE OTHER CASE HAS GONE THROUGH THE CHANNELS. BUT THE SENATE BILL 180 CHALLENGE HAS TO GO TO A TRIAL COURT JUDGE SOMEWHERE. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PICK A VENUE, I ASSUME IN TALLAHASSEE, MAYBE SOMEWHERE ELSE. MAYBE THEY THE LAW FIRM SAYS THAT WOULD BE MORE BENEFICIAL TO BE IN THIS COURT. I MEAN, PEOPLE MAKE THAT DECISION ALL THE TIME. YOU KNOW, THIS COURT OF APPEALS WOULD BE A BETTER VENUE TO GO FIRST BECAUSE TALLAHASSEE IS A DIFFERENT COURT OF APPEALS THAN FOR US. SO I DON'T I DON'T I HAVEN'T GOT I DIDN'T DIVE INTO THOSE TYPES OF QUESTIONS WITH THE LAW FIRM, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO A TRIAL COURT, AND THEN IT'LL PROBABLY TAKE A FEW MONTHS TO GET A TRIAL COURT RULING, AND THEN THAT'S GOING TO BE APPEALED. NOBODY'S GOING TO ACCEPT THAT, AND IT'S GOING TO GO FOR US. IT'S THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN WEST PALM BEACH, BUT IF IT'S IN TALLAHASSEE, IT WOULD BE IN TALLAHASSEE WITH THE FIRST DISTRICT. WE IT WOULD ULTIMATELY GO TO THE SUPREME COURT IN MY MIND. AND IT WOULD BE IT WOULD BE EXPEDITED, BUT IT WOULD STILL TAKE SEVERAL MONTHS TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS. I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU AND WILL AGREE WITH YOU WHEN IT IS SEEN IN COURT, AND IT IS SHOWN TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL. BUT AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, I SEE IT AS VERY MUCH NOT BEING CONSTITUTIONAL AND ITS UNCONSTITUTIONALITY IS BEING CHALLENGED BY MANY DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES. I'M NOT GIVING YOU AN OPINION ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SENATE BILL 180. I'M I'M JUST GIVING YOU AN OPINION ON ON THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS. WE'RE GOING TO GET SUED UNDER SENATE BILL 180. THE ISSUES OF THE CHALLENGE BY THE MUNICIPALITIES IS REALLY AN AGENDA ITEM FOR NEXT MEETING, RIGHT. BUT BUT TO THAT POINT, IF WE DO RESCIND THIS, WE MAY NOT GET ANOTHER CHANCE. BY THE TIME THIS ALL FINISHES UP TO BE ABLE TO REINSTITUTE IT AFTER THE TWO YEARS. ASSUMING THIS TAKES, YOU KNOW, WITH APPEALS MORE THAN A YEAR, WHICH IT VERY WELL COULD, YOU MAY NOT HAVE A BOARD THAT WANTS TO REINSTITUTE THOSE CHANGES, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE ELECTED TO DO. AGAIN, I HAVE. AGREED. OH, YOU HAD YOUR LIGHT ON. GO AHEAD. SORRY. YOU GO FIRST. YEAH. SO THEY'RE FLIPPED. OH. OH I SEE OH, YOU KNOW, I FIGURED IT OUT. GO AHEAD. SO BASICALLY I UNDERSTAND AT LEAST. SO WE HAVE TO RESCIND IT. BUT IT DOESN'T STOP US FROM THE LAWSUIT. IT'S CORRECT. AND IN FACT, I THINK IT MAKES IT STRONGER IF I WAS. AT WHY I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A BUNCH OF CITIES AND COUNTIES JOIN, BUT SOME COUNTIES AND CITIES ARE GOING TO HAVE BETTER FACTS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO FOCUS ON, YOU KNOW, AND LET'S SAY THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY DID ANYTHING, LET'S SAY IF THEY JOINED, BUT THEY NEVER HAD A ZONING IN PROGRESS. BUT WE WANT TO DO ONE, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVEN'T HAD ANYTHING IMPACTED THEM. BUT WE HAVE WHAT'S A STRONG EFFECT OF A QUESTION FOR THE LAWYER WHO'S RIGHT. WELL THAT'S, THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M GETTING AT TOO. BECAUSE LIKE IF, IF WE HAVE 14 DAYS. SO WE COULD DO THIS AT THE NEXT MEETING STILL AND TABLE THIS AGENDA ITEM AND HAVE DISCUSSION WITH YOU AND YOUR OFFICE INDIVIDUALLY WITH THIS LAW FIRM. YEAH. TO AVOID THE EXPOSURE 14 DAYS STARTS TODAY. SO WE HAVE ANOTHER MEETING WITHIN 14 DAYS. CORRECT. SO THAT'S ANOTHER AVENUE I GUESS TO GET MORE INFORMATION TO TABLE IT TO A DATE CERTAIN OF AUGUST 25TH. WHAT WAS THE DATE YOU RECEIVED THAT FIRST MEETING TODAY? WELL, I GOT TWO EMAILS TODAY, BUT ONE WAS FORWARDING A PRIOR EMAIL THAT ALLEGEDLY WAS SENT TO ME, BUT I NEVER GOT IT. AND IT WAS ON THE 31ST OF JULY. AND I WAS TOLD IT WAS THEFT, THOUGH IT WAS. THEY HAVE A RECORD OF DELIVERY. IT LOOKED LIKE IT WENT TO THE WRONG EMAIL ADDRESS, BUT THEN HE FORWARDED IT TO ME THIS TIME AND IT LOOKED. THE CLOCK IS TICKING AS OF TODAY. WELL, THE STATE STATUTE SAYS THAT WE HAVE 14 DAYS TO RESPOND AND THEN ANOTHER 14 DAYS TO AMEND. THERE'S 214 DAY TRIGGERS, WHICH WE RESPONDED TO. THE 114 DAY TRIGGER. RIGHT.YOU HAVE TO YOU GET A NOTICE FROM A SOMEONE DEMANDING THAT WE REPEAL. YOU HAVE 14 DAYS TO RESPOND TO THAT BY TELLING THEM WE'RE GOING. WE HAVE THE INTENT TO WITHDRAW WHATEVER THE ISSUE IS. AND THEN ONCE YOU HAVE 14 DAYS TO RESPOND TO THEM. BUT WE ALREADY HAD WE ALREADY HAD THE SECOND READING, SO WE'VE ALREADY DONE AN INTENT TO REPEAL IT. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE ON THE SECOND READING NOW. SO IT'S MY POSITION THAT SINCE I GOT THE EMAILS TODAY THAT IT WOULD BE 14 DAYS FROM TODAY TO RESCIND IT SO WE COULD DO IT. AND THEN IF WE DON'T, THEY CAN SUE IN COURT AND
[01:25:02]
GET THEIR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS ASSESSED AGAINST THEM. BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT SUING FOR DAMAGES. YEAH. YOU'RE SUING LIKE AN INJUNCTION. YEAH. YOU'RE ALL THEY'RE GOING TO DO IS GET A JUDGE. JUDGE DECLARE THEY VIOLATED THE LAW. THAT'S THAT'S ALL THEY'RE SEEKING. AND THEN ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T REALLY DO ANYTHING THAT'S MORE RESTRICTIVE IN YOUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. ACCORDING TO SENATE BILL ONE, YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING. CORRECT.SO LIKE, I MEAN LITERALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IT COULD BE ANYTHING THAT'S RESTRICTIVE. I MEAN, YOU YEAH, I MEAN, WE COULD GO ON AND ON AND ON IF ALL OF THESE OTHER COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES HAVE NOT RESCINDED, THEY'VE SUBMITTED THEIR COMP PLAN CHANGES AND LET THE STATE DENY THEM. EVERYBODY IS MOVING FORWARD. AND TO ME, BEATING ON THAT SAME DRUM, THE MORE OF US THAT ARE COLLECTIVELY DOING THAT VERSUS, YOU KNOW, ROLLING OVER AND I THINK WE SHOULD ALL STICK TOGETHER AND THAT THERE'S POWER IN NUMBERS BECAUSE WE'RE ON THE RIGHT SIDE.
