3. UTILITIES EASEMENT — HANGAR #10 AT WITHAM FIELD AIRPORT (RC): RESOLUTION No. 08-2026; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING A UTILITIES EASEMENT GRANTED BY MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A PARTIAL RELEASE OF NON-EXCLUSIVE WATER AND SEWER EASEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA AND MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA RELATED TO HANGAR #10 LOCATED AT WITHAM FIELD AIRPORT; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

[3. UTILITIES EASEMENT — HANGAR #10 AT WITHAM FIELD AIRPORT (RC): RESOLUTION No. 08-2026; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING A UTILITIES EASEMENT GRANTED BY MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A PARTIAL RELEASE OF NON-EXCLUSIVE WATER AND SEWER EASEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA AND MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA RELATED TO HANGAR #10 LOCATED AT WITHAM FIELD AIRPORT; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

COMMISSION ACTION. ITEM NUMBER THREE. UTILITIES. EASEMENT HANGER WITH A FIELD. AIRPORT.

RESOLUTION NUMBER ZERO EIGHT, DASH 2026, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING A UTILITIES EASEMENT GRANTED BY MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A PARTIAL RELEASE OF NON NON-EXCLUSIVE WATER AND SEWER EASEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA AND MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA RELATED TO HANGAR NUMBER TEN LOCATED AT WITHAM FIELD AIRPORT, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. AND THIS IS MY AGENDA ITEM, SO I'LL PROVIDE A BACKGROUND. SO THE AIRPORT IS OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. HOWEVER, SEVERAL YEARS AGO THE CITY AGREED TO PROVIDE WATER SERVICE AND SEWER SERVICE TO THE AIRPORT. AND SO AS A RESULT, THE CITY AND COUNTY ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT IN WHICH SEVERAL EASEMENTS THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE GROUND, WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE EASEMENTS THAT PROVIDE THE SEWER AND WATER SERVICE TO THE AIRPORT. I GUESS THE CITY WAS GRANTED A UTILITY EASEMENT WHERE THE INFRASTRUCTURE WAS LOCATED AT WHAT'S CALLED HANGAR NUMBER TEN, WHICH ALREADY HAS BEEN BUILT OVER. AND SO THEY BUILT A HANGAR OVER OUR EASEMENT. ONCE THEY BECAME AWARE OF IT, THEY HAD THE DEVELOPER WHO WAS DEVELOPING THE HANGAR NUMBER TEN TO PUT IN NEW INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE GROUND AROUND AND REROUTED AROUND THE HANGAR. AND SO THIS RESOLUTION WOULD BE ACCEPTING THIS NEW EASEMENT THAT MARTIN COUNTY HAD PROVIDED TO US, WHICH IS REROUTING THE INFRASTRUCTURE AROUND HANGAR NUMBER TEN. AND THEN WE WOULD BE RELEASING THE OLD EASEMENT WITH THE OLD INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE GROUND. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER. I DO THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CITY ATTORNEY, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS

[00:25:03]

SOMETIMES HAPPENS, AND MAYBE WE NEED TO HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY WHERE WE OVERLAP ON CERTAIN THINGS SO WE KNOW IN ADVANCE, NOT AFTER THE FACT, THAT THEY'VE BUILT OVER A PIECE OF PROPERTY OR BUILT OVER A LINE OF OURS. SO MAYBE GOING FORWARD, WE COULD HAVE THAT AS JUST NOT THAT EITHER ONE HAS TO APPROVE IT, BUT JUST AN AWARENESS OF, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BUILDING THIS, IT'S OVER YOUR WATER LINE AND EVERYBODY'S AWARE. SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT. AND THEN I UNDERSTAND THAT THE DEVELOPER PAID FOR THE LINE, NOT THE CITY.

THANK YOU. I HAVE A LINE. OH FORGIVE ME. GO AHEAD. OH THANK YOU, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER JOB. YEAH, I WAS GOING TO BRING UP, JUST FOR THE RECORD, IF THERE'S ANY COST INVOLVED IN THIS COST LOSS, AND I THINK YOU BROUGHT UP THE FACT ABOUT WHO PAID FOR THE LINE. BUT JUST AS A COURSE OF BUSINESS WHEN IN LOOKING AT THESE THINGS, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAVE THINGS THAT ARE JOINT WITH THE COUNTY, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IF WE'RE SPENDING OR LOSING ANY MONEY ON THIS TYPE OF THING. SO I, I, I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE LOSING ANY MONEY AND I, I MEAN, I DON'T OBJECT TO US ACCEPTING THIS ARRANGEMENT AS IT IS NOW. THEY KEEP WHAT'S UNDERNEATH THAT HANGAR AND WE KEEP THE THE NEW EASEMENT THAT'S BEEN CREATED. YEAH, I REALLY I MEAN, SUNSHINE 811 EXISTS FOR A REASON. THEY WOULD HAVE KNOWN THESE UTILITIES WERE THERE THEN BEFORE THEY BUILT THE HANGAR. I CAN'T EXPLAIN WHAT I MEAN. I CAN'T EXPLAIN WHY DID THEY BUILD THE HANGAR ANYWAY? I DO NOT KNOW THOSE DETAILS. SO MY MY, MY MY IMPRESSION IS LIKE, JUST LIKE WHEN A DEVELOPER COMES IN THE CITY TO DEVELOP, IT GOES THROUGH THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS, UTILITIES, FIRE DEPARTMENT, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND SO FORTH, AND EVERYBODY CHECKS THE BOX. BUT SINCE THIS IS OUTSIDE THE CITY, WE ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THAT PROCESS. AND SO IT'S WOULD HAVE BEEN UP TO THE COUNTY'S UTILITIES TO NOTIFY THEM THAT THERE WAS A UTILITIES EASEMENT THERE. BUT I DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS OF HOW THAT ESCAPED. TECHNICALLY, IT'S AN OPEN HANGAR, SO THE THE EASEMENT COULD STILL REMAIN AND THE UTILITIES COULD BE ACCESSED. YOU JUST GOT TO, I GUESS, BLAST THROUGH THE CONCRETE FLOORING.

BUT THEY PUT IN NEW INFRASTRUCTURE. SO WE HAVE NEW INFRASTRUCTURE. SO WE'RE BENEFITING BY HAVING NEW INFRASTRUCTURE, NOT THE OLD INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE GROUND.

YOU KNOW I KNOW IT'S A NUISANCE HAVING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS HEARING, BUT IT IS ACTUALLY PROBABLY A BENEFIT TO THE CITY. I KNOW BEFORE MISTER MISTER MORTAL LEFT THAT THERE WAS POTENTIAL DISCUSSION OF MAYBE HAVING THE COUNTY TAKE BACK OVER THE WATER AND SEWER, BUT I, I DON'T KNOW THAT ANY FURTHER DISCUSSIONS HAVE HAS OCCURRED ON THAT ISSUE, BUT I KNOW IT WAS AN ISSUE THAT WAS GOING TO BE DISCUSSED OR MAY HAVE BEEN SORT OF DISCUSSED, BUT I WASN'T INVOLVED IN THAT DISCUSSION. SO. SO FOR CONTEXT, I'VE BEEN WAITING TO TO SPEAK TO THIS. I, YOU KNOW, THE MAYOR COMES IN AND SIGNS FORMS, AND THIS PARTICULAR ITEM WAS IN THE PACKAGE OF ITEMS I WAS TO SIGN. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT, THAT'S STRANGE. WE NEVER TALKED ABOUT THIS. WHY WHY IS THIS, YOU KNOW, AND AND SO IT WAS I BROUGHT UP BRINGING THIS IN FRONT OF ALL OF YOU AND THE PUBLIC, BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS THIS KIND OF A THING IS PART OF WHAT PEOPLE AND THIS IS A SMALL ITEM. THIS IS NOT A BIG DEAL, BUT THIS TYPE OF THING WHERE, YOU KNOW, THE. THE THINGS ARE DONE AND THERE'S NO TRANSPARENCY POTENTIALLY OUTSIDE OF THE DAYLIGHT, OUTSIDE OF PUBLIC AWARENESS. IF AND AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO BEAT UP ON THIS ON THE COUNTY OR THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO TRY TO ENCOURAGE A CULTURE OF MORE TRANSPARENCY, YOU KNOW, HAVING THIS ON THE AGENDA IS FOR THAT PURPOSE, BECAUSE IN WHAT OTHER IN WHAT OTHER SITUATION COULD A PROPERTY OWNER BUILD ON TOP OF SOMEBODY ELSE'S UTILITY EASEMENT? I MEAN, THERE'S LAWSUITS THAT HAVE BEEN HAPPENING IN THE CITY OF STEWART THAT WE'RE ALL AWARE OF, WHERE THIS KIND OF A THING HAS BEEN A HUGE ISSUE. WHEN COULD YOU DO THAT AND THEN JUST MOVE IT AND THEN SEND OVER THE FORM TO BE SIGNED? YOU KNOW, IT'S A STRANGE THING. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. YOU COULDN'T DO THAT IN IN PRIVATE SECTOR, CERTAINLY NOT PUBLIC, AND THEN SOMEHOW HOPE THAT IT JUST DOESN'T HIT THE DYESS. SO. YOU KNOW, AGAIN, NOT TO BEAT THIS TO DEATH BUT. I THINK IT'S INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE COUNTY TO FUNCTION THAT WAY. TO. MOVE MOVE OUR UTILITIES WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION, GET IT

[00:30:03]

ALL DONE AND THEN SEND US THE FORM TO SIGN, YOU KNOW, AND I AND I DON'T WANT TO LITIGATE IT WITH YOU GUYS AS TO WHEN WHAT HAPPENED, BUT I HOPE IF ANYBODY'S LISTENING OVER THERE, DON'T DO THAT ANYMORE. AND AND ON OUR END, WE'LL TRY TO DO OUR BEST TO BE AS TRANSPARENT AS WELL. AND IF THIS IS THE WAY WE'VE DONE BUSINESS IN THE PAST, LET'S STOP WOULD BE MY MY SENTIMENT ON THIS. DID YOU. OH, OKAY. SHE COMMISSIONER CLARK HAD HAD HER LIGHT ON FIRST. THE LIGHT SYSTEM IS NOT WORKING. OH, SORRY. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD. THANKS. SO. SO, I GUESS MAYBE ONE DAY WE NEED TO HAVE STAFF. PROBABLY OUR DEVELOPMENT STAFF OR BUILDING STAFF, ESPECIALLY ON BUILDING TYPE MATTERS. DEVELOPMENT MATTERS WHEN YOU HAVE THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE COUNTY AND ESPECIALLY THE COUNTY PROPERTY, THAT'S THE COUNTY'S PROPERTY THAT IS NOT IN THE CITY LIMITS. IT'S KIND OF TAKEN OUT OF THE CITY LIMITS. FOR WHATEVER REASON. THE PEOPLE ASSUME THAT IT'S IN THE CITY, BUT IT. ESPECIALLY THE SCHOOL BOARD, THEY HAVE THEY HAVE THEIR OWN PROCEDURE FOR DOING BUILDINGS. THEY DO THINGS. AND WE HAVE OUR JOINT CITY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS. AND MAYBE IF WE NEED TO ASK EACH OTHER AND FIND OUT HOW WE CAN BETTER GET THESE THINGS DONE, BECAUSE THEY ARE ALWAYS CONSTANTLY DOING THINGS. WE HAVE STUART TRAINING SCHOOL, WE HAVE JD PARKER, WE HAVE. THE SCHOOL IN JENSEN BEACH, AND WE HAVE STUART MIDDLE SCHOOL. BUT ALL THE TIME THESE CONSTRUCTION, THEY DO NOT COME THROUGH THE CITY. AND SO SOMETHING COULD BE HAPPENING ON A SCHOOL GROUND THAT MAYBE EVEN AFFECT SOME PUBLIC WATER LINE OR WHATEVER THE SITUATION IS. SO I THINK THAT WE JUST NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN BETTER COORDINATE THINGS, BUT WE DON'T HAVE IT'S BEEN TRADITIONAL AND THAT'S THE WAY IT HAS HAPPENED THAT THEY HAVE THEY, THEY, THEY COMPLETELY DO THEIR OWN THING, SCHOOL BOARD AND THIS THING WITH THE COUNTY. BUT I THINK THAT THE HISTORY WAS THERE WITH THE, WITH THE COUNTY, THAT THEY KNEW THAT THIS LINE BELONGED TO THE CITY. AND SO DEFINITELY WE HAVE TO I THINK THAT MAYBE THERE COULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN WORK WITH BRINGING TO THE JOINT CITY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD MEETING TO ASK FOR AN EXPLANATION, TO SEE HOW WE CAN BETTER NOT THAT WE'RE GOING TO THEY'RE GOING TO COME TO US WITH ALL OF THEIR BUILDING PLANS, BUT WE AT LEAST NEED TO HAVE HAVE SOME KIND OF AN INQUIRY OR A CHECK BOX THAT SAYS, IS THERE ANY IMPACT TO THE CITY OF STUART OR SOME CITY CITY FACILITY OR, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT CITY EASEMENT, CITY FACILITY WE'VE HAD LIKE THE THE WATER LINES THAT ARE THE, THE PURPLE LINES THAT GIVE GRAY WATER TO DIFFERENT PLACES AND THEY GO ALL THROUGHOUT THE ALONG THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. AND, YOU KNOW, THERE COULD BE SOMETHING THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD OR SOMEBODY'S DOING. AND SO WE JUST ALL NEED TO TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH. YES, WE ARE LIABLE FOR THOSE PIPES. RIGHT. WHATEVER WAS WHATEVER INFRASTRUCTURE, EVEN IF THEY PAID FOR IT TO BE REDONE, WE WOULD WE'RE STILL ON THE HOOK. IT'S STILL OUR WE. WE OWN THE INFRASTRUCTURE. EXCEPT NOW THAT WE'RE RELEASING THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S UNDER THE HANGER, WE WON'T BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT INFRASTRUCTURE. BUT THE NEW INFRASTRUCTURE, RIGHT.

IF IT BREAKS, WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. SO THERE IS A WE HAD A CHANCE TO PROPERLY INSPECT THAT TO MAKE SURE IT WAS DONE. YES. THERE WAS THERE WAS A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH WITH MARK RUBOLINO AND PETER COONAN, WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE COUNTY AIRPORT, THAT WE MADE SURE IT WAS INSPECTED AND CLEARED BY DEP, AND OTHER CERTIFICATIONS WERE MADE. SO WE ACTUALLY WERE DELAYING ACCEPTING THE NEW INFRASTRUCTURE UNTIL IT PASSED THOSE CERTIFICATIONS. SO IT'S BEEN CERTIFIED BY DEP. BUT DID PETER OR WHOEVER HAVE A CHANCE TO BEFORE THE DIRT WENT BACK ON TOP OF IT? THAT PART UNE WOULD HAVE TO SPEAK TO. BUT THIS IS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE AIRPORTS, NOT OURS, RIGHT? THAT'S WHY THEY GIVE US ACCESS TO GO INTO THAT SECURITY AREA. TO DO THAT IS RIGHT. THAT'S WHY THEY GAVE US THE EASEMENT SO WE CAN ACCESS OUR UTILITIES TO MAINTAIN THEM. DID YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO INVESTIGATE THAT? GOOD EVENING. MAYOR. COMMISSIONERS PETER COONAN, UTILITIES AND ENGINEERING DIRECTOR FOR THE RECORD, YES WE DID. WE HAD ONE OF THE CITY'S UNE DIRECTOR INSPECTORS OUT THERE THAT OBSERVED THE ABANDONED SECTION OF WATER MAIN THAT WAS BENEATH THE THE HANGAR ITSELF AND ALSO OBSERVED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE THE NEW SECTION OF WATER MAIN THAT'S WITHIN THE THE NEW UTILITY EASEMENT. PERFECT. AND IT MET ALL OF OUR QUALIFICATIONS.

