Order >> before the presentation. >> Roll call, please. Madame clerk. >> Mayor Rich >> here. >> Vice Mayor Collins >> here. >> Commissioner Clark >> here. >> Commissioner Gelby >> here. Commissioner Reid >> here. >> And u offering this evening's invocation
is Pastor Daryl Orman from the First Baptist Church of Stewart. >> He's not here. >> Jimmy Smith is here. Jimmy, >> come on down. >> Say the prayer.
>> The invocation. Please stand >> and then lead us in the pledge of allegiance. Please. >> Please stand. >> Thank you, Father, for this day. We come now, Lord, as your little kids coming before you, asking you for all the good things you have to give
us today, God, that our right minds, our love in our hearts, our visions. utilize our limbs, our legs and our feet. God, we just thank you for a right mind that we can come together as one in the place called the city of stood. God,
touch everybody here today, God, in a special way. As we go forward this meeting, give us a love in our heart to be humble and respectful and love towards one another in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen. >> Amen. >> Amen.
I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic in which it stands. One indivision under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Amen. >> Thank you, Mr. Smith.
So, I just want to take one moment to introduce the chief counselor of Hopetown, which is the city of Stewart's sister city. Um, I know former mayor Mat was involved
after Dorian and uh Troy McDonald was very involved. He's here this evening with his wife Chelsea. I was uh he was nice enough to join me for breakfast at Maria's on Saturday. And um would you like to take a moment just to
>> make brief remarks? Mr. Jeremy Sweding. >> I promise I'll be brief. I don't want to keep you long, especially after such a provocative budget workshop today. Um but just a few words really. Um Mr.
Mayor, city commissioners, city manager, residents of Stewart, good evening. Just over a decade ago in 2014, the city of Stewart became sister cities with the Hopetown District in the Bahamas. The Hopetown District has had a name change
recently to better reflect the entire district. We are now known as the Abico Keys District which includes Hopetown, Manawa Key and Great War Guer. Mr. Mayor, in 2014, one of your predecessors, Mayor Troy McDonald,
visited Oaktown and we signed the sister city agreement. Myself along with two other council members, Don Cash and Arthur Elden, made a return trip to Stewart where we attended a special called city commission meeting and also toured the
city visiting various businesses here in Stewart. A good number of our businesses in the Abigo Keys district have participated in boat shows here in Stewart and we have a number of Stewart residents that have second homes in the Abico Keys District.
Although um municipalities may differ in size, our budget is $56,000 perom. >> Yours is I think 100 million and your populationation is much greater. We both offer a quaint small town feel that is
the envy of many. We can't say thank you enough to the city, the people of Stewart, and in particular the nonprofit group Operation 300, Stephen Leighton, um, and many of the former, uh, city commissioners,
um, that did an amazing job in the response in the aftermath of Eric and Dorian when our communities received catastrophic damage from Dorian's fury. Almost immediately we've been receive aid from different ones here and many many others as well across America and
in other countries. We're excited to keep this relationship alive and I would like to invite you Mr. Mayor on a tour of our district in Abico Bahamas whenever the time is right and then a small contingent from our council may do a return trip to Stewart in the near
future. Mr. May I thank you again for allowing me some time and I pray God's blessings on this evening's deliberations. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Sweden. >> Mr. Sweding and his family are here in Stewart to take advantage of medical
resources available to them. So, I wish them the best luck. >> Mr. Mayor, did you take a picture with >> I did. Would you all like to take a picture with Mr. Sweding? No, I did. Yes, >> you took one here. >> Would you all like to take a picture with Mr. Sweeneying? Come on.
>> I think it'd be good for >> post not up there, >> Mr. Martell. Come on. >> I know the commission. >> Come on, Mike. >> Just about Everybody >> fried chicken.
Welcome to the Bahamas >> and I will be accepting Mr. Sweding's offer and I look forward to going over there hopefully in November. I have a friend here in Sewart who had a home has he had a had a home in Man of War and it
was completely destroyed. completely destroyed the docks the dock the dock house and fortunately he was able to rebuild it but um that was an unbelievable storm and unfortunately the residents of Steuart are well aware of
how powerful and damaging these hurricanes can be. So well this we haven't seen one of these for a while. Mr. Bagot, could you please >> um do the oath of office for our new environmental attorney, Miss Ruth Holmes?