AND THIS IS COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND RIDICULOUS, AND IT'S GOING TO BE OVERTURNED.
DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY MUNICIPALITIES HAVE ALREADY JOINED ME? I KNOW WE SPOKE ABOUT LAST WEEK. THERE'S NOT A NONE. YEAH, I STILL THE SUIT IS STILL THERE. NOT THAT SHE WOULDN'T IDENTIFY IT. WELL NONE HAVE JOINED BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ACCEPT IT.
SO EVEN IF THE CITY OF STUART VOTED TO JOIN TONIGHT, THEY WOULDN'T ALLOW US TO JOIN UNTIL THEY ARE GUARANTEED TEN PEOPLE JOINED. SO EVEN IF CITY VOTED ON IT TONIGHT TO JOIN, WE WOULDN'T BE JOINED UNTIL THEY TOLD US TEN PEOPLE HAD JOINED AND IT WAS A LAWSUIT. SO AS OF RIGHT NOW, THERE IS NOBODY THAT'S OFFICIALLY JOINED AND OFFICIALLY CHALLENGING IT. I THINK THERE'S LIKE 4 OR 5 AT LEAST THAT HAVE SIGNALED INTEREST. AND SO WHERE YOUR CONSENSUS, WHERE YOU STAND WOULD BE TO WAIT FOR THE NEXT MEETING AND THEN BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, SPEAK TO THE ATTORNEYS, I DON'T KNOW, IT'S EVEN I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ENOUGH TIME IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS TO REALLY IRON THAT OUT WITH THEM. I WOULD WANT TO WAIT UNTIL WE'RE ABLE TO DO THAT BEFORE I WAS TO RESCIND THIS. RIGHT NOW, THIS IS LIVE. I DON'T WANT TO KILL IT. I WANT THIS TO STAY. I WANT TO SUBMIT OUR COMP PLAN CHANGES TO THE STATE, AND I WANT TO GET INTO THAT CASE. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO TALK TO THEM AND THEN GET A SENSE OF, HEY, YOU'RE OKAY IF YOU RESCIND IT.
DON'T WORRY OR LISTEN. YOU SHOULD HOLD ON TO THAT. YOU GUYS ARE BEING REJECTED BY THE STATE.
YOUR COMP PLAN, LIKE JUST LIKE MANATEE COUNTY DID, YOU KNOW? AND THAT'S THE POSITION. I MEAN, IS I WANT TO WAIT TO GET INTO THAT CASE FIRST BEFORE PREEMPTIVELY RESCINDING THIS ON ON OUR OWN. MAYOR COMMISSIONER JOB. JUST TO ADD TO WHAT VICE MAYOR COLLINS SAID, THE BACK END OF THAT IS IF WE RESCIND IT, THIS LOFT CASE TAKES THREE, FOUR YEARS. THE COMPOSITE OF THIS COMMISSION COULD BE DIFFERENT. AND ALL OF THOSE CHANGES THAT WE WORK SO HARD TO DO AND NEVER NOW GETTING INTO THE COMP PLAN CHANGES WILL BE NULL AND VOID. THEY'LL BE GONE. AND IN THE MEANTIME, ALL OF THOSE CHANGES THAT WE DID TO RESTRICT CERTAIN THINGS WILL NOW GO BACK TO JULY OF 2024, AND THERE WILL BE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO SAY, WELL, THIS IS THE TIME TO NOW PUT IN FOR THOSE PROJECTS AND WHATNOT WHILE THEY'RE UNDER THE OLD. SO FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, THE DAY THAT THE GOVERNOR SIGNED THE BILL, IT WENT BACK TO JULY OF 2024 IMMEDIATELY. YES. SO IT'S ALREADY BEEN THERE AND WE HAVEN'T HAD A SINGLE APPLICATION. WELL, I THINK WHAT THEY'RE GETTING A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PRESS NOW PEOPLE ARE BEGINNING TO REALIZE, I MEAN, I THINK THERE'S ONE POINT IN THE, IN THE BILL THAT SAYS IF A DEVELOPER OR A PERSON FEELS IT'S BURDENSOME, WELL, THEN YOU NOW HAVE TO PROVE WHAT IS BURDENSOME. THAT MEANS ANYTHING.
YEAH. I MEAN, SO THAT'S AN OPEN AND I THINK PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO READ IT AND STARTING TO REALIZE THEY CAN JUST TAKE MUNICIPALITIES TO COURT, OR THEY CAN GO BACK AND THEY CAN GET THINGS DONE THAT THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO DO. WHEN MUNICIPALITIES MADE CHANGES, THEY DON'T STAND UP NOW. IT'S GOING TO BE WORSE NEXT WEEK. WELL, WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THE ALAMO, THEY CAN TAKE THEY CAN TAKE MUNICIPALITIES TO COURT THAT DON'T RESCIND IT. AS IT RELATES TO THE CITY OF STUART, AT LEAST THE DEVELOPERS THAT I'VE TALKED TO, REGARDLESS OF WHAT BILLS YOU GUYS OR ORDINANCES YOU GUYS PASSED, IF THEY WANT TO DO LIVE LOCAL, THEY COULD STILL COME IN AND BUILD APARTMENTS AT MAXIMUM DENSITY AND MAXIMUM HEIGHT. SO IT DOESN'T AFFECT MULTIFAMILY AT ALL REGARDLESS, BECAUSE THEY CAN DO THE LIVE LOCAL AND THERE'S NO MINIMUM SIZE TO LIVE LOCAL. YOU CAN BUILD A LIVE LOCAL OF FOUR APARTMENTS AND MAKE TWO OF THE APARTMENTS $2,500 A MONTH AND QUALIFY AND MOVE FORWARD. SO IT DOESN'T REALLY APPLY TO THAT. AND I THINK THAT THAT WAS THE BIGGER OVERREACH OF THE STATE STATUTE BETWEEN THE TWO, BY THE WAY, ALL THREE AND BY THE WAY, UNDER LIVE LOCAL, THEY DON'T COME BEFORE US, YES OR NO. AND IF YOU'RE LOOKING TO SUE THE
[01:30:03]