[00:35:04]

PERFECT. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. YOU'RE VERY WELCOME. APPRECIATE YOU COMMENTING ON THAT. THANK YOU. AND, COMMISSIONER. YES, I HAD MENTIONED IT BEFORE. I THINK I WOULD LIKE AND I WOULD NOT LIKE TO BLINDSIDE THEM AT THE CITY SCHOOL AND COUNTY MEETING. I THINK IN ADVANCE IF WE COULD SEND A LETTER, IF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS ARE IN FAVOR OF THAT, SENDING A LETTER TO THE COUNTY TO ASK THAT FUTURE PROJECTS, PLEASE BE AWARE TO MAKE US AWARE THAT THEY'RE BUILDING OR CHANGING SOMETHING OVER A PIPE OR WHATEVER THAT WE OWN. SO THEN WE CAN CERTAINLY AT THE CITY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD MEETING, WHICH IS COMING UP IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS, WE CAN ASK THEM IF THEY'VE RESOLVED THE ISSUE, IF THEY'VE ADDRESSED IT OR WHATEVER. I'M HAPPY TO TO ASSUME POSITIVE INTENT AND THAT IT WAS JUST AN OVERSIGHT, AND NOT THAT THEY WERE MERELY LOOKING TO MAXIMIZE HANGAR SPACE AT THE AIRPORT, EASEMENTS BE DAMNED, YOU KNOW? RIGHT. BUT IN THE FUTURE, THEY WOULD ALSO THEN BE ON RECORD TO KNOW THAT WE'RE AWARE AND IF THEY COULD PLEASE JUST CAN BE CONSIDERATE OF, YOU KNOW, OUR PIPES AND WHATEVER. SO I, I WOULD LIKE IF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS ARE AMENABLE TO SENDING A LETTER TO THE COUNTY IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING, AND I WASN'T THINKING ABOUT THE NEXT MEETING. EXACTLY.

I WAS JUST THINKING THAT WORKING ON A POLICY JUST TO INFORM EACH OTHER, OKAY, I'M MISSING. I MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD BECAUSE YOU SAID WHEN THE MEETING COMES, YOU WOULD BRING IT UP. I DIDN'T HAVE THAT SCHEDULED. I DIDN'T HAVE THAT SCHEDULED FOR THE NEXT JOINT THING. I'M THINKING OF THAT COMING UP IN JUNE BECAUSE IT'S USUALLY WHEN THEY COME. THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS. DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL IN A SECOND? FOR ITEM NUMBER THREE, ITEM NUMBER THREE IS PUBLISHED. RESOLUTION NUMBER OH EIGHT 2026. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEM NUMBER THREE? SEEING NONE.

MARY, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL COMMISSIONER RIDGE? YES, COMMISSIONER. CLARK. YES, COMMISSIONER. YES. VICE MAYOR REED. YES. MAYOR. COLLINS. YES. ITEM FOUR. SELECTION AND

[4. SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT OF MAGISTRATES (RC): RESOLUTION No. 10-2026; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA APPOINTING __________________________________ AS PRIMARY CODE ENFORCEMENT MAGISTRATE FOR THE CITY OF STUART AND_________________________________ AND _________________________________ AS CODE ENFORCEMENT MAGISTRATE ALTERNATES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.]

APPOINTMENT OF MAGISTRATES. LEE, ARE YOU TAKING. YES. ALL RIGHT. RESOLUTION NUMBER ONE ZERO DASH 2026, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, APPOINTING BLANK AS PRIMARY CODE ENFORCEMENT MAGISTRATE FOR THE CITY OF STUART AND BLANK AND BLANK AS CODE ENFORCEMENT MAGISTRATE, ALTERNATES AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 2621, SUBSECTION C OF THE CITY OF STUARTS CODE. MAGISTRATE.

APPOINTMENT AND POWERS. THIS, THE CITY SPECIFICALLY STATES A MAGISTRATE SHALL BE APPOINTED AND SERVE AT THE WILL OF THE CITY COMMISSION, BUT SHALL BE INITIALLY APPOINTED FOR A TERM OF NOT LESS THAN TWO YEARS, AND SHALL SERVE THEREAFTER AT THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION, AND SHALL CONTINUE TO SERVE UNTIL A SUCCESSOR IS APPOINTED, OR UNTIL SAID MAGISTRATE MAY EARLIER RESIGN OR FORFEIT THE APPOINTMENT AS PROVIDED ABOVE. A MAGISTRATE MAY BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE UPON AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF A MAJORITY OF THE CITY COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR ANY REASON EXCEPT TO SEEK TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF ANY MATTER WHICH SHALL COME BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE. BACK ON DECEMBER 8TH, 2025 COMMISSION MEETING, THE MAYOR REQUESTED A DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CITY MAGISTRATE'S POSITION IN WHETHER THE CITY OF STUART DESIRES TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE OR POTENTIALLY SELECT FROM THE TWO ALTERNATE MAGISTRATES. SO, GOING FURTHER BACK IN HISTORY, BACK IN 2009, THE CITY COMMISSION PASSED A RESOLUTION ZERO ONE 2019 WHICH APPOINTED PAUL NICOLETTI AS THE CITY'S CODE ENFORCEMENT MAGISTRATE, THE PRIMARY AND THOMAS BAIRD AS AN ALTERNATE CODE ENFORCEMENT. THE RESOLUTION ALWAYS ALSO APPROVED AN HOURLY RATE OF $200 PER HOUR, AND CONSISTENT WITH OUR CODE, IT PROVIDED FOR AN INITIAL TERM OF TWO YEARS. ON APRIL 10TH, 2023, THE CITY COMMISSION PASSED A RESOLUTION 2920 2023 APPOINTING WENDY WERB AS AN ADDITIONAL ALTERNATE TO THE CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT MAGISTRATE. DURING PAUL NICOLETTA'S APPOINTMENT AS INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY. THIS INITIAL TERM FOR THIS OFFICE WAS A MINIMUM OF TWO YEARS. ON DECEMBER 9TH, 2024, THE CITY COMMISSION PASSED RESOLUTION ONE, TWO FOUR, 2024, WHICH APPOINTED GEMMA TORCIVIA AND BRETT LASHLEY AS ADDITIONAL ALTERNATES FOR THE CITY CODE.

CITY OF STUART CODE ENFORCEMENT MAGISTRATE POSITION. BECAUSE THE PREVIOUSLY TWO APPOINTED ALTERNATE MAGISTRATES WERE NO LONGER AVAILABLE IN THE RESOLUTION, THE CITY AUTHORIZED THE CONTINUED HOURLY RATE OF $200 PER HOUR. SINCE THEN. ON DECEMBER 19TH, MR. LASHLEY COMMUNICATED THAT IN ORDER FOR HIM TO CONTINUE TO BE AVAILABLE AS AN ALTERNATE OR A PRIMARY MAGISTRATE, THE HOURLY RATE FOR HIM WOULD NEED TO BE INCREASED TO $375 AN HOUR, AND ON DECEMBER 26TH, 20 2525, MISS TORCIVIA COMMUNICATED THAT SHE IS WILLING TO CONTINUE TO BE AN

[00:40:03]

ALTERNATE MAGISTRATE OR A PRIMARY MAGISTRATE AND CONTINUE AT THE HOURLY RATE OF $200 PER HOUR. ON DECEMBER 26TH, 2025, THE PRIMARY MAGISTRATE, MR. NICOLETTI, NOTIFIED THE COMMISSION VIA WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE THAT HE WOULD BE STEPPING DOWN AS THE PRIMARY MAGISTRATE AND BE AVAILABLE AS AN ALTERNATE. IN ADDITION, HE WAS REQUESTING THAT HIS HOURLY RATE AS AN ALTERNATE BE INCREASED TO $400 PER HOUR. SO WE HAVE. POTENTIALLY THREE POSITIONS OR TWO POSITIONS WE NEED. WE DEFINITELY NEED A PRIMARY MAGISTRATE TO BE SELECTED FROM THE THREE. WELL, FROM THE TWO I SHOULD SAY MR. LASHLEY AND MISS TORCIVIA, AND THEN MR. NICOLETTI IS WILLING TO CONTINUE AS AN ALTERNATE. AND THEN WHOEVER YOU DON'T SELECT AS THE PRIMARY IS ALSO WILLING TO BE AN ALTERNATE, OBVIOUSLY ON A DIFFERENT HOURLY RATES. SO WE'RE GOING TO NEED WE HAVE THE RESOLUTION. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE YOU FILL IN WHO WOULD BE THE PRIMARY MAGISTRATE AND EITHER AT LEAST ONE ALTERNATE AND POSSIBLY TWO.

AND WE'LL ALSO NEED TO ADDRESS THE HOURLY RATES. SO. THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT MOVE FOR US TO MAKE. WHO IS GOING TO BE THE MAGISTRATE OVER THE CITY? I MENTIONED LAST TIME THE TWO DIFFERENT BETWEEN GEMMA AND BRETT GEMMA TORCIVIA AND BRETT LASHLEY. THEY'RE BOTH VERY QUALIFIED, BUT I FELT MORE COMFORTABLE LOOKING AT BRETT LASHLEY IN TERMS OF HIS PAST RELATIONSHIPS TO TO THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN MAGISTRATES AND THEN JUST OVERALL THE FIRM HE'S A PART OF. SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOVE THAT BRETT LASHLEY BE APPOINTED AS THE PRIMARY MAGISTRATE AND GEMMA TORCIVIA AS THE SECONDARY. IF THERE'S A SECOND GOING THROUGH, CAN THE MAYOR MAKE NO MAYOR PASS THE GAVEL TO GAVEL? OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR COLLINS TO HAVE TORCIVIA AS THE MAIN NO. NO. LASHLEY AS THE MAIN AND THEN TORCIVIA AS THE ALTERNATE, PRIMARY AND ALTERNATE. PRIMARY AND ALTERNATIVE. YES. I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND THE MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER JOB? ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS MOTION? WE HAVE ONE PUBLIC COMMENT. WE'RE GOING TO NEED A CARD. YOU CAN YOU CAN SPEAK AND THEN YOU CAN FILL OUT A CARD. REMEMBER IT'S THREE MINUTES. I JUST NEED 30 30 MINUTES. NO 30 MINUTES. 30S. JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC, I MIGHT ASK THE COMMISSIONERS OR PERHAPS THE THE CITY ATTORNEY IN 20S OR 30S. CAN YOU TELL US THE ROLE AND PURPOSE OF THE MAGISTRATE? THANK YOU. YEAH. CAN YOU GIVE YOUR NAME, YOUR NAME AND PLEASE? OH, I'M SORRY, 32 SECONDS. YES. SORRY. CLAY SCHERRER, 200 SOUTHEAST, FOUR WINDS DRIVE.

STUART. GREEN CARD. MR. DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT OR I CAN. YOU WANT ME TO? YEAH. THAT'S FINE. ALL RIGHT. SO OUR CODE OUR CODE SECTION 26 DASH 21 IDENTIFIES. A THROUGH J SUBSECTIONS WHICH IS DEFINES THE MAGISTRATE AND APPOINTMENT AND POWERS. IF YOU WANT ME I CAN GO THROUGH IT ALL AND BRIEFLY. YEAH I WAS JUST LOOKING FOR LIKE A 22ND SUMMARY FOR THE US. WE LITTLE PEOPLE SO WE COULD UNDERSTAND. SO AS I ALREADY SAID, THE COMMISSION MAY APPOINT ONE OR MORE MAGISTRATES WHO WILL BE THE HEARING OFFICERS FOR CODE VIOLATIONS. MAGISTRATES SHALL BE MEMBERS IN GOOD STANDING OF THE FLORIDA BAR, AND SHALL REMAIN IN GOOD STANDING DURING THEIR ENTIRE TENURE AS A MAGISTRATE. SO THERE'S A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY BE A LAWYER. TRYING TO SEE WHAT I BYPASS HERE. I'VE ALREADY SAID THAT THEY WILL BE FOR A TERM OF NOT LESS THAN TWO YEARS. MAGISTRATE SHALL BE COMPENSATED BY ANNUAL APPROPRIATION BY THE CITY COMMISSION, AND WE DID NOT HAVE THAT ADDRESSED IN THE MOTION. BUT WE WILL NEED TO ADDRESS THE HOURLY RATES. YOU ARE IT, AND THIS IS IN THE CODE.

BUT SO I DON'T HAVE TO SIT HERE AND READ IT. BUT YOU'VE YOU'VE DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO THE MAGISTRATE OR MAGISTRATES TO HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATIONS SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT IN YOUR REPORT. SO. WE MEET ONCE A ONCE A MONTH FOR THE FOR THE

[00:45:01]

HEARINGS. MAGISTRATES SHALL USE SOUND DISCRETION, MAY DETERMINE VIOLATIONS OF ORDINANCES, LEVY FINES, LEVY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, GRANT OR DENY OR MODIFY EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR COMPLIANCE. THEY MAY ALSO SUSPEND, REDUCED, WAIVE OR ABATE FINES AND COSTS IN WHOLE OR IN PART, AND MAY FASHION OTHER REASONABLE ORDERS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH ANY APPLICABLE LAW OR ORDINANCE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE REHEARING OF MATTERS AND THE MODIFICATION AND VACATION OF INTERLOCUTORY AND FINAL ORDERS. HE'S WAY OVER 20S. ALL RIGHT.

I'M SORRY. I'M TRYING TO GET THROUGH SOMETHING HE CAN'T DO. 20S IT DOES SAY THE JURISDICTION IS NOT SOLELY EXCLUSIVE TO MAGISTRATE. WHEN I WAS AT CITY OF PORT SAINT LUCIE, I KNOW SOME CODE VIOLATIONS, ESPECIALLY WITH ANIMAL CONTROL. WE WE WE PRESENTED THOSE TO A COUNTY COURT JUDGE IN FORT PIERCE. SO, I MEAN, WE DON'T HAVE MAGISTRATE. WE DON'T HAVE ANIMAL CONTROL HERE. PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING THAT THE ALL THE CODES PREDOMINANTLY GO BEFORE OUR CITY MAGISTRATE. THEY IT ALSO SAYS IN HERE THERE'S IT'S A BROAD DISCRETION OF JURISDICTION. GRANTED. CITY COMMISSION HEREBY SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATES MAGISTRATES TO DECIDE PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT, REDUCTION OR SATISFY FINES AND ALL LIENS RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORD IN INTENT OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO DELEGATE THE AUTHORITY CONCERNING THE SATISFACTION RELEASE OF LIENS TO THE CITY MAGISTRATE. HEARINGS AND ORDERS REGARDING CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AND RULES TO SHOW CAUSE. I THINK WE GOT IT ALL RIGHT. WE GOT IT. DOES THAT HELP? THERE'S MORE, BUT I AND THIS WAS ADOPTED IN 2005 AS WELL. THIS ORDINANCE FIRST STARTED. COMMISSIONER CLERK, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? YES, SIR. MAYOR. YES. SO GOING BACK TO WHAT MR. BAGGETT JUST STATED, I JUST FOR THE PUBLIC AND I KNOW THAT MR. SHEARER JUST ASKED THIS QUESTION. SO THAT'S SECTION 26. DASH 21 OF THE CODE AND ORDINANCES REGARDING MAGISTRATE APPOINTMENT AND POWERS. AND THE MAIN PART ABOUT THAT IS THE THE APPOINTMENT AND THE POWERS, THE DESIGNATION OF THE POWERS, THAT HAS BEEN A MAJOR ISSUE IN THIS TIME WHEN WE'VE BEEN TRANSITIONING OUR MAGISTRATE, THAT THE PUBLIC OR PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN HANDLED BY THE MAGISTRATE, HAVE ASKED, OR HOW DOES HOW DO YOU APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATE, AND WHAT IS THE AUTHORITY OF THE MAGISTRATE VERSUS WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE CITY COMMISSION? AND WE VERY CLEARLY HAVE GUIDELINES THAT SAID THAT WE'VE DELEGATED THAT THAT DECISION MAKING POWER IN THE AREAS THAT MR. BAGGETT JUST BROUGHT UP TO THE MAGISTRATE.

AND ANY APPEAL FROM THAT GOES IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT IS IN THAT SAME SECTION. AND IT GOES TO THE THE COURT SYSTEM. AND SO ALL THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO MAYBE MAKE A LITTLE WHITE PAPER SO THAT PEOPLE CAN HAVE THAT PROCESS ON OUR WEBSITE AND KIND OF HAVE AN IDEA, HOW DOES THE MAGISTRATE WORK? HOW DOES SOMETHING HAPPEN? I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S IN JODY'S AREA OR IF IT'S A CITY MANAGER'S AREA, BUT I THINK THAT PEOPLE NEED TO HAVE A LITTLE EXPLANATION AND PUT A LITTLE WHITE PAPER ON HOW OUR MAGISTRATE WORKS, AND THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO DO. THE OTHER THING IS THAT IN THE MOTION, I THOUGHT THAT WHEN THE MAYOR MADE THE MOTION, HE MENTIONED THAT IT WAS HE WAS ASKING FOR THE 375 AN HOUR. SO I'M HOPING THAT THAT IS WHAT IT IS, THE 375 AND NOW AND THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE MOTION. I MENTIONED THE DELEGATION AND OF COURSE, THE WHOLE IDEA OF SOUND DOCTRINE AND THE APPEAL PROCESS.

