Aug 25, 2025 Regular City Commission Meeting

CALLED FOR A YEAR. WHAT? OKAY, I'M CALLING THIS. I'M CALLING THIS REGULAR MEETING OF THE

[00:00:12]

[ROLL CALL]

PLEASE. STAND AND THEN LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, PLEASE. THANK YOU, FATHER, FOR THIS DAY. WE COME NOW, LORD, AS YOUR LITTLE KIDS COMING BEFORE YOU, ASKING YOU FOR ALL THE GOOD THINGS YOU HAVE TO GIVE US TODAY. GOD, THAT OUR RIGHT MINDS I'LL LOVE IN OUR HEARTS.

OUR VISIONS UTILIZE OUR LIMBS, OUR LEGS AND OUR FEET. GOD, WE JUST THANK YOU FOR THE RIGHT MIND THAT WE CAN COME TOGETHER AS ONE IN THE PLACE CALLED THE CITY STEWARD. GOD, TOUCH EVERYBODY HERE TODAY. GOD IN A SPECIAL WAY. AS WE GO FORWARD IN THIS MEETING, GIVE US A LOVE IN OUR HEART TO BE HUMBLE AND RESPECTFUL AND LOVE TOWARDS ONE ANOTHER IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, SON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. AMEN, AMEN, AMEN. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. AMEN. THANK YOU, MR. SMITH. SO I JUST WANT

[Additional Item]

WE CAN'T SAY THANK YOU ENOUGH TO THE CITY, THE PEOPLE OF STEWART, AND IN PARTICULAR THE NONPROFIT GROUP OPERATION 300. STEPHEN LAYTON AND MANY OF THE FORMER CITY COMMISSIONERS. THEY DID AN AMAZING JOB IN THE RESPONSE IN THE AFTERMATH OF HURRICANE DORIAN, WHEN OUR COMMUNITIES RECEIVED CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE FROM DORIAN'S FURY. ALMOST IMMEDIATELY, WE BEGAN TO RECEIVE AID FROM DIFFERENT ONES HERE AND MANY, MANY OTHERS AS WELL. ACROSS AMERICA AND IN OTHER COUNTRIES. WE'RE EXCITED TO KEEP THIS RELATIONSHIP ALIVE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE YOU, MR. MAYOR, ON A TOUR OF OUR DISTRICT IN ABACO, BAHAMAS, WHENEVER THE TIME IS RIGHT AND THEN A SMALL CONTINGENT FROM OUR COUNCIL MAY DO A RETURN

[00:05:04]

I PRAY GOD'S BLESSINGS ON THIS EVENING'S DELIBERATIONS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, MR. SWEETIE. MR. SWEETING AND HIS FAMILY ARE HERE. AND STEWART, TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF MEDICAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO THEM, SO I WISH THEM THE BEST LUCK. MR. MAYOR, DID YOU TAKE A PICTURE WITH I DID. WOULD YOU ALL LIKE TO TAKE A PICTURE WITH MR. SWEETIE? NO I DID, YES. YOU TOOK ONE HERE ON THE DIAS. HERE. WOULD YOU ALL LIKE TO TAKE A PICTURE WITH MR. SWEETIE? COME ON. I THINK IT'D BE GOOD FOR POSITIVE. OKAY. UP THERE, MR. MARTEL? COME ON.

THAT WAS A COMMISSION. COME ON, MIKE, I WAS JUST ABOUT OUT. COME ON. JOURNEY. AMERICAN MUSIC CITY. COME ON. YEAH. JUNK CITY. ALL OF THAT. EVERYBODY. FRIED CHICKEN. OKAY. FOR REAL? THANK. WELCOME TO THE BAHAMAS. AND I WILL BE ACCEPTING MR. SWEDEN'S OFFER. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO GOING OVER THERE HOPEFULLY IN NOVEMBER. I HAVE A FRIEND HERE IN STUART WHO HAD A HOME. HAS HE HAD A HAD A HOME IN MAN O WAR AND IT WAS COMPLETELY DESTROYED, COMPLETELY DESTROYED THE DOCKS, THE DOCK, THE DOCK HOUSE. AND FORTUNATELY HE WAS ABLE TO REBUILD IT. BUT THAT WAS AN UNBELIEVABLE STORM. AND UNFORTUNATELY THE RESIDENTS OF STUART ARE WELL AWARE OF HOW POWERFUL AND DAMAGING THESE HURRICANES CAN BE. SO, WELL,

[PRESENTATIONS]

AND THAT I WILL WELL AND FAITHFULLY PERFORM THE DUTIES OF STUART ENVIRONMENTAL ATTORNEY, AND THAT I WILL WELL AND FAITHFULLY PERFORM THE DUTIES OF STUART ENVIRONMENTAL ATTORNEY, ON WHICH I'M A. I AM NOW ABOUT TO ENTER, SO HELP ME GOD, ON WHICH I AM NOW ABOUT TO ENTER. SO HELP ME GOD. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. SO EXERCISE TODAY. COMMISSIONER. I KNOW IT'S MY PARTY FOR THE DAY. YEAH, RIGHT. RIGHT. SORRY. I THOUGHT IT WAS A LAWYER THING, BUT. YOU ARE A LAWYER. THAT'S A YES. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. THE WOMAN IN THE. OH. OH, HOLD ON, HOLD ON. OH.

WHERE'S MARY? THIS WAY. JERRY WILLIAMS, SHAKE HIS. THANKS. YOU DON'T WANT TO WAIT FOR. NO.

JUST ON THAT ITEM, I'M SURE. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY, RUTH, IT'S IT'S A REALLY BIG DAY. AND IT IT WAS A WAR TO GET YOU HERE. IT'S BEEN A WAR THAT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR A LONG TIME. I

[00:10:02]

SO THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE JOB. THANK YOU MAN. MR. MARTELL OR MR. BAGGETT WHO'S GOING TO TAKE THE LEAD ON THIS ITEM I AM OKAY. THIS IS A PRESENTATION ON THE REFERENDUM PROCESS PERTAINING TO THE TWO ACRE PARCEL ADJOINING HANEY CREEK. PREVIOUSLY, WE HAD BROUGHT BEFORE YOU SOME OF THE ISSUES OR POTENTIAL ISSUES REGARDING THE TWO ACRE PARCEL THAT YOU GUYS HAD WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD ABOUT POSSIBLY CONVERTING IT INTO, CONVERTING IT INTO PRESERVATION OR CONSERVATION LAND, WHEREAS IT'S NOW ZONED COMMERCIAL. SO I WANTED TO KIND OF UPDATE YOU ON A LITTLE BIT OF THE PROCESS THAT WILL REQUIRE US TO DO THAT. AND I'VE DONE A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH IN BOTH MYSELF AND THE CITY CLERK. SO IF WE GO BACK TO SECTION .9.01 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, I HAVE ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA ITEM LONG TERM LEASES FOR WATERFRONT PROPERTY IN THE CITY THAT'S OWNED BY THE CITY MUST BE APPROVED BY REFERENDUM. AND BACK IN 2011, WHEN THIS WHEN THIS PARCEL WAS SEPARATED OUT FROM 5051 OTHER ACRES AT HANEY CREEK, IT WAS DONE BY REFERENDUM TO HAVE TWO ACRES ZONED COMMERCIAL AND TO DEVELOP TO HELP PAY FOR THE REMAINING 51 ACRES THERE. AND SO THAT WAS DONE BY REFERENDUM.

AND SO LIKEWISE, IN ORDER TO CHANGE THAT, WE NEED TO GO BACK OUT FOR REFERENDUM UNDER OUR UNDER OUR CODE 9.05. IT REFERS TO THE PROCESS GOING BACK TO 9.04. AND THAT SECTION OF THE CODE REQUIRES US TO PUBLICIZE THE ISSUE 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE IN THE NEWSPAPER, PRIOR TO IT GOING TO REFERENDUM. WE ALSO HAVE TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS AND CITY CLERK REACHED OUT TO OUR COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, AND SHE REQUESTS THAT WE HAVE A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE REFERENDUM AND THE LANGUAGE IN THE REFERENDUM AT LEAST 60 DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION, WE HAVE THE OPTION OF DOING A SPECIAL ELECTION, WHICH WOULD BE PRETTY EXPENSIVE AND PROBABLY HAVE A LOWER TURNOUT IF WE DO IT EARLIER. OR WE COULD JUST WAIT TILL THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION, WHICH IS NEXT AUGUST, AND THEN IT WOULDN'T COST EXTRA MONEY.

IF YOU ALSO RECALL, IN THE LAST MEETING I BROUGHT BEFORE YOU, THERE WAS AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THAT US, THE CITY AND THE COUNTY JOINED TOGETHER IN 2011 AND THAT THAT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WAS CONDITIONAL UPON THE REFERENDUM. AND THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ALSO REQUIRES US TO USE THE TWO ACRE PARCEL FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES IN ORDER TO PAY FOR THE PARK.

THE PARK, THE WHOLE PRESERVATION AREA, THE HANEY CREEK. THE COUNTY HAS HAS NEVER OBJECTED TO US NOT DEVELOPING IT INTO COMMERCIAL. SO RIGHT NOW IT'S NEVER BEEN DEVELOPED IN THE COMMERCIAL. SO IT'S NOT BEEN PROVIDING MONEY. WE'VE JUST BEEN PROVIDING IT OUT OF OUR OWN GENERAL BUDGET. WE WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO THAT WE PROBABLY WE WE ARE REQUIRED TO ENTER INTO A NEW INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OR AMEND THE PREVIOUS ONE. I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHICH ONE IT WILL BE, BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF THE WAY THE ORIGINAL INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WAS WRITTEN WAS. IT EXPIRES AFTER FIVE YEARS, BUT THE PART ABOUT THE CONTINUOUSLY USING THE TWO ACRES SURVIVED THE EXPIRATION OF THE AGREEMENT. SO I'LL PROBABLY WORK WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. I HAVE REACHED OUT TO AT LEAST ELDER AT THE COUNTY AND AND HAVE ALREADY KIND OF STARTED THIS PROCESS. I FORWARDED HER THE OLD DOCUMENTS, THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AND A REFERENDUM. WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT IT, AND I THINK SHE WAS IN AGREEMENT WITH ME THAT THAT PROCESS TO AMEND OR DRAFT A NEW INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WOULD PROBABLY TAKE ABOUT 1 TO 2 MONTHS. SO WITH 1 TO 2 MONTHS TO GET A RESOLUTION BY BEFORE BOTH BOARDS, WITH THE DRAFT OF THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, PROBABLY TWO MONTHS CAPPED AT MAXIMUM. SO WE HAVE PLENTY OF TIME BECAUSE THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION WOULD BE AUGUST, UNLESS YOU WANTED TO DO IT ON A SPECIAL ELECTION EARLIER, WE WOULD HAVE TIME FOR THAT AS WELL. BUT WE HAVE A WHOLE YEAR TO GET TO THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION. SO ROUGHLY THREE MONTHS IS ALL THAT WOULD TAKE. SO WE'VE GOT PLENTY OF TIME TO DO THAT. AND THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT I WAS COMING BACK TO KIND OF GO OVER THAT PROCESS AND HOW MUCH TIME WE NEEDED. AND IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER. AND OH YEAH, ONE MORE. YEAH, ONE MORE THING. MR. MARTELL HAD SPOKEN TO SOMEONE POTENTIAL DEVELOPER, AND I'LL LET HIM TALK ABOUT IT. SO FOLLOWING THE MEETING THAT WE HAD THE DISCUSSION, I GOT A TELEPHONE CALL FROM A GENTLEMAN

[00:15:03]

AND THEN, JUST LIKE OUR CODE REQUIRES, AND YOU CAN LOOK UP AND DOWN US ONE AND EVERYWHERE ELSE, WE REQUIRE CROSS CONNECTIONS TO KEEP CARS OFF THE ROADS ANYWAY WHEN THEY CAN INTERCONNECT, SO THAT HE COULD MAKE IT SO THAT CARS LEAVING HIS PROPERTY WOULDN'T BE GOING DIRECTLY ONTO BAKER ROAD RIGHT THERE, BUT THEY WOULD BE GOING FURTHER DOWN, AND THEY'D GO INTO THE PARKING LOT OF OUR TRAILHEAD AND THEN GO OUT ONTO BAKER ROAD, CREATING THE EXPANSION. I TOLD HIM NO, THE FIRST TIME HE CALLED ME. JUST KNOW. THEN HE WAS INSISTENT ON FOLLOWING UP, AND THEN WE HAD THE MEETING WHERE YOU GUYS DISCUSSED COMING BACK WITH THE REFERENDUM ON THE TRAILHEAD IDEA UP ON BAKER ROAD, AND HE CALLED ME AGAIN AND I SAID, LOOK, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE COMMISSION IS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ON IT. I WILL BRING IT UP AT OUR NEXT MEETING. I WILL MENTION IT TO THEM. AND IF THE COMMISSION WANTS, YOU CAN COME IN AND ANSWER QUESTIONS, OR YOU CAN DO A PROPOSAL OR SUBMIT IT TO THEM ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I JUST DIDN'T I DIDN'T HONESTLY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE COMMISSION'S TEMPERATURE WAS FOR IT, I CAN TELL YOU. I MEAN, THE PROPERTY'S BEEN KIND OF UNDERDEVELOPED FOR A LONG TIME BECAUSE THE AARON'S FAMILY HAD NO INTEREST IN SELLING IT, BUT I BELIEVE THAT IT'S ALREADY TRANSFERRED AND THE STATE ISSUES ARE OVER WITH, AND IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE DEVELOPED WHETHER IT'S DEVELOPED WITH A CONNECTION TO THAT TRAILHEAD TO IT OR NOT. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU THAT THIS PHONE CALL CAME IN. IF YOU GUYS WANT ME TO SCHEDULE THE GUY TO COME IN AND GIVE YOU SOME KIND OF PRESENTATION, I WILL. BUT THERE'S REALLY NOT MUCH NEED FOR ONE. I ON LAST AGENDA I ATTACHED AND YOU GUYS HAD THE PICTURES OF THE PARKING LOT OF WHAT OUR TRAILHEAD WOULD LOOK LIKE. AND SO THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD BE ADDITIONAL IS LITERALLY A CONNECTION THROUGH TO THE NEXT PARCEL ON ONTO AARON'S PROPERTY. THE ADVANTAGE TO IT WOULD BE ONE OF THE BIGGEST CONCERNS I GET INTO WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT DOING THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS IS THE O AND M, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE PARKING LOT, WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE LIGHTS, WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE BATHROOM, WE HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, INSURE IT. WE HAVE TO DO ALL THE STUFF. IF HE WAS WILLING TO BUILD IT FOR US. NUMBER ONE, THAT ALLEVIATES AN AN EXTREME EXPENSE TO US.

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IF HE WAS WILLING TO MAINTAIN THE PARKING LOT, ENSURE THE PARKING LOT, PAY THE ELECTRIC BILL AND MAINTAIN THE THAT ACCESS FOR US SO THAT WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE TO DO IT. THE PERPETUAL NATURE OF THAT, FROM A MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE IS GREAT. THE THE NEGATIVE ASPECT IS, WELL, THE CITY'S COOPERATING WITH THE DEVELOPER OR WHATEVER IT IS NOW.

THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO USE THE PARKING LOT. I'M SURE THEY ARE. I'M SURE CARS ARE GOING TO DRIVE FROM HIS PROPERTY RIGHT THROUGH THE PARKING LOT AND RIGHT OUT ONTO BAKER ROAD. BUT IF YOU'RE SERIOUS ABOUT DOING THE BAKER ROAD TRAILHEAD, IMAGINE NOT DOING THE THE DEAL WITH THE DEVELOPER. AND NOW WE SPEND THE 700 GRAND OR WHATEVER IT COSTS, AND WE MAINTAIN IT, AND WE DO THE LIGHTS. AND HIS EMPLOYEES STILL PARK IN THAT PARKING LOT. WE JUST ENSURE IT.

[00:20:08]

FOR NOW. IT'S NOT AN AGENDA ITEM. YOU DON'T HAVE TO VOTE ON IT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING. JUST LETTING YOU KNOW. MISTER VICE MAYOR SEAN, WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE YOU WERE ON VACATION THAT DAY? WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE THOSE SLIDES FROM THAT MEETING WHERE IT SHOWED THAT TRAILHEAD OFF OF BAKER? YEAH. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY THOUGH, TOO. SO I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF YOU WERE FAMILIAR WITH THAT. IT WOULD BE MET WITH I MET WITH COMMISSIONER REED ON FRIDAY AND SHOWED HIM THE SLIDES. AND SO THOSE PRICES, YOU KNOW, ONE OF YOUR CONCERNS WAS, OH, WHAT IF IT'S 5 MILLION OR 10 MILLION? I THINK IT WAS LIKE 6 OR $700,000 AT THE TIME. CORRECT. SO IF YOU PUT THAT TWO ACRES INTO CONSERVATION JUST BECAUSE WE CAN'T TALK OTHERWISE. SO THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY SOMETHING ON THIS AGREEMENT PRIOR. SURE. LEE. SO I AND YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND AT LEAST. SO IF I'M LOOKING AT THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT, SECTION FOUR, YOU TALK ABOUT THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY. YES. AND AND AS FAR AS THE TERMINATION AND THE TERMS. AND IT SAYS SECTION SEVEN, EIGHT AND NINE WILL SURVIVE AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE TERMINATION. RIGHT. AND THEN WHEN YOU GO TO SECTION. EIGHT, IT TALKS ABOUT A MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND IT TALKS ABOUT LAND USES THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE RESTORATION GOALS AND PURPOSES, CONSERVATION AND APPROPRIATE PUBLIC RECREATIONAL USES, WHERE SUCH RECREATIONAL USES ARE COMPATIBLE WITH CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS, YOU CAN COME UP WITH A MANAGEMENT PLAN, SUCH AS CONDUCTING LIMITED LAND CLEARING FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING SUCH PERVIOUS FACILITIES AS DOCKS, BOARDWALKS, OR MULCHED WALKING TRAILS.

WOULD WE STILL HAVE TO GO TO REFERENDUM IN ORDER BECAUSE THAT SURVIVED THE TERM? SO, NO.

SO THE REFERENDUM WAS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO DO A LONG TERM LEASE OF THE PROPERTY.

THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE TO GO TO REFERENDUM ON. THIS WAS AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. GOTCHA.

SO THIS WOULD BE TERMS THAT THE STAFF AND COMMISSIONS ON BOTH BOARDS WOULD AGREE TO. AND THEY AGREED TO IN 2011. BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO DO AN AMENDMENT IT WOULD BE BOTH BOARDS CURRENTLY.

SO LIKE THAT SECTION, THE WHOLE SEVEN, EIGHT AND NINE ISN'T EVEN APPLICABLE ANYMORE. NO IT IS, IT'S IT IS. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN, THAT THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN, THE TERM EXPIRES AFTER FIVE YEARS. SEVEN. RIGHT, RIGHT. SO THAT MEANS SOME OF IT SURVIVED. SO THAT'S WHY IT'S A QUESTION OF IS IT AN AMENDMENT OR DO I HAVE TO DO A WHOLE NEW INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT? I CAN BRING YOU UP TO SPEED. WHEN YOU WERE OUT OF WHEN YOU WERE NOT PRESENT, YOU WERE OUT OF TOWN. THE DISCUSSION WAS, CAN WE TAKE THE TWO ACRES AND STOP USING IT FOR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY? AND THE PUTTING THE CONSERVATION, MAKE IT A TRAILHEAD, WHATEVER.

AND THE CITY ATTORNEY SAID THERE WAS A REFERENDUM AND THE PUBLIC VOTED. AND THE REFERENDUM SAYS WE SHALL LIST THIS PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL LEASE. SO WE CAN'T PUT IT INTO CONSERVATION. IF THERE'S A CLAUSE THAT SAYS WE HAVE TO LIST IT FOR COMMERCIAL LEASE BECAUSE THEY'RE CONTRADICTORY, THAT'S CONTRADICTORY LANGUAGE, JUST THE FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE REF. NO, WE'RE NOT FUNDING ANYTHING.

WELL, THAT'S WHAT IT'S CALLED. SO. RIGHT. BUT THAT WAS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THIS IS BACK IN 2012 WHEN THEY WERE MERGING THERE. SO AND WHEN WAS THE RESTAURANT IN 2012. BACK IN

[00:25:04]

THAT'S WHERE WE WERE. SO THE REFERENDUM OVERRULES THE THIS THE REFERENDUM. THE COUNTY DOESN'T NEED A REFERENDUM. I KNOW YOU RESPOND. WHAT'S JUST SO I UNDERSTAND. SO THE THE REFERENDUM IS TO WE DID A REFERENDUM TO TAKE THE TWO PARCELS AND CONVERT IT TO COMMERCIAL SO THAT IT CAN PAY FOR THE REST OF THE PARK. THE REFERENDUM WAS BECAUSE HANEY CREEK IS A WATERSHED THAT IS ON A TIDAL BASIN. AND SECTION NINE OF OUR CODE SAYS PRIOR TO LEASING OR RENTING ANY LAND IN THE CITY OF STEWART THAT IS ON WATER THAT CITY OWNED, THERE MUST BE A PUBLIC REFERENDUM. SINCE HANEY CREEK WAS ADJACENT TO A TIDAL CREEK. IT QUALIFIED UNDER THE REFERENDUM TO BE REQUIRED BEFORE IT COULD BE LEASED OUT. FOR MORE THAN TEN YEARS, THERE HAD TO BE A REFERENDUM. AS A RESULT, A REFERENDUM OCCURRED IN, IN, IN, IN, IN CONCERT WITH THE AGREEMENT THAT THE COUNTY AND THE CITY HAD ENTERED INTO IN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, THE LANGUAGE OF THE REFERENDUM IS WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY WAS INTERPRETING THAT SAID, IT TOLD US WE NEED TO DO THIS NOW. IF WE WANT TO NOT DO THIS, WHAT DO WE DO TO CORRECT IT? YOU COME BACK WITH ANOTHER REFERENDUM, RIGHT? AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE, THE REFERENDUM. SO THIS WAS A REFERENDUM SPECIFIC TO THIS PARCEL THEN, RIGHT? CORRECT.

CORRECT. BUT IT'S NOT I CAN READ IT TO YOU. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GETTING AT. HOW COME IT'S NOT IN THE AGENDA PACKET THEN. WELL IT WAS IN THE LAST AGENDA BUT I THE ONLY THING I WAS TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS THE PROCESS. I UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS OF, OF I'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THAT. I ALREADY BROUGHT THE LANGUAGE. I IN THE LAST AGENDA ITEM. IT'S VERY BRIEF. YOU CAN READ IT. RIGHT? RIGHT. I CAN READ IT. IT'S VERY BRIEF. I'LL GET IT, I'LL GET IT.

IT'S IT WOULD HAVE GIVEN. YEAH. SO THE LAST TIME WE HAD IT ON THE AGENDA, I ATTACHED THE REFERENDUM LANGUAGE IN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. AND I DISCUSSED THE BACKGROUND AND THE HISTORY OF IT. TODAY. I WAS JUST TRYING TO EXPLAIN THE PROCESS BECAUSE YOU GUYS WANTED TO GO FORWARD WITH IT. WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO? WE HAVE TO GO OUT FOR REFERENDUM, AND WE HAVE TO AMEND THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT OR DRAFT A NEW INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY. SO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, I.E. THE FUNDING AGREEMENT, THE FUNDING AGREEMENT IS AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. I KNOW IT'S TITLED FUNDING AGREEMENT AND LIKE MR. WARTELL SAID, IT WAS ABOUT FUNDING THE WHOLE PROJECT. THE COUNTY AND THE CITY BOTH OWN THE HANEY CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT 5050. THESE 50, 51.5 ACRES, I THINK. AND THE TWO ACRES COME OUT OF THAT, WE HAVE TO UNDO BY REFERENDUM WHAT WE DID BY REFERENDUM ONLY ON THE TWO ACRES, THE THE ALL THE OTHER CONDITIONS AS FAR AS MAINTENANCE AND SO FORTH. WE DID IT IN THE ORIGINAL FUNDING I INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. SO WE WOULD NEED TO DO ALL THAT STUFF

[00:30:06]

I MEAN, WHETHER OR NOT THAT DEVELOPER WOULD GO THAT PATH, THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULD DO, IS HAVE THAT BAKER CREEK TRAILHEAD BE WHAT WE DEVELOP VERSUS THAT TWO ACRES. TWO ACRES WOULD GO CONSERVATION. AND THEN IF WE WANTED A TRAILHEAD, IT WELL, REGARDLESS WE HAVE TO CONVERT THE COMMERCIAL ZONING TO TO YEAH TO CONSERVATION LAND. SO EVEN TO DO THE TRAILHEAD. SO COMMISSIONER CLARK. WELL IT WAS JUST THIS IS PROBABLY GETTING INTO THE WEEDS, BUT IT WAS JUST THE IDEA OF IF HE BUILT THE TRAILHEAD AND WOULD POSSIBLY MAINTAIN IT, IT WAS JUST ABOUT LIABILITY AND ABOUT ANNEXATION. AND I KNOW THAT MIKE ALREADY BROUGHT THAT UP. SO, YOU KNOW, IF IT WOULD BE TREATED AS A REGULAR ROAD RIGHT AWAY, PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT AWAY. AND EVEN THOUGH IT'S GOING OVER, QUOTE UNQUOTE, OUR LAND, BUT IT WOULD BE A LONG TERM LEASE, I GUESS, IF WE DECIDED TO DO IT THAT WAY. WELL, AS FAR AS THE TWO ACRES, THERE'S NO LEASE. WE. YEAH. WELL, IF WE IF WE EVER DID THAT AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER.

YEAH, IT WOULD BE WHATEVER AGREEMENT YOU ENTERED INTO. OKAY. HE OWNS IT. YEAH. WELL, NO, OUR PIECE WOULD. WELL. CAN WE BRING IT BACK AND TALK ABOUT IT BEFORE THE 2026 COMMISSIONER WOULD LIKE TO. OH, SORRY. YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN AT LEAST FINDING OUT WHAT HIS PLANS ARE. YOU KNOW, WHAT RESTRAINTS WE COULD HAVE ON RESTRICTIONS. ALSO, DO WE KNOW WHAT HE'S PLANNING TO BUILD ON THAT OTHER PROPERTY OR IT'S ALREADY BUILT OR. WELL, THERE'S ALREADY A NURSERY THAT'S BEEN ON THE PROPERTY FOR AT LEAST 50 YEARS. I THINK IT WAS PROBABLY THE 60S IS WHEN IT WAS BUILT, BUT I SUSPECT HE'S GOING TO BE BUILDING A GAS STATION, A FAST FOOD STORE OR A CVS BECAUSE IT'S THE CORNER OF US ONE AND BAKER ROAD. BUT HE CAN COME IN.

AND NOW, BY THE WAY, THAT'S LIKELY GOING TO HAPPEN NO MATTER WHETHER YOU GET YOUR TRAILHEAD OR NOT. IT'S NOT IN THE CITY OF STEWART. IT'S A COUNTY PARCEL. IT'S NOT IN THE CITY. WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. AND THAT'S WHY I TOLD HIM ORIGINALLY, NO, I SAID THAT OUR ORIGINAL REFERENDUM ON THE TWO ACRES WAS SAYING NO TO THAT STUFF. AND SO THE REAL THING FOR US IS IF YOU'RE REALLY SERIOUS ABOUT DOING THE TRAILHEAD, THERE'S GOING TO BE WHATEVER IT IS NEXT DOOR. LET'S SAY IT'S DUNKIN DONUTS, OR LET'S SAY IT'S 7-ELEVEN NEXT DOOR. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A CURB CUT RIGHT ONTO THE ROAD, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OUR PARKING LOT, WHICH IS ANOTHER CURB CUT RIGHT UNDER THE ROAD. AND IT'S GOING TO BE ERASED TO FDOT TO SEE WHO GETS THE FIRST CURB CUT, BECAUSE THEN THEY CAN'T BE SO CLOSE TO EACH OTHER AND, YOU KNOW, ALL THE OTHER STUFF. WHEREAS IF WE WERE BOTH DOING THE PROJECT, THEN THE THE QUESTION WOULD BE WHAT WOULD BE BETTER FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE TRAFFIC ON THE ROAD OR NOT? AND HONESTLY, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THE ANSWER AND THE EASY ANSWER WOULD BE, WHY DOESN'T HE SELL US THE LAND AND LET US MAKE IT ALL PART OF HANEY CREEK AND USE THE HALF-CENT SALES TAX TO BUY THAT? THERE YOU GO. THAT WAS THE FIRST THING I OFFERED. IT DIDN'T WORK. WELL, THERE'S OTHER OPTIONS, TOO. WE RECENTLY ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH. I HONESTLY DON'T REMEMBER THE NAME. IT WAS TO BE A CONSERVATIVE WHERE PEOPLE COULD COME AND FISH, WALK TRAILS, AND I FORGET WHAT THAT CONSERVATION EASEMENT WHERE WE WE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO BE PART OF THIS TRAIL WHERE PEOPLE COULD COME AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAD TO HAVE THE RIGHT TRAILS FOR PEOPLE TO COME AND ACCESS TO WALK TO DIFFERENT. I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THE NAME OF THE PROJECT WAS. SO IN LINE WITH THAT. MAYBE HE WOULD AT LEAST BUILD SOME STORES THAT WOULD ATTRACT MORE PEOPLE TO THE PARK.

I MEAN, HE'S JUST LOOKING FOR I MEAN, I'M JUST SAYING THERE'S AN EXCHANGE OF IDEAS THAT WE COULD DO. I MEAN, MAYBE I MEAN, THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT. THE THE DIALOG IS THE QUESTION.

RIGHT? SO WHATEVER THAT MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT BE, I MEAN, I CAN GIVE YOU GUYS'S CONTACT TO HIM INDIVIDUALLY. I CAN GIVE IT TO HIM SEPARATELY. I DID I JUST SAID TO HIM THAT I'D BRING IT UP AND I WOULD GET BACK TO HIM. I, I DIDN'T REALLY HAVE. WELL, I AGREE WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER JOBY. I THINK WE SHOULD AT LEAST TALK TO HIM. I DO, TO SEE WHAT IT IS. WOULD IT, MR. CLARK?