CITY, IF THIS DOES GET OVERTURNED, YOU'RE PAYING THE LEGAL FEES. I THINK THAT'S WORTH MENTIONING. WHO'S PAYING? ALL THE PEOPLE WHO SUE WILL NOT. WE WILL NOT BE PAYING THOSE LEGAL FEES IF THIS GETS OVERTURNED. IF IT IF IT GETS REVERSED. BUT THEY WON'T PAY OUR FEES, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PAY OUR FEES, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO PAY THOSE LEGAL FEES WHICH WILL MAKE THEM. SO IF YOU GOT AN AX TO GRIND AND YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO SUE US OVER THE ZIP, EFFECTIVELY, YOU'RE GOING TO BE PAYING THOSE LEGAL FEES WHEN THIS GETS OVERTURNED BECAUSE IT'S NOT CONSTITUTIONAL. SO I NOT BECAUSE I GET THAT FEELING OF BEING ON DEFENSE. AND I DON'T LIKE THAT IT'S NOT JUST US PAYING LEGAL FEES IF THIS GETS OVERTURNED. BUT NO. AS FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, THERE'S LEGAL FEES IN THE EVENT THAT THE COMMISSION IS VOTING NOT TO OVERTURN THIS ORDINANCE.THEN TOMORROW AT THE STAFF MEETING, I WILL BE ASKING MR. BAGGETT TO INSTRUCT THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT THAT THEY HAVE TO NOW APPLY CODE THAT'S CONTRARY TO THE CURRENT FLORIDA LAW, BECAUSE YOU'RE INSTRUCTING HIM RIGHT NOW THAT YOU WANT BECAUSE YOU WANT HIM TO APPLY THE ZONING AND PROGRESS ADOPTION, NOT SENATE BILL 180. CORRECT. I WANT YOU TO THROW THOSE BOXES OF TEA INTO THE WATER. AND SB 180 IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION. CORRECT. BUT WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY APPLICATIONS, MIKE, HAVE WE? WELL, EVERY APPLICATION WE HAVE, LIKE KAI, THE GUY THAT'S DOING THE PIZZA PLACE, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY IMPACTS, BUT IT HAS TO BE REVIEWED UNDER THE OLD CODE. SEACOAST BANK WILL HAVE TO GO BACK IN AND BE REVIEWED. I THINK IT ONLY APPLIES TO MIXED USE AND TO RESIDENTIAL, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS ANY OF THE OTHER SETBACKS OR OTHER NUANCE STUFF. SO I DON'T THINK THOSE APPLY AND I THINK THEY'LL BE ABLE TO JUST QUICK JUMPS. BUT IF THERE WAS ANYBODY APPLIED FOR A SHED OR IF ANYBODY APPLIED, I KNOW THAT SOMEBODY SENT IN A REQUEST AS IT RELATED TO THE USE OF A. A GUEST HOUSE OR WHATEVER. THEY HAD TO USE IT AS THEIR OWN PERSONAL HOME OFFICE. SO THAT WILL OBVIOUSLY BE DONE. AND IF THERE'S ANY SHARED PARKING, THOSE WOULD BE ADDRESSED. I DON'T THINK IT'S SIGNIFICANT AT THIS POINT. I KNOW WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY MULTIFAMILY APPLICATIONS, BUT I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE REST. I HAVE TO ASK. DEVELOPMENT, AND REGARDLESS OF THE REAL QUESTION IS MOVING FORWARD, IT'S IT'LL BE THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL HAVE TO GIVE AN OPINION TOMORROW. WHEN DID WE FINISH OUR ZONING IN PROGRESS? BY SEPTEMBER 4TH. WHEN WE STARTED OR NO, I SORRY, MARCH 4TH. SO WE FINISHED IT IN MARCH 4TH. DOES THAT MEAN ANYTHING FROM MARCH 4TH UNTIL NOW? WOULD HAVE HAD TO MEET THE NEW LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND ADDRESS. SO HAS SO FROM MARCH 4TH UNTIL THE GOVERNOR SIGNED THE BILL, IS JODY, HAS THERE BEEN ANY APPLICATIONS THAT ARE JUST ON HOLD? NO. FROM MARCH 4TH UNTIL THE GOVERNOR SIGNED IT, WE WENT PROCESSING IT WITH THE ZONING AND PROGRESS IN PLACE. AND THEN WHEN THE GOVERNOR SIGNED THE BILL MAKING IT VOID, LIKE WHATEVER THAT WAS JUNE 30TH, JULY 1ST, JULY 2ND, BETWEEN JUNE AND NOW, RIGHT, THERE HAS BEEN NO APPLICATIONS PROCESSED BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT IT FALLS UNDER. JODY. NO, NO, THAT'S HER INSTRUCTION FROM ME WAS TO APPLY THE ZONING IN PROGRESS WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED. THEN THAT WAS APPLIED UNTIL THE LEGISLATURE PASSED SENATE BILL 180. THEN WE WERE IN A WINDOW FOR ABOUT TWO WEEKS WAITING TO SEE IF THE GOVERNOR WAS GOING TO VETO IT. AT THAT TIME, WE WERE DRAGGING OUR FEET WHEN IT GOT VETOED. THEN WE SAID, OKAY, NOW WE KNOW OR NOT VETOED A SIGN. THEN WE SAID, OKAY, NOW WE KNOW THAT THE STATE HAS RESCINDED IT. SO THEN WE RETREATED. WE TREATED STATE LAW AS ANY AUGUST 24TH OF LAST FALL OF 2024 IS WHEN IT WAS WHAT THE SENATE BILL 180 SAID. SO WHATEVER THE LAW WAS ON AUGUST 24TH OF 2024 IS WHAT HAS BEEN APPLIED SINCE THEN. OKAY. AND THEN VICE MAYOR COLLINS IS SAYING TO MAKE IT APPLICABLE TO THE NEW NOW. RIGHT. IT'S GOING BACK TO THE ZONING AND PROGRESS LAW, CONTRARY TO THE STATE LAW. THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT ALL THESE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES HAVE DONE IS SUBMITTED THEIR STUFF AND LET THE STATE DENY IT, WHICH IS PLAN CHANGES. THOSE ARE COMP PLAN CHANGES, RIGHT? YEAH. HOLD ON TO YOUR CODE. DO NOT RESCIND YOUR CODE. SEND IN YOUR COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS AND LET THE STATE TELL YOU. I THINK THERE WAS ONE THAT SENT IT IN IN THE STATE REJECTED IT. OH, I THOUGHT IT WAS ORANGE COUNTY. RIGHT.
MANATEE. THAT CAN HAPPEN. THAT'S THAT'S MY POINT. HAS ANYONE TALKED TO FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES? I KNOW MAYOR RICH. YOU TALKED TO THEM QUITE A BIT. WHAT'S THEIR CONSENSUS ON IT.