I THINK THAT WHOLE IDEA OF APPEALING FROM THE MAGISTRATE AND HOW THAT DECISION MAKING TREE WORKS IS VERY IMPORTANT. AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO GET THAT OUT TO THE PUBLIC AND, AND LET THEM UNDERSTAND HOW THIS PROCESS WORKS AND, AND HOW THE FINES AND, AND OR, OR DECIDED BY THE MAGISTRATE AND HOW THAT GOES THROUGH. SO I THINK I THINK THAT THAT'S IMPORTANT. I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT UP. DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER CLERK? YES, SIR. AND THAT'S I HAD A COMMENT AS WELL. I THINK WE'LL CLARIFY THAT IN THE MOTION AS FAR AS THE RATES, BECAUSE WE HAVE THREE DIFFERENT RATES GOING ON. SO I WOULD LIKE TO THANK MAYOR COLLINS. WE'LL HAVE TO AMEND HIS MOTION. COMMISSIONER JOB, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? NO. OH I'M SORRY. NO, I DID NOT. SO LET ME UPDATE MY MOTION TO INCLUDE THE 375 RATE

[00:50:06]

THAT MR. LASHLEY HAD INCLUDED AS THAT NEW, AND THAT THAT WOULD BE THE HOURLY RATE FOR MR. CITY AS WELL. I THINK IT'S FAIR TO COMPENSATE HIM THE SAME. BOTH RATE. YES. THE ALTERNATE.

SO MISS TORCIVIA COVERS FOR MR. LASHLEY IF HE'S UNAVAILABLE FOR ANY REASON. YES, SHE WOULD RECEIVE THE SAME RATE. YES. NOW, HOW WOULD THAT WORK FOR NICOLETTI THAT ASKED FOR 400, I DON'T THINK HE INCLUDES NOT CURRENTLY INCLUDED. RIGHT. YEAH. AT 375. YES. DID THE SAME. MR. COLLINS MOTION DID NOT INCLUDE MR. NICOLETTI AS AN ALTERNATE. NO, NO. SO YOU'RE GOING TO NEED A SECOND ON THAT UPDATED MOTION. SECOND, THAT WAS OKAY. I WAS IT, MISS COMMISSIONER NEEDS TO.

YEAH. YOU NEED TO ACCEPT HIS AMENDMENT, COMMISSIONER. YOU DID IT. YEAH, BUT I AMENDED THE SECOND TO INCLUDE THE 375 RATE, SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO AMEND YOUR SECOND. RIGHT. I KNOW, COMMISSIONER CLERK. THANK YOU FOR JUMPING IN THERE. ARE THERE ANY I, I SECOND THE AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE AMENDED MOTION? NICE. MARY, CAN YOU CALL THE ROLL? YES. VICE MAYOR REED. YES, COMMISSIONER. CLERK. YES, COMMISSIONER. RICH. YES, MAYOR.

COLLINS. YES, COMMISSIONER. SELBY. YES. CONTINUE. I TAKE IT BACK. THANK YOU. BACK. OKAY, SO

[5. INTERIM CITY MANAGER APPOINTMENT AND AIHC INCREASE FOR R. JOHNSON STRONG (RC): RESOLUTION No. 11-2026; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA REPLACING LOUIS J. BOGLIOLI, III, FINANCE DIRECTOR, WITH ROSAMOND JOHNSON STRONG, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR, AS INTERIM CITY MANAGER; AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN COMPENSATION TO THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ACTING IN A HIGHER CAPACITY AS INTERIM CITY MANAGER; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

MOVING ON TO ITEM FIVE. INTERIM CITY MANAGER APPOINTMENT RESOLUTION NUMBER 11, DASH 2026, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, REPLACING LEWIS J. BOGLIOLI, THE THIRD FINANCE DIRECTOR, WITH ROSSMAN JOHNSON STRONG HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR, AS INTERIM CITY MANAGER, AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN COMPENSATION TO THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ACTING IN A HIGHER CAPACITY AS INTERIM CITY MANAGER, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. SO ON. AS A BACKGROUND, ON OCTOBER 27TH, 2025, THE CITY COMMISSION APPOINTED LEWIS J. BOGLIOLI, THE THIRD, THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE, AS THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER, AND HE CONTINUED TO PERFORM HIS REGULAR DUTIES AS THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE. IN ADDITION TO TAKING ON THE DUTIES OF THE CITY MANAGER AND ON CHAPTER FOUR OF THE CITY'S EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK, PROVIDES FOR AN ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION OF UP TO 10% FOR EMPLOYEES ACTING IN A HIGHER CAPACITY IN EXCESS OF 30 DAYS. ON DECEMBER 8TH, 2025, THE CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZED AN INCREASE IN COMPENSATION VIA RESOLUTION NUMBER 111 DASH 2025 FOR MR. BOGLIOLI WHILE HE WAS THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER, AND IT WAS RETROACTIVE TO WHEN HE TOOK PLACE BACK IN OCTOBER. THE CITY COMMISSION DESIRES TO REPLACE MR. BOGLIOLI WITH ROSSMAN JOHNSON STRONG, THE DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES, AS THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A NEW CITY MANAGER IS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OR AT AN EARLIER DATE DETERMINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION. SO WE ARE LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO HAVE A MOTION. AND A SECOND. I HAVE MY LIGHT ON. MR. MAYOR, YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR. NO. I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION RIGHT AWAY, MR. MAYOR. OKAY. MR. MAYOR, MAY I RISE TO ASK THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 11 DASH 2026 FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF ROSAMUND JOHNSON STRONG AS THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MOTION? I DON'T THINK THE SUBJECT SHOULD. UNTIL THEY SAY YES, I'M STILL THE CITY MANAGER, SO COME UP HERE.

OH, I'VE NEVER SEEN YOU STAND BEFORE. I'VE SEEN HER STAND UP FOR EMOTION OR SOMETHING. YEAH.

I THINK SHE'S WAITING FOR YOU TO VOTE. YES, WE HAVE TO VOTE. SHE'S WAITING FOR YOU TO VOTE.

OKAY. I THOUGHT YOU WERE A MOTION. AND A SECOND. THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND. CALL THE ROLE. MAYOR. VICE MAYOR. REED. NO, NO. I'M SORRY. I HAVE A QUESTION, MR.T.

YES, YES. FORGIVE ME. ROSS, COULD YOU COME TO THE DAIS, PLEASE? I'M SORRY, I YOUR LAST NAME IS JOHNSON. STRONG, STRONG, STRONG. OKAY. HOW DO YOU WANT US TO ADDRESS YOU, ROSS? MY CHILDREN'S GODPARENT IS STRONG. SO I SHOULD KNOW THAT. WHEN DID YOU BECOME AWARE THAT THIS POSITION WAS AVAILABLE? GOSH, I'VE BEEN AWAY TO TRAINING EVENT, SO THE ACTUAL TIMING IS

[00:55:08]

GOING TO BE A LITTLE AMISS FOR ME. TO BE HONEST, IT WASN'T LONG AGO. I CAN'T GIVE YOU THE ACTUAL DATE. I CAN'T RECALL THE ACTUAL DATE. WHEN YOU BECAME AWARE OF THE POSITION WAS AVAILABLE THAT DID YOU THEN APPLY FOR IT? NO SIR. I WAS ASKED TO SIT AS THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER UNTIL THE POSITION IS FILLED. AND BY WHOM WERE YOU ASKED? MAYOR COLLINS. OKAY.

THANK YOU. ON A MORE GENERAL NOTE, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT THE CHARTER DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR AN INTERIM CITY MANAGER. THERE'S NO LANGUAGE FOR AN INTERIM CITY MANAGER. WE DO HAVE AN ACTING CITY MANAGER, CITY MANAGER POSITION AND EXPLAINS HOW IT IS FILLED AND HOW A SUCCESSOR IS IS DESIGNATED TO THAT POSITION IF THE NEED ARISES. AND I THINK AT SOME POINT WE SHOULD ADDRESS WE SHOULD HAVE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT ADDRESSES THE SPECIFIC POSITION OF INTERIM CITY MANAGER, SINCE IT SEEMS WE'VE NOW HAD TWO IN A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. AND WE'RE REALLY IN NO MAN'S LAND AS FAR AS OUR CHARTER IS. SO THANK YOU, THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM OUR COMMISSIONERS? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE. MARY, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL VICE MAYOR REED? YES, COMMISSIONER. YES, COMMISSIONER. YES, COMMISSIONER. RICH. YES. MAYOR. COLLINS. YES. ALL RIGHT. ROSS. THANK YOU. JOLIE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. JOLIE. THANK YOU. KEEP THAT MONEY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ARE YOU LEAVING? NO, SHE'S TAKING A SEAT. I'M NOT LEAVING THE ROOM. HE'S OUR BUDGET DIRECTOR. SHE'S TAKING THE SEAT. THE BUDGET DIRECTOR DOESN'T NEED TO BE HERE. I'M NOT LEAVING. FINANCE DIRECTOR, FINANCE. I WOULD LIKE TO JUST PERSONALLY TAKE A MOMENT AND THANK JOLIE LEWIS.

LEWIS. HE IS AN INCREDIBLE FINANCE AWARDED FINANCE DIRECTOR AND REALLY TOOK THIS WHOLE THING ON SHORT NOTICE FROM US. NOT EVERYBODY KNOWS, BUT HE'S BEEN WORKING NEARLY REMOTELY FROM OUT OF STATE. AND SO HE HE RADICALLY UPENDED HIS LIFE TO COME AND COVER FOR US IN THIS PROCESS OF GETTING A NEW CITY MANAGER. SO. VERY THANKFUL FOR FOR LEWIS. AND HE DID A FANTASTIC JOB. AND I KNOW WE'RE ALL VERY APPRECIATIVE OF HIM. SO THANK YOU FOR YOURS. I DON'T THINK YOU'RE YET. ROSS, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? YOU WANT TO JUMP IN HERE? NO, I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE IN THIS MANNER. FANTASTIC. I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH ALL OF YOU. YOU'RE GOING TO DO GREAT. OKAY. SO YES, FOR FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, COMMISSIONER RICH, I KNOW IT DOESN'T SAY IT IN THE CHARTER AS FAR AS LIKE AN INTERIM CITY MANAGER. SO LIKE HYPOTHETICALLY, IF THE ACTING CITY MANAGER HAD QUIT, HOW SHOULD THAT HAVE BEEN FILLED WITH AN INTERIM CITY MANAGER THEN? SHOULD WE HAVE FUNCTIONED WITHOUT ONE AND GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS? OR WHO WOULD ACTUALLY RUN THE CITY THEN IT MAY BE AN ITEM FOR DISCUSSION BECAUSE IT'S IN. SO IT'S IN THE CHARTER. SO THE ONLY WAY TO AMEND IT IS TO GO OUT FOR REFERENDUM, WHICH IS VERY DIFFICULT TO DO. AND ONE, IT'S COSTLY. SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'LL I KNOW. YEAH. NO SIR. JUST TO SOMETHING THAT'S IN THERE. THE THE CHARTER SPEAKS TO AN ACTING CITY MANAGER, BUT IT REFERENCES WHEN THE PERMANENT CITY MANAGER IS CURRENTLY NOT AVAILABLE. RIGHT. AND IT SPEAKS TO A DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR BEING APPOINTED THE ACTING CITY MANAGER. SINCE WE DON'T HAVE A PERMANENT CITY MANAGER AT THE MOMENT, IT LEFT A IT LEFT A GRAY AREA. BUT IMAGINE A SITUATION WHERE YOU'RE TRYING TO APPOINT SOMEONE WHO'S NOT ALREADY A CITY EMPLOYEE. THEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT AND ADVERTISING FOR AN ACTUAL POSITION, WHICH WE'RE TRYING TO FILL THE PERMANENT POSITION ANYWAY, ACTUALLY. SO IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, THE TRANSITION FROM ME TO ROSS IS VERY EASY BECAUSE WE'RE BOTH ALREADY EMPLOYEES. SO THAT WHOLE POINT OF COMING UP WITH AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT AND ADVERTISING THE POSITION JUST MAKES IT EASIER TO PASS IT AROUND. THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS, WHO ARE OBVIOUSLY WILLING TO FILL THE POSITION AS NEEDED. SO FOR CLARIFICATION, THERE'S NOT EXPLICIT LANGUAGE AROUND AN INTERIM CITY MANAGER, BUT THERE IS LANGUAGE AROUND AN ACTING. THERE IS. AND IT'S

[01:00:04]

SPECIFICALLY ABOUT WHEN THE CITY MANAGER IS NOT AVAILABLE AND ACTING CITY MANAGER WOULD BE APPOINTED FROM THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS. WE OF COURSE, KIND OF CREATED, YOU KNOW, I THINK INTERIM WAS THROWN ON THE TITLE MAYBE MY FOUR TIMES BACK AGO. YEAH, RIGHT. I'VE BEEN THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER MULTIPLE TIMES. SO COMMISSIONER RICH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THAT BETTER DEFINED. WOULD YOU LIKE. WELL, IF WE'RE GOING TO SAY THEY'RE DE FACTO ACTING, THERE'S VERY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR REPLACING MR. BUGLIOSI WITH MISS STRONG. AND WE WE DID NOT ADHERE TO THOSE. SO DO WE WANT TO FOLLOW THE RULES. DO WE WANT TO PRETEND IT'S THIS? AND I JUST THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO ACT IN THIS AREA AND HAVE PEOPLE BEING COMPENSATED AT A VERY HIGH LEVEL, AND THESE POSITIONS, I, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE HOW WE GOT FROM MR. BUGLIOSI TO MISS STRONG. AND YES, I WOULD LIKE CLARIFICATION ON THAT AS TO THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMMISSIONERS AS REGARDS TO SUCCESSION, I'M NOT SAYING IT HAS TO HAPPEN NOW, AND CERTAINLY WE SHOULD NOT HAVE THIS DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW. IT WAS A SUGGESTION AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, MR. BAGGETT. SURE. I ACTUALLY PONDERED THAT ISSUE WHEN THIS CAME UP AND WHEN I DUG INTO IT, THAT HISTORICALLY WE'VE REFERRED TO THE PERSON AS INTERIM CITY MANAGER OR INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT OUR CODE IN SECTION 2-140 SUCCESSION FOR CITY MANAGER AND DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS, IT REFERENCES THE TERMINOLOGY ACTING WE HAVE. WHEN IT CAME UP, I CONSIDERED CALLING IT ACTING CITY MANAGER VERSUS INTERIM. BUT HISTORICALLY WE HAVE CALLED THIS INTERIM CITY MANAGER AND ALSO IN SECTION 2-140, SUBSECTION B, IT SAYS NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE DEEMED TO PRECLUDE THE CITY COMMISSION FROM APPOINTING AN ACTING CITY MANAGER. SO IT GIVES YOU THE AUTHORITY. I, I THINK ACTING AND INTERIM ARE CAN BE USED INTERCHANGEABLY IN THIS SITUATION BECAUSE THERE'S AN ABSENCE OF INTERIM IN OUR CODE. SO WE WE BASED WE MADE THE DECISION TO CONTINUE LIKE WE ALWAYS HAVE AND CALLED IT INTERIM BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE. I KNOW THAT'S WHAT OTHER CITIES DO AS WELL. AND I REMEMBER IT HAPPENING AT PORT SAINT LUCIE. SO THAT'S THAT DID COME UP. BUT IT'S COMMISSIONER RICH IS RIGHT. IT'S NOT MENTIONED INTERIM ANYWHERE. BUT IT'S ACTING. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. YES. SO I, I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT MY UNDERSTANDING OR THE WAY THAT WE'VE WORKED THIS IS IT'S LIKE ACTING FOR AN INTERIM PERIOD. THE INTERIM TIME PERIOD. BUT THEN WE'VE STILL CALL IT INTERIM BEFORE THE, THE TITLE OF THE, THE POSITION. SO BUT IT'S TECHNICALLY ACTING FOR AN INTERIM PERIOD. IT'S AN INTERIM PERIOD. AND IT'S GOT ALL CONVOLUTED INTO ONE THING. AS INTERIM CITY MANAGER, WHAT WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT SUCCESSION. AND WE HAVE A BIG JOB AHEAD OF US TO GET A NEW CITY MANAGER, AND WE'LL BE LOOKING AT THAT IN THE FUTURE. MOST CITIES HAVE A CITY MANAGER AND AN. ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, OR WE AT LEAST HAVE SOME DEPARTMENTS THAT WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH THE CITY MANAGER SO THAT WHEN THERE SOMETHING IS HAPPENING, THEY CAN ALWAYS PITCH IN. SO WE NEED TO REALLY LOOK AT THAT AS A CITY IN THE FUTURE. BEFORE I MOVE ON TO ITEM SIX. CLAY, FORGIVE ME, I, I RAN RIGHT PAST YOU YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT. DO YOU WANT TO OFFER IT UP NOW IN BETWEEN 5 AND 6? LET'S GO FOR IT. WE WORK FOR YOU, MAN. OH, THAT SOUNDS SO NICE. THAT'S RIGHT, THAT'S TRUE, IT'S TRUE, IT'S TRUE. SO, CLAY SHARER, CLAY TREE MAN SHARER. ACTUALLY. THAT'S RIGHT. 200 SOUTHEAST FOREMAN'S DRIVE. SO DURING PUBLIC COMMENT, I DID WANT TO TO BRING SOMETHING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMISSIONERS. GOOD EVENING, BY THE WAY. IT'S A CONCEPT THAT ORIGINATED FROM MY PARTICIPATION IN THE THE CRB AND SOME DISCUSSIONS IN THE CRA. YOU'RE PROBABLY AWARE OF THE TREE PLANTING PROGRAM THAT EXISTS THROUGH THE CRA, WHICH IS QUITE POPULAR. SO A FEW OF US RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN GATHERING FROM FROM THAT CONCEPT AROUND, WELL, HOW CAN WE DO THAT FURTHER INTO THE CITY, NOT JUST THE CRA. AND AS THIS BAND OF VOLUNTEERS HAS GAINED SOME, SOME MOMENTUM, AS ANY OF YOU KNOW, WHO WHO HAVE WORKED IN A MAYBE A LARGE CORPORATION OR PERHAPS IN A IN