[00:35:04]

BUT I'M JUST SAYING, IF A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSIONERS AREN'T IN FAVOR, THEN WE'RE WASTING OUR TIME, RIGHT? THIS IS THE POINT FOR US TO HAVE A DIALOG. I MEAN, THIS IS THE ONLY TIME WE CAN HAVE A DIALOG ABOUT THIS. WELL, IT SEEMS CURRENTLY A MAJORITY ARE IN FAVOR OF AT LEAST LISTENING TO WHAT HE HAS TO OFFER. ANYTHING TO LISTEN TO HIM. YEAH. CAN I COMMISSIONER READ? DO YOU HAVE. YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO STATE ON THE RECORD TOO. THERE THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT ZONINGS RIGHT NOW. THERE'S TWO. IS IT TWO? IS IT THE. BOTH PARCELS THERE, MIKE.

THERE'S ONES BE ONE AND THEN ONE'S GENERAL COMMERCIAL. TWO. I HAVE NO IDEA. I MEAN I'M, I'M NOT I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEVELOPMENT. I HAVE NEVER LOOKED INTO IT. I NEVER CONTACTED THE COUNTY. I DON'T KNOW THE GUY. I'VE NEVER EVEN MET HIM. I MEAN, I'VE NEVER EVEN MET HIM. I DIDN'T I WASN'T CONCERNED WITH WHAT HIS DEVELOPMENT WAS BECAUSE IT WAS IN THE COUNTY. IT'S NOT EVEN CITY LAND. IT'S NOT IN THE CITY LIMITS. IT'S COUNTY COUNTY LAND.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ZONING IS. I DON'T KNOW, I MEAN, I'M ASSUMING THAT AARON'S NURSERY WAS PROBABLY AG AT ONE POINT. I MEAN, IT'S BEEN THERE A LONG TIME. SO HOW WOULD IT WORK FOR DISCUSSION WITH THEM? LIKE, DID YOU REACH OUT INDIVIDUALLY? WELL, I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION HERE FIRST TO DECIDE WHAT IT IS WE'D EVEN BE LOOKING FOR. WHAT ARE THE THINGS WE WOULDN'T ACCEPT BEFORE WE EVEN ENTERTAIN THE IDEA OF SPEAKING TO HIM? WELL, WHEN YOU GUYS SAY WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, WHAT YOU WOULDN'T ACCEPT IF HE BUILDS A RACETRAC GAS STATION. AND IT GETS APPROVED BY MARTIN COUNTY, WHICH IT WILL, THEN I'M NOT SURE WHAT DIFFERENCE IT MAKES. THE QUESTION STILL IS, WOULD YOU CONNECT TO THE PARKING LOT TO GET THE PARKING LOT FOR FREE AND MAINTAINED FOR FREE? OR WOULD YOU SAY NO, WE WANT TWO CURB CUTS ON BAKER ROAD? BECAUSE I MEAN, TO ME THAT'S THE ONLY ISSUE. I MEAN, THERE'S NO THERE'S NO REAL BENEFIT TO THE CITY AT ALL OTHER THAN WHERE NOT HAVING TO PAY FOR THE THE TRAILHEAD. IF WE WEREN'T DOING THE TRAILHEAD, THE ANSWER WOULD BE REALLY EASY. IT'D BE NO, NO, GO AWAY. WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING. BUT IF I'M THE ONLY REASON I'M EVEN BRINGING IT UP IS BECAUSE IF WE'RE ACTUALLY CONSIDERING BUILDING A PARKING LOT THERE AND BUILDING CURB CUTS AND PUTTING LIGHTS IN SO THAT IT'S LIT, AND PUTTING A BATHROOM IN SO THAT PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO THE BATHROOM AND HANGING CREEK AND PUTTING THE FACILITIES AND STRUCTURES THERE. THEN THE IDEA THAT SOMEONE ELSE MIGHT PAY FOR IT HAS AN APPEAL. BUT HOW MUCH IS THE APPEAL? AND AND WHAT'S THE BENEFIT THAT YOU CAN PROVIDE US WITH THIS MAP AS TO THE CUT THROUGH THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, LIKE FROM THAT PROPERTY TO IT WAS ON LAST AGENDA, RIGHT? YEAH. 28TH. SO IF YOU PULL UP ON YOUR PHONE RIGHT THERE BAKER AND US ONE. YES. IT'S THAT PROPERTY ON THE CORNER THAT PULLED UP. I MEAN I I'LL, I'LL EMAIL. OKAY. HE WANTS IT TO BE OPPOSITE THE ENTRANCE TO THE PUBLIC IS WHAT IT IS. SO YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THE MAP. MR.

[00:40:03]

ALL RIGHT. WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE FROM FROM THE LAST. THANK YOU. NEVER MIND. THANKS. I WAS JUST LOOKING. THE PUBLIC IS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. BASICALLY. YES. THAT'S PUBLIX THERE. SO NOW YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT. YOU CAN SEE IT. YEAH. SO TO ME, THAT WOULD DEFEAT THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF A PARK. THERE. IF YOU BASICALLY EXTEND THE PARKING LOT OF, LIKE A WAWA OR THIS KIND OF A THING INTO YOUR PARK VERSUS HAVING A SEPARATE PARK THAT HAS A SIGN THERE THAT IT'S PARK AND PARKING FOR THE PARK FOR THE PARK. I'M SURE THAT WOULD HELP THAT GENTLEMAN, BUT TO ME, THAT'S A DEAL WHERE IT'S IT'S MORE DAMAGE THAN. I MEAN, WE'RE BLESSED THAT WE HAVE THE HALF CENT SALES TAX MONEY THERE TO EVEN TRAILHEAD UP THERE. YOU PUT THAT TWO ACRES IN CONSERVATION THAT'S DONE, AND THEN YOU HAVE A SEPARATE PARK. I DON'T WANT TO BE CONNECTED TO WHATEVER HE'S GOING TO TURN THAT INTO. I THINK IT'S MESSY. IF IT GETS SOLD, IF I'D RATHER JUST HAVE A PARK THERE. IMAGINE I IMAGINE MY FOUR LITTLE KIDS, WHILE PEOPLE ARE ZOOMING IN AND OUT TO GET TO A GAS STATION. IT'S JUST A MESS. LIKE I AFTER SEEING THE MAP. WHAT I DO REALIZE IS THAT, YEAH, IT'S ALMOST LIKE, YOU KNOW, ON ONE WHERE YOU HAVE TD BANK AND WAWA, IT WOULD BE THAT SAME KIND OF YEAH, TO ME IT'S A MESS AND IT DEFEATS THE WHOLE LIKE EXCLUSIVITY. AND YOU KNOW, YOU'RE TUCKED INTO A PARK TO HAVE THAT KIND OF A THROUGH THING. IF IT WAS ANOTHER SORT OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT THE CITY OWNED OR SOMETHING THAT'S DIFFERENT, HAVING THAT CONNECTIVITY. BUT YOU WANT YOUR PARK TO BE ISOLATED. IT WOULD BE MY TAKE ON THAT. SO I'M NOT REALLY INTERESTED IN THAT KIND OF A DEAL. WHAT I WANT TO SEE IS JUST AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES. ONE IS THE THE LEE, WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT WHERE WE'RE GOING TO REFERENDUM FOR THE TWO ACRES GOING TO CONSERVATION. THE OTHER IS, YOU KNOW, SEPARATELY WHAT DO WE DOING WITH THAT PARCEL AND TRAILHEAD OFF BAKER SO AS SOON AS POSSIBLE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, YOU KNOW, AND HAVE US ALL TALKING ABOUT IF THERE'S SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE, OTHER THAN WHAT TIM VOLKER PUT TOGETHER FOR THE ARPA MONEY FOR THAT SITE AND GO INTO A LITTLE MORE DETAIL WITH THE HALF CENT SALES TAX MONEY. COMMISSIONER CLARK, IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE I SAW THIS RESOLUTION, BUT JUST MEAN MR. MR. BAGGETT ON SECTION 8.4. I FORGOT WHY WE HAD THAT PHRASE IN THERE ABOUT THE CITY PROVIDING THE ANNUAL INCOME OF ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS ON THE TWO ACRE PARCEL TO THE COUNTY, BECAUSE WE WERE GOING TO SHOW THAT WE WERE MAINTAINING THE CANEY CREEK WITH ALL OF THE MONEY. SO IF WE RENTED IT OUT FOR $1 MILLION A YEAR, WE WOULD HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE TO THE COUNTY THAT WE WERE SPENDING $1 MILLION A YEAR ON CANEY CREEK. IT ALL CAME FROM THE CARVEOUT PARCEL, RIGHT? IT'S BEEN A WHILE. I MEAN, THAT'S THE THE GREATEST APPEAL TO ME OF THAT DOCUMENT IS THAT IT SAYS THAT THESE THIS FINANCIAL REVENUE WILL BE DEDICATED TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PARK IN OUR COST CUTTING FERVOR HERE, THE EASIEST THING TO START CUTTING IS GOING TO BE MAINTENANCE OF THESE PARKS, AND ESPECIALLY A 50 ACRE PARCEL. WE DON'T TAKE CARE OF THE INTERIOR OF THAT.

NOT THAT MANY PEOPLE WILL SEE IT. SO I, I WOULD LIKE TO PRAISE THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE INVOLVED AND HAD THE FORESIGHT TO COMMIT THOSE RESOURCES TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THIS VERY LARGE PARK. AND I HOPE WE CAN SEE THAT TAKE PLACE. I'VE NEVER BEEN A FAN OF PROVIDING A TRAILHEAD ON US. ONE OF THE BUSIEST STREETS IN THE CITY OF STUART. SO I THINK WE AND COMMISSIONER REED, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THERE SEEMS TO BE A MAJORITY THAT'S WILLING TO AT LEAST DISCUSS WITH THIS GENTLEMAN WHAT OPTIONS HE MAY FEEL HE HAS, IF WE CAN, IF WE

[00:45:05]

IT SEEMS TO ME IT SOUNDS ENTICING. I HAVE TO BE HONEST. ONCE I SAW THE MAP, IT BASICALLY THEN LOOKS LIKE WAWA AND TD BANK. SO YOU HAVE THIS INTERCOURSE OF THAT ROAD AND IT'S JUST TOO MUCH. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THAT WE COULD GIVE HIM HIS ACCESS AND THEN MOVE OUR MOVE THE PARK DOWN A LITTLE AND HAVE A SEPARATE. PERHAPS HE'D BE WILLING TO PROVIDE A SEPARATE ENTRANCE TO THE TRAILHEAD THAN THE TWO DON'T HAVE TO BE CONNECTED. ALL HE WANTS IS THAT CUT DOWN THE ROAD A LITTLE. I DON'T THINK IT NECESSARILY HAS TO BE ATTACHED TO THE ENTRANCE TO THE TRAILHEAD. WE HAVE MONEY SET ASIDE FOR THIS PURPOSE. WHAT WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE ISSUE? THE ISSUE IS WHY NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SOMEONE? BECAUSE IT WOULD DESTROY THE VERY NATURE OF HAVING A SECLUDED PARK FOR FAMILIES. WHO'S GOING TO BUILD THERE ANYWAY? YEAH, IT'S. SO WHY WOULD YOU CONNECT TO WHAT HE DEVELOPS THERE? I'M SAYING THE TRAIL, THE ENTRANCE TO THE TRAILHEAD DOES NOT NECESSARILY NEED TO BE CONNECTED TO HIS LITTLE ROAD TO THE TO THE CUT. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTS. IRONICALLY, I KNOW IRONICALLY, I THINK THAT IF YOU IF YOU I THINK IT WOULD HE ABSOLUTELY WANTS TO BE CONNECTED TO THE PARK. BUT I ALSO THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE ENTIRE CORRIDOR OR ANY OTHER CORRIDOR IN STUART, THAT YOU WOULD ALSO FIND THAT OUR CODE REQUIRES US TO LIKE WHEN DEVELOPERS COME IN, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE TO ASK TO A FOR AN EXCEPTION TO DEVIATE FROM THE CODE, NOT TO INTERCONNECT THEIR PARKING LOT WITH THEIR ADJACENT PARKING LOT. SO WE REQUIRE LIKE IF YOU GO TO WALGREENS ON EAST OCEAN BOULEVARD, YOU CAN DRIVE THROUGH TO SPORTS WITHOUT GOING ON THE EAST OCEAN BOULEVARD, BECAUSE WE REQUIRED THEM TO CONNECT THE PARKING LOT. AND THEN FROM STIMLJE YOU CAN GO INTO THE NEXT PARKING PARKING LOT BECAUSE WE REQUIRE THEM TO BE INTERCONNECTED SO THAT CARS DON'T LOOP IN AND OUT ONTO THE ROAD. SO TO HIS ADJACENT PARCEL AND THE ADJACENT PARCEL. WELL, YOU SAID HIS ADJACENT PARCEL.

AND IS IT SPECIFIC? DOES IT INCLUDE PARKS? I DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA WHERE WE'RE WHERE WE'RE GOING HERE. I KNOW THAT HIS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, IF IT WAS BEING BUILT IN THE CITY NEXT TO ANOTHER COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, IT'S NOT THAT'S THAT'S A HYPOTHETICAL. THAT'S NOT.

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. I TOTALLY AGREE. YEAH, IT'S NEXT TO THE CITY. IT'S NEXT TO THE PARK. RIGHT. CAN I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE PARKING LOTS. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE PULL OUT ONTO BAKER ROAD TO PULL INTO THE PARKING LOT IS WHAT THE LIKE THAT'S WHAT. WHY WOULD YOU BE FACED WITH IF LET'S SAY IT WAS A SUBWAY AND SOMEBODY WENT INTO THE SUBWAY AND BOUGHT A SANDWICH TO GO FOR A HIKE IN THE PARK, THEN THEY'D HAVE TO PULL OUT ONTO BAKER TO PULL INTO THE PARKING LOT TO GO TO THE TRAILHEAD, BECAUSE THE TWO PARKING LOTS WEREN'T CONNECTED. CORRECT? RIGHT. SOMEBODY'S ZIPPING THROUGH THAT PARKING LOT. YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? ASK KIDS. YEAH, JUST TO GET THROUGH THERE TO GET BACK ONTO THE ON THE BAKER. YEAH, I JUST I HAD ANOTHER ARE WE WILLING TO SPEAK WITH THE GENTLEMAN? HE'S MR. MR. REED I HAD A QUESTION. SO LIKE I DON'T KNOW MIKE, IF THIS IS SOMETHING, WOULD IT COME BEFORE THE MPO BOARD BECAUSE IT'S A COUNTY ROAD TO KNOW THEY WOULDN'T WANT A SIGNALIZED LIGHT THERE AT ONE POINT, BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY HARD ENOUGH COMING OUT OF EVEN IF THEY WANTED A SIGNALIZED LIGHT, THEIR MPO IS FDOT. THOSE ARE STATE ROADS, THE COUNTY ROADS, THE CITY. THE MPO DOESN'T ADDRESS THOSE. IT'S THIS WAS JUST A PRESENTATION. I JUST WANTED TO WE'RE WAY IN THE WEEDS. I DON'T IT IT'S NOT THAT SIGNIFICANT TO ME. I'M GOING TO TELL THEM I DIDN'T GET ANY CLEAR DIRECTION. IF HE WANTS TO CALL YOU GUYS DIRECTLY, HE'S WELCOME TO. ALL RIGHT.