THERE'S THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND OUR CONCERN ABOUT THIS ONE BECAUSE OUR EXISTING CODE. WHO
[01:35:05]
DID YOU SPEAK TO SPECIFICALLY OUR EXISTING CODE? I'VE TALKED TO A NUMBER OF I UNDERSTAND OUR EXISTING CODE IS STILL IN PLACE. AS MR. MARTELL INDICATED, WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO END UP DOING IS PUSHING EVERYBODY OVER TO LIVE LOCAL. IS THERE ANYONE I SHOULD SPEAK? BECAUSE I'M GOING TO GO TO THE Y. IF THEY WANT TO DEVELOP, THEY'LL JUST GO TO LIVE LOCAL BECAUSE THEN IT NEVER COMES BEFORE US. THAT'S PURELY ADMINISTRATIVE AND WE LOSE ALL CONTROL. NO, NO. WITH WITH THE.HAVE YOU SEEN THE PROPOSAL? NO. HAVE YOU SEEN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN FORT PIERCE? WHAT I HAVEN'T THAT'S UNDER THAT'S UNDER LIVE LOCAL. THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN EITHER WAY. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR ZONING AND PROGRESS. IF SOMEBODY'S GOING TO DO THAT, THEY'RE GOING TO DO THAT ANYWAY. THIS IS FEAR MONGERING OVER THE ZONING AND PROGRESS. IT'S NOT FEAR MONGERING IF, IF, IF YOU'RE THE CITY COMMISSION OF FORT PIERCE. IS THERE ANYONE IN HERE? I KNOW YOU HAVE A LOT OF COMMUNICATION WITH THEM. IS THERE ANYONE IN PARTICULAR THAT I SHOULD SPEAK TO AT FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES? BECAUSE I CAN'T SPEAK TO YOU OUTSIDE OF I. I ACTUALLY WENT TO A CONFERENCE IN ORLANDO, WHICH WAS THE FLORIDA MANAGER FOR THE COUNTY AND CITY MANAGER LAST MONTH OR WHATEVER IT WAS, AND WENT TO THREE DIFFERENT PANEL DISCUSSIONS ON IT. AND THE ONE DISCUSSION WAS SCHEDULED FOR AN HOUR AND 2.5 HOURS INTO IT. THEY HAD TO TELL EVERYBODY TO MOVE ON BECAUSE THERE WAS SO MUCH ANIMATION GOING ON. BUT I CAN TELL YOU THE CONSENSUS THAT WAS REACHED AT THAT PANEL WAS ABSOLUTELY NONE. EVERYBODY FELT LIKE IT WAS AN OVERREACH. AND THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES, THIS WAS THE FCMA OR THE FLORIDA CITY AND COUNTY MANAGERS ASSOCIATION, AND THERE WAS A LOT OF FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES PEOPLE THERE, A LOT OF CITY MANAGERS THERE, A LOT OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS THERE. AND LOTS OF PEOPLE WERE FRUSTRATED BY IT.
BUT THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES HAS NOT FILED A CHALLENGE OF IT. AND THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF COUNTIES HAS NOT. OR WHAT DO THEY CALL THAT HAS NOT FILED A CHALLENGE. WHO WOULD I REACH OUT TO THEN FOR FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES? MIKE FROM A LOCAL LEVEL THEN TO DO TO JUST TO JUST TO GET THE CONSENSUS. I MEAN YOU CAN LOOK ON RICH SAYS THAT THEY'RE TOTALLY AGAINST IT AND THEY ARE YOU CAN CALL THEM, YOU CAN LOOK ON THEIR WEBSITE AND CALL EVERYBODY ON THEIR BOARD, I MEAN, NO PROBLEMS. YOU CAN GO ON THERE MYSELF. PATRICIA, ALL THE STAFF MEMBERS. NO, THAT'S THE THAT'S THE TREASURE COAST LEAGUE OF CITIES, FLORIDA, THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES IS ON THEIR WEBSITE NAME TO THE CLERK AND SHE CAN PROVIDE IT TO YOU. RIGHT. THANK YOU, MAYOR RICH.
YOU CAN GO ON AND LOOK AT DIFFERENT MEETINGS. BUT AS MR. MARTEL SAYS, THEY HAVE NOT. AND THIS IS WHAT THEY DO, BUT THEY HAVE NOT CHOSEN TO JOIN A LAWSUIT IN OPPOSITION TO THIS. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING TO OR NOT, I DON'T KNOW. SO IF YOU GO ON THEIR WEBSITE, THEY HAVE A LEGISLATIVE RESOURCES PAGE AND THEN THEY HAVE ISSUE SPECIFIC RESOURCES AND THEY HAVE CASEY COOKE, CHIEF OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, CHARLES CHAPMAN, LEGISLATIVE CONSULTANT DAVID CRUZ, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL REBECCA O'HARE, DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL MATT SINGER, LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE. SAM WAGNER, LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE. SO AND I'LL FORWARD THAT WEBSITE TO YOU RIGHT NOW. EVERYBODY'S GOING TO ORLANDO. BUT A COUPLE DAYS RIGHT AT THE LEAGUE OF CITIES MEETING.
THE ANNUAL MEETING. SO BUT YOU'RE THAT'S WHO I WOULD SUGGEST REACHING OUT TO. OKAY.
YEAH. I'M JUST CURIOUS. I WAS NOT TO HARP ON YOU, MAYOR RICH, BUT WHEN YOU SAY SOMETHING, I'M JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE, LIKE, IF YOU ASKED ME WHO I SPEAK TO, I'LL GLADLY GIVE YOU THE FIRST NAME, LAST NAME, CELL NUMBER, EMAIL, WHATEVER YOU WANT. I BELIEVE IN TRANSPARENCY. AND IF YOU EVER HAVE A QUESTION FOR ME, BY THE WAY, MAYOR RICH, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER IT ON THE DAIS, BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY TIME YOU AND I CAN COMMUNICATE. OTHER THAN THAT, I HAVE EVERYONE BLOCKED UP HERE ON MY PERSONAL CELL NUMBER SO THEY CAN'T EVEN CALL OR TEXT ME. THAT INCLUDES CITY MANAGER, TOO. NO OFFENSE, MIKE, BUT IT'S JUST EASIER BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT PUBLIC RECORDS. IT'S EASIER TO HAVE A PHONE CALL. BUT YES, I BELIEVE IN THAT. AND THAT'S WHY I'M HERE. OKAY. ARE WE DONE WITH QUESTIONS TO MR. MARTELLO, MR. BAGGETT? IF SO, IS THERE MR. MAYOR? CLERK OKAY, SO. I DEFINITELY DON'T WANT EROSION OF HOME RULE. LIKE I SAID BEFORE, I THINK THE THREE THINGS THAT I THAT WE GOT OUT OF THE. THE ZIP, THE, THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN SOME LAND USE AREAS AND THE 0.5 UNIT AND THEN THE EAST STUART CODE AND THE EAST STUART CODE WAS THE BIGGEST AREA THAT WAS CHANGED. AND WE HAD PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST INVOLVED PUBLIC HEARING, EVEN THOUGH I, I DIDN'T THINK THAT WE HAD FOLLOWED, EVEN THOUGH WE HAD
[01:40:04]
PUBLIC INPUT, THAT WE HAD FOLLOWED A VERY THOROUGH PROCEDURE TO MAKE THE TYPE OF CHANGES THAT WE WERE ASKING FOR IN THE ZIP PROCESS. BUT AT THAT MEETING, PEOPLE HAD LOTS OF QUESTIONS AND LOTS OF INPUT. AND THE LAST THING THEY ASKED BEFORE WE FINALLY ADOPTED THE ZIP WAS REMOVE EAST STUART AND GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO HAVE MORE PLANNING MEETINGS AND MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO TALK ABOUT THAT AREA AND TO LOOK AT THE LAND USES IN THAT AREA OTHER THAN WHAT WAS BEING SUGGESTED DURING THE ZIP PROCESS. AND SO THAT IS MY BIGGEST THING WITH THIS.PROCESS, IS THAT I REALLY THINK THAT PEOPLE ARE A LITTLE BIT SHAFTED IN THAT WHOLE. PROCESS, IN THAT THE BIGGEST THING THAT CAME OUT OF THE, THE, THE ZIP PROCESS WAS THE, YOU KNOW, RESTRICTIONS CREATING ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS FOR COMMERCIAL USES AND PARTICULAR LOCATIONS IN THE EAST STUART AREA FOR DEVELOPING ADDITIONAL HOUSING IN THE FUTURE. I KNOW WE HAVE YOU CAN LOOK AND SEE ALL THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WENT ON, BUT I THINK PEOPLE STILL WANTED TO HAVE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION. THAT'S WHY WHENEVER IT HAS COME UP WITH REGARD TO THE. THE, THE, THE, THE, I GUESS THE WHOLE IDEA OF HOME RULE RESTRICTION AND THE STATE PREEMPTING US, IT HAS BEEN A VERY CONSTERNATION FOR ME BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE STATE DOESN'T USE EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO ERASE OUR ABILITY TO HAVE HOME RULE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THAT THING WAS ADDED INTO THIS CHANGE DURING THE ZIP PROCESS. AND WHEN WE GET THIS BACK FROM THE STATE THAT SAYS THAT ANYTHING THAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE RULES AFTER THESE HURRICANES AND, AND IT WAS ALL INCLUDED, JUST LIKE COMMISSIONER JOE MENTIONED, THE SECTIONS, I JUST I REALLY HAVE MISGIVINGS.