[01:05:05]

CITY GOVERNMENT AND HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMS, ONCE YOU HAVE A PROJECT NAME, THEN YOU HAVE A PROJECT. SO PROJECT SHADE MAKER, AS THE TEAM HAS DECIDED TO NAME IT, HAS PICKED UP STEAM. AND WHEN YOU START THINKING ABOUT HOW CAN WE IMPROVE SHADE TREES ALONG RIGHT OF WAYS IN THE CITY, YOU THEN START TO THINK ABOUT SIDEWALKS, PEDESTRIAN UTILITIES, ROADS.

AND SO I JUST BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT I KNOW THERE'S AN ONGOING EFFORT, OBVIOUSLY, IN STYPMANN BOULEVARD, THAT NEIGHBORHOOD OR STYPMANN IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS A GREAT CONCEPT. AND NOW FOLKS ARE LOOKING AT 10TH STREET EAST OF THE CRA. THERE'S QUITE A FEW OF US WHO ARE INTERESTED IN BRINGING THAT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOODS, LET'S SAY SOUTH OF OCEAN, WEST OF MONTEREY, BETWEEN PALM BEACH ROAD AND MONTEREY. IT'S ALL RESIDENTIAL, AND IT JUST MAKES SENSE IN MANY WAYS. BUT THIS SORT OF BAND OF WHAT I'M CALLING THE BAD NEWS BEARS OF RESIDENTS BRING VARIOUS EXPERTISE TO THE TABLE. AND SO IT'S NOT IT'S IT'S COOKED PRETTY WELL. IT'S ACTUALLY WELL BAKED, I THINK. AND IT'S READY FOR, FOR YOU ALL TO MAYBE CONSIDER TAKING ACTION ON IT OR CONSIDERING IT, WHETHER IT'S A GOOD IDEA OR BAD IDEA. WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THE PROCESS IS, BUT WHEN THE TIME COMES, I HOPE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO SHARE SOME OF THESE CONCEPTS FOR FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. SO IT'S I DON'T WANT TO CALL IT JUST A TREE PLANTING PROGRAM BECAUSE IT STARTED FROM THAT, BUT BUILT MORE INTO HOW DO WE MAKE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS MORE PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY, WHICH INVOLVES SHADE, SIDEWALKS, ROADWAY, UTILITIES, ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. SO THANKS. SO YOU WOULD FUNCTION THROUGH THE COMMISSION, SO YOU WOULD WORK WITH YOUR COMMISSIONERS TO BRING IT FORWARD AS AN ITEM AND IRON IT OUT POTENTIALLY BEFORE IT DOES, BECAUSE IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE CRA.

CRA. CORRECT. IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT A CITYWIDE INITIATIVE, IT WOULDN'T GO IN FRONT OF THE CRB.

IT WOULD COME. YEAH, WE WOULDN'T DO IT IN THE CRB. I GUESS WE WOULD. SO WOULD WE.

WOULD YOU RECOMMEND WE. YEAH, WE DID MEET WITH, I GUESS, THE CITY MANAGER, WHICH THEN OF COURSE CHANGED TO A DIFFERENT CITY MANAGER. WE MET WITH HIM AND MAYBE WE'LL MEET WITH ANOTHER CITY MANAGER. BUT IT'S I THINK IT'S BAKED ENOUGH WHERE IT'S REALLY READY FOR YOU GUYS TO THINK ABOUT IT. AND WHETHER THE FUNDING COMES FROM START SITTING DOWN WITH YOUR COMMISSIONERS FROM THE TREE. I MEAN, FROM THE HALF CENT SALES TAX AROUND GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE OR NOT. BUT MAYBE THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO TO FUND IT. SO YEAH, THANKS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

YEP. THANK YOU. THANKS. OKAY I WE NORMALLY DON'T MAKE COMMENT AFTER. I'LL, WE'LL DISCUSS IT LATER BECAUSE IT WAS AGAIN WITH FUNDING AND THE WATER IN THOSE TREES. BUT THAT'S OKAY. MOVING

[6. BUDGET AMENDMENT #1 — SHORT CHAIN PFAS REMOVAL PILOT STUDY (RC): RESOLUTION No. 12-2026; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, APPROVING BUDGET AMENDMENT #1 FOR THE SHORT-CHAIN PFAS REMOVAL PILOT STUDY; AUTHORIZING THE USE OF FUNDS FROM THE WATER & SEWER UTILITY ENTERPRISE FUND; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A RELATED TASK ORDER WITH HOLTZ CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.]

ON TO ITEM SIX BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. NAME. RESOLUTION NUMBER ONE TWO DASH 2026, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, APPROVING BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE FOR THE SHORT CHAIN PFAS REMOVAL PILOT STUDY AUTHORIZING THE USE OF FUNDS FROM THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY ENTERPRISE FUND. AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A RELATED TASK ORDER WITH OLTS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. PETER. OKAY. THANK YOU. WELL, GOOD EVENING AGAIN. MAYOR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, THIS ITEM BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING IS IT'S RESOLUTION 12 2026, WHICH APPROVES BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE FOR THE SHORT CHAIN PFAS REMOVAL PILOT STUDY AT THE CITY'S WATER TREATMENT PLANT. SO FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE CITY'S DRINKING WATER MEETS ALL CURRENT FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATION. P, PFOS AND FAS.

FAS REMAINS BELOW DETECTION IN FINISHED WATER. THIS ITEM IS NOT BEING BROUGHT FORWARD BECAUSE OF A COMPLIANCE ISSUE OR AN EMERGENCY. AS PART OF THE EPA'S UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING RULE, THE CITY IDENTIFIED CERTAIN SHORT CHAIN PFAS COMPOUNDS IN THE SOURCE WATER. WHILE THESE COMPOUNDS ARE NOT CURRENTLY REGULATED AT THIS TIME AND AT THE SAME LEVELS AS PFOS AND FAS, REGULATORY EXPECTATIONS AT BOTH THE FEDERAL AND STATE LEVEL CONTINUE TO EVOLVE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS BUDGET AMENDMENT IS TO TAKE A PROACTIVE, MEASURED APPROACH TO COLLECT DATA NOW SO THE CITY IS NOT FORCED INTO A RUSHED OR COSTLY DECISION TO MAKE LATER ON. THE PILOT STUDY WILL ALLOW US TO EVALUATE TREATMENT PERFORMANCE, OPERATIONAL IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL COSTS UNDER REAL WORLD CONDITIONS. AT THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT. THE REQUESTED BUDGET AMENDMENT IS IN THE AMOUNT OF $323,093.40, A

[01:10:08]

SIZABLE SUM INDEED. FUNDED THROUGH WATER AND SEWER UTILITY ENTERPRISE FUNDS. THE WORK WILL BE COMPLETED UNDER AN EXISTING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT. AND INCLUDES PILOT TESTING, ENGINEERING, EVALUATION AND REPORTING. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD THAT WE'VE. CURRENTLY THE CITY IS CURRENTLY SUBMITTED A APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDING TO FUND A PORTION OF THIS PILOT STUDY THROUGH THE ONE LAGOON OR THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON COUNCIL AND GRANT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN THIS. THE SCOPE OF WORK WOULD ONLY BE UTILIZED IN THE EVENT THAT THE CITY DOES GET A GRANT FUNDED THROUGH ONE LAGOON, AND THE AWARDED FUNDS WOULD THEN BE APPLIED AS REIMBURSEMENT TO OFFSET THE THE PROJECT COSTS. SO I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHERE WHAT THIS ACTION IS NOT INTENDED TO DO. SO IT DOES NOT APPROVE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW WATER TREATMENT FACILITY. IT DOES NOT MODIFY CURRENT OPERATIONS, AND IT DOES NOT COMMIT THE CITY TO ANY FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS. ONCE THE PILOT STUDY IS COMPLETED, STAFF WILL RETURN TO THE COMMISSION WITH RESULTS IN THE FINDINGS OF HOW SUCCESSFUL OR HOW SUCCESSFUL THE PILOT STUDY WAS. ANY ALTERNATIVES AND COST INFORMATION, AT WHICH POINT THE COMMISSION WILL DETERMINE THE FUTURE DIRECTION TO TAKE FOR OUR WATER TREATMENT IN THE CITY.

IN SHORT, THIS ITEM POSITIONS THE CITY TO BE AHEAD OF THE CURVE, TO BE AHEAD OF ANY POTENTIAL REGULATORY ACTIONS THAT ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED. IT SUPPORTS LONG TERM PLANNING AND PRESERVES FULL COMMISSION CONTROL OVER FUTURE DECISIONS. SO WITH THAT, IF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO HAVE OPPOSE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME, I HAVE I HAVE OUR CONSULTANT HERE TO PROVIDE ANY ANY ANSWERS TO ADDRESS ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. I'M HERE AS WELL. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. VICE MAYOR PETER.

THE TOTAL WOULD BE 323,000. CORRECT. THAT THAT IS THE TOTAL AMOUNT. YES. FOR THE PILOT STUDY. YES. AND THEN WE'RE APPLYING FOR A GRANT WITH INDIAN RIVER LAGOON. YES. AND WHEN DID WE APPLY FOR THE GRANT? THE GRANT WAS APPLIED FOR JUST THIS THIS MONTH. HOW MUCH DID WE APPLY FOR OR DO WE APPLY? AND THEN THEY TELL US HOW MUCH WE GET. YES, YES. WE'RE NOT.

NOT QUITE SURE WHAT THE WHAT THE FUNDS ARE. I'VE HEARD THAT IT COULD BE UPWARDS TO A $100,000, BUT WITH WITH THAT THE APPLICATION IS IN AND WE'LL KNOW WITHIN THE NEXT, YOU KNOW, 3 OR 4 MONTHS IF, IF WE'RE, IF THE GRANT IS AWARDED TO THE CITY NOW, IF, IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS RESOLUTION, WHAT'S HOLTZE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS TIME FRAME FOR THEM TO EVEN START? I GUESS. WELL, THE REASON I SAY THAT IS, WOULD IT MAKE SENSE IF THERE WAS A MOTION FOR THIS RESOLUTION PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE GRANT, AND THEN IT COME BACK IN FRONT OF THE BOARD TO REAUTHORIZE IT, OR THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE. WE HAVE TO BE PROACTIVE AS POSSIBLE WITH THIS. SO OUR CONSULTANT IS READY TO GET STARTED WITH THE PILOT STUDY NEXT MONTH, WHICH IS IN, I WOULD SAY, BY THE MIDDLE OF FEBRUARY TO START SETTING UP THE PILOT, TESTING CERTAIN RESINS, CERTAIN ABSORBENTS TO SEE HOW EFFECTIVE THEY ARE IN THE REMOVAL OF THIS SHORT CHAIN, PFAS, AND HOW MANY MUNICIPALITIES HAVE APPROVED THIS RESOLUTION SO FAR THAT I DO NOT KNOW. PERHAPS OUR CONSULTANT WOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THIS QUESTION. AND I HAVE I HAVE DOCTOR WILL LOVINS. AWESOME. WELCOME. GOOD EVENING.

HI. MY NAME IS WILL LOVINS. I'M A CONSULTING ENGINEER WITH A TECHNICAL SERVICES. I SERVE AS A PROCESS WATER TREATMENT PROCESS ENGINEER. AND TO YOUR QUESTION AS TO OTHER UTILITIES, FIFA'S IS A VERY HOT ISSUE IN THE DRINKING WATER INDUSTRY THROUGHOUT FLORIDA. THE REGULATIONS, AS YOU MAY BE AWARE, FOR THE LONG CHAIN, ARE AT DETECTION LEVELS FOR PFOA AND PFOS. SO AS PART OF THE UNREGULATED CABINET MONITORING REQUIREMENTS AND RULE, WE'RE LOOKING NOW AT SHORT CHAIN PFAS COMPOUNDS. SO THAT IS A EMERGING CONSTITUENT. THERE

[01:15:03]

AREN'T MANY UTILITIES LOOKING AT THAT SPECIFICALLY YET, ALTHOUGH THOSE THAT ARE SEEING IT IN THIS MONITORING SHOULD BE TAKING PROACTIVE STEPS, AS THE CITY IS CONSIDERING AT THIS POINT. AND SO THIS IS A PILOT PROGRAM FOR YOU TO LOOK AT DATA, I'M ASSUMING. SO THE PILOT PROGRAM, I LOOK AT IT AS AN EVALUATION TO SEE HOW WE CAN OPTIMIZE THE TREATMENT, TO TAILOR IT TOWARDS THESE SHORTER CHAIN PFAS COMPOUNDS, AND LOOKING AT WAYS TO USE EXISTING HARDWARE TO ADAPT THE OPERATION, MAYBE CHANGING THE MEDIA AND THE TO A MEDIA THAT IS MORE AMENABLE TO THE SHORT CHAIN COMPOUNDS TO GIVE A LONGER LIFE AND LONGER RUNTIME BETWEEN MEDIA CHANGE OUT. THE CURRENT MEDIA IN THE PLANT DOES PROVIDE THE SHORT CHAIN REMOVAL, ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT AS LONG AS ECONOMICALLY OPTIMAL. SO WE DO THINK IN OUR EXPERIENCE, THERE ARE OTHER MEDIA THAT COULD PERFORM MUCH LONGER. DO YOU MIND SPEAKING TO THE COST OF THE MEDIA THAT WE USE CURRENTLY? I THINK IT'LL GIVE CONTEXT FOR THIS. THAT'S VERY EXPENSIVE.