SOMETIMES YOU NEED TO GET INTO THE WEEDS JUST TO GET WHERE WE WANT TO GO. ALL RIGHT. YOU FEEL

[COMMENTS BY CITY COMMISSIONERS]

COMMISSIONER REED, I'LL STILL LET YOU GO FIRST. ALL RIGHT? I THOUGHT THAT WE. ARE YOU SURE THAT'S WHERE WE ARE? YES. I'M ON THE WRONG AGENDA. RIGHT. ENVIRONMENTAL ATTORNEY PRESENTATION. JUST FINISHED. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. WE'RE NOT THERE YET, MR. CLERK. WE'RE GETTING THERE. YEAH. I DID WANT TO REITERATE IN MY COMMISSION COMMENT FOR EMAILS TO BE ONLINE.

IT'S SOMETHING I'LL CONTINUALLY PUSH FOR. AND I ALSO WANTED TO MENTION I SPOKE WITH CITY MANAGER MIKE MORTEL AND THE HAMILTON'S. THEIR PROJECT IS SUPPOSED TO COME UP AS AN AGENDA ITEM AT THE SEPTEMBER 8TH MEETING, AND THEY ASKED ME TO GET A CONSENSUS FROM BOARD

[00:50:01]

THAT'D BE GREAT. IS THAT THE CASE? RIGHT. WELL, THE HAMILTON'S WON'T SPEAK TO ME.

THEY SENT ME AN EMAIL SAYING THAT THEY'RE WAITING FOR AN ANSWER FROM FLORIDA COMMERCE. I SPOKE TO FLORIDA COMMERCE ON A CONFERENCE CALL ON FRIDAY. FLORIDA COMMERCE PROVIDED ME WITH A COPY OF THE ANSWER THAT THEY'D ALREADY GIVEN HIM. HIS ANSWER WAS RELATED TO THE MONEY THAT WAS USED BY THE CITY TO PAY FOR THE PATRIOT GROUP TO DO HIS ROOF. ESSENTIALLY, THE GENTLEMAN AT FLORIDA COMMERCE BY THE NAME OF GRAHAM, TOLD MR. HAMILTON THAT WE USED THE ADMINISTRATIVE MATCHING FUNDS AT HIS DIRECTION TO PAY FOR THAT LIEN TO BE REMOVED FROM HIS HOUSE. WHEN HE WAS COMPLAINING ABOUT IT. HE NOW WANTS TO SAY THAT MR. GRANT, THAT GRAHAM TOLD HIM THAT THEY COULDN'T USE CDBG FUNDS BECAUSE AT THE MEETING I SAID, WE USE CDBG FUNDS TO DO IT. THE CITY OF STUART HAS ONE ACCOUNT THAT HAS THE CDBG FUNDS IN IT. IT WAS THE 50,000 THAT THE CITY PUT IN AS THE MATCHING FUNDS, THE $750,000 THAT WE GOT WAS ALL COMMINGLED AT THE DIRECTION OF FLORIDA COMMERCE. THAT'S HOW WE PAID IT. I SENT COPIES OF THOSE EMAILS TO MR. HAMILTON LAST WEEK, AND NONETHELESS, THE QUESTION THAT WAS BEING RESOLVED WAS WE HAD ALL BACKING IT UP. WE HAD HIS SCOPE OF SERVICES WAS TO GET A ROOF, WINDOWS AND DOORS WITH SOME INSULATION STARTED MOVING FORWARD ON THAT. THERE'S BEEN A CALAMITY OF ISSUES. WE THEN GOT TO THE POINT WHERE WE WERE DOING ANOTHER SCOPE OF SERVICES, AND WE SAID, HERE'S WHERE WE THINK THE SCOPE OF SERVICES IS. HE SAID HE WANTED TO DO HIS OWN SCOPE OF SERVICES. HE HIRED A GROUP CALLED MCKEE GROUP TO DO THE SCOPE OF SERVICES. HE PRESENTED THAT TO THE CITY. I REVIEWED IT, PERSONNEL REVIEWED IT, GUARDIAN REVIEWED IT AND WENT THROUGH IT AND SAID, OKAY, WE'LL AGREE TO THIS SCOPE OF SERVICES. WE THEN TOOK THE PRICING OFF OF IT AND TOOK THE LETTERHEAD OFF OF IT, BECAUSE A SCOPE OF SERVICES HAS TO GO OUT TO BID. AND PINELLAS SENT THAT TO FLORIDA COMMERCE AND CC, THE HAMILTONS AND SAID, WE BELIEVE WE'VE AGREED ON A SCOPE OF SERVICES. MR. HAMILTON SUBMITTED THIS TO US. WE DON'T HAVE ANY CHANGES TO MAKE. WE'RE AGREEABLE TO THIS AS WELL. THAT'S WHEN MR. HAMILTON ACCUSED THE CRA DIRECTOR OF FRAUD BECAUSE SHE TOOK MCKEE'S LETTERHEAD OFF AND CHANGED THE PRICES, AND THAT'S WHEN HE SAID HE WAS ENTITLED TO GET HIS OWN WITHOUT GOING THROUGH PROCUREMENT, COULD USE HIS OWN CONTRACT AND DIDN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH PROCUREMENT. WE HAD A CONFERENCE WITH FLORIDA COMMERCE. THEY SAID IT HAS TO BE PROCUREMENT. THEY SAID, LET US CALL THE HAMILTONS. THEY THEN CALLED US BACK AND SAID THE HAMILTON'S WILL NOT TALK ABOUT THIS ANYMORE UNLESS THEY SPEAK TO ALL OF US. WITH CONGRESSMAN MAST PRESENT. WE SAID, OKAY, GREAT. SCHEDULE US WHEN CONGRESSMAN MAST IS PRESENT. NO ONE CONTACTED US.

THE HAMILTON'S CONTACTED COMMISSIONER REED. FLORIDA COMMERCE THOUGHT US. WHO DO YOU MEAN, MISTER? ME. PINNELL GUARDIAN, THE CITY OF STUART OR ANYBODY TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT PHONE CALL? THE HAMILTON'S HAD CONTACTED COMMISSIONER REED TO PARTICIPATE THIS PHONE CALL.

COMMISSIONER REED SENT AN EMAIL TO FLORIDA COMMERCE. FLORIDA COMMERCE COMMISSIONER REED WAS REPRESENTING THE CITY OF STUART TO RESOLVE THAT SCOPE OF SERVICE. THEY HAD THE MEETING ON THE SCOPE OF SERVICE. THEY DIDN'T REALLY TALK ABOUT SCOPE OF SERVICES, THOUGH. WELL, OKAY.

SO THAT BECOMES THE ISSUE. ACCORDING TO FLORIDA COMMERCE, THEY DID TALK ABOUT THE SCOPE OF SERVICES, AND THE HAMILTONS WANTED ADDITIONAL WORK DONE, SUCH AS AN AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM AND SOME ELECTRICAL WORK DONE THAT WAS OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF SERVICES, AND NO ONE FROM THE CITY OBJECTED TO IT. SO I THEN OBJECTED TO IT WHEN I FOUND OUT ABOUT IT ON THE PHONE CALL. OKAY, SO I DON'T BY THE WAY, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS OTHER THAN WHAT YOU WERE THERE FOR. SO I JUST WHAT WAS DISCUSSED. HAMILTON'S ASKED ME DURING MY COMMISSION COMMENTS TO GET A CONSENSUS FROM THE COMMISSION UP HERE THAT THEY DO NOT WANT THEIR ITEM HEARD ON

[00:55:06]

BUT HERE'S THE THING. IF WE DON'T DO IT AND WE DON'T GET THE SCOPE OF SERVICES, AND THEN WE DON'T GO OUT TO THE 30 DAY BID TO GET THE JOB BID, AND THEN WE DON'T ISSUE THE PO OR THE PURCHASE ORDER BEFORE DECEMBER. IT'S OVER. THERE IS NO MORE GRANT FUNDING TO REIMBURSE. SO JANUARY DON'T THINK YOU GET TO SEND IN THE BILLS. WHERE DOES IT STATE THAT AT? WELL, ACTUALLY THEY CLAIM THEY DISCUSSED IT CALL WITH BRIAN MAY'S OFFICE, BUT I WASN'T THERE. SO I DON'T KNOW. DOES IT DOES IT IN A CONTRACT WITH GUARDIAN, THE CITY, THE ENTIRE GRANT THE CDBG GRANT PROGRAM ENDS JANUARY 1ST. YES. JUST LIKE THE ARPA FUNDS ENDED. THAT'S THE SAME EXACT THING. AND YEAH, SO WE STILL HAVE TIME THEN? HOW MUCH? WELL, HOW MUCH TIME DO WE HAVE? IT'S. YOU SAID WE ONLY NEED 30 DAYS, SO WE NEED 30 DAYS TO PUBLISH THE RFP. AND THEN WE NEED 15 DAYS FOR HAMILTON'S TO PICK THEIR CONTRACTOR, WHICH IS 45 DAYS. SO IF WE START DECEMBER 30TH THAT WE TAKE 30 BACK. THAT BRINGS US TO THANKSGIVING. THEN WE TAKE IT BACK. THAT BRINGS US TO NOVEMBER 15TH. SO WE HAVE TO HAVE THIS ENTIRE MATTER RESOLVED BY NOVEMBER 15TH. THERE'S NO WAY THAT THE CITY CAN SIGN THE SCOPE OF SERVICES UNTIL WE HAVE ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY AGAIN. BUT GUARDIAN IS NO LONGER WELCOME ON THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THE CITY SAID THAT GUARDIAN DID SOMETHING WRONG, BUT I DON'T. THE GUARDIAN SAYS THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT FROM THE LAST MEETING? THAT'S WHEN THIS GUARDIAN THING GOT BROUGHT UP. IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR A YEAR. GOTCHA. OKAY.

IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR A YEAR. JUST OUT OF RESPECT FOR THEM ASKING, CAN WE DEFER THE EIGHTH?

[01:00:03]

THAT'S IT. RIGHT. SO THEY DON'T WANT US TO TALK ABOUT IT. THEY WANT ME TO CONTINUE BEING BLAMED FOR ALL THIS STUFF. AND THEY WANT GUARDIAN TO CONTINUE TO BE BLAMED FOR ALL THIS STUFF, BUT THEY DON'T WANT YOU GUYS TO SEE THE INFORMATION. I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. THAT'S WHAT I'M JUST REITERATING WHAT I WAS TOLD. HAMILTON'S DON'T NEED TO BE HERE. THEY DON'T NEED TO COME. THEY DON'T NEED TO PRESENT ANYTHING. THERE'S NO REASON. I JUST WANT TO WALK THROUGH AND SHOW YOU GUYS THE HISTORY OF IT, SHOW YOU THE PICTURES OF IT AND SAY, LOOK, IS THIS A REASONABLE SCOPE OF SERVICE? I DISAGREE, I THINK THAT THEY DO. I STATED, WHAT? YEAH, WHAT WAS IT? AND THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THEIR TIME, JUST LIKE ANY DEVELOPER OR GUARDIAN OR ANYONE THAT WE'RE GOING TO GIVE TIME FOR THEM. AND WE ARE.

ABSOLUTELY. AND HAVE THEY'VE BEEN TO 20 MEETINGS SO FAR. WE'VE BEEN GIVEN THREE MINUTES EVERY TIME THEY COME. THAT'S ALL THEY GET IS THREE MINUTES. LIKE ANYONE WITH A PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. SO WHAT I WOULD PREFER THEN IS CAN WE ASSIGN THIS TO ONE OF YOU GUYS? BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY THE WAY THIS IS GOING. I CAN'T MANAGE IT, I CAN'T THE HAMILTON'S WON'T SPEAK TO ME. THEY TELL ME EVERY TIME I TALK TO THEM THAT ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS TOLD THEM THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO HAVE A CONTRACTOR. ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS TOLD THEM THAT THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE THEIR MEETING. THEN WHEN THEY DON'T WANT THEIR MEETING, THEY TURN. WE HAVE A PROCUREMENT PROCESS. SO HOW WOULD THAT WORK FOR THEM TO EVEN PICK THEIR SPECIFIC CONTRACTOR THAT WAS UNDER THE GRANT PROGRAM, UNDER THE PROCUREMENT OF IT, THEY GO OUT TO BID, CORRECT THE TOP. ANY BIDS OVER A 15% THRESHOLD ARE REMOVED, AND THEN THE REMAINING BIDS ARE LEFT, JUST LIKE THEY WERE BEFORE. THEY HAD TWO CONTRACTORS TO PICK FROM IN THEIR ORIGINAL BID. AND MY CONCERN IS THAT IF WE GO OUT TO BID PROCESS RIGHT NOW THAT THE HAMILTON'S, IF THEY DON'T GET MCKEE, THERE'S GOING TO BE NO DEADLINE FOR THEM TO DO IT. AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, WE DIDN'T GET IT DONE. CITY OF STUART, YOU NEED TO PAY FOR THIS. AND THEN IT'S GOING TO BE ON THE CITY'S TAB. AND AND EVERYONE'S GOING TO BE LOOKING AT ME SAYING, MIKE, WHY DIDN'T YOU GET THIS DONE? OKAY. JUST NO. EXCUSE ME, MR. MARTELL. THIS LENGTHY DISCUSSION WITH YOUR GOOD QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER REED, INDICATE WHY THIS NEEDS TO BE ON THE AGENDA. WELL, THEY DON'T, BECAUSE THE AGENDA. MAYOR RICH. OKAY, BUT THE CITY HAS BEEN INSTRUCTED TO PAY MONEY. THE FLORIDA WASN'T FLORIDA COMMERCE. WHO TOLD YOU TO WRITE A CHECK, MR. MORTEZ? THIS WAS IN NOVEMBER. THIS WAS A WHILE AGO, MAYOR RICH. OKAY. YEP. BUT REPRESENTATIONS ARE BEING MADE TO THE HAMILTON BY A SINGLE COMMISSIONER, OF WHICH ACTUALLY, BY THE WAY, CITY MANAGER, MAYOR RICH, WE JUST LET ME FINISH A STANCE ON ANYTHING. THE CITY MANAGER IS COMPLETELY UNAWARE. WHY? I MEAN, WELL, THAT'S WHY I'M TRYING TO REITERATE IT. JUST LET ME FINISH. IT REMINDS ME OF WHEN WE HAD TO DEAL WITH THE RESTAURANT NEXT DOOR. REMEMBER THAT? AND THEY WERE ASKING US TO PROVIDE THEM CONSIDERABLE COMPENSATION TO IMPROVE THE BUILDING. THAT TOOK US A COUPLE OF MEETINGS. WE DIDN'T DO THAT. SO LET'S GET GOING ON THIS PROCESS. LET THE WHOLE I MEAN, THINGS ARE SAID IN THE MEETINGS WITH OUR CONGRESSMAN THAT EVEN OUR CITY MANAGER DOESN'T KNOW.