AND I THINK THAT THE BEST THING TO DO WOULD BE FOR US TO ADOPT AT THIS TIME, ORDINANCE NUMBER 25, 43, 20, 25. AND WE CAN ALWAYS WORK ON SOME OTHER THINGS AT FURTHER DOWN THE LINE. I THINK WE'RE SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR ADDITIONAL LAWSUITS, AND I KNOW THAT YOU'VE MENTIONED ABOUT HAVING 14 DAYS. THAT'S CUTTING IT VERY CLOSE. AND PEOPLE ARE READY. PEOPLE ARE READY. WHEN WE WERE THERE AT THE LAST MEETING, I THINK ON THE 20TH OF ONE OF THOSE MONTHS, MARCH OR APRIL, WHAT WE HAD A DATE AT THE 10TH STREET REC CENTER AND PEOPLE WERE READY AND THEY HAD THEIR ARGUMENTS. NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THEIR ARGUMENTS ARE GOING TO HOLD UP. IF THESE TEN CITIES DO JOIN IN AND THEY PUT FORTH ARGUMENTS. BUT THOSE FOLKS WERE READY AS TO WHY THEY THOUGHT THAT WHAT THE CITY WAS DOING, THE PROCESS THAT THE CITY WAS FOLLOWING AT THE TIME. AND THAT'S MY THING, IS THAT THE PROCESS THAT WE FOLLOWED AND THE WAY THAT WE RESPONDED TO THE CITIZENS, I DIDN'T THINK THAT. IT WAS THE IT WAS A FAIR CHANCE. SO THAT'S WHY I HAVE THIS CROSSROADS HERE. AND IT'S KIND OF LIKE SPLIT IN YEARS. BUT I DO THINK THAT I WE SHOULD RESCIND AND WE SHOULD DO IT TONIGHT. I HEAR THAT THERE'S TALK ABOUT TRYING TO TABLE THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, NUMBER 13 UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. AND I'LL ASK MR. BAGGETT AGAIN BEFORE I MAKE MY MOTION OFFICIAL ABOUT ORDINANCE 2543 2025. IF WE PUT IT OFF ON HAVE, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED AT THE AUGUST 25TH MEETING. ARE WE? RUNNING OUT OF TIME AT THAT TIME? NO. AS I MENTIONED TO YOU, TECHNICALLY, I THINK THAT THAT THE METER STARTS RUNNING 14 DAYS FROM TODAY. SO THE NEXT MEETING IS WITHIN 14 DAYS. SO WE JUST HAVE TO TAKE ACTION TO RESCIND WITHIN 14 DAYS. THERE IS A QUESTION OF WHEN I INITIALLY GOT THE EMAIL. ONE OF THE ONE OF THE OBJECTORS SENT ME AN EMAIL.
[01:45:07]
WELL, HE SENT AN EMAIL ON JULY 31ST. IT APPEARED THAT IT WENT TO THE WRONG EMAIL ADDRESS, AND HE FORWARDED THAT EMAIL TO ME TODAY AND SAID I NEVER RESPONDED TO HIS OTHER EMAIL, BUT IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS A DIFFERENT EMAIL ADDRESS THAN I GOT TODAY, SO IT LOOKED LIKE AN INCORRECT EMAIL ADDRESS. BUT EVEN. I WOULD HAVE TO RESPOND TO HIM WITHIN 14 DAYS AND THEN ANOTHER 14 DAYS TRIGGER. SO I RESPONDED TODAY AND I INDICATED THAT WE HAVE IT ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT FOR RESCISSION. AND SO THAT WOULD CHECK THE BOX FOR THE FIRST 14 DAYS. NOW A NEW 14 DAYS STARTS THAT WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY RESCIND WITHIN. AND I IT'S MY OPINION THAT STARTS TODAY. AND SO NEXT MEETING WOULD FALL WITHIN THAT 14 DAY. BUT WHAT IF WE FAIL TO RESCIND IT. ISN'T THAT THEN EFFECTIVELY SAYING THEY WILL FIND OUT. YEAH THEY THEY WILL THEY THEY HAVE THE OPTION OF SUING US AND THEN THERE WILL BE ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS. THAT'LL BE THE ISSUE FOR NEXT WEEK'S MEETING BECAUSE THEN WE'LL ASK, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE ATTORNEYS WOULD DEFEND US OR HOW THAT WOULD WORK. AND WE CAN HAVE SEVERAL PEOPLE JUST FILING BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO GET THOSE ATTORNEY'S FEES EITHER WAY. NOT EITHER WAY. IF THAT CASE DOESN'T WORK OUT, THEY'RE NOT GETTING THOSE FEES PAID BY US. THE ONLY THING THAT THEY WOULD GET IS AN AUTOMATIC INJUNCTION. YEAH, OKAY. UNTIL IT WAS RESOLVED, THERE'S A LOT MORE CLARIFICATION. THANK YOU. VICE MAYOR, CAN CAN I ASK YOU ONE QUESTION? EULA, IS DID YOU GO THROUGH A SEVEN MONTH PROCESS OF MEETINGS WITH PUBLIC COMMENT WHEN IT CAME TO REDEFINING WHAT A UNIT WAS AND INSTITUTING HALF UNITS IN 2020? NO, BECAUSE AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, I HAD NO IDEA THAT THAT WAS GOING ON WITH THIS COMMISSION. WENT THROUGH SEVEN MONTHS OF MEETINGS WITH PUBLIC COMMENT, WITH EVERYBODY COMING IN, EVEN GOING INTO EAST STEWART SPECIFICALLY TO TRY TO BRING UNDERSTANDING. YOU'VE CONSISTENTLY KNOCKED AT THE PROCESS THAT WE WENT THROUGH IN THE ZIP, AND USING THAT AS A REASON FOR WHY YOU WOULD SUPPORT RESCINDING IT. BUT IN 2020, THE COMMISSION DIDN'T COME EVEN CLOSE TO PROVIDING THE LEVEL OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FOR THE CHANGES THAT IT MADE AND EVEN REDEFINING WHAT UNITS WERE. MR. VICE, I'D ASK YOU NOT TO CRITICIZE YOUR FELLOW COMMISSIONER. YOU MAY EXPRESS YOUR CONCERNS. I AM I DON'T NEED YOU TO. I DON'T NEED YOU TO INTERRUPT ME. I'M SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY TO SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED IN THE SAME WAY THAT THERE MIGHT BE CRITICISM OF HOW WE DID THAT PROCESS. REGARDING THAT, I'M CRITICIZING HOW THAT PROCESS. OKAY, I HEAR YOU. AND AT THAT TIME, THE CONSENSUS AND MY FEELING WAS THAT THAT HALF UNIT WAS GIVEN THE ALLOWANCE TO GET SOME. YEAH, TO GET SOME SOME SPEAKING TO SOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN. BUT THE PROCESS OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND THE NUMBER OF MEETINGS AND THE PUBLIC IN WHICH THERE WERE NO OBJECTIONS AT THE TIME AND IT WAS ON THE AGENDA, BUT WE DIDN'T GO THROUGH THAT SAME PROCESS THAT THIS