YEAH, WELL, CURRENTLY WE BUDGET. IT'S ALMOST $1 MILLION A YEAR TO CHANGE OUT THE MEDIA AT THE THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT IN THOSE ION EXCHANGE VESSELS. SO IT'S THOSE COSTS JUST LIKE WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WILL CONTINUE TO TO GO UP. COSTS ARE GOING UP EVERY DAY JUST ABOUT SO WITH WITH THAT SAID IT'S A IT'S A SIZABLE IT'S A SIZABLE PORTION TO BUDGET FOR BASICALLY PRETREATMENT OF OUR OF OUR WATER THE GROUNDWATER. SO WOULD THIS TAKE THE DATA AND LOOK AT FILTER ALTERNATIVES THEN. IS THAT THE END GOAL TO REMOVE IT. ARE THERE FILTERS THAT EXIST THAT ARE ON THE MARKET THAT. I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT IN? IN A SENSE IT, IT IT WILL NOW AS FAR AS THE FILTER. SO BASICALLY IT'S A IT'S A RESIN THAT'S, THAT'S LOADED INTO EACH OF THE ION EXCHANGE VESSELS OVER THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT. NOW OBVIOUSLY WITH THE PILOT STUDY IT WILL BE ON A MUCH SMALLER SCALE. BUT WHAT THAT WILL DO IS BE ABLE WE'LL BE ABLE TO TEST VARIOUS RESINS THAT OR OR COMBINATIONS OF RESINS TO SEE HOW EFFECTIVE THEY ARE WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE SHORT CHAIN PFAS. NOW, WILL THIS BE TESTED BEFORE IT GETS SENT TO RESIDENTS FOR DRINKING WATER? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WITH THIS TEST IS GOING TO NONE OF THE WATER IS GOING TO BE SENT TO THE THE RESIDENTS AT ALL. SO IT'S ALL DONE AT THE WATER TREATMENT CENTER BASICALLY THAT THAT'S CORRECT. AND ALSO I DO WANT TO JUST STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT THERE WERE TWO PRODUCTION WELLS SURFICIAL PRODUCTION WELLS, WELLS THREE AND FIVE, WHERE THE SHORT CHAIN PFAS WAS WAS FOUND. ONCE WE HAD THE THE LAB RESULTS AND WE IDENTIFIED THOSE TWO WELLS, THOSE TWO WELLS WERE TAKEN OUT OF SERVICE. WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT DRAWING WATER OUT OF PRODUCTION WELLS, THREE AND FIVE ANYMORE. SO IN ANSWER TO, YOU KNOW, TO, I GUESS, THE CONCERNS THAT THAT MAY BE OUT THERE, THOSE TWO WELLS ARE THE ONES THAT WHERE THE SHORT CHAIN PFAS SHOWED UP. WE TARGETED THOSE TWO WELLS TO TO SHUT THEM DOWN SO THAT WE BASICALLY WOULD EFFECTIVELY, WE WOULD EFFECTIVELY CURTAIL ANY, ANY OF THE SHORT CHAIN PFAS THAT WOULD GET THROUGH THE TREATMENT PROCESS. SO IT GETS BACK TO THE CITY HAS HAD A LONG HISTORY WITH WITH THE THE LONG CHAIN PFAS GOING BACK TEN YEARS AGO. AND THIS IS SOMETHING NEW.

WE DEFINITELY WANT TO BE IN A IN A PROACTIVE POSITION TO ADDRESS IT HEAD ON. AFTER ALL, THE CITY OF STUART WAS THE FIRST CITY IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA THAT ACTUALLY HAD THE THE ION EXCHANGE PRETREATMENT SYSTEM DESIGNED, PERMITTED, AND CONSTRUCTED AND PLACED INTO SERVICE IN THE ENTIRE STATE. AND THAT WHOLE PROCESS TOOK A PERIOD OF A LITTLE OVER THREE YEARS, FROM INCEPTION TO PLACING THE PLACING THE THE PRETREATMENT SYSTEM IN IN SERVICE THREE YEARS MAY SEEM TO BE A LONG AMOUNT OF TIME, BUT IN THE WORLD OF ENGINEERING AND CERTAINLY WITH WITH SOME NEW TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, THAT'S A REMARKABLE, REMARKABLE SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THAT HAS HAD TAKEN PLACE. WE WANT TO BE ON THE SAME CUTTING EDGE, IF YOU WILL, AS THE CITY WAS TEN YEARS AGO, WITH THE ADDRESSING THE SHORT CHAIN PFAS SAME WAY HIT IT HEAD ON AND AND JUST KEEP YOU KNOW KEEP ADDRESSING IT UNTIL WE WE FIND WE FIND THE RIGHT COMBINATION THAT'S GOING TO TAKE TAKE THE SHORT CHAIN PFAS OUT OF OUR WATER. I'M

[01:20:01]

THANKFUL FOR YOU GUYS. THIS IS THIS IS NOT AN EASY THING TO DO. AND TO YOUR POINT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A HISTORY OF DEALING WITH THIS BEFORE ANYBODY ELSE DOES. WE REALLY ARE BLESSED HERE.

WATER IS VERY IMPORTANT. AND WE'RE NOT JUST SAYING THAT BECAUSE IT'S WHAT YOU SHOULD SAY FROM THE DAIS. THIS IS A DIFFICULT SITUATION WHERE AS THE ABILITY TO EVEN TEST FOR CONTAMINANTS COMES ONLINE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ADAPT IN REAL TIME. AND THANK GOD WE HAVE THAT PFOA MONEY TO EVEN BE ABLE TO MAKE THESE CHANGES. SO I'M THANKFUL FOR FOR YOU GUYS.

AND AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AS WE CAN TEST FOR NEW CONTAMINANTS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR SOLUTIONS TO GET THIS FILTERED SO THAT EVERYBODY HERE STAYS SAFE. AND WE HAVE THE CLEANEST DRINKING WATER ANYWHERE, YOU KNOW. SO I'M THANKFUL FOR THAT SPIRIT WITH YOU GUYS. WHO WAS FIRST WAS IT COMMISSIONER JOB? I WAS YOU WANT TO FIGHT TO THE DEATH OVER WHO GETS TO KNOW? I JUST HAD A CLARIFICATION. IF YOU WANT TO GO, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER, SINCE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE LESS THAN I AM. OH, WELL, THIS IS TRUE. OKAY, I JUST HAVE A CLARIFICATION. SO IT'S 330,000 FOR THE PILOT PROGRAM FOR THEM TO DO THE PILOT. THE 100,000 IS A GRANT TO COVER THE PILOT PROGRAM. YES. OKAY. IS THERE A GRANT AVAILABLE FOR WHEN THE FINAL COST TO SWITCH OVER TO THE RESIN? BECAUSE THAT'LL BE A DIFFERENT COST THERE. VERY WELL.

MAY BE OKAY. THE MAIN, MAIN THING WITH GRANTS IS TO KEEP, YOU KNOW, TO KEEP LOOKING FOR FOR NEW GRANTS, GRANT OPPORTUNITIES. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU PETER. AND I ALSO WANT TO COMMEND YOUR DEPARTMENT FOR BEING ON TOP OF ALL OF THIS AND FOR THE SAFETY OF OUR CONSTITUENTS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SHOULD WE BE GIVING CREDIT TO SOME OF THE GENTLEMEN IN THE DEPARTMENT? ABSOLUTELY. YES. OF COURSE, WITHOUT WITHOUT A DOUBT. SO ALL OF THE PEOPLE, WOULD YOU DRAG THEM UP HERE AND DEFINITELY PLEASE. I'M VERY I'M VERY BLESSED TO HAVE TO HAVE GOOD, OUTSTANDING PEOPLE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT HERE AT THE CITY. SO. WELL, TO START, START OFF WITH PLEASE DO MR. MIKE WOODSIDE. HEY, SUPERINTENDENT. THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT. NO, NO, MR. WOODSIDE, HE WAS HERE TEN YEARS AGO WITH INITIAL PFOS, THE CHALLENGES THAT THE CITY FACED. AND SO HE HE SAW FIRSTHAND EVERYTHING THAT WAS INVOLVED AND CERTAINLY WHAT SCRAMBLING HAD TO BE DONE BACK BACK AT THAT TIME BECAUSE THE REGULATIONS JUST TIGHTENED UP PRACTICALLY WITHIN A COUPLE OF WEEKS, WHERE WE, WE, THE CITY FOUND THEMSELVES BEHIND THE THE EIGHT BALL, SO TO SPEAK, IN A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME. SO AGAIN, BUT TO YOUR POINT, MIKE CITY REACTED BEFORE DEP OR ANYBODY ELSE EVEN SAID THAT IT WAS TRULY AN ISSUE. WE TOOK THE LEAD. WE DIDN'T WAIT FOR THE STATE TO SAY, HEY, THIS IS NOT GOOD. WE PREEMPTIVELY STARTED MAKING THOSE CHANGES. THAT'S CORRECT, THAT'S CORRECT. FORGIVE ME. THANK YOU. STAFF DID THAT. YEAH. MIKE. YEAH.

GREAT STUFF. THANK YOU. MIKE WOODSIDE, WATER TREATMENT SUPERINTENDENT. AND AS PETER SAID, I HAVE THE MISFORTUNE OF BEING HERE SINCE DAY ONE. THE INITIAL THE INITIAL UCMR THREE TESTING, I WAS THE LAB ANALYST. SO I ACTUALLY GRABBED THE SAMPLES TO SEND TO THE LAB. WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT. 2015 WHEN WE GOT THE SECOND SET OF SAMPLES, I WAS THE CHIEF OPERATOR AGAIN, DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT. I GOT A CALL FROM DEP, WE GOT THE SAMPLES IN. JULY 2015 WAS THE LAST SET OF UCMR THREE SAMPLES. I GOT A CALL FROM DEP IN FEBRUARY OF 2016. SAY, HEY, YOU HAVE THIS STUFF. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING. TWO WEEKS LATER, YOU HAVE THIS STUFF. SOMETHING'S COMING DOWN THE ROAD. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S COMING. TWO WEEKS LATER, YOU GOT A PROBLEM. SO THAT WAS THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS. SO WITH UCMR FIVE, WE GOT OUR FIRST SET OF SAMPLES FOR THAT IN OCTOBER.

AND WHEN I SAW THE SHORT CHAIN PFAS LIKE, OKAY, DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN. AND SO I SOUNDED THE ALARM. I WENT TO PETER, TOLD HIM WHAT WE FOUND. 2025 APRIL, SECOND SET OF SAMPLES.

WE FOUND IT AGAIN. THE THING ABOUT THIS PILOT STUDY, IT DOES A COUPLE OF THINGS. FIRST AND FOREMOST, IT PUTS US AHEAD OF THE CURVE. WE'RE AHEAD OF EVERYONE. BUT SECOND OF ALL IS WE HAVE TO NOTIFY OUR CUSTOMERS THAT WE FOUND THIS STUFF IN THE WATER. SO WE DID THAT WITH THE 2024 WATER QUALITY REPORT. WE HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN THIS YEAR BECAUSE WE FOUND IT IN 25

[01:25:07]

ALREADY, AND I THINK IT'S BEST IF WE CAN TELL OUR CUSTOMERS, HEY, YES, WE KNOW WE HAVE THIS STUFF, WE'RE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT. HERE'S WHAT WE'RE DOING, AS OPPOSED TO JUST SAYING WE'RE DOING SOMETHING. AND SO I THINK THE SENTIMENT ON THE DAIS IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. AND I HOPE I'M RIGHT, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO ANSWER THAT. WELL, YOU KNEW THIS, SO WHY DIDN'T YOU DO SOMETHING? WHEN PETER MENTIONED EARLIER THAT WE TURNED OFF WELLS THREE AND FIVE, THE OFFENDING WELLS? THAT'S TRUE. THE PROBLEM IS WATER MOVES UNDERGROUND, SO IT'LL MOVE TO OTHER WELLS IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING TO TRY AND RECAPTURE AND CONTAIN THAT WATER. AND SO WITH THIS PILOT STUDY, CAN I INTERRUPT YOU? WOULD YOU MAKE. I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT. IS PART OF TRULY CLEANING THIS UP OUT OF THE GROUNDWATER? IS CAPTURING IT IN THESE FILTERS? YES. IT'S NOT JUST OVERLOOKING IT. WE HAVE TO GET THIS OUT OF THE WATER. WE GOT TO GET IT OUT. YES. THE THE OTHER THING IS YOU YOU JUST ASKED SOMEONE ASKED WILL, IF THERE ARE OTHER UTILITIES DEALING WITH THIS. I SPOKE TO A COUPLE OF UTILITIES IN FLORIDA AND ONE IN OHIO, AND THEY ALL SEEM TO HAVE THE WAIT AND SEE APPROACH, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE CONCENTRATIONS THAT ARE MUCH HIGHER THAN OURS. THE PROBLEM THAT I'VE LEARNED WITH WAIT AND SEE IS WE'VE HAD THAT HERE. PETER MENTIONED EARLIER THAT WE WERE THE FIRST UTILITY IN FLORIDA TO PUT IN THE TREATMENT SYSTEM. STRANGELY ENOUGH, WE WEREN'T THE ONLY UTILITY IN FLORIDA THAT HAD A PROBLEM. SO WHEN WE PUT OUR SYSTEM ONLINE, I'VE HAD UTILITIES COME FROM ALL OVER THE STATE TO SEE WHAT WE DID AND ASK HOW WE DID IT. WE'RE DOING A RESIN CHANGE OUT TOMORROW, AND I HAVE A UTILITY COMING TOMORROW TO LOOK AT WHAT WE'RE DOING AND HOW WE'RE DOING IT, SO WE'RE AHEAD OF THE CURVE.

I'M PROUD OF THAT. I'D LIKE TO STAY AHEAD OF THE CURVE BECAUSE I REMEMBER BEING THE LAB TECH AND ON THE ROAD I'M IN THE CONVENIENCE STORE AND PEOPLE WOULD SAY, MAN, I LOVE STUART WATER. YOU GUYS ARE DOING A GREAT JOB. I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT SINCE 2014 AND I WANT IT BACK.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ARE THERE OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY. COMMISSIONER CLARK, YES. WITH REGARD TO RESOLUTION 1226, I'M LOOKING AT SECTION NUMBER TWO. WHICH OF THE RESOLUTION WHICH READS UPON APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET, AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE, THE CITY MANAGER IS AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE A TASK OR WITHHOLDS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. FOR PILOT TESTING, EVALUATION OF TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES AND INDIAN RIVER LAGOON GRANT SUPPORT SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 323 093.40, CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S EXISTING PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT. AND WE HAVE THE RESOLUTION, BUT THE ACTUAL PILOT STUDY TIMELINE OR SOMETHING, YOU'RE GOING TO BE DEVELOPING THAT? OR DO WE HAVE A TIMELINE OF WHEN IT'S GOING TO BE DONE? WELL, I CAN TELL YOU THAT WE'RE PLANNING ON STARTING IN FEBRUARY AS FAR AS WHEN IT'S GOING TO BE COMPLETED. I COULD ASK DOCTOR LOVINS IF IF HE HAS A TIMELINE IN MIND. GOOD EVENING. WELL, OVENS AGAIN. YEAH. OUR PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE PILOT TESTING THAT WE HAVE SCOPED OUT IS FOR A SIX MONTH DURATION. OF COURSE, THERE IS TIME TO GET EQUIPMENT MOBILIZED, A LOT OF LOGISTICS JUST TO GET THINGS SET UP AND THE STAFF UP AND GOING WITH THE OPERATIONS.

SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A COUPLE OF MONTHS BEFORE THAT GETTING EVERYTHING IN PLACE. AND THERE'S ALSO TIME AS WELL. AFTER THE EVALUATION, ALL THE REPORTS IN FROM THE LABS, DO THE ASSESSMENT AND SUBMIT THE DRAFT REPORT TO PETER AND HIS STAFF. THANK YOU. SIR. JOLIE, ARE YOU STILL HERE? CAN YOU CONFIRM? WOULD YOU MIND POPPING OUT AND CONFIRMING THAT THIS IS.

COME ON, COME ON. COULD YOU CONFIRM THAT THIS IS NOT COMING OUT OF THE SETTLEMENT MONEY, BUT OUT OF THE RESERVES? AS I'VE ADVISED THE COMMISSION, THERE IS NO SETTLEMENT. SO THIS IS COMING OUT OF WATER, SEWER RESERVES, BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN INCREDIBLE FINANCE DIRECTOR AND THERE'S PLENTY OF MONEY THERE. THAT'S RIGHT. NO ONE HAD ANY DOUBT. NO ONE HAD ANY DOUBT.