BRIAN, I'M VERY I'M VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT. I WOULD JUST THE MORE THE ENTIRE COMMISSION IS INFORMED OF THIS ISSUE, THE BETTER SERVED EVERYONE WILL BE, ESPECIALLY THE HAMILTON TO GIVE THE RESIDENTS WHAT THEY ASKED FOR. YEAH, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD COMMISSIONER REED SAY THAT BRIAN MAST WAS NOT ON THE CALL. THERE WAS A REPRESENTATIVE THERE. THERE WAS A REPRESENTATIVE FOR HIM. WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE PHONE CALL? WHAT WAS THE DISCUSSION? THAT'S ALL I NEED TO KNOW. I WASN'T ON THE PHONE. I KNOW, I'M ASKING COMMISSIONER REED. THERE WAS DISCUSSION ON THE PROCESS AND STUFF. THAT WAS A MAJORITY SERVICES. NO NO NO NO NO. IT WAS PROCESSES ON HOW THINGS WORK THROUGHOUT THE CDBG GRANT. THERE WAS SOME COMMENTS MADE TOWARDS THE CITY THAT I NECESSARILY DIDN'T WANT TO HEAR, AND THAT GOT SHUT DOWN BY FLORIDA COMMERCE. BUT TO SAY THAT I'M LIKE TALKING ABOUT MAKING I WOULD NEVER DO THAT BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU MADE A DEAL THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. WELL, THAT'S HOW I FEEL. IT'S BEING PORTRAYED. BUT I'M JUST MY COMMENT IS I'M LOOKING FOR A CONSENSUS FROM THE BOARD MAJORITY THAT THE HAMILTON'S DO NOT WANT THEIR AGENDA ITEM ON THE SEPTEMBER 8TH MEETING, FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH. AND THAT'S IT. THERE IS

[01:05:05]

GRANT DIDN'T HAVE THE BOARD MICROMANAGING IT. THE BOARD HAS TAKEN OVER THE HAMILTON CASE.

IF IT'S GIVEN BACK TO STAFF AND WE CAN MAKE OUR OWN DECISIONS, AND I'M NOT REQUIRED TO COME IN FRONT OF THE BOARD AND NOT REQUIRED TO GET COMMISSION ACTION LIKE THE REST OF THE THE THE CDBG CASES, THEN I CAN TELL HAMILTON'S THIS IS THE WAY IT IS. WE'RE MOVING FORWARD AND THESE ARE THE RULES. THIS IS THE GRANT. AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, SUE THE CITY. BUT THE PROBLEM IS THE BOARD HAS TAKEN ALL MY AUTHORITY AWAY FROM ME AND GIVEN IT TO THE HAMILTON'S.

AND I DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT ANY OF THE GRANT RULES. I DON'T HAVE ANY OF THE AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT THE CONTRACT. AND EVERY TIME I TELL THE HAMILTON SOMETHING, THEY RUN TO A DIFFERENT COMMISSIONER AND SAY, I WANT A PUBLIC HEARING OR I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS. AND THEY COME TO THE MEETING AND THEY POST STUFF ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND THEY PUT SIGNS IN THEIR YARDS. I SAID WHAT I HAD TO SAY, RIGHT. SO SO I'M FINE WITH NOT HAVING ANY MEETING, BUT DON'T WE DON'T. THERE IS NO PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED. THERE IS NO DECISION FOR THE BOARD TO MAKE. THERE IS NO NOTHING. THE REASON WE'RE DOING ALL THAT IS BECAUSE THE BOARD IS INSTRUCTING STAFF TO DO IT. YOU JUST MADE A STATEMENT THAT THEY HAVE TO BE HERE ON THE EIGHTH. IF THE BOARD'S GOING TO CONTINUE MANAGING THIS PROJECT AND WE'RE GOING TO FINISH IT BY JANUARY, THEN YES, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THAT, THEN I'M ASKING YOU GUYS TO TAKE IT OVER AND HAVE SOMEBODY BE ASSIGNED FROM THE BOARD, BE THE ONE THAT'S GOING TO MANAGE THE PROJECT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, CANCEL THE PUBLIC HEARING ALTOGETHER, HAVE THE BOARD NOT HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING. NONE OF THE OTHERS GOT A PUBLIC HEARING AND LET THE CITY STAFF RUN THE GRANT THE WAY IT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO BE RUN THROUGH THE GRANT RULES THROUGH FLORIDA COMMERCE. BUT WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH ME IS EVERY TIME I TRY TO SAY THE GRANT RULES, THEY RUN TO YOU GUYS AND I GET BEAT UP AT THE NEXT MEETING. AND THEN WHEN I'M FINALLY PUSHING BACK TO HIM SAYING, FINE, YOU KNOW WHAT? I WAS TRYING TO WAIT TO GET THIS SCOPE OF SERVICE ASSIGNED, BUT I DON'T CARE. WE'RE GOING TO PUT THIS OUT THERE. WE'RE GOING TO SHOW EVERYBODY WHAT HAPPENED. ALL OF A SUDDEN. THEY DON'T LIKE THAT IDEA. AND SO NOW WHAT THEY'RE TELLING YOU IS DON'T DO IT BECAUSE I KNOW WHY. SO THAT WHEN WE MISS THE DEADLINE, YOU GUYS CAN THEN TURN AROUND AND SAY, MIKE, WHY DID YOU LET US MISS THE DEADLINE? AND SO I'M TRAPPED IN THIS THING. I DON'T WANT TO BE HERE. SEAN, DO YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE TALKING WITH THE HAMILTONS AND SORT OF TOLD THEM TO REACH OUT TO THE CITY MANAGER AND AND LET THEM KNOW, BUT THEY SAID THEY WERE WAITING ON SOMETHING FROM FLORIDA COMMERCE, MIKE, SAYING THAT THEY GOT IT TWO WEEKS AGO. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WAS PARTIAL INFORMATION THAT CAME FROM FLORIDA COMMERCE. THEY'RE WAITING FOR THE OTHER PART. CORRECT. SO THEY HAVE NOT RECEIVED EVERYTHING FROM FLORIDA COMMERCE. WHAT IS IT THEY WANT? I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW. THEY HAVE A THEY HAD A LIST OF QUESTIONS AND INFORMATION. BUT TO MIKE'S POINT, WE DON'T WANT TO GET TOO FAR BEHIND HERE TO WHERE WE CAN'T GET IT DONE RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I FEEL AS IF WE STILL HAVE TIME. WHEN WOULD YOU NEED TO HAVE THIS THIS BUTTONED UP MIKE? I IS YOU'RE SAYING, AM I HANDLING THE MATTER? SO WHY DON'T WE TABLE IT TO A COMMISSION, SIR? WHAT'S A DATE CERTAIN THAT WE NEED? MIKE AND I'LL MAKE SEPTEMBER 8TH WOULD WORK FOR ME. WHAT? WHAT'S OUR ABSOLUTE LAST DEADLINE? NEXT MEETING. SO, WHAT IS IT THAT YOU GUYS WANT THE HEARING TO BE ABOUT? THEY WANT AN OPPORTUNITY, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, TO PRESENT THEIR SIDE OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO WHO, THEN THEY DON'T GET TO DO THAT IN THE THREE MINUTES THEY HAVE. SO THEY CAN HAVE THAT WHENEVER THEY WANT. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT AT ALL. BUT IF YOU GUYS ARE AUTHORIZING ME, WHAT IF WE DID IT OCTOBER 13TH? CONTINUE WITH GUARDIAN AND I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE PUBLIC HEARING. YOU GUYS CAN GIVE THAT TO THEM ANYTIME THEY WANT. BUT LET ME HANDLE THE CDBG GRANT AND LET ME WRITE THEM A LETTER AND TELL THEM IF YOU MISS THESE DEADLINES, YOU'RE DONE. AND I'M MOVING ON WITHOUT YOU AND THAT'S THAT, AND TREAT THEM THE SAME WAY AS THE OTHER GRANT PEOPLE, THAT'S WONDERFUL. BUT IF THERE'S SOME KIND OF PUBLIC HEARING THAT GETS TO TAKE PLACE WHERE IT'S THE WHIPPING BOY, WHERE THEY WANT TO SLAM MIKE MORTEL AND AND PINAL GANDHI, I'D LIKE TO GET IT OVER WITH AND BE DONE WITH IT. OCTOBER 13TH. GIVE YOU ENOUGH TIME TO DO WHAT, I DON'T KNOW, TO HAVE IT AS AN AGENDA ITEM. AND THEN I'M NOT. I DON'T HAVE AN AGENDA ITEM. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FOR YOU TO VOTE ON. I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE WAITING FOR EITHER, BUT APPARENTLY THEY'RE WAITING FOR SOMETHING FROM FLORIDA COMMERCE. THEY ASKED ME DURING MY COMMISSION, WHY DON'T WE GET HIM IN HERE AND HEAR WHAT THEY'RE WAITING FOR? WELL, AND AT LEAST START THE PROCESS OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT THEY FEEL THEY NEED. YEAH, IT SEEMS LIKE THE PERFECT REASON, MAYOR RICH, IF THE CONSENSUS IS NOT MADE RIGHT NOW, IT'S COMING ON THE SEPTEMBER 8TH MEETING. REGARDLESS, LET'S TAKE IT OFF SEPTEMBER 8TH AND NEVER PUT IT ON ANOTHER MEETING UNTIL YOU HEAR FROM THEM, UNTIL THEY COME IN AND ASK FOR IT. THERE YOU GO. WHAT? WHAT

[01:10:04]

THE QUESTIONS THEY'RE ASKING FOR RIGHT NOW, EITHER WE LET MIKE HANDLE IT FULLY OR WE SCHEDULE THIS INSTEAD OF THE EIGHTH. LET'S MAKE IT THE 22ND. AND UNLESS WE HEAR BACK FROM YOU THAT, YEAH, THAT'S NOT OKAY. BUT OUT OF RESPECT, WE WON'T DO THE EIGHTH. LET'S DO IT ON THE 22ND. OKAY. AND THEN YOU CAN YOU CAN REPORT BACK. WHAT IF THEY SAY THEY'RE NOT READY ON THE 22ND? WHY ARE WE WHY DON'T WE JUST LET STAFF DO WITH ME? IF THEY'RE NOT READY BY THE 22ND, THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO BE. AND WE'LL JUST DEAL WITH IT. MAYOR. AND I'VE HAD COMMISSIONER JOB, OKAY? SO I JUST WANT TO. THERE'S SOME MISSTATEMENTS THAT ARE MADE.

MIKE, YOU MADE A STATEMENT BEFORE SAYING THAT WE ASKED YOU TO REMOVE A GUARDIAN. WE ASKED HOW COULD WE REMOVE GUARDIAN? AND WE WERE TOLD, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WAS IMPOSSIBLE. WE COULD NOT THEY WERE IN WE COULD NOT UNLESS SOMEONE FOUND CAUSE FOR THEM TO BE. THAT IS WHAT YOU SAID? NO, WHAT I SAID WAS WE COULDN'T APPROVE PROJECT LIFT AND NOT PAY GUARDIAN. AND WE COULDN'T REMOVE GUARDIAN AND NOT PAY THEM FOR THE WORK THEY'D ALREADY DONE. YOU CAN REMOVE GUARDIAN RIGHT NOW WITHOUT CAUSE FOR 30 DAYS NOTICE. YEAH, BUT YOU DIDN'T SAY TO DO IT. THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAID AT THE LAST MEETING. AT THE LAST MEETING, YOU SAID THE ONLY WAY THEY COULD BE REMOVED IS IF THEY HAD DONE SOMETHING WRONG OR RIGHT, SCREWED UP A PROJECT OR WHATEVER. AND OTHER THAN THE HAMILTON'S, ACCORDING TO YOU, THAT HASN'T HAPPENED, I DON'T THINK. NO NO NO NO NO. LET'S BE CLEAR. NOT OTHER THAN THE HAMILTON'S I THINK IN THE HAMILTON'S GUARDIAN HAS BEEN OUR SAVING GRACE. GUARDIANS BEEN THE ONES THAT HELPED THE CITY. GUARDIANS ARE THE ONES THAT KEEP POINTING OUT THE STUFF AT HAMILTON'S. PATRIOT WAS THE ONE THAT HAMILTON'S HAD A PROBLEM WITH. A GOOD JOB, BUT NOT GUARDIAN. IT'S NOT THE GUARDIAN ISSUE THAT PART OF THE CBG GRANT IS IF WORK IS NOT DONE OR NOT PROPERLY DONE, THEY SHOULD NOT BE PAID. AND THAT IS PART OF THE CBG GRANT PROCESS, BECAUSE I DID I WENT TO LOOK IT UP. SO. RIGHT. SO NOW WE'RE HAVING THIS HEARING THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT AND I'M BEING ACCUSED OF FAILING TO FOLLOW THE CBDG GRANT. BUT THE REALITY IS I GAVE THE HAMILTON'S THE LETTER FROM FLORIDA COMMERCE THAT TOLD ME TO USE THOSE FUNDS GETS BETTER, BECAUSE EVEN AFTER THEY TOLD US TO USE THOSE FUNDS, WE SAID, NOPE, THAT'S NOT ENOUGH. WE NEED HAMILTON'S SIGNATURE AND WE COULDN'T GET HAMILTON'S SIGNATURE. SO THEN WE HAD A SECOND LETTER FROM FLORIDA COMMERCE THAT SAID, PAY THIS MONEY WITHOUT THEIR SIGNATURE TO GET THIS LIEN REMOVED. AND THEY INSTRUCTED US TO DO SO BASED UPON THEIR COMMUNICATION, THAT MEETING. AND SO WE DID IT. OKAY. THE OTHER THING IS THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT THE CBG GRANT FOR THERE'S TWO IT WAS MIT AND ANOTHER THAT GARDEN GUARDIAN HAD PUT IN FOR AN RFP FOR THESE CBG GRANTS. AND THEY WERE ON RECORD. BUT I WENT TO THE PROCUREMENT SITE ON THE CITY AND THOSE CBG GRANTS WITH THEM WITH THE GUARDIAN HAD EXPIRED IN APRIL OF 2025. I HAVE THE PRINTOUTS IF YOU'D LIKE. OKAY, SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I DON'T KNOW. ACCORDING TO THIS, THEY'RE NOT EVEN THE HOLDERS OF THESE CBG GRANTS ANY LONGER BECAUSE THIS WHAT'S ON THE PROCUREMENT SITE SAYS THAT THEY HAVE EXPIRED IN APRIL OF 2025. I'M NOT SURE WHAT'S ON THE PROCUREMENT SITE, BUT THEIR BIDS EXPIRED IN APRIL OF 25.

WELL, I KNOW THE CONTRACT. I SENT YOU AN EMAIL ON IT AS WELL. CONTRACT WITH GUARDIAN AND THERE'S TWO OF THEM. SO. SO WE'RE STILL WORKING WITH GUARDIAN EVERY DAY. HAMILTONS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE DONE IN 24. THEY WON'T LET US BE DONE. HAMILTON'S. THIS WASN'T EVEN IN

[01:15:01]

RIGHT? DID TELL US THAT WAS IMPOSSIBLE. IT COULD NOT HAPPEN BECAUSE THEY HOLD THESE RFPS, THESE TWO. I THAT WHAT WE SAID WAS WE'D HAVE TO GO BACK OUT TO A NEW RFP TO HIRE A NEW COMPANY TO LIKE IF THEY WALKED OFF THE JOB TODAY, IF GUARDIAN QUIT, WHO WOULD FINISH THE REPORTING AND DO ALL THE THE WORK? WHO WOULD FINISH THE REPORTS? BUT AGAIN, WOULDN'T THEY OR SHOULDN'T THEY HAVE VALID CBG CONTRACTS ON OUR SITE? WE DO HAVE VALID CONTRACTS WITH THEM.