COMMISSION WAS THE COMPLAINT CHANGED. IT WAS A COMPLAINT. I MEAN, IT WASN'T IT WASN'T A ZIP, A MAJOR CHANGE FOR THE ENTIRE FOR THE ENTIRE DID HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THAT. WE DID PLAN AMENDMENTS. WE DID NOTHING LIKE WE'D GONE THROUGH WITH THE STANDARD HEARING DID. BUT LIKE THINGS THAT THEY WANTED CHANGED ON BULLETIN BOARDS AND HAD LIKE WORKSHOPS AND THE WHOLE THING, BECAUSE WE DID THE AMENDMENT REVIEW FOR THE COMP PLAN WITH THE HALF WHEN THE HALF UNITS WERE ADOPTED IN THE ORDINANCE, IT WAS NOT ANYWHERE NEAR AS LENGTHY AS THE RIGHT. I HEAR YOU, THE ZONING IN PROGRESS. SO I JUST FOR THE RECORD, I JUST DON'T APPRECIATE THAT CRITICISM OF THIS PROCESS WE WENT THROUGH BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE WERE VERY COMPREHENSIVE, ESPECIALLY RELATIVE TO PAST, WHICH IS WHY THOSE HALF UNITS NEEDED TO BE CORRECTED IN OUR ZONING IN PROGRESS, BECAUSE WE WERE ELECTED TO FIX THOSE PROBLEMS. THE MAJORITY OF THAT'S ON THIS BOARD WAS ELECTED BECAUSE OF FRUSTRATION AROUND THE WAY IT WAS HANDLED IN THE PAST, AND I UNDERSTAND I SAID I HAD NO PROBLEM WITH THE HALF UNIT CHANGE BACK AND THE RESIDENTS DO. AND BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY RELEVANT. THAT'S OKAY. IT'S JUST I'M MAKING A MOTION I HAVE. OH SORRY, I'VE ALREADY OKAY FOR A WHILE BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR MOTION OKAY OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CLARK. SORRY. BASED ON WHAT COMMISSIONER CLARK HAD JUST SAID. OH MY MIC. SORRY. BASED ON WHAT COMMISSIONER CLARK HAD JUST SAID ABOUT REVISITING THE PARTS OF THE ZIP AND ALL OF THAT, THAT WOULD BE EVEN MORE REASON FOR US NOT TO RESCIND, BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO JUST BRING EVERYTHING BACK JUST ON AN ORDINANCE, BECAUSE WE'D NOW BE LOOKING TO REVISIT PARTS OF THE[01:50:02]
ZIP WHICH WOULD REOPEN. EVERYTHING COULD STILL BE CONSIDERED. YES. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT. EVERYBODY UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION. OKAY, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MAKE A MOTION. OKAY. OH, ARE WE MAKING A MOTION TO TABLE THIS TO THE 25TH? MAKE A MOTION TO ANYTHING YOU LIKE. OKAY, I MAKE AND IF NOTHING HAPPENS TODAY. MR. BAGGETT, WHAT IS THE PROCESS? THE STATE LAW STAYS IN PLACE. YEAH. I MEAN, THE STATE LAW IS THE LAW. YEAH. THAT'S CURRENTLY, IF NOTHING HAPPENS TODAY, I, I WOULD ASSUME THAT IT'S BEING TABLED TO A NEXT MEETING. BUT THAT'S I THINK THE COMMISSION'S DIRECTION TO YOU WAS THAT THE STAFF START APPLYING OUR ZONING AND PROGRESS LAW. RIGHT. I GOT COMMISSIONER, I GOT THE VICE MAYOR SAYING THAT I DON'T HAVE I DON'T HAVE A CONSENSUS ABOUT RESCINDING IT. WE DON'T. THEY ALREADY PASSED IT. RIGHT. WELL, THEN I WOULD IF THEY'RE NOT RESCINDING IT, THAT DOESN'T TELL US TO TAKE ACTION. THAT'S JUST SAYING THEY'RE NOT RESCINDING IT. SO I WOULD LIKE CONSENSUS FROM THE BOARD. IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO RESCIND IT, YOU'RE DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ADOPTING YOUR PREVIOUS AMENDMENTS. CORRECT. BUT THEY WERE ALREADY ADOPTED.YEAH, IT'S ALREADY ADOPTED. I'M SORRY. IMPLEMENTING IT. WE HAVE DISPOSE OF 13 FIRST PLEASE.
WELL, YES. SO WE HAVE WE HAVE I'M MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 2543 DASH 2025.
OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? SEEING NONE. THE MOTION FAILS. ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION? I WOULD LIKE CONSENSUS FROM THE BOARD ON DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO IMPLEMENT THE AMENDMENTS FROM ORDINANCE 2539 DASH 2025. AS MR. MORTEL HAD INDICATED, WE HAD SINCE JULY, A COUPLE OF WEEKS BEFORE, I GUESS A COUPLE WEEKS BEFORE JULY 1ST. WE STOPPED IMPLEMENTING IT BECAUSE OF THE PENDING SENATE BILL 180, WHICH HAD SUBSEQUENTLY PASSED AND WAS SIGNED OFF BY THE GOVERNOR. SO CURRENTLY WE WERE NOT IMPLEMENTING IT AND WE HAVE NOT SENT IT TO MUNICODE. WE STOPPED IMPLEMENTING IT BECAUSE WE WERE TAKING ACTION TO RESCIND IT.
BASED UPON THE GOVERNOR SIGNING THE BILL, THE COMMISSION VOTED NOT TO RESCIND IT. THEY'RE NOT.
THIS WAS SECOND READING. IT DIDN'T. THIS THIS HEARING IS OVER THIS. SO IT DIDN'T RESCIND.
THAT BASICALLY IS THE RIGHT SO THEY'RE IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WOULD FOLLOW THE CURRENT. CHANGES RIGHT IN THE CURRENT PREPARE THE PROGRESS I'M HEARING OKAY. DO YOU DO YOU NEED A MOTION FOR THAT. NO I'M JUST I'M TRYING TO GET CONSENSUS THAT THAT'S THE DIRECTION. I DON'T THINK YOU NEED CONSENSUS. I THINK IT'S OUR ACTION. I WOULD LIKE CONSENSUS BECAUSE I'VE GOT TWO COMMISSIONERS TELLING US TO DO THAT. I. IT DOESN'T MATTER. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT IT IS. DOESN'T MATTER. BUT IF YOU'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM A THIRD. YEAH. YOU FAILED TO RESCIND THE ORDINANCE.
CHANGES ARE IN PLACE. THAT'S IT. IT'S NOT A MATTER OF OPINION. IT'S WHAT IT IS. COMMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. NO, THERE'S NO MOTION. BUT EVEN THOUGH WE DIDN'T KNOW, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE NOT IN A MOTION, YOU DON'T WANT TO OFFER PUBLIC. NO, I DO NOT. THERE'S NO PROVISION FOR THAT.