THAT'S TRUE. COMMISSIONER, CAN I ASK HIM A FOLLOW UP QUESTION? YES. IF WE WERE TO RECEIVE THE

[01:30:08]

SETTLEMENT, IF WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE? HYPOTHETICALLY, IF THERE WAS A SETTLEMENT TO BUY, TO USE OUT OF THE PRINCIPAL OR THE INTEREST TO PAY FOR THIS TYPE OF PROJECT? YEAH, I THINK IT WOULD BE SMART MONEY THAT IF THERE WAS A SETTLEMENT AMOUNT THAT THE INTEREST WOULD BE USED.

IT SHOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF INTEREST TO FUND THE KIND OF OPERATIONS. RIGHT. THIS IS EXACTLY THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IT WOULD BE INTENDED FOR AND WHY WE HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO MOVE FORWARD AND CONTINUE TO STAY IN THE VANGUARD. YES. OKAY. SO IF THERE IS A SETTLEMENT IN THE FUTURE, THOSE FUNDS WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR EXACTLY THIS TYPE OF INFECTION. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE. I DO HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT OH, I'M SORRY, WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A MOTION. I DON'T THINK I WAS JUST ABOUT TO MAKE A MOTION, BUT I DIDN'T. OKAY. AND THEN WE'LL HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY.

MAKE A MOTION FOR RESOLUTION 1226. THE CITY OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STEWART APPROVING THE BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE FOR THE SHORT TERM PFAS REMOVAL PILOT STUDY PROGRAM. SECOND, THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. IS THERE PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEM NUMBER SIX? YES, I HAVE ROBIN CARTWRIGHT. ROBIN. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. ROBIN CARTWRIGHT, FOR THE RECORD, I WAS GLAD THAT YOU ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT, BUT NOW I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED BECAUSE MY QUESTION WOULD HAVE BEEN, WHY ARE WE NOT USING THE MONEY FROM THE SETTLEMENT? I'VE ASKED PREVIOUSLY, THE COMMISSION AND THE FORMER CITY MANAGER TO PLEASE ADVISE AS TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE BREAKDOWN OF IT, WHEN WE WOULD GET IT AND WHAT IT COULD BE USED FOR. BUT NOW IT SOUNDS LIKE WE DON'T HAVE THE SETTLEMENT WHICH WAS SETTLED BACK IN SETTLEMENT. CAN SOMEONE FROM THE COMMISSION AND OR THE CITY ATTORNEY OR THE CITY FINANCE DIRECTOR PLEASE ADVISE AS TO WHY THERE WAS AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF A SETTLEMENT THEN, IF THERE IS NO SETTLEMENT. TIGHTROPE. NO. CAREFUL. TO PUT A FINER POINT ON IT, THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS, LIKE IN LEGAL ISSUES, THERE'S A CONE OF SILENCE AND LIKE GAG ORDERS.

AND SINCE THERE HAS BEEN NO SETTLEMENT OFFICIALLY FILED WITH ANY PROVIDER OF THE FOAM OR PFOA STUFF, THE CITY HAS NO LEGAL SETTLEMENT YET TO COMMENT ON, PUBLICLY OR OTHERWISE. OKAY, WHAT OTHER INDIVIDUALS HAVE MADE ABOUT THE CITY'S LEGAL STATUS IN THESE CASES IS OBVIOUSLY A MISSTATEMENT. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, AND I'M TRYING TO TELL YOU THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS LIKE, DID YOU EVER SEE THE MOVIE BREWSTER'S MILLIONS? OKAY, I USE THIS ANALOGY ALL THE TIME. IF IF HE HAD A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME TO SPEND MONEY, IF HE FAILED TO DO WHAT HE HAD TO DO, HE WOULD LOSE ALL THE MONEY VERSUS HE HAD A CERTAIN SET OF REQUIREMENTS. AND IF HE MET THOSE REQUIREMENTS, HE WOULD GET THE MONEY IN THE END. SO THE CITY OF STEWART IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO DISCUSS A SETTLEMENT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FINALIZED OR LEGAL YET. THERE IS NO SETTLEMENT. OKAY, OKAY. ARE THERE OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? I HAVE NO FURTHER PUBLIC OTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS. ALRIGHT. SEEING NONE. MARY, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL COMMISSIONER RICH? YES. MR. YES. COMMISSIONER. CLARK. YES. VICE MAYOR REED. YES. MAYOR COLLINS. YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITEM SEVEN STEWART LANDINGS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU GUYS. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ALL RIGHT. JUST A REMINDER TO THE BOARD. ARE WE TAKING A BREAK? LET'S TAKE A TEN MINUTE FAT FREE. YOGURT. ALRIGHT, WE WILL RECONVENE THE MEETING. CINNAMON ROLLS. YOU HAVE TO, IF YOU LIKE. APPLE. SO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, LEE. THAT'S THE BEST. JUST WANT

[7. STUART LANDINGS II MAJOR AMENDMENT TO COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AT 3991 SE FEDERAL HIGHWAY, LOT NO. 3 (QUASI-JUDICIAL) (RC): ORDINANCE No. 2545-2026; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, FOR A MAJOR AMENDMENT FOR LOT NO. 3 OF THE STUART LANDINGS II COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD), ALSO BEING ASSOCIATED WITH LOT #1 AND LOT #2 OF THE STUART LANDINGS II CPUD; PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER SITE PLAN FOR LOT NO. 3 OF THE STUART LANDINGS II CPUD TO ACCOMMODATE A 470 SQUARE FOOT COFFEE RUSH CONVENIENCE RESTAURANT WITH TWO DRIVE THROUGH FACILITIES AND THE EXISTING 2,845 SQUARE FOOT BURGER KING RESTAURANT AND SINGLE DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITY; PROVIDING FOR AMENDED DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS, A TIMETABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT, AND MASTER SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED AT 3991 S.E. FEDERAL HIGHWAY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

TO REMIND THE COMMISSION THAT THIS IS THE SECOND READING OF THIS ORDINANCE. ORDINANCE NUMBER 2525 2026. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, FOR A MAJOR AMENDMENT FOR LOT NUMBER THREE OF THE STUART LANDINGS. ROMAN NUMERAL TWO. COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ALSO BEING ASSOCIATED WITH LOT NUMBER ONE AND LOT NUMBER TWO

[01:35:02]

OF THE STUART LANDINGS. ROMAN NUMERAL TWO CPU PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER SITE PLAN FOR LOT NUMBER THREE OF THE STUART LANDINGS. ROMAN NUMERAL TWO CPU TO ACCOMMODATE A 470 SQUARE FOOT COFFEE RUSH CONVENIENCE RESTAURANT WITH TWO DRIVE THROUGH FACILITIES, AND THE EXISTING 2845 SQUARE FOOT BURGER KING RESTAURANT AND SINGLE DRIVE THROUGH FACILITY, PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS, A TIMETABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND MASTER SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED AT 3991 SOUTHEAST FEDERAL HIGHWAY.

PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT. PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. DO THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS TO DISCLOSE? I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE PREVIOUS INTERIM MANAGER. I DID THE SAME. I'M. I'M HERE WITH AN OPEN MIND. I'M HERE WITH AN OPEN MIND. I SPOKE WITH THE APPLICANT AT THE INTERMISSION AT THE LAST MEETING, VERY BRIEFLY. I HAVE NOT, AND I'M HERE WITH AN OPEN MIND, I HAVE NONE. WILL THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FORGIVE ME? DIRECT CITY ATTORNEY. WOULD YOU PLACE EVERYBODY UNDER OATH? RIGHT. EVERYBODY IS GOING TO BE TESTIFYING IN THIS INCIDENT.

PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO PROVIDE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? YOU MAY BE SEATED. OKAY. WILL THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLEASE PROVIDE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE AGENDA ITEM, INCLUDING THE LOCATION, SIZE OF PROPERTY, CURRENT ZONING, ZONING REQUEST AND LIST THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO DEVIATE FROM THE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THANK YOU. MAYOR. YOU DID SEE THE PRESENTATION LAST TIME. DO YOU WANT TO SEE THE COMPLETE PRESENTATION OR JUST GO OVER TO TWO CHANGES THAT WERE REQUESTED? OKAY, OKAY.

DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO SPEAK OR PRESENT. SO, MAYOR, IF I MAY, THE APPLICATION AT THE LAST MEETING YOU HAD REQUESTED OR ASKED THE APPLICANT TO CONSIDER LARGER TREES, AND THE APPLICANT DID TAKE THAT COMMENT BACK AND DID UPGRADE THE THE THE SHADE TREES AND TO A LARGER SHADE TREE FROM YOUR YOUR LIVE OAK WAS ORIGINALLY AT 14. NOW IT'S AT 16FT PLANTED. THERE YOU GO. THEY DID THEY DID CHANGE OUT SOME MATERIAL FROM A I HAVE TO GO BACK TO THAT. SORRY, I HAD TO GO TO MY CHEAT SHEET TO THE LANDSCAPE. OKAY. SO THEY DID THE BUTTONWOODS THAT WERE PROJECTED. THEY INSTEAD OF 12FT AT PLANTING, THEY'RE DOING ABOUT FOUR FEET, 14FT AT PLANTING. AND THEY DID CHANGE OUT. LIKE I SAID, THE MYRTLE, THE CRAPE MYRTLES TO AN ORANGE GEIGER. AND THEY'LL BE PLANTED AT 14FT. THAT GIVES YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE COLOR. AND THEN THE ALEXANDER ALEXANDER PALMS FROM 12 12FT TO 14FT IN HEIGHT. SO IT DID TAKE YOUR COMMENTS AND AND DID AT YOUR RECOMMENDATION. AND THE OTHER COMMENT WAS THE COLOR. SO THEY DID MUTE THE COLOR FROM THE GRAY TO THIS EARTH TONE THAT WAS REQUESTED, THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE LPA BOARD. SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE. ALSO, WE WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE OUTDOOR SEATING AS VICE MAYOR REED WANTED TO CONFIRM THE SIZE.

SO AFTER REVIEWING THE OUTDOOR SEATING, THIS ONE RIGHT NOW IS NOT BEING PROPOSED WITH THE OUTDOOR SEATING. THE TRAFFIC REPORT DID NOT CAPTURE THE OUTDOOR SEATING, SO IF THEY ARE PROPOSING ANY TYPE OF TABLES WITH OUTDOOR SEATING, THEY'LL HAVE TO COME BACK WITH AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY TO GET THE SITE PLAN AMENDED, SHOWING THAT OUTDOOR SEATING AND UPGRADE UPDATE THE THE STUDY. THOSE ARE THE CHANGES THAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE THE LAST PRESENTATION. OKAY. I'M SORRY, COULD I JUST ASK FOR CLARIFICATION ON THAT? I, I MAY NOT HAVE UNDERSTOOD. SO RIGHT NOW THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR OUTDOOR SEATING, BUT THEY'RE LOOKING TO COME BACK ONCE THIS HAS BEEN APPROVED WITH AN AMENDMENT. SO NO. SO AT THE LAST MEETING AT THE JANUARY 12TH MEETING, VICE MAYOR REED HAD STATED THAT HE WANTED TO KNOW THE OVERALL SIZE OF THE OUTDOOR SEATING AREA AND THEN WHAT DID THAT LOOK LIKE? AND BECAUSE IT SHOWED LIKE 700FT■!S AND I THINK IT WAS HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. SO IN TALKING WITH THE APPLICANT AND GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT THE OUTDOOR SEATING REQUIREMENTS, THIS PARTICULAR AREA IS NOT PROPOSING ANY OUTDOOR SEATING, WHICH MEANS LIKE A TABLES WITH UMBRELLAS AND EVERYTHING, BECAUSE THE TRAFFIC REPORT DID NOT ALLOCATE ANY OUTDOOR SEATING. SO IF THEY WANT TO IN THE FUTURE HAVE OUTDOOR SEATING, THEY WILL HAVE TO DO AN

[01:40:05]

AMENDMENT ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENT TO PROPOSE OUTDOOR SEATING AND UPDATE THEIR TRAFFIC STUDY. AND THAT CONDITION HAS BEEN ADDED INTO THE ORDINANCE AS WELL. OKAY.

AND I JUST HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION, BECAUSE I'M NOT VERY WITH THE THEY HAVE TWO LANES.

THEY DO. YES. RIGHT. ARE BOTH LANES. YEAH. THEY'RE GOING OKAY. SO THEY'RE NOT BOTH EXITING ONTO FEDERAL HIGHWAY. NO. THEY WILL BE EXITING AN INTERNAL ROADWAY OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU JODY. DO THE OTHER LOCATIONS HAVE THAT 700 ROUGHLY 700FT■!S OF OUTDOOR SEATING? WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER PROPOSED LOCATION RIGHT NOW. THERE IS AN APPLICATION HOUSE FOR ANOTHER LOCATION, BUT THE CITY OF STUART DOES NOT HAVE A OUTDOOR SEATING. IF YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE ONE IN OREGON, THE OTHER COFFEE RUSHES. THIS IS THE ONE IN OREGON THAT SHOWS TODAY, AND I WILL HAVE TO TO RELY ON TO THE APPLICANTS. REPRESENTATIVE JASON GUNTHER THOMAS, ENGINEERING. YEAH, THE 700 SQUARE FOOT OUTDOOR SEATING WAS BASED ON A. WE DID A QUEUING ANALYSIS TO SHOW HOW OUR DRIVE THROUGH FACILITIES WORK. QUEUING ANALYSIS WAS DONE FROM OTHER STORES, AND I BELIEVE THAT'S QUEUING ANALYSIS WAS TAKEN THAT SHOWED THE 700 SQUARE FOOT OF OUTDOOR SEATING FROM A PROPOSED STORE IN PORT SAINT LUCIE. WE ARE NOT PROPOSING ANY OUTDOOR SEATING AT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION, SO THE REFERENCE TO THE 700 SQUARE FOOT WAS FOR THE STORE FOR A QUEUING ANALYSIS THAT IS NOT. THIS LOCATION IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A SIMILAR STORE AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION. DID IT ALSO INCLUDE A LIKE A WALK UP WINDOW, THOUGH THEY ALL INCLUDE WALK UP WINDOWS, IT DOES HAVE A WALK UP WINDOW, BUT NO, NOT ANYWHERE TO SIT. CORRECT. OVER 90% OF THE BUSINESS OF COFFEE RUSH IS DRIVE THROUGH. THEY DO HAVE A WALK UP WINDOW FOR SOMEONE WHO'S RIDING ON A BIKE OR IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, OR MAY WORK AT THE ADJACENT RETAIL STORE AND WANTS A CUP OF COFFEE. I'M A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED TO HEAR THAT THERE'S NO OUTDOOR SEATING, BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT ALREADY THIS SORT OF THING IS A LITTLE BIT TRANSACTIONAL FOR STUART. I THINK, YOU KNOW, THEY COULD HAVE, IF I MAY, THEY COULD GO AHEAD AND ADD THE OUTDOOR SEATING AND UPDATE THEIR TRAFFIC REPORT ADMINISTRATIVELY IF THAT'S THE WILL OF THE BOARD. SO THEY CAN BE. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS IF THERE'S SOMEWHERE FOR PEOPLE TO SIT. SO IT'S NOT PURELY JUST DRIVING THROUGH AND GETTING COFFEE, BUT THAT'S MY. SO IF WE COULD AMEND THE MOTION BECAUSE THERE'S A, THERE'S A CONDITION OF APPROVAL INTO THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS ADDED SAYING THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AS ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER IF THAT YOU COULD AMEND THAT, THAT IF WE COULD AMEND THAT CONDITION JUST TO STATE THAT THEY WILL WORK WITH STAFF AND TO PROVIDE OUTDOOR SEATING AS PART OF THIS APPROVAL PROCESS. OKAY. WE CAN LIVE WITH THAT. OKAY. FOR THE RECORD, THERE IS NO INDOOR SEATING EITHER PROPOSED. SO IT'S THE BUSINESS MODEL ISN'T TO ACTUALLY DRINK ON PREMISES, BUT WE'RE AMENABLE TO THAT CONDITION. NICE UMBRELLA. YOU KNOW, IN FLORIDA, ICED COFFEE LIKE COLORADO. THERE ARE TIMES YOU COULD SIT OUTSIDE HERE. DID YOU WANT TO PRESENT THIS? THIS WOULD BE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO SPEAK GENERALLY TO THE PROJECT. OR WE WERE HAPPY WITH THE PRESENTATION THAT STAFF GAVE LAST TIME TESTING. WE DO COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT ON WHAT WE ALREADY ASKED? OKAY. YES, SIR. WITH THE THE QUEUING, IS IT IS IT TYPICAL TO HAVE DRIVE THRUS IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS OR WAS IT SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO FIT LIKE THIS SITE PLAN OR. I'LL ANSWER THAT FROM MY EXPERIENCE FIRST. BUT NO, IN MY EXPERIENCE IT'S NOT TYPICAL OF OTHER. WE'VE WE DO CHICK FIL A'S, MCDONALD'S, OTHER STORES YOU'VE SEEN BEFORE. THAT'S NOT A TYPICAL DESIGN. I THINK IT'S FAIRLY UNIQUE TO COFFEE RUSSIA'S MODEL, AND IT HAS WORKED FOR THEM. THEY DON'T HAVE MENU BOARDS LIKE OTHER. RESTAURANTS HAVE. SO IT'S IT'S DRIVE RIGHT UP TO THE WINDOW AND GO. IT'S A VERY FAST PROCESS. AND THE TWO WINDOWS WITH THAT FAST PROCESS IS ACTUALLY PART OF THEIR BUSINESS MODEL. I THINK IT'S CONVENIENCE FOR THE CUSTOMER. IT'S PART OF THE BUSINESS MODEL, YES. SO BECAUSE THE DRIVER NEEDS TO BE AT THE ON THE WINDOW SIDE SO IT CAN'T WORK BOTH FLOWING THE SAME DIRECTION. OTHERWISE YOU'D HAVE TO REACH ACROSS YOUR CAR ON ONE SIDE TO GET TO PAY AND GET YOUR MONEY OR GET YOUR COFFEE. EXCUSE ME. CHECKERS AND STUART FLOWS THE SAME DIRECTION. YEAH. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WAS MY QUESTION. BECAUSE NOW YOU HAVE BOTH LANES COMING OUT ONTO ONE. I WAS JUST CURIOUS. I'VE NEVER SEEN IT BEFORE. SO I'M INTRIGUED. AND WITH OUR TECHNICAL DEVIATION, I'D JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT THE CODE REQUIRES SIX QUEUING SPACES. YEAH. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT'S CONTEMPLATING EVERY OTHER DRIVE THROUGH IS A IS A ONE DRIVE THROUGH WHERE YOU HAVE SIX QUEUING SPACES. WE HAVE TWO AND WE'RE PROVIDING A TOTAL OF EIGHT, ALBEIT FOUR IN EACH LANE. SO THE DEVIATION IS FOUR. WE DON'T HAVE SIX IN A SINGLE LANE, BUT WE DO EXCEED THE OVERALL NUMBER OF PROVIDING EIGHT INSTEAD OF THE SIX. AND IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, THIS WILL BE PLENTY TO NOT CAUSE A BACKUP.