WE'RE CONTINUING TO WORK THEM. NO ONE HAS TERMINATED THE CONTRACTS. JUST LIKE WHEN YOU SIGN A LEASE WITH A LANDLORD AND THE LEASE IS FOR A YEAR AND YOU CONTINUE TO LIVE THERE AFTER THE LEASE RUNS OUT, YOU CAN TERMINATE THE CONTRACT. YOU GUYS COULD TERMINATE IT, BUT WE NEED TO HIRE SOMEONE ELSE TO DO THEIR JOB, AND WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO GO OUT TO RFP AND HIRE THAT SOMEONE ELSE AND THEN GET THEM ON THE JOB AND THEN THEM GET THEM INTO INSPECT AND THEN GET THE SCOPE OF SERVICES, AND THEN GO OUT TO RFP ON THAT SCOPE OF SERVICES, AND THEN PICK THE PERSON THAT DOES IT, AND THEN THEN TO COME BACK AND DO IT, AND THEN TO GO AND GET THE JOB DONE BY THANKSGIVING. IT JUST WON'T HAPPEN. MAYOR RICH, MAY I? SURE. OKAY, SO WE HAD A MEETING ON AUGUST 11TH. CITY COMMISSION MEETING. I WAS TOLD BY CITY MANAGER THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, THERE'S A TERMINATION. SECTION SIX, 6.2. I WAS TOLD THERE WAS ONLY TERMINATION FOR CAUSE. THAT'S ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. YOU CAN ALSO TERMINATE FOR CONVENIENCE IN SECTION 6.1. ALSO, TO CLARIFY THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT IN SECTION 1.1, THE TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT SHALL COMMENCE ON THE DATE OF EXECUTION BY THE CITY AND CONTINUE THROUGH APPROVAL OF THE FINAL REPORTS BY THE CITY. THIS AGREEMENT SHALL HAVE AN OPTION FOR EXTENSION OF THIS AGREEMENT AS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE SERVICES, OR TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SERVICES NOT TO EXCEED FIVE YEARS. THE AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED ON THE 27TH OF APRIL OF 2020, SO YOU ABSOLUTELY COULD EXTEND IT. YOU COULD ALSO TERMINATE IT. AND THIS WAS AN EMAIL THAT I SENT TO CITY MANAGER MIKE MORTEL AND CITY ATTORNEY. AUGUST 12TH AT 12:38 P.M. THE FOLLOWING DAY. BECAUSE I KNEW YOU COULD TERMINATE FOR CONVENIENCE AND I KNEW THAT IT WASN'T VALID. AND MY RESPONSE TO THAT EMAIL WAS THAT AT THE MEETING YOU HAD DISCUSSED THAT THEY HAD DONE SHODDY WORKMANSHIP. REGARDLESS OF THAT, THEY ALSO FORGED THE EVIDENCE. THEY ALSO THEY WANT TO SEE IT. CORRECT. OKAY. COULD YOU, COULD YOU I'M FINISHED.

BUT THOSE THOSE ARE THE FACTS. AND I ALSO STATED THAT'S WHAT THE HAMILTON'S ASKED FOR. AND I WAS TRYING TO GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT. THIS HAS SPIRALED OUT. LET HIM FINISH, MR. MORTEL.

THIS SPIRALED OUT OF CONTROL. BUT I WAS ALSO TOLD THERE WAS ONLY TERMINATION FOR CAUSE, AND THAT ABSOLUTELY WAS NOT TRUE. ON AUGUST 11TH MEETING. OKAY. AND I'M HERE WITH THE FACTS.

WE'VE THE FACTS THAT THE AUGUST 11TH MEETING WAS THAT NO ONE KNEW THAT YOU HAD APPEARED ON THE TELEPHONE CALL WITH BRIAN MAST OFFICE UNTIL YOU TOLD US ON AUGUST 11TH. THAT WAS A SURPRISE TO ME. IT WASN'T ON THE AGENDA. IT WAS OUT OF LEFT FIELD. NO ONE KNEW WHAT HAPPENED. WHEN I STARTED ASKING YOU WHAT HAPPENED AT THE MEETING. I STILL DON'T KNOW. TO THIS DATE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS DISCUSSED. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WHAT THE PURPOSE WAS. ALL I KNOW IS THAT FLORIDA COMMERCE TOLD ME THAT THE PURPOSE OF IT WAS TO GET THEM TO SIGN THE SCOPE OF SERVICES THAT THEY HAD ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED AND AGREED TO. WHEN YOU AND I SPOKE ABOUT IT AFTERWARDS, YOU TOLD ME THAT THEY ALSO SAID THEY WANTED A STEEPLE. THEY WANTED ELECTRICAL WORK DONE ON THEIR HOUSE. THEY WANTED AIR CONDITIONING DONE ON THEIR HOUSE. MIKE, YOU KNEW ABOUT THE ELECTRICAL WORK, THOUGH, WHEN YOU TOLD ME THAT THAT HAPPENED DURING THE CONVERSATION WITH FLORIDA COMMERCE? NO, THAT WAS THAT'S SO THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN ON THAT MEETING. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. EXCUSE ME. I THINK IT'S CLEAR. AND, MR. VICE MAYOR, CORRECT ME IF IT'S WRONG THAT THERE ARE AT LEAST THREE OF YOU WHO WOULD WISH TO CONTINUE THIS TO THE 22ND, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. THAT'S WE'RE GOING WITH AND I JUST ASK WHAT IS BEING SCHEDULED FOR THE 22ND. SO THIS WOULD BE THE PRESENTATION BY.

THE PRESENTATION BY HAMILTON. WELL THE HAMILTON'S HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY. THEY CERTAINLY WILL. THEY WILL NOT BE. ORIGINALLY COMMISSIONER REED GOT UP ON THE 11TH AND SAID THE HAMILTON'S HAVE A PRESENTATION THEY WANT TO DO ON SEPTEMBER 8TH. NOW THE HAMILTON'S ARE SAYING THEY DON'T WANT TO DO A PRESENTATION. DO THEY WANT TO DO ONE ON THE 22ND? I DON'T

[01:20:02]

COMMISSIONER CLARK, SO WHAT IF GUARDIAN DOES THEIR PRESENTATION ON THE EIGHTH AND THE HAMILTON CAN DO ANY REBUTTAL OR ANYTHING ON THE MEETING AFTER THAT? THAT WAY WE KNOW THE INFORMATION. WE KNOW WHAT GUARDIAN IS PRESENTING. I THINK WE SHOULD DO IT ON THE 22ND. I THINK IT EFFICIENTLY. IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE TO HAVE ONE HEARING, OKAY. TO JUST DO ONE. I MEAN, NO MATTER WHAT, IT'S HAMILTON, RIGHT? IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO'S DOING IT AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. THE HAMILTON I MEAN, IT'S GOING TO BE A PRESENTATION. RIGHT. AND THEN SO FOR CLARITY FIND OUT IF THEY KNOW EXCUSE THE COMMISSION TERMINATING THE CONTRACT BECAUSE IT EXPIRED IN APRIL. IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? I DON'T THERE'S NO MOTION FOR THAT. THERE'S NO MOTION. RIGHT. I KNOW, BUT IT'S NOT IN EXISTENCE.

DO YOU WANT ME TO SET ANOTHER AGENDA ITEM TO EXTEND IT? IT WASN'T IN EFFECT WHEN PROJECT LIFT WAS HERE EITHER. SO. SO DO YOU WANT ME TO SKIP? THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID TO EXTEND IT. THE POINT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT WE ASKED FOR INFORMATION AND WE GOT BACK INFORMATION THAT REALLY WASN'T. IT WAS HALF TRUTH, ACTUALLY. IT WAS TIED TO THE DISCUSSION WE WERE HAVING AT THE TIME. THE DISCUSSION WAS SAYING THAT THE GUARDIAN HAD DONE ALL THIS SHODDY WORK AND THAT THEY WEREN'T TO RECEIVE ANY TAX DOLLARS. AND I SAID, YOU CAN'T DO THAT, AND YOU CAN'T DO IT UNLESS YOU CAN SHOW, CAUSE NOW YOU CAN TERMINATE THE CONTRACT AT WILL, BUT YOU CAN'T TAKE THE TAX DOLLARS AWAY. YOU STILL GOT TO PAY THEM AND FULFILL THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT THAT THEY FULFILLED. THEY WERE. YOU'RE CO-MINGLING BOTH ISSUES. LAST TIME THE MEETING WAS DON'T GIVE THEM ANY MONEY FROM PROJECT LIFT, AND DON'T GIVE THEM ANY OTHER TAX DOLLARS FROM THE THESE GRANT THINGS. AND I WAS SAYING, YOU CAN'T DO THAT UNLESS YOU SHOW CAUSE THAT IS GOT TO BE DONE. THERE WERE SEVERAL QUESTIONS I THINK COMMISSIONER READ, IF I REMEMBER, WAS SAYING THAT THESE ARE TAX DOLLARS. RIGHT. AND AND I WAS SAYING THAT THEY, THEY COULD NOT BE REMOVED. MEANWHILE, THEY REALLY DON'T EVEN HAVE A CONTRACT. LET'S NOT LET'S NOT LET'S NOT START TALKING ABOUT PROJECT LIFT. I WOULD REMIND THE COMMISSIONERS THAT IF THEY ASK FOR INFORMATION FROM EITHER, WE HAVE NOW THREE DIRECT EMPLOYEES, MR. MARTEL, MR. BAGGETT AND MISS HOLMES. IF YOU ASK THEM FOR INFORMATION, WHETHER IT'S IN A PUBLIC MEETING OR IN PRIVATE, AND THEY GIVE YOU INFORMATION YOU FEEL IS INCORRECT OR INCOMPLETE OR A FALSEHOOD, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE MEETING TO SAY, I'M CONFUSED. YOU SAID THIS, THIS, YOU KNOW, COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN IT IN GREATER DETAIL TO ME? I APPRECIATE THAT YOU'VE DRILLED DOWN, BUT JUST TO. WE'RE ON THE VERY FIRST COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS STILL AND I'M SO HE HAS MADE THE REQUEST THAT THE ITEM THAT WAS ON FOR THE EIGHTH IS NOW ON FOR THE 22ND. IS THAT SUFFICIENT? WE'RE MOVING ON. AND DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR REMARKS, COMMISSIONER REED? IT DOES. AND I WANT TO STATE I'M NOT UP HERE TO ARGUE. I'M HERE TO CLARIFY THINGS FOR THE RECORD, ON WHAT WAS SAID AT LAST MEETING AND WHAT ACTUALLY EXISTS IN A CONTRACT AND WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID BETWEEN THE HAMILTONS AND MYSELF. AND AS FAR AS THE PHONE CALL, I'M NOT HERE TO ARGUE WITH OUR CITY MANAGER, NOR AM I HERE TO ARGUE WITH YOU. MAYOR RICH, I JUST WANTED TO PRESENT SOME THINGS THAT I THOUGHT NEEDED CLARIFIED, AND I RESPECT WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM, MIKE, ON IT. I JUST, I FEEL LIKE I'M DOING MY JOB BY STATING THAT THIS IS WHAT THEY ASKED FOR, AND I FEEL LIKE I WOULDN'T BE FULFILLING MY OBLIGATION IF I DID NOT AT LEAST ATTEMPT. OKAY, THANK YOU, MAYOR RICH. THE HAMILTONS HAVE GOTTEN WHAT THEY WANTED. WELL, COMMISSIONER QUESTION NO. YOU CAN CLARIFY IF YOU WANTED TO CLARIFY IF THAT WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE CITY MANAGER IN TIME TO HAVE IT IN THE AGENDA PACKET FOR THE 22ND, SO THAT THAT TIME FRAME IS PROVIDED TO THEM, THAT ANYTHING THAT THEY WANT TO HAVE IN THEIR PRESENTATION, THAT THEY'D GIVE IT TO US AHEAD OF TIME IN THE TIME FRAME AND HAVE THAT AVAILABLE AND THEN WHATEVER GUARDIAN IS GOING TO PRESENT OR WHATEVER MR. MARTEL IS GOING TO PRESENT, THAT WILL ALSO BE ON THE AGENDA ITEM. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONFUSION AND THAT THERE'S COMPLETE COOPERATION BY EVERYONE. I'VE ALREADY TOLD THE HAMILTONS THAT THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED, BY LAW OR OTHERWISE, TO PRESENT ANYTHING IN ADVANCE, AND THAT THEY DON'T ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO GIVE IT TO US. TO US. I JUST WANTED TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY, IF THEY WANTED IT TO BE ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA, TO PRESENT IT IN ADVANCE. AND IT'S GOT TO BE ON THE LIKE FOR THE EIGHTH, IT WOULD NEED TO BE TOMORROW, BUT FOR THE 22ND IT WILL BE THE NINTH. ON THE NINTH. OKAY. THE DAY AFTER THE MEETING,

[01:25:08]

I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT IF WE DO NOT AGGRESSIVELY ATTEND TO THE REPAIR OF THE SAINT LUCIE RIVER, ANYTHING ELSE WE DO IN THE CITY WILL MEAN NOTHING. THE RIVER PROVIDES LIFE TO THE CITY. BOATING, BOTH PERSONAL AND BOATING INDUSTRY, FISHING BOTH PERSONAL AND FISHING INDUSTRY AND TOURISM. SO THE IMPLICATION THAT THIS IS NOT MONEY WELL SPENT IS MISLEADING. I'D ALSO LIKE TO REQUEST, NOW THAT THE ATTORNEY HOLMES IS ON BOARD, I WOULD LIKE TO SET UP MEETINGS WITH ALL THE COMMISSIONERS AND THE ATTORNEY SO THAT WE CAN DISCUSS STRATEGIES, ETCETERA, GOING FORWARD. I'LL LET COMMISSIONER BAGGETT DISCUSS IT WITH YOU. BUT THE ONLY PLACE THAT I, COMMISSIONER, ATTORNEY BAGGETT, TO DISCUSS IT WITH YOU, BUT THE ONLY PLACE YOU CAN HAVE PRIVATE MEETINGS WITH ALL THE ATTORNEYS GOING FORWARD WOULD BE IF YOU'RE IN LITIGATION. SO YOU HAVE TO FILE THE LAWSUIT FIRST. OTHERWISE IT HAS TO BE ON THE DAIS ONE ON ONE. WHAT ABOUT ONE ON ONE, ONE ON ONE, ONE ON ONE. YOU CAN. IT'S SO MUCH MORE. WHAT SHE'S ASKING IF WE WERE ALL THERE. RIGHT. SO THE QUESTION IS THIS IS TALKING TO BASICALLY AN EMPLOYEE WHICH DOESN'T REALLY COME UNDER THE PRIVATE. IT'S A PUBLIC, IT'S A PUBLIC. IF YOU IF THERE'S MORE THAN ONE COMMISSIONER PRESENT, IT HAS TO BE A PUBLIC MEETING.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE A WORKSHOP OR SOMETHING? BUT IT'S STILL A PUBLIC MEETING. ALL RIGHT. WELL THEN MAYBE A WORKSHOP IF SHE CAN MAKE A PRESENTATION AND WE COULD QUESTION IT MORE EFFECTIVE IF WE'RE ALL THERE TO DISCUSS IT, RATHER THAN DOING IT ONE BY ONE, WHERE WE HAVEN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO EVEN TALK TO EACH OTHER AS TO SOME OF THE THINGS WE'D LIKE TO BE, YOU KNOW, ADDRESSED IN THE STRATEGY, SHE COULD MAKE HER PRESENTATION AND WE COULD ALL SPEAK WITH HER, ADD TO IT. YEAH, WE COULD DO THAT. THAT'S THE SIMPLEST. AND WE'VE GOT ROOM ON SEPTEMBER 8TH, A LITTLE LESS FORMAL ON SEPTEMBER 8TH. OH, GEE, I WONDER WHY, BUT WE DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S AGREEABLE TO ATTORNEY HOLMES. SHE'S GOING TO DO THAT.