WHY? WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT TAKING DISCRETION. NO. HERE. NO. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ALLOW PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS SECOND. OKAY. ON ANY SUBJECT AT ALL ON THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM 13 SECOND. OKAY. NONE. WE HAVE A MOTION OPPORTUNITY, THOUGH. YEAH. COMMISSIONER REED AND A SECOND BY THE VICE MAYOR. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE ABILITY OF THE PUBLIC TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT? SEEING NONE, REGARDLESS, SEEING NONE. ROLL CALL PLEASE. I THINK THAT'S MORE COMICAL. WHAT I HAVE IN MY OPINION. YEAH, SHE HAS A PUBLIC OPINION. YOU HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON WHAT YOU HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM, BUT THE ITEM FAILED VOTING ON PUBLIC. WE HAVE TO OKAY. SO YOU WANT TO ROLL CALL TO ALLOW THEM TO COMMENT OKAY. ROLL CALL. NO.
JUST LET COMMISSIONER CLARK MAYOR RICH, WE DO TAKE THE PUBLIC COMMENT ONE MORE TIME.
JUST VOTE. COMMISSIONER CLARK, PLEASE. THERE YOU GO AGAIN. CAN WE JUST HAVE A ROLL CALL? I DON'T THINK SHE HEARD IT. THEY'RE THEY'RE DOING A CALL ON THAT. YOU'VE ALREADY CALLED SOMEONE'S NAME, COMMISSIONER CLARK. THIS IS TO ALLOW PUBLIC COMMENT ON. PLEASE TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT. THANK YOU. YES. OKAY. VICE MAYOR COLLINS. YES, COMMISSIONER. YES. I THINK THE
[01:55:02]
PUBLIC SHOULD ALWAYS HAVE COMMENT. IT'S A SHAME THAT SOMEONE HAS TO MAKE A MOTION TO ALLOW PUBLIC COMMENT. BUT YES, ABSOLUTELY. THIS IS WHO WE WORK FOR. THANK YOU, MAYOR RICH.SURE. YES. UNBELIEVABLE. AND DO YOU, MADAM CLERK, IS THERE DO YOU HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT, ROBIN CARTWRIGHT? MISS CARTWRIGHT GETS A TRIFECTA. CRAZY. WELL, MAYOR RICH IS THE CHAIR, SO. YEAH. SO JUST TO CLARIFY, FOR EVERYBODY WATCHING AT HOME, SENATE BILL 180 IS GOING TO NULLIFY THE INDEPENDENCE OF EVERY MUNICIPALITY. AND WE ARE BEING BULLIED INTO REPEALING THE ZONING AND PROGRESS. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR NON-DECISION TONIGHT. AS A REMINDER, THE PROPOSED LAWSUIT TO PROTECT THE MUNICIPALITIES IS NOT GUARANTEED TO BE A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PROTECTING EVERY MUNICIPALITY THAT'S UP TO THE JUDGE. AND A FAVORABLE RULING DOESN'T NEGATE THE SENATE BILL. MORE THAN LIKELY, IT WILL REQUIRE THE LEGISLATURE TO REWRITE OR AMEND THE BILL. AN FYI, THESE DEVELOPER PROVIDED TALKING POINTS OF QUOTE, IT'S NOW A LAW, AND WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, OR MISGUIDED AND INCORRECT. AND SOME ARE BLINDLY MAKING THESE STATEMENTS ON BEHALF OF PEOPLE WITH A VESTED INTEREST. WHAT'S ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION IS ELOQUENTLY STATED BY COMMISSIONER JOB IN HER INITIAL COMMENTS, IS THE RIGHT TO HOME RULE. SO SOME REAL LIFE EXAMPLES FOR THOSE AT HOME AS TO HOW INANE THIS BILL IS. TREASURE ISLAND HAS PROPOSED A MORATORIUM ON IMPACT FEES IN ORANGE COUNTY.
DEVELOPERS ARE SUING TO BASICALLY NULLIFIED A VOTER APPROVED RESTRICTION ON GROWTH.
AND IN MANATEE COUNTY, DEVELOPERS ARE SAYING THAT WETLANDS SHOULDN'T BE PROTECTED UNDER THE SENATE BILL. AND ACCORDING TO THEM, WETLANDS BEING PROTECTED IS QUOTE UNQUOTE, BURDENSOME. SO HERE'S WHAT'S BURDENSOME TO ANY RESIDENT OF ANY MUNICIPALITY WAIVING IMPACT FEES, CAUSING THE COST TO BE INCURRED BY RESIDENTS THROUGH PROBABLY A TAX INCREASE NULLIFYING A VOTER APPROVED REFERENDUM, IGNORING THE WILL OF THE VOTERS AND ALLOWING WETLANDS TO BE FILLED IN, CAUSING A LITERAL COST TO RESIDENTS TO PAY FOR STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROBABLY HIGHER INSURANCE RATES. BECAUSE NOW THE AREA MIGHT FLOOD. BY THESE STANDARDS, WE SHOULD NULLIFY THE VOTER APPROVED AMENDMENT TO SUPPORT ALL ABOARD FLORIDA AND NEGATE THE BRIGHTLINE EFFORTS, BECAUSE I NEED INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FROM SOMETHING THAT IS BURDENSOME TO ME. BUT SERIOUSLY, NOT ONLY IS MONEY GOING TO BE FORCIBLY REMOVED FROM BUDGET PLANNING, THERE WOULDOST OF INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED FIRE RESCUE, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, AND SCHOOLS TO SUPPORT ANY PROJECTS APPROVED BY ANYBODY CLAIMING THAT THEY'RE USING THIS BAD BILL TO GET APPROVED. AND FOR ALL OF YOU WHO SAY THAT DEVELOPMENT PAYS FOR ITSELF, YOU CAN OBVIOUSLY STOP BECAUSE THE ONLY THING DEVELOPMENT IS PAYING FOR ARE THE LOBBYISTS, THE DEVELOPMENT EXPERTS AND POLITICIANS WHO VOTED FOR THIS MESS AND SOME OTHER BAD BILLS THAT ARE BEING FORCED UPON US. THIS ONE REMOVING HOME RULE IS ESPECIALLY EGREGIOUS. I HOPE THIS CITY COMMISSION AND STAFF AND THOSE AT THE COUNTY ARE FIGURING OUT HOW TO BETTER PROTECT OUR COMMUNITIES. YOU NEED TO TAKE A STAND, COMMISSIONERS, BECAUSE YOU ONLY GET ONE CHANCE TO GET THIS RIGHT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. WALTER LLOYD. EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. WALTER LLOYD, 150 CABANA POINT CIRCLE. I'M. I'M STANDING WITH JOIN THE FIGHT WITH ANYBODY THAT'S WILLING TO JOIN THE FIGHT IN FLORIDA. I THINK THAT WE'RE REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE THAT ELECTED THEM. OTHERS IN THE STATE ARE STATING THAT THEY ARE GOING TO JOIN THE FIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MAY NEED TO BE A CERTAIN NUMBER BEFORE THE ACTUAL INITIATIV IE S TAKEN. AND I WOULD ASK US TO PLEASE JOIN THAT FIGHT. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THE LOCAL TAXPAYERS ARE THROWN UNDER THE BUS BY THE STATE, ALLOWING DEVELOPERS TO HAVE THEIR WAY. WE KNOW WHY THAT HAPPENS. OUR QUALITY OF LIFE IS COMPROMISED AND DOESN'T MEAN MUCH TO ANYBODY WHEN IT COMES TO MONEY IN THE POCKETS. DO WHAT YOU WERE ELECTED TO DO AND IT IT JUST SEEMS SO EASY TO RECOGNIZE THAT EVERYBODY FROM TALLAHASSEE DOWN TO THIS BOARD WORKS FOR US. BUT IT SEEMS AS THOUGH IT'S BEEN REVERSED. IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THEY THINK THEY CAN MAKE ANY DECISION THEY WANT, WHENEVER THEY WANT, AND TRAMPLE ON OUR QUALITY OF LIFE WITHOUT REGARD.