[01:45:03]

BASED ON THE QUEUING ANALYSIS WE PROVIDED, THERE WAS NEVER WITNESSED ANY MORE THAN FIVE CARS TOTAL AND AT THE STORE. SO WE MAKE IT REALLY POPULAR. YOU NEVER KNOW. WE WE. WE LOVE IT TO BE. THAT'S RIGHT BUSY A PROBLEM. THAT'S A GOOD PROBLEM. OKAY. YES. SO WE JUST OPEN A STORE IN FORT MYERS AND THEY'RE WORKING EVERY DAY. IT'S MY FAMILY'S BUSINESS. GREAT. WE GET CARS IN, LIKE, IN AND OUT, UNDER A MINUTE. SO WE TAKE THEIR ORDERS IN LINE. A LOT OF TIMES, WE'LL WALK UP TO YOU LIKE A HUMAN, TAKE YOUR ORDER, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE YOUR COFFEE READY AT THE WINDOW. IT'S NOT TRANSACTIONAL AT ALL. WE'RE SO GENUINE. THAT'S LIKE MY PARENTS MISSION. FANTASTIC. THANK YOU. I DIDN'T MEAN TO BE DISRESPECTFUL. NO, NO, NO, I TOTALLY GET IT. I MEAN, DRIVE THROUGH CAN BE VERY IMPERSONAL. MY HOPE IS THAT THERE'S A PLACE WHERE TWO PEOPLE CAN SIT AND TALK LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT JUST GRABBING COFFEE IN OREGON.

DO HAVE THAT. SO I HOPE TO SEE THAT HERE. IF IT'S THE WILL OF OUR COMMISSION THAT THAT THERE IS SOMEWHERE TO SIT BECAUSE I GET TO TALK TO THEM FOR A WHILE. FANTASTIC. VERY FUN FOR ME.

GOOD. FANTASTIC. OKAY. SO DO I HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER. I JUST FROM THE LAST MEETING, IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING SOME PEOPLE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT. YOU DON'T HAVE ONE. YOU'RE BASICALLY YOU'RE GOING OUT TO TAKE THE ORDERS OR ARE THEY COMING UP TO THE WINDOW TO TAKE THE ORDER SO THERE'S NO MICROPHONE BLASTING. YOU KNOW, I WANT TWO COFFEES AND A DONUT TO GO, OKAY. YEAH. THAT WAS A CONCERN FOR PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU OPEN EARLY, I MEAN.

RIGHT. SO AT 5 A.M. THAT BUT NOT 5 A.M. MONDAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. DOES THE PETITIONER WISH TO OFFER ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BEFORE CONCLUDING ITS PRESENTATION? SPEAK NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE. OKAY. THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE HAS ENDED IN THE HEARING IS CLOSED. DOES ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO MAKE A COMMENT? SEEING NONE. ALL RIGHT. THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL. AND FORGIVE ME. I'M STILL GETTING USED TO THE YELLOW SHEET. THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL REMARKS. RIGHT. NOBODY'S GOT ANY ADDITIONAL REMARKS. OKAY, SO NOW I WOULD BE SEEKING A MOTION. MR. MAYOR. WITH REGARD TO ORDINANCE NUMBER 2545 2026, MOVE APPROVAL OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, INCLUDING THE RECOMMENDATION THAT IF THEY DO WANT TO DO OUTDOOR SEATING, IT WOULD BE BROUGHT TO STAFF AND IT WOULD BE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. CAN I CAVEAT THAT A LITTLE BIT, THAT IT WOULD INCLUDE THE OUTDOOR SEATING AND THAT THAT COULD BE DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY? YES. YES.

OKAY. WITHOUT OBTAINING A SEPARATE APPLICATION THROUGH THIS PROCESS. OKAY. PERFECT.

YES. I'LL SECOND THE MOTION AND A SECOND. OKAY. DO YOU DO WE HAVE CLARIFICATION ON THE MOTION? YES. PERFECT. ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? I THINK YOUR WEBSITE'S VERY NICELY LAID OUT. BY THE WAY. I'M NOT A COFFEE DRINKER MYSELF, BUT, YEAH, I THINK IT'S VERY NICE LIKE THAT. YEAH. TO NAVIGATE IT, IT'S ACTUALLY VERY CLEAN. HEY, SOME WEBSITES ARE, ARE VERY DIFFICULT AND THE OPTIONS ARE THERE, AT LEAST FROM THE WEBSITE. I HAVEN'T TRIED LIKE MOBILE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT THE WEBSITE'S NICE. THERE YOU GO. THERE YOU GO. VERY NICE. WELL DONE. OKAY, LET'S RECORD THE VOTE. MARY. MAYOR COLLINS.

YES, COMMISSIONER. YES, COMMISSIONER. CLARK. YES, VICE MAYOR REED. YES, COMMISSIONER.

RICH. YES. ALL RIGHT, GUYS, THANK YOU. LOOKING FORWARD TO A CORTADO WITH HONEY. MR. MAYOR.

MR. MAYOR. FANTASTIC. YES, SIR. YES, SIR. IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE NEXT TWO ITEMS ARE FIRST READING. SO WE'LL GET ANOTHER. I'LL GET ANOTHER BITE AT THAT APPLE. AND THEN THE FINAL TWO ITEMS ARE D AND D'S. I WOULD ASK THAT I'D BE ALLOWED TO LEAVE AND GET ON MY WAY TO TALLAHASSEE TO REPRESENT THE INTEREST OF THE CITY OF STUART. FOR YOUR EFFORT, I JUST WANT TO SAY, HAVING ATTENDED THE ENORMOUS BOAT SHOW, THE STUART BOAT SHOW, I'M FULLY IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE GRANT. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BRIGHTLINE. IT HAS TO DO WITH THE ABILITY OUR BOATERS TO GET FROM THAT SIDE OF THE BRIDGE TO THIS SIDE. ABSOLUTELY, BECAUSE IT'S A PROBLEM. SO I HOPE WE'RE SUCCESSFUL WITH THAT. AND COMMISSIONER RICH, TRAVEL TRAVEL SAFELY. YES, SIR. SAFETY. BE SAFE. IF YOU'RE FALLING ASLEEP, JUST JUST CALL. CALL LOUIS. CALL JOLIE, CALL MILTON. AND WHERE DO YOU GET A CUP OF COFFEE? AT THIS. HE'LL BE UP.

HE'LL BE UP. DON'T WORRY. HE'LL BE UP. OKAY. SO MOVING ON TO. I'LL GIVE YOU A SECOND TO PACK UP. I WANT TO STAY LIKE THAT. ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. GODSPEED. GOOD. SIR. BE CAREFUL ON THE

[8. CODE AMENDMENT ADDING LANGUAGE RELATED TO REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION (RC): ORDINANCE No. 2547-2026; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 8.07.07 OF THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN COMPLIANCE WITH RECENTLY ENACTED LEGISLATION, SENATE BILL 954; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

[01:50:06]

ROAD. ITEM EIGHT. CODE AMENDMENT. ADDING LANGUAGE, REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION. AS COMMISSIONER RICH NOTED, THIS IS THE FIRST READING OF THIS ORDINANCE. ORDINANCE NUMBER 2547 DASH 2026, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 8.07.07 OF THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN COMPLIANCE WITH RECENTLY ENACTED LEGISLATION. SENATE BILL 954 PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT. PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. FLORIDA SENATE BILL 954 IS AN ACT RELATING TO CERTIFIED RECOVERY RESIDENCES, AND IT WAS ADOPTED AND BECAME EFFECTIVE ON JULY 1ST, AND IN SENATE BILL 954. THE MUNICIPALITIES ARE REQUIRED TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A PROCESS FOR REQUESTING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS, WHICH ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE FAIR HOUSING ACT OF 1988 AND TITLE TWO OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. ALTHOUGH THE CITY ALREADY HAD A A PROCESS IN PLACE IN SECTION 8.07.07 OF THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THERE WERE STILL SOME STUFF THAT WERE IDENTIFIED IN SENATE BILL 954 THAT IT WAS, MY OPINION NEEDED TO BE ADDED WHILE WE WERE IN THERE. I FELT PERSONALLY THAT I NEEDED TO MAKE SOME EDITS TO THE CODE THAT WOULD KIND OF SPRUCE IT UP.

SO I'LL BE HAPPY TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THESE WITH YOU. SO IN SECTION SUBSECTION A, I HAD ADDED IN SOME ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE, AND THE ONLY THING I ADDED IN THERE WAS IDENTIFYING AND CITING TO THE APPROPRIATE STATUTORY CITATIONS FOR THE FAIR HOUSING ACT, AND ALSO TO THE TITLE TWO OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. IN THE PREVIOUS CODE WE MENTIONED FH, A OR FAIR HOUSING ACT, AND WE ALSO MENTIONED THE ADA, BUT WE NEVER ACTUALLY DEFINED WHAT THOSE WERE EARLIER IN THE IN THE CODE. SO I JUST WANTED TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR ON THAT. IN SUBSECTION C. AND I HAD MY OPINION OF JUST KIND OF CLARIFYING WHO THE REQUESTER REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO. AND I SAID THAT IT WOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. I'VE HAD A COUPLE OF THESE SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, SO THEY WERE JUST CONFUSED ON WHERE THEY SEND IT TO BECAUSE OUR CODE WASN'T VERY CLEAR ON IT.

OUR CODE IN C, SUBSECTION TWO ALREADY HAD SOME CRITERIA. HOWEVER, SENATE BILL 954 ALSO REQUIRED THAT WE ADD THAT THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR IDENTIFYING THE PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER THAT WAS NOT IN OUR CODE IN THE STATUTE REQUIRED THAT. IN ADDITION, IN SUBSECTION C, I ADDED UPON RECEIPT, THE CITY SHALL DATE STAMP THE WRITTEN REQUEST FOR ACCOMMODATION.

SENATE BILL 954 REQUIRED THAT WE HAVE THAT IN THERE. I WILL SAY THAT WE HAVE A HABIT OF DOING THAT. REGARDLESS. THE CITY CLERK WOULD STAMP STUFF WHEN THEY COME IN. HOWEVER, I'M JUST ADDING IT TO THE CODE. AND THE NEXT SUBSECTION, C FOUR TALKS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. SO SOME APPLICANTS MIGHT NEED TO PRESENT MEDICAL INFORMATION OR MEDICAL RECORDS SAYING, THIS IS WHY I NEED A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION. SOME OF THAT WOULD BE CONFIDENTIAL. SO I PUT IN A MECHANISM ON HOW TO KEEP THIS CONFIDENTIAL. AND IT JUST IT WASN'T REQUIRED BY SENATE BILL 954. BUT I FELT THAT IT NEEDED WE NEEDED TO HAVE SOMETHING IN THERE ADDRESSING IT. SUBSECTION D95 SENATE BILL 944 REQUIRED THAT WE HAVE TIME LIMITS ON WHEN TO RESPOND TO THESE APPLICATIONS. AND SO I ADDED THAT THE INITIAL RESPONSE IS 30 DAYS. IF WE'RE REQUESTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, WE NEED TO DO THAT WITHIN 30 DAYS. A FINAL DECISION OR DETERMINATION BY THE CITY IS REQUIRED TO BE WITHIN 60 DAYS. AND THAT IS ALSO SPELLED OUT IN SENATE BILL 954. SO I PUT THAT INFORMATION IN THERE. AND THEN IN SUBSECTION G UNDER APPEALS, I PUT IN MORE INFORMATION ABOUT AN APPELLATE PROCESS. WE TALKED ABOUT THE MAGISTRATE EARLIER. AND SO AN APPEAL FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION COULD BE APPEALED TO THE MAGISTRATE INITIALLY AND THEN ULTIMATELY TO THE TO THE COURT SYSTEM. SO I JUST SPELLED OUT SOME TIMELINES AND ALL THAT'S NOT REQUIRED BY SENATE BILL 954. BUT I ADDED IT AS MY RECOMMENDATION. SUBSECTION H, WHICH WILL BE REVOCATION OF AN APPROVED REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION. SO SENATE BILL 954 ALLOWS THAT WE CAN PUT SOME OF THIS IN THERE, BUT IT DOESN'T REQUIRE IT. BUT SINCE IT ALLOWS IT, I PUT IN SOME INFORMATION. YOU KNOW, IF THE CITY MANAGER WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVOKE A REQUEST IF, FOR EXAMPLE, THE APPLICANT PROVIDED FALSE OR MISLEADING

[01:55:02]

INFORMATION, THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF ISSUED BY THE CITY, AND ANY APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL CERTIFICATION IS EXPIRED. THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE IN THE STATUTE FOR A CERTIFIED RECOVERY TO HAVE CERTAIN LICENSURES AND AND SO FORTH. SO IF THEY LOSE THEIR LICENSURE, THAT WOULD BE A REASON TO REVOKE THE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION. LET'S SEE HERE. I ALSO PUT IN THERE AN APPELLATE PROCESS ON THE REVOCATION. SO IF WE IF THE CITY MANAGER DECIDES TO REVOKE FOR ONE OF THOSE REASONS, THERE'S AN APPELLATE PROCEDURE THROUGH THE CITY MAGISTRATE, AND THEN ULTIMATELY THE COURT SYSTEM. THIS WAS ALLOWED IN SENATE BILL 954. BUT SO I WENT AHEAD AND ADDED IT TO IT AND PROVIDED THE PROCESS FOR APPEAL. SO I PUT IN HERE IN SUBSECTION I THAT THE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION SHALL BE VALID FOR ONE YEAR, AND EACH YEAR THE APPLICANT HAS TO RENEW IT. THE REASON WHY I PUT THAT IN THERE, THIS IS NOT REQUIRED BY SENATE BILL 954. BUT I PLACED THAT IN THERE BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT KIND OF LEFT AN OPEN INDEFINITELY. WE DON'T WANT SOMEONE HAVING AN INDEFINITE APPROVAL. SO THIS REQUIRES THEM THAT THEY STILL NEED AN ACCOMMODATION ON A YEARLY BASIS. AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, SECTION J, THAT THERE WOULD BE NO FEE IN CONNECTION WITH THEM MAKING A REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION. IN ADDITION, I SPELL OUT THAT IF THE CITY IS NOT GOING TO BE OBLIGATED TO PAY ANY OF THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY'S FEES IF THEY CHOOSE TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY, HIRE AN ATTORNEY TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS. THIS, AGAIN, WAS NOT REQUIRED BY SENATE BILL 954. I JUST FELT THAT THAT NEEDED TO BE IN OUR CODE, AND THAT ENDS THE PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE SECTION 8.07.07. AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING, THIS IS THE FIRST READING. SO I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO TRANSMIT THIS TO SECOND READING. AND I'LL COME BACK TO YOU AT THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING.