WELL, WE'RE WE'RE ABLE TO INSTRUCT HER. SHE'S RARING TO GO. HAVE TO PUT A PRESENTATION TOGETHER. I HAVE TO BE HONEST. OKAY, SO THE NEXT THING IS ON THE AUGUST 11TH COMMISSION MEETING, ROBIN CARTWRIGHT, A RESIDENT OF STUART, STATED DURING HER PUBLIC COMMENT THAT SHE HAD REACHED OUT TO THE CITY MANAGER, MIKE MARTEL, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A COMMITTEE FOR RESIDENTS TO NAVIGATE ISSUES WITH THE COMMISSIONERS. I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER REED REGARDING TRANSPARENCY WITHIN THE CITY GOVERNMENT AND THIS TYPE OF INTERACTION BETWEEN RESIDENTS AND COMMISSIONERS MIGHT BE THE ANSWER TO GAINING THE PUBLIC'S TRUST. ONCE AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS ON AN AGENDA SO THAT THE COMMISSIONERS COULD DISCUSS AND VOTE ON SUCH A COMMITTEE. ONCE THIS ITEM HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE AGENDA, IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO ASK MISS CARTWRIGHT IF SHE WOULD LIKE TO SHARE HER VISION FOR THIS TYPE OF COMMITTEE, AND THERE MIGHT STILL BE ROOM ON SEPTEMBER 8TH IF MISS CARTWRIGHT IS AVAILABLE.

IN RESPONSE, COMMISSIONER, THE ORIGINAL MEETING I HAD WITH ROBIN CARTWRIGHT WAS WHEN I WAS THE CITY ATTORNEY AND DAVID DIAS WAS THE CITY MANAGER. I MET WITH ROBIN AND VIRGINIA SHERLOCK FOR ABOUT TWO HOURS, AND WE ACTUALLY WENT OVER A VERY DETAILED LIST OF THINGS RELATED TO THE CODE OF CONDUCT AND OTHER METHODS, AND POTENTIALLY CREATING A COMMITTEE THAT WOULD HEAR CHALLENGES TO ACTIONS BY CITY COMMISSIONERS FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER. IT DIDN'T END UP GETTING PUT ON AN AGENDA. THEN, WHEN I BECAME EITHER ACTING CITY MANAGER OR CITY MANAGER, MISS CARTWRIGHT BROUGHT IT UP AGAIN AND I ACTUALLY PUT IT ON AN AGENDA, PRESENTED IT TO THIS BOARD, AND YOU GUYS VOTED AND TOLD ME NOT TO GO FORWARD. I THINK IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THAT WAS MORE ABOUT REWRITING AN ETHICAL. IT WAS THE CODE OF CONDUCT AND THAT, BUT IT WAS ALL DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE EXACT SAME THING. THAT'S WHAT IT WAS. I'M HAPPY TO PUT IT ON AGAIN. I'M JUST TELLING YOU THAT WE DID IT. AND IF YOU GUYS WANT TO DO IT AGAIN, I'M HAPPY TO. SEPTEMBER 8TH, MAYOR RICH, MAY I? YES, COMMISSIONER. I REMEMBER YOU DOING IT, MIKE. I THINK A BIG PART OF IT WAS AT THE TIME WAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH PUNISHMENT TOWARDS CITY COMMISSIONERS. AND I THINK YOU SHOULD ASK ROBIN, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT WAS. WAS THAT WHAT IT WAS PERTAINED? IT WAS A COMMITTEE THAT WOULD HEAR COMPLAINTS ABOUT COMMISSIONERS AND BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THOSE COMPLAINTS THAT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN. BUT THAT ISN'T WHAT SHE MENTIONED ON AUGUST 11TH. YEAH. WHAT IS IT? I'M FINE. NO, NO, I MEAN, WE CAN PUT IT ON SEPTEMBER 8TH. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM HEARING IT. I WAS JUST

[01:30:04]

[01:35:01]

YEAH. NOT A LEASE YET, BUT JUST MORE INFORMATION. NO, NO. RIGHT. MORE INFORMATION. DO WE HAVE TO HAVE A ROLL CALL ON THAT OR JUST. OKAY. WE ALL AGREE ON THAT OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY OKAY.

IT HAD THREE BUT I'LL DO FOR I'M DEFINITELY GOING TO GET INVOLVED WITH MISS RUTH HOLMES.

AND I APPRECIATE HER BEING HERE. AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN WORK REALLY HARD AND GET SOME THINGS GOING, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT US TO BECOME A GHOST TOWN BECAUSE WE HAVE MORE AND MORE ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND PROBLEMS WITH OUR WATER. AND I KNOW THAT YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO SOLVE EVERYTHING, BUT WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO YOU WORKING WITH THE COUNTY AND WORKING WITH THE ORGANIZATIONS IN OUR COMMUNITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ON TOP OF THINGS. ALL RIGHT. DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR REMARKS? YES. THANK YOU, MR. VICE MAYOR, I HAVE NONE. OKAY.

I HAVE TO STAY HERE. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO BE THE NICE COMMISSIONER THIS EVENING OR TELL A NICE STORY. SO THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CLARK, FOR ACCOMPANYING ME TO THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES ANNUAL MEETING. AND IT IS AN INTENSE EVENT, NONSTOP BREAKFAST THROUGH

[01:40:04]

AND ONE OF THEM IS I GET TO MEET PEOPLE ON A FAIRLY SERIOUS LEVEL THAT I OTHERWISE, LET'S BE HONEST, I'D NEVER WOULD ENCOUNTER THEM. AND ONE OF THEM WAS PASTOR GORE AND. HE WAS A VERY INTERESTING GUY. HE FELT VERY STRONGLY ABOUT COMMUNITY, HIS COMMUNITY. HE TOOK TO THE TIME TO SHARE THOSE CONCERNS WITH ME. AND I WAS I REALLY ENJOYED AND VALUED THE FACT THAT I GOT TO KNOW HIM, AND I HAD THE HONOR OF READING A PROCLAMATION FROM THE CITY AT WAS THAT THE FIRST METHODIST? IS THAT WHAT THAT WAS? UNITED METHODIST, UNITED METHODIST.

AND THAT PLACE WAS COMPLETELY FULL. I WAS I HAD NO IDEA THE INFLUENCE AND IMPACT THIS. I MEAN, HE'S SORT OF DIMINUTIVE IN STATURE, BUT BOY, HE'S BIG IN HEART AND SPIRIT. AND IT WAS SUCH A PRIVILEGE TO BE ABLE TO STAND IN FRONT OF THAT GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO CARED SO MUCH ABOUT HIM AND SHARE THE CITY'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND RESPECT FOR HIS CONTRIBUTION. AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT. MR. MORDELL, ARE YOU TALKED OUT OR DO YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENT?

[APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

[COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC (Non-Agenda Related) (3 Minutes Max.)]

GUARDIANS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROCESSING IT. THERE ARE DOCUMENTED ISSUES WITH ALL OF IT. REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THE HAMILTONS. MR. MARTELL, YOU ARE NO VICTIM IN THIS SITUATION, BUT I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THE COMMENT THAT COMMISSIONER JOB GAVE ME CREDIT FOR. WHEN COMMISSIONER, WHEN MISS SHERLOCK AND I MET WITH MR. MARTELL, THAT WAS IN OCTOBER OF 2022, AND IT WAS TO DISCUSS THE ACTIONS OF A COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER BRUNER, WHO REPRESENTED THE CITY WITHOUT AUTHORITY ON A YOUTUBE CHANNEL WITH THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. AND I WROTE TO MR. MARTELL EXPRESSING MY CONCERN ABOUT HOW IT WAS A POLICY VIOLATION OF THE CITY'S CODE OF CONDUCT. AND MR. MARTELL WROTE ME A VERY LENGTHY EMAIL ON OCTOBER 21ST, 2022. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST FOR IT, OR I CAN FORWARD IT TO YOU AND MISS SHERLOCK ACTUALLY RESPONDED TO MR. MARTELL, WHICH IS WHY WE HAD THAT MEETING, TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION THAT WE DID. AND I'M JUST GOING TO READ YOU A COUPLE HIGHLIGHTS, BECAUSE I KEEP EVERYTHING JUST FOR THIS REASON. THIS IS FROM MISS SHERLOCK. I'M VERY DISTURBED BY YOUR RESPONSES TO ROBIN CARTWRIGHT'S EMAIL ASSERTING ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CITY'S CODE OF CONDUCT. FOR COMMISSIONER BRUNER, YOU ADVISE, ROBIN THAT THE PROCESS FOR CITIZENS TO REQUEST AN INVESTIGATION OF AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT IS TO FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON ETHICS. I'M SURE YOU KNOW, HOWEVER, THAT THE COMMISSION ON ETHICS DOES NOT INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS BASED ON ALLEGED VIOLATION OF LOCAL GUIDELINES OR CONDUCT LIKE THE CITY OF SWARTZ CODE OF CONDUCT FOR COMMISSIONERS. SHE THEN GOES ON TO SAY, YOU ADVISE ROBIN THAT QUOTE, IF THE CITY MANAGER DETERMINES THERE IS A VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT, THEN HE WILL ADDRESS THAT WITH COMMISSIONER BRUNER AND WHOEVER ELSE HE DEEMS APPROPRIATE. BUT IT WOULD AMOUNT TO A HUMAN RESOURCES POLICY ISSUE. YOUR RESPONSES TO ROBIN'S COMPLAINT, WHICH HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE CITY MANAGER, ARE CLEARLY AN EFFORT TO DISMISS THE ALLEGATIONS WITHOUT INDEPENDENT OR UNBIASED REVIEW TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE ALLEGATIONS.

THIS IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE CODE OF CONDUCT OR THE CITY CODE, AND DOES NOT REFLECT AN INTEREST IN UPHOLDING THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN RESPONDING TO RESIDENTS CONCERNS ON INTEGRITY. THIS IS WHY WE ASKED FOR THE COMMISSION SO THAT THERE WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO HAVE A GRIEVANCE WITH PEOPLE LIKE MR. MARTEL OR ANY OF THE

[01:45:03]

[APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR]

SECOND, AND WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CLARK AND A SECOND BY THE VICE MAYOR. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ISSUE? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, I OKAY. MR. BAGGETT, COULD YOU

[4. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING JOINING LAWSUIT AGAINST SB180 (RC): RESOLUTION No. 82-2025; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN A LAWSUIT SEEKING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO DECLARE THAT SENATE BILL 180’S IMPOSITION OF A BLANKET STATEWIDE PROHIBITION ON THE EXERCISE OF HOME RULE AUTHORITY OVER LAND USE AND ZONING REGULATIONS, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND SHOULD BE ENJOINED AND RETAINING WEISS SEROTA HELFMAN COLE + BIERMAN, PL TO PROSECUTE THE LAWSUIT; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.]

ON BEHALF OF ALL THE CITIES THAT JOIN, PROBABLY WITHIN SIX MONTHS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AT THE TRIAL COURT LEVEL, AND THEN YOU GET A FINAL JUDGMENT THAT'S GOING TO BE TEN GRAND IF IT GETS APPEALED TO THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, IT'S ANOTHER FIVE GRAND. AND IF IT GOES TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT, IT'S ANOTHER FIVE GRAND THEREAFTER. SO YOU ARE CAPPED AT A MAXIMUM OF $20,000 EXPOSURE ON THE ATTORNEY'S FEES.

I. WANTED TO ADDRESS, YOU KNOW, WE WERE GETTING SOLICITATIONS FROM THE LAW FIRM. AND I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER DORY HOWINGTON, A COMMISSIONER FROM DELTONA, AND I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THINGS. I SAW SOME AT LEAST ONE COMMUNICATION WHERE SHE SAID, IF YOU JOIN, IF YOU DON'T JOIN THE CASE, YOU MAY BE LEFT OUT. I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THAT ASSERTION. THERE'S GOING TO BE WE'RE GOING TO BE SEEKING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND

[01:50:01]

NONE. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AMONGST THE COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. NONE.

OH, OKAY. MR. VICE, YOU'RE THE MAKER OF THE MOTION. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY I'M ALL FOR THIS. YOU KNOW, AS ONE OF THESE WHEREAS CLAUSES SAYS SB 180 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND INVALID.

AND MY MY HOPE IS THAT MORE MUNICIPALITIES JUMP ON. I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO BE THE FIRST WAVE AND THE TIP OF THE SPEAR HERE. I HOPE MORE MUNICIPALITIES JUMP IN BECAUSE I BELIEVE THIS IS WHAT I CAN'T SPEAK FOR FLORIDA RESIDENTS OVERALL. BUT IN MARTIN COUNTY, WE WANT TO PROTECT THE MARTIN COUNTY DIFFERENCE. YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE VOTERS WANT THE CITY OF STUART. AND MY HOPE IS THAT MARTIN COUNTY WILL JOIN IN AND FOLLOW SUIT WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING AS WELL HERE. AND BECAUSE AS OF YET, THEY'VE BEEN PRETTY QUIET. BUT THIS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. THIS IS US FIGHTING BACK. AND TRULY, I MEAN IT WHEN I SAY THIS IS THE ALAMO. IF SB 180 IS NOT STRUCK DOWN, YOU KNOW, CAN CITIES EVEN REALLY CAN COUNTIES EVEN PROTECT THAT SLOW GROWTH DIFFERENCE ANYMORE? PROBABLY NOT. SO THIS IS THIS IS IT FOR ME. THIS IS THE ALAMO. AND I'M JUST SO THANKFUL THAT THAT THIS IS HAPPENING AND WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO JOIN IT. COMMISSIONER CLARK OH, I DID I KNOW THAT I'VE HEARD ABOUT COMMUNITIES WANTING TO JOIN, AND I JUST WANTED TO ASK MR. BAGGETT WITH REGARD TO THE STATUS AS TO THE GOVERNOR AND SOME OF THESE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE WEIGHED IN, ESPECIALLY COUNTIES. I THINK I THINK IT WAS MANATEE COUNTY. I WAS READING ABOUT THEM WHEN WE'VE ALREADY TAKEN THAT STEP. AND OF COURSE, WE'RE TAKING IT. WE WE WOULD TAKE A FURTHER STEP TODAY.