SO I'M ASKING YOU TO PLEASE JOIN THE FIGHT AND THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MARK BRECHBILL.
MARK 406 NORTHEAST FINNEY DRIVE, STUART, FLORIDA, 34996. I COMMEND YOU GUYS. I THINK THIS IS YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS IS A GREAT, GREAT WAY TO APPROACH THIS. AND YOU KNOW WE NEED TO REIN THEM IN. YOU KNOW IT'S GOTTEN OUT OF CONTROL. AND THE RESIDENTS DON'T WANT IT. SO
[02:00:02]
YOU'RE DOING WHAT THE RESIDENTS WANT. BUT MY CONCERN IS JUST A PRACTICAL ONE. LIKE RIGHT NOW, FOR EXAMPLE, I'M GOING TO BE TRYING TO REOPEN THAT RESTAURANT THAT WAS CLOSED FOR A LITTLE OVER A YEAR. SO I'VE GOT TO GO IN NOW AND FIGURE OUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT PROPERTY IS GOING TO QUALIFY. AND IF I GET CAUGHT IN THE CROSSROAD IN THE CROSSFIRE OF THIS THING, I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE SITUATION WE HAD YEARS AGO SHARED PARKING. DO WHAT THE NEW LAW BARS SHARED PARKING SO IT WON'T QUALIFY. IT WON'T QUALIFY. SO I CAN'T PUT THE SAME RESTAURANT BACK THERE THAT I HAD BEFORE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S BEEN CLOSED 180 DAYS. THE ANSWER IS NO, NO, NO. AND THERE'S NO EXCEPTIONS TO THAT. THE CITY YOU CAN COME THROUGH FOR A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL. OKAY, BUT I HAD A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL THAT RAN WITH THE LAND ANYWAY. SO THIS IS THE THING I'M TALKING ABOUT HERE. I'M STUCK IN THE CROSSFIRE HERE, AND WE MAY NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS FOR SIX YEARS OR FOUR YEARS OR THREE YEARS. I MEAN, YEARS AGO, WE REMEMBER THEY BUILT THREE STORY, YOU KNOW, TOWNHOUSES OR WHATEVER IT WAS. AND JENSEN THINKING THEY HAD THE RIGHT TO DO IT. AND, YOU KNOW, FOUR YEARS LATER THEY GOT ALL TORN DOWN. I DON'T WANT TO BE THAT GUY THAT PUTS THE MONEY IN. AND THEN IT GETS TORN DOWN. SO THAT THAT WAS MY COMPLAINT. IS THAT WHAT HAPPENS TO PEOPLE LIKE ME AND OTHERS LIKE ME WHO ARE TRYING TO JUST MAKE A LIVING AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAD TO BE PROPERTY. WE BOUGHT IT WITH A CERTAIN USE. WE USED IT FOR THAT. ATTENDANCE GONE OUT. I NEED TO GET A NEW TENANT IN. AND NOW I'M I'M GOING TO BE TOLD I CAN'T DO THAT. YOU FOLLOW THE CODE AND YOU WOULD DO A CONDITIONAL USE. AND IF IT'S NOT GOING TO CREATE A PARKING ISSUE THERE, THEN IT SHOULD BE FINE. YEAH. EXCEPT THAT THE CONDITIONAL I MEAN THAT'S EXPENSIVE. I MEAN, I'VE DONE THAT. I GOT OUT OF THAT BEFORE BECAUSE I GOT HELP FROM THE CITY. FRANKLY, THEY WOULD HAVE HELPED ANYBODY WHEN I WENT DOOR TO DOOR. MARK, HOW FRUSTRATED PEOPLE ARE WITH PARKING TRAFFIC. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE TO BAIT THE PEOPLE. I JUST WAS SAYING, I I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. I DON'T WANT MYSELF OR ANYBODY ELSE TO KIND OF GET STUCK IN THAT. IS THERE ANY WAY TO APPROACH THIS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF SOME KIND OF MIDDLE GROUND THING WHERE WE CAN WE CAN MAKE OUR CASE KNOWN, BUT AT LEAST BE DEFINITIVE IN TERMS OF ALLOWING PEOPLE TO FOLLOW THE EXISTING CODE. IF IT'S THERE. I JUST I JUST WANT TO SEE IF, I MEAN, I IT COULD YOU NEED TO SPEAK WITH JODY. YEAH. OKAY.HOPEFULLY SHE'LL BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU GUIDANCE. THAT'S A REASONABLE WAY FORWARD. I HAVE AARON HAWKINS, MR. HAWKINS. ARE YOU GUYS DOING. IT'S. COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE? SORRY. AARON HAWKINS, 1616 SOUTHEAST ARAPAHOE AVE. STUART, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A QUICK COMMENT. JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT. I FOLLOW A LOT OF THE STATE LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND THE BILLS THAT THEY'VE PASSED. IT'S FUNNY HOW INTEREST ALIGNED. I HAVE BEEN SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE OVERREACH ON HOME RULE FOR AT LEAST THREE YEARS NOW. I'M JUST GLAD TO SEE THAT YOU GUYS FOUND SOMETHING THAT YOU WANTED TO STAND AGAINST WHEN IT COMES TO THAT. BUT, YOU KNOW, IN 2023 ALONE, THERE WAS OVER 60 BILLS IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE THAT AFFECTED HOME RULE IN SOME WAY. LIVE LOCAL. I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH MR. MARTEL. LIVE LOCAL WAS A MUCH BROADER OVERREACH, IN MY OPINION, THAN THE CURRENT BILL, ALTHOUGH THIS BILL IS ALSO OVERREACH. AND YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO COME UP AND SAY AND PUT THAT OUT THERE. YOU KNOW, OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS, THERE'S BEEN ALMOST 200 DIFFERENT BILLS THAT AFFECT HOME RULE. SO, YOU KNOW, THIS ISN'T JUST A NEW THING THAT HAS COME BACK INTO THE LIMELIGHT. IT'S BEEN A REOCCURRING SITUATION WITH OUR FLORIDA STATE GOVERNMENT. AND I HOPE THAT IF YOU GUYS END UP WINNING THIS BATTLE, THAT YOU PURSUE SOME MORE EFFORTS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S THE MORE THE DEFENDING YOUR ZIP OR DEFENDING LOCAL LABOR LAWS OR DEFENDING LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS THAT SOME OTHER PLACES MIGHT HAVE WANTED TO USE FOR THEIR FOR THEIR CITY OR THEIR COUNTY WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS RIGHT FOR THEIR COMMUNITY. THERE'S A LOT MORE TO TALK ABOUT IN TERMS OF FIGHTING THIS ISSUE ON HOME RULE, AND I'VE NEVER BEEN A FAN OF THE ZIP. YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT. I THINK THAT THERE WERE CHANGES THAT DID NEED TO BE MADE, BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN MADE WITHOUT DOING A ZONING IN PROGRESS. BUT THAT'S KIND OF WE'RE KIND OF PAST THAT. SO BUT YEAH, JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE. GIVE A LITTLE EXTRA CONTEXT.
[02:05:04]
THANK YOU AARON. YEAH. THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND WORDS AARON. I HAVE NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT.SEEING NO OTHER ITEMS FOR OUR CONSIDERATION. T
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.