VICE MAYOR. YES. FOR CLARIFICATION, THE SO THIS IS FOR RECOVERY RESIDENCES INSIDE THE CITY, CORRECT? WELL, THE SENATE BILL NINE SENATE. WHAT'S THAT? IS LIKE A HALFWAY HOUSE.

YEAH. CONDITIONAL HOUSE. RIGHT. SO THIS THE SENATE BILL 954 DEALT WITH CERTIFIED RECOVERY RESIDENCES. OKAY. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION, WHICH MOST, MOST OF THE TIME WE'VE GOTTEN A REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION. IT IS FOR THE CERTIFIED RECOVERY RESIDENTS. IF YOU RECALL THE CLARITY POINT, OUR RPD, WE HAD THE DETOX FACILITY IN RECOVERY RESIDENTIAL HOME THAT BROUGHT FORTH A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION WHICH WAS DENIED. THEY THEN WENT THROUGH THIS REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION PROCESS. SO WHEN I WENT THROUGH THAT PROCESS WITH THEM, THAT'S WHERE I THOUGHT SOME OF THESE NEEDED TO BE CLEANED UP. THAT IS NOT MENTIONED BY 954, BUT THIS HONESTLY, I KNOW CHICKENS HAVE COME UP. WHEN I WORKED FOR THE CITY OF PORT SAINT LUCIE, PEOPLE WERE ASKING FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS TO ALLOW CHICKENS IN THEIR BACKYARD UNDER THE SO IT COULD APPLY TO OTHER THINGS. BUT SENATE BILL 954 THAT THE PURPOSE WHY I BROUGHT THIS IS BROUGHT THIS FORWARD WAS BECAUSE IT DEALT WITH CERTIFIED RECOVERY RESIDENCES, WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS THAT YOU HAVE THIS REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION PROCEDURE IN PLACE. COMMISSIONER JOB. YES. CITY ATTORNEY. YES. QUESTION. IS THESE TYPE OF FACILITIES QUITE OFTEN GET BOUGHT OVER BY ANOTHER FACILITY OR WHATEVER? DO WE HAVE ANYTHING THAT EACH TIME THAT HAPPENS OR THEY CONSOLIDATE WITH SOMEONE ELSE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO REAPPLY? I MEAN, AS YOU SAID. SO IT DOESN'T REALLY JUST CONTINUE THEIR APPROVAL. THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO IT EVERY YEAR ANYWAY, REGARDLESS OF THE CHANGES OVER. OKAY. IF IT'S THE SAME, I FEEL THAT A YEAR IS ENOUGH. YES, AN ANNUAL SOMETHING. COMMISSIONER. CLERK. YES, SIR. THANK YOU.

ATTORNEY BAGGETT, IS THAT RESOLUTION NUMBER 2547 DASH 2026. THIS IS AN ORDINANCE.

YEAH, AN ORDINANCE FIRST READING. SO I'M LOOKING. YEAH. OKAY. LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO TRANSMIT AT THE SECOND READING. OKAY. JUST OKAY. SO I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. SURE. ON THE FOURTH LINE OR SO, THE WHEREAS CLAUSE, I DON'T KNOW IF I'M MISSING SOMETHING, BUT NORMALLY I THOUGHT THAT WHEN WE HAVE THE LPA OR ANY OTHER GROUP THAT WE WOULD SAY EITHER THEY VOTE TO RECOMMEND OR EVEN PUT THEIR VOTE OR SOMETHING. WE JUST SAID. THE LPA HELD A DULY NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ORDINANCE, BUT WE DIDN'T REALLY SAY ANYTHING RIGHT. IT'S MY RECOLLECTION RECOLLECTION THAT THEY RECOMMENDED TO ADOPT THE CHANGES. OKAY, I THINK I'M

[02:00:04]

CORRECT ON THAT. CITY CLERK, DO YOU REMEMBER? SO I THINK I. I'LL BE HAPPY TO ADD THAT IN THE WHEREAS THE THIRD WHEREAS CLAUSE. YOU'RE RIGHT, IT DOESN'T INDICATE WHETHER THEY VOTED IN RECOMMENDATION. BUT I BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION. YEAH. AND I LOST MY SPOT NOW AND THERE'S NOBODY HERE. THERE WAS SUE SAY IS THE BOARD SECRETARY. ALL RIGHT. SO THE DEPUTY CITY CLERK JUST NOTED THAT THERE WAS A VOTE, A MAJORITY VOTE TO RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL, THE AMENDMENTS TO THIS CODE TO YOU GUYS. AND AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ADD THAT TO THE WHEREAS CLAUSE IF YOU WANT. THIS IS THE FIRST READING I THOUGHT THAT WE WERE JUST GOING TO SAY PASS IT ON TO THE NEXT. WELL, THAT IS CORRECT FOR HE'S LOOKING FOR I'M LOOKING FOR WHAT'S CALLED A MOTION TO TRANSMIT IT TO SECOND READING. SECOND READING. YES.

MAY IT PLEASE MAKE THAT AMENDMENT. THAT'S MY MOTION. I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE. VICE MAYOR. YES, YES. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, LEE. AND JUST SO THE PUBLIC'S AWARE, THE STATE IS REQUIRING US TO ADOPT THIS ORDINANCE. CORRECT. BUT WE ALREADY HAD THIS. WE ALREADY HAD THIS CODE OF ORDINANCES.

OKAY. THERE WERE CERTAIN THINGS THAT I POINTED OUT THAT SENATE BILL 954 REQUIRES THAT WE HAVE IN FIRST OFF, SENATE BILL 954 REQUIRES THAT YOU PUT IF YOU DON'T HAVE ONE, YOU GOTTA ADOPT ONE. WE ALREADY HAD ONE. SO THERE WAS SOME THINGS ABOUT OUR CODE THAT WAS MENTIONED IN SENATE BILL 954 THAT WE DON'T HAVE IN OUR CODE. THEY'RE VERY SMALL, JUST A SELECT FEW. AND THERE WERE OTHER THINGS THAT I'VE LEARNED AS BEING THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT WE SHOULD PROBABLY HAVE THAT IN THERE, TOO. THAT'S NOT REQUIRED BY SENATE BILL 954 THAT I WANTED TO CLEAN UP IN OUR CODE. SO YOU MET THEIR BARE MINIMUM FOR THIS SENATE BILL AND THEN WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND AS CORRECT. RIGHT. THANK YOU. YEP. COMMISSIONER. CLERK. MR. MAYOR. YES, MA'AM.

THANK YOU. MR. BAGGETT. UNDER ITEM NUMBER TWO, IT HAS A CAPITAL H. AND THEN THERE'S A BIG I AFTERWARDS. LIKE I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A CAPITAL I OR ROMAN NUMERAL. LIKE THEY'RE DIFFERENT FONT FONT TYPES. BUT WHATEVER IT IS THIS QUESTION HAS COME UP BEFORE AS TO WHEN WE APPROVE SOMETHING AND THE CITY MANAGER MOVES FORWARD AND DOES SOMETHING, WE SAY, WELL, THEY NEVER CAME BACK TO THE CITY COMMISSION WITH THIS THING. THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE CLEARLY STATES ON THE REVOCATION OF AN APPROVED REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST, THE CITY MANAGER MAY INITIATE AN ACTION TO REVOKE, AND THERE ARE LOTS OF OTHER GUIDELINES ALL THE WAY TWO, THREE, FOUR THAT REFERS TO THE CITY MANAGER. AND PLUS IN TERMS OF. LANGUAGE PREPARATION, I SEE AGAIN WE'RE WHAT I THOUGHT WAS AN EYE A BIG EYE. AND THEN THERE'S AN EYE DOWN THERE. SO JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S FLOWING IN THE. THE, THE NOTATION OF THE, THE PARAGRAPHS THAT WE HAVE IT CORRECT. DID YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING, MR. BAGGETT? SO TO THE WHERE IT SAYS AGE TWO THREE AGE THEN BIG EYE, THEN THERE'S A LITTLE EYE AND THEN DOUBLE EYE, THEN THERE'S AFTERWARDS. SO YEAH, THE SUB. THEN THERE'S A BIG GUY, THEN THERE'S A SUB. IS THAT A SUB UNDER FOUR THAT SAYS I. AND THEN THERE'S ONE UP HERE. IF YOU GO UP YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE'S AN H. SO SECTION. YEAH THERE'S JUST SECTION THAT'S H.

THAT'S NUMBER ONE UNDER H. GO DOWN. IS THERE GOING TO BE ONE OR OH THAT'S A ONE. AND THEN WHAT'S THIS OTHER ONE. THIS IS THE EYE COMES AFTER THE H THERE. LOWER ROMAN NUMERAL ONE. YEAH.

SO YOU GOT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE IN THAT AGE. SO UNDER 8.07.07 I'M NOT DRAFTING THIS COMPLETELY NEW. IT'S ALREADY PUT IN THE CODE. AND THEY HAVE SUBSECTIONS A, B, C, D, E, F, G AND THE H SHOULD BE AN AND H G H I J H I J IS WHAT I'M ADDING. SO H H NEEDS TO BE. NOW EACH OF EACH OF THE ALPHABETICAL SUBSECTIONS HAVE REGULAR NUMBERS ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, ETCETERA. AND UNDER H WE DO HAVE H ONE, TWO, THREE AND FOUR. ALSO SIMILARLY LIKE WE HAVE IN OTHER SUBSECTIONS. BUT WE HAD TO GO FURTHER. SO WE HAVE UNDER H ONE, WE HAVE LOWERCASE ROMAN NUMERAL ONE, LOWERCASE ROMAN NUMERAL TWO, LOWERCASE ROMAN NUMERAL THREE, AND THEN LOWERCASE ROMAN NUMERAL FOUR. BECAUSE WE HAVE THE FOUR REASONS WHY A MANAGER COULD

[02:05:02]

INITIATE TO REVOKE THE PRIOR APPROVAL, RIGHT? SO IF THE H IS CHANGED FROM ITALICS TO A REGULAR H AND THEN IT'S IT'S THE PAGINATION. IT'S A PAGINATION THAT MESSED IT UP.

BUT THAT'S OKAY. THAT'S OKAY. WE'RE GOOD OKAY. PAGINATION AND FONT. THANK YOU. SO THE MOTION IS TO MOVE IT FORWARD IN YOUR SECOND. YES YES. THANK YOU. OKAY. THERE WAS NO PUBLIC COMMENT. COMMENT COMMISSIONERS. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM YOU GUYS SEEING NONE MARY WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL? ALL RIGHT. VICE MAYOR REED. YES, MAYOR. COLLINS. YES, COMMISSIONER. JOB. YES.

MR. CLARK YES. I DIDN'T SAY YES, BUT I APPRECIATE YOU BUTTONING THAT UP. SURE. OF COURSE. OF COURSE. I PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE NORMALLY JUST COME UP TO DO SOME OF THOSE CHANGES, BUT SINCE WE ALREADY HAD TO MAKE CHANGES ANYWAY, I THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD TIME. THANK YOU.

YOU'RE THE MAN. OKAY, SO. MOVING ON TO ITEM NINE, DISSOLUTION OF EASTPORT E

[9. DISSOLUTION OF EAST STUART HISTORICAL COMMITTEE (RC): ORDINANCE No. 2548-2026; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA AMENDING PART II, CHAPTER 2 (ADMINISTRATION), ARTICLE III. – BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS, DIVISION I, SECTION 2-28 AND DIVISION 7 EAST STUART HISTORICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, SECTIONS 2-118 THROUGH 2-121, OF THE CITY OF STUART’S CODE OF ORDINANCES, BY REMOVING CERTAIN PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE EAST STUART HISTORICAL COMMITTEE DUE TO DISSOLUTION; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

STEWART HISTORICAL COMMITTEE. OKAY. AND AGAIN, THIS IS THE FIRST READING OF THIS ORDINANCE.

SO I'LL BE LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO TRANSMIT IT TO SECOND READING AS WELL. SO ORDINANCE NUMBER 2548 DASH 2026 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF STEWART, FLORIDA, AMENDING PART TWO, CHAPTER TWO ADMINISTRATION ARTICLE THREE BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS.

DIVISION ONE, SECTION TWO, DASH TWO EIGHT AND DIVISION. DIVISION SEVEN. EAST STEWART HISTORICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, SECTIONS TWO, DASH 118 THROUGH TWO. DASH 121 OF THE CITY OF STEWART'S CODE OF ORDINANCES. BY REMOVING CERTAIN PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE E STEWART HISTORICAL COMMITTEE DUE TO DISSOLUTION. PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION. PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT TITLE, BUT IT'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT SUBSECTIONS IN THE CODE. THE CITY COMMISSION UNDER CHAPTER 166 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTE, THE CITY COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO ESTABLISH AND ADOPT ORDINANCES WHICH ARE INTENDED TO SERVE AND PROTECT PUBLIC BENEFIT TO THE RESIDENTS AND VISITORS OF THE CITY OF STEWART. PART ONE. ARTICLE FOUR OF THE CITY'S CHARTER PERMITS THE CITY COMMISSION TO CREATE AND ESTABLISH BOARDS AND COMMITTEES TO SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE CITY COMMISSION, AND THE CITY COMMISSION HAS THE INHERENT AUTHORITY TO CREATE ADVISORY BOARD TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, I.E. THE CRA, THE E STEWART HISTORICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE THAT WE'VE ALSO REFERRED TO, WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED BY THE CRA FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO THE HISTORY AND CULTURE OF THE EAST HISTORIC EAST STEWART COMMUNITY. THE E PROVIDED VALUABLE INSIGHT REGARDING THE FOUNDING RESIDENTS AND THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE EAST STEWART AREA, INCLUDING EVALUATING AND RECOMMENDING ART AND PUBLIC PLACES, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE INTEGRATION OF DESIGN COMPONENTS INTO THE MARTIN LUTHER KING JUNIOR STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS AND GUIDE DAVIS COMMUNITY PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT. ON FEBRUARY 13TH, 2023 VIA RESOLUTION NUMBER 11 2023, THE CITY COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE CONTINUATION OF THE ISHAK PROVIDED A PUBLIC BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY AND CREATED AND RATIFIED THE ISHAK TO CONTINUE AS AN ADVISORY BOARD IN 2024 VIA ORDINANCE 2525 DASH 2024, THE CITY COMMISSION ADDED THE BYLAWS TO THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES AND. TO THE VARIOUS SECTIONS THAT I'VE ALREADY READ THROUGH IN THE TITLE. I'M NOT GOING TO REPEAT IT FOR SAKE OF TIME. THROUGHOUT THE YEAR OF 2025, HOWEVER, THE ISHAK HAD NO MEETINGS. THEY WERE NOT HELD BECAUSE THERE WAS NO NEED FOR ITS ASSISTANCE AS A AS A RESULT, THE CITY COMMISSION HAS REQUESTED THAT ISHAK BE DISSOLVED IN THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES. THE SECTIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY IDENTIFIED THE.