BUT I WAS JUST WONDERING, WHAT IS WHAT IS THE STATUS WITH REGARD TO SOME OF THESE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE SUPPOSEDLY GOING TO BE IN THIS FIRST WAVE? NOBODY HAS DONE ANYTHING YET PER SE, WHO HAS JOINED? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING? YEAH, I'M ASKING, I, I ASKED THAT QUESTION OF I'VE SPOKEN TO TWO DIFFERENT LAWYERS AT THE LAW FIRM, AND I'VE ASKED THAT QUESTION WHO ALL'S JOINED AND HAVE DO YOU HAVE THE TEN. THE TEN. YEAH. THEY NEED OKAY. SO I NEED TO BACK UP BECAUSE THE, THE PROPOSAL FOR THE CAP OF 10,000, 5005 THOUSAND IS THIS AS LONG AS THEY HAVE A MINIMUM UNICIPALITIES OR COUNTIES THAT JOIN, THEY FELT PRETTY CONFIDENT THEY'RE GOING TO GET THAT NUMBER. I ASKED WHO'S JOINED BUT THEY WOULDN'T IDENTIFY WHO. TO ME ON THE PHONE. AND DID THEY SAY HOW MANY? NO, THEY I THINK WE WOULD

[01:55:07]

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER CASE OR MULTIPLE CASES SAYING ON THE DEFENSE SIDE THAT IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SEEK ACTION IN WHEN WE'RE DEFENDING THE CASE, WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN SEEK A STAY OF THE DEFENSE OF THE CASE, BECAUSE THERE'S THIS OTHER LAWSUIT GOING. AND I THINK THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE UP TO THE PARTICULAR JUDGE THAT'S ASSIGNED THE CASE, WHETHER OR NOT HE OR SHE WOULD LIKE TO STAY THE CASE, BECAUSE THERE'S ANOTHER POTENTIAL LITIGATION AGAINST THE STATE OF FLORIDA CLAIMING UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SO CONSOLIDATING, I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S THAT'S I OTHERWISE YOU WOULD HAVE TWO DIFFERENT YOU COULD HAVE TWO DIFFERENT OUTCOMES, YOU KNOW, OR AND IF WE GET SUED MULTIPLE TIMES WE'D HAVE MULTIPLE. I COULD DEFINITELY SEE IN MARTIN COUNTY, IF WE HAD THREE LAWSUITS THEY WOULD COMBINE THE LAWSUITS INTO ONE. SO IT'S JUST JUDICIAL ECONOMY. IT'S BETTER THAN HAVING THREE SEPARATE LAWSUITS. I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WOULD BE HANDLED IF THEY'RE SUING IN TALLAHASSEE, AND WE HAVE A CASE HERE THAT WE'RE DEFENDING AND I DON'T I DON'T THIS WOULD BE HANDLED BY OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND ON THE DEFENSE SIDE AND ON THE PLAINTIFF SIDE. SO WE WOULD BE RETAINING OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO DEFEND THE CITY FOR ANY LAWSUIT OR LAWSUITS. I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK AHEAD OF TIME RIGHT NOW. AND THEY MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, STRATEGY OR OR RECOMMENDATION ON MOVING FORWARD ON THAT. SO YOU MAY CONTINUE TO ASK QUESTIONS. AND WHAT IS THE HARD AND FAST RELATIONSHIP WITH THIS LAW FIRM THAT IT WILL BE LIMITED TO THE 10,000, THEN THE FIVE AND FIVE? OR WILL WE BE SUDDENLY ASKED FOR MORE MONEY AND MORE MONEY? MORE MONEY? I MEAN, THERE IS A CONDITION THAT THEY NEED TEN MINIMUM, SO THEY MIGHT COME BACK AT NINE. I DON'T I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING TO LIVE UP TO THE, TO THE LIMIT. THEY COULD COME BACK AND CHANGE THE AMOUNT. BUT IF THEY GET TEN, I THINK THAT'S THAT'S THE NUMBER THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY DRAFTED THE, THE THE RESOLUTION THAT YOU HAVE ATTACHED TO IT. SO YEAH, I CAN'T SEE THEM BOWING OUT ON THAT. BUT I THINK THEY'RE LOCKED IN IF THEY HAVE A MINIMUM OF TEN OR YOU KNOW, IF THEY HAVE 20 SAME THING. THEY'RE LOCKED IN. I THINK PR WISE IT WOULD BE BAD FOR HIM. DISTRICT COURT THEY I DID ASK TODAY, ARE WE GOING IN FEDERAL COURT OR STATE COURT. AND THEY SAID STATE COURT IN LEON COUNTY IN TALLAHASSEE. I KNOW THAT YOU'VE PROBABLY READ NOEL. WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO READING THE TITLE YET. BUT FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN THIS. I WAS THINKING OF SOMETHING THAT I'D ASK YOU.

NO, NO, NO, I DID. I WAS LOOKING AT SOMETHING. I HEARD SMILE. YEAH. I THINK THE MAIN THING IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE PART ABOUT THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY. THAT'S ONE OF THE BIGGEST. WHEREAS CLAUSE THAT COMES UP. SO. I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? I JUST HAVE A BRIEF COMMENT. WE'VE ENACTED ORDINANCES THAT ARE CLEARLY IN VIOLATION OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE'RE IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF STATE LAW BY FAILING TO RESCIND, AND WE HAVE NO BUSINESS GETTING INVOLVED WITH THIS LAWSUIT AT THIS TIME. ROLL CALL, PLEASE, MADAM CLERK. COMMISSIONER. CLERK. PUBLIC. OH, I'M SORRY.

PUBLIC COMMENT. RIGHT. SHE'S. NO THERE THERE WAS NO PUBLIC COMMENT. SHE HAD NONE. I DON'T HAVE ANY. OKAY. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? NO. YEAH. WE'RE VOTING NO. LET'S ALLOW PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE PUBLIC COMMENT. YOU'VE GOT TO PROVIDE. OKAY. COME ON. DID YOU TAKE MY VOTE ALREADY? ARE YOU GOING TO LET ME GET THROUGH IT AGAIN? I. VOTED WALTER LLOYD 150 CABANA POINT

[02:00:04]

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. I HAVE NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY, LET'S TRY THE VOTE AGAIN. PLEASE ROLL CALL. COMMISSIONER CLARK. NO. VICE MAYOR COLLINS. YES. MAYOR.

RICH? NO. COMMISSIONER. JOB. YES. COMMISSIONER. REED. YES. OKAY. MR. BAGGETT, WILL YOU.

[5. AMENDMENT TO LDC SECTION 11.01.02.REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OVER 50K SQUARE FEET (RC): ORDINANCE No. 2544-2025; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TEXT TO SECTION 11.01.02 OF THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY DELETING THE PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENT FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS GREATER THAN 50,000 SQUARE FEET AND REPLACING WITH A PUBLIC PRESENTATION TO CITY COMMISSION REQUIREMENT; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT. PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. BACK IN APRIL, THE CITY COMMISSION HAD DIRECTED STAFF TO INITIATE A TEXT AMENDMENT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHANGING THE PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENT TO A PUBLIC PRESENTATION REQUIREMENT. YOU MIGHT HAVE. THE QUESTION IS, HOW CAN WE DO THE AMENDMENT HERE? BUT WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO IT UNDER ZONING AND PROGRESS. IT'S THE CITY'S POSITION THAT THIS IS NOT MAKING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE MORE RESTRICTIVE. IT'S ACTUALLY MAKING IT LESS RESTRICTIVE, WHICH WOULD NOT VIOLATE SENATE BILL 180. SO WE ARE ABLE TO TO MAKE THESE TEXT CHANGES TO THE CODE. I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT WE HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY LAST WEEK, AND THEY APPROVED THIS. THEY APPROVED RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS ORDINANCE WITH A CAVEAT THAT TO LEAVE THE PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENT. AND IF YOU LOOK AT. THE RED LINES IN IT, IN THE IN THE PROPOSED TEXT DELETIONS, THERE'S A PARAGRAPH, IT'S PARAGRAPH F, AND IT HAS CITY COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE. NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING SHALL BE PROVIDED BY MAILING AND BY POSTING THE SUBJECT. PROPERTY REQUIREMENTS FOR NOTICE FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS CAN BE FOUND IN SECTION 11.02 .00. SO THE LPA RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE CHANGES, WITH THE CAVEAT OF PUTTING THAT BACK IN. AND SO WHAT THEY WANTED IS AT A PUBLIC HEARING, YOU HAVE TO PUT OUT WE HAVE OUR ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES US TO PUT NOTIFICATION OUT BY MAIL AND BY POSTING ON THE PROPERTY.

AND SO THEY WANTED THAT REQUIREMENT TO STILL BE THERE JUST FOR THE PRESENTATION. SO, YOU KNOW, A PUBLIC HEARING IS QUASI JUDICIAL. THE FOLKS ARE UNDER OATH. THERE'S A PRESENTATION FROM STAFF AND FROM THE APPLICANT. YOU GUYS VOTE ON IT WITH A PRESENTATION.

IT'S JUST MERELY A PRESENTATION TO NOTIFY YOU AND THE PUBLIC OF THIS PROJECT GOING ON. AND WE CANNOT VOTE NO. WELL, THAT'S THERE WOULD BE NO VOTE IN A PRESENTATION. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE ISSUE, I GUESS THIS THESE IT WAS SET UP ORIGINALLY TO CREATE A PUBLIC NOTICE BY HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING. AND IT PUT THE BOARD IN AN AWKWARD SITUATION WHERE IT APPEARED THAT THEY COULD VOTE NO, BUT THEY REALLY COULDN'T VOTE NO BECAUSE IT WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE. RIGHT. SO THIS WAY WE'RE ALLEVIATING IT'S A PUBLIC SERVICE. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I HAD MY LIGHT ON. WHAT DO YOU HAVE? I ASKED A QUESTION AFTER WE HAVE A MOTION. I'M

[02:05:04]

SO THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS DRAFTED IS IT DOES NOT INCLUDE PUBLIC NOTICE BECAUSE I HAVE THAT DELETED. SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS WONDERING. YEAH. SO YOU WOULD MOTION TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AS IT'S DRAFTED. SO THE PUBLIC KNOW. SO I'M JUST POINTING OUT I AGREE YOU BROUGHT THAT UP TO NUMBER TWO. THIS IS THE FIRST READING. SO WE STILL HAVE TO COME BACK FOR SECOND READING OKAY OKAY. SO NORMALLY WHAT WE DO IS WE DO A MOTION TO TRANSMIT TO THE SECOND READING. BUT I KNOW YOU'VE ALREADY AND I NEGLECTED TO SAY THAT AT THE AT THE BEGINNING OF MY INTRODUCTION. BUT SINCE YOU DO HAVE A MOTION, IF YOU WANT TO CLARIFY THAT MY SECONDER AGREES WITH WHATEVER YOU JUST SAID, RIGHT. TO ADD THAT LANGUAGE. SO MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE STILL INCLUDING PUBLIC NOTICE. YEAH. SO PARAGRAPH F WOULD BE BROUGHT BACK IN. AND I CAN MAKE THOSE CHANGES BY THE SECOND READING. I WASN'T ABLE TO DO IT BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY POSTED ON THE AGENDA FOR THE FIRST READING. EVEN THOUGH BECAUSE THE LPA HAPPENED LAST WEEK, IT WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE LPA. NO, NO. OKAY. OKAY. NOW PUBLIC DO WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? MADAM CLERK, I HAVE NONE. YOU HAVE NONE. OKAY. ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? ARE YOU DOING ALL RIGHT DOWN THERE, COMMISSIONER JOE? YOU'RE UNCOMFORTABLE, I AM OKAY, I'M SORRY. THAT'S OKAY. YEAH, SHE PLAYS HURT. YOU GOTTA GIVE HER CREDIT. OKAY. ROLL CALL PLEASE.

MAYOR. RICH. YES, COMMISSIONER. REED. YES, COMMISSIONER. GIOVI. YES, VICE MAYOR COLLINS. YES, COMMISSIONER. CLARK. YES. THAT WE CAN DO IT. I SHOULD HAVE SAID NO. GOOD IDEA. YOU

[6. DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION REGARDING MODIFICATION OR CLOSURE OF U.S. HIGHWAY ONE TURN LANE]

[02:10:03]

AND I HAVE IT ON MY COMPUTER RIGHT HERE IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT AND SEE IT. BUT THE FACT IS, YOU CAN SEE THE DASHBOARD OF HIS, LIKE THE WHERE THE CAMERA WAS HELD BELOW THE DASHBOARD OF HIS CAR. YOU EVER SAT IN YOUR CAR AND HAD YOUR EYES BELOW THE DASHBOARD OF THE CAR? THAT TOO WOULD CREATE A FAIRLY DANGEROUS CIRCUMSTANCE FOR YOU. WHEN DRIVING. I ATTACHED PICTURES THREE AND FOUR TO THE AGENDA TO SHOW WHAT IT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE. WHEN MILTON TOOK THE PICTURE THE NEXT DAY, WHEN YOU WERE SITTING BEHIND THE DASHBOARD OF A CAR REGULARLY AND WELL, HE'S GOT THAT BIG RIG. BUT ANYWAY, PARAGRAPH FOUR GIVES YOU A COMPARISON OF A CAR THAT WAS IN FRONT OF HIM TO SHOW YOU WHAT THE VISUALS LOOK LIKE. IN ANY EVENT, DURING THE MEETING, THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED AND SAID THAT THIS INTERSECTION WAS VERY DANGEROUS AND NEEDED TO BE MODIFIED. THIS IS US HIGHWAY ONE, THE ONLY MODIFICATION THAT THE CITY OF STUART CAN MAKE IS TO REMOVE ALL OF THE LANDSCAPING FROM THE CENTER MEDIAN. WE MAINTAIN THE LANDSCAPING WELL BELOW THE THRESHOLD THAT'S SET BY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. IT WAS WENT OUT AND MEASURED IT THAT WEEK AND IT WAS 18. I THINK 36IN IS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IT CAN BE, AND IT WAS BETWEEN 12 AND 18IN. BUT BECAUSE THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT IN THE POSITION IT WAS IN, BETWEEN 12 AND 18IN WAS DANGEROUS, THAT MEANS NOW THAT IF THERE'S A CAR ACCIDENT. AND WE HAVE IT IN THIS CONDITION, THE CITY WILL BE LIABLE FOR FAILING TO MAINTAIN IT IN A MORE SAFE CONDITION. SO I NEED SOME DIRECTION FROM THE COMMISSION AS TO WHETHER YOU BELIEVE THE INTERSECTION ACTUALLY WAS DANGEROUS, OR WHETHER YOU WANT ME TO BRING BACK AN AGENDA ITEM AND NOTIFY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION THAT YOU WANT TO REMOVE THE LANDSCAPING. I THINK IT'S FINE. I'M SORRY I DIDN'T HEAR YOU. DANGEROUS. MR. NOT DANGEROUS. IT'S FINE. I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT ASSESSMENT, COMMISSIONER CLARK, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? I TURN LEFT ON SR FIVE EVERY TIME. I DON'T LIKE IT AND I DON'T LIKE THE OAK TREE AND STUFF, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S DANGEROUS. WELL, IT'S FURTHER DOWN THE MEDIAN. YEAH, I DON'T I DON'T THINK IT'S DANGEROUS, BUT IT'S LIKE ANY OTHER TRICKY INTERSECTION. BUT IT'S BEEN A BIG IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THERE AND. I THINK IT'S FINE AND I'M NOT I AS LONG AS, AS LONG AS THERE'S A CONSENSUS FROM THE COMMISSION THAT THE MAINTAINING IT IN THE STANDARDS SET FORTH BY FDOT, FDOT IS IS OKAY, THEN I CAN MOVE FORWARD AND THAT'S IT. I JUST NEED A CONSENSUS. THAT'S ALL I NEED.

THAT'S ALL I GOT. COMMENTS. COMMENTS. THANKS. OKAY. OKAY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. SO YOU DON'T NEED A MOTION FOR THAT I DON'T. THIS IS A D AND D OKAY. IF YOU WANTED ME TO BRING IT BACK FOR AN AGENDA ITEM TO REMOVE THE STUFF, THEN I WOULD. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE AN INTEREST WITH THAT, DO WE? NO. THE MEDIANS ARE FINALLY LOOKING NICE. OKAY. SEEING NO OTHER ITEMS FOR RECONSIDERATION. THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU. SIR.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.