>> Yes. Miss Holmes will come up to the podium. Thought that would be the best spot where the mic will catch both of our voices. And if you'll uh raise your right hand and repeat after me. I, Ruth A. Holmes, do solemnly swear >> I, Ruth A. homes do solemn solemnly
swear >> that I will support, honor, protect, and defend >> that I will support, honor, protect, and defend >> the Constitution and the government of the United States and the State of Florida. >> the Constitution and the government of the United States and the State of Florida
>> that I am duly qualified to hold office >> that I am duly qualified to hold office >> under the Constitution of the State of Florida >> under the Constitution of the State of Florida. and under the charter of the city of Stewart. >> and under the charter of the city of Stewart. >> And that I will well and faithfully
perform the duties of Steuart Environmental Attorney. >> And that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of Stuart Environmental Attorney >> on which I am I am now about to enter. So help me God. >> on which I am now about to enter. So
help me God. This is our exercise today. >> Commissioner, you know, >> it's my PT for the day. >> Sorry. >> I thought it was a lawyer thing. >> You are a lawyer.
It's okay. >> Where's this way? I see something. >> You don't want to wait for >> No, just on that item. I'd like to >> Sure. >> I would just like to say, Ruth, it's it's a really big day and it it was a
war to get you here. It's been a war that's been going on for a long time. I think it's great that, you know, former mayor Mat was here. This was something he was pushing for during his time and I'm thankful you're here. I'm looking forward to you being an asset
and there's bright and beautiful things ahead for the city of Stewart. So, thank you for taking the job. >> Amen. >> Mr. Martell or Mr. Bagot, who's going to take the lead on this item? >> I am. >> Okay. This is a presentation on the referendum
process pertaining to the twoacre parcel adjoining Handy Creek. Um, previously we had brought before you some of the issues or potential issues regarding the twoacre parcel that you guys had wanted to move forward about
possibly converting it into uh converting it into preservation or conservation land whereas it's now um zone commercial. So, I wanted to kind of update you on a little bit of the process that will require us to do that and I've done a little bit of research and both myself
and the city clerk. So, if we go back to section point uh 9.01 of the code of ordinances I have attached uh to the agenda item. Long-term leases for waterfront property in the city that's owned by the city
must be approved by referendum. Back in 2011 when this when this parcel was separated out from 50 51 other acres at Haney Creek, it was done by referendum to have two acres zone commercial and to
develop to help pay for the remaining 51 acres there. And so that was done by referendum. And so likewise, in order to change that, we need to go back out for referendum under our under our code 9.0. 05. It
refers to the process going back to 9.04 and that section of the code requires us to publicize the issue 30 days in advance in the newspaper prior to it going to referendum. We also have to provide notice to the
supervisor of elections and the city clerk reached out to our county supervisor of elections and she requests that we have a resolution adopting the referendum and the language in the referendum at least 60 days before the election. We have the option of doing a
special election which would be pretty expensive and probably have a lower turnout if we do it earlier or we could just wait till the next general election which is next August and then it wouldn't cost extra money. If you also recall u in the last meeting I brought before
you there was an interlocal agreement that us the city and the county uh joined together in 2011 and that that interlocal agreement was conditional upon the referendum and the interlocal agreement also requires us to
use the 2acre parcel for commercial purposes in order to pay for the park the park the the whole preservation area the Hanning Creek the county has has never objected to us not developing it into commercial. Um so at right now it's
never been developed into commercial. So it's not been providing money. We've just been providing it out of our own general budget. We would probably need to not we probably we are required to enter into a new interlocal agreement with the county or amend the previous one. I'm not quite
sure what which one it'll be because it's kind of the way the original interlocal agreement was written was it expires after 5 years but the part about the continuously using the two acres survived the expiration of the
agreement. So I I'll probably work with the county attorney. I have reached out to Elise Elder at the county and and I've already kind of started this process. I forwarded her the old documents, the interlocal agreement and a referendum. We've had a couple of conversations about it and I think she
was in agreement with me that that process to amend or draft a new interlocal agreement would probably take about one to two months. So with one to two months to get a resolution by before both boards with the draft of the interlocal agreement probably two months
caps at maximum. So we have plenty of time because the next general election would be August unless you wanted to do it on a special election earlier. We would have time for that as well. But we have a whole year to get to the next general election. So roughly three months is all that would
take. So we got plenty of time to do that. And that's the only thing that I was coming back to kind of go over that process and how much time we needed. And if you guys have any questions, I'll be happy to answer it. >> And >> oh yeah, one more. >> Yeah, >> one more thing. Mr. Mortell had spoken
to someone uh potential developer and and I'll let him talk about it. So following the meeting that we had the discussion, I got a telephone call from a gentleman by the name of Taylor or Tyler. Tyler has the property owned by the
county that used to be known as Erands um nursery for those of you that have been around a while under contract and it's on the corner of US1 and Baker Road. It already has a curb cut on US1 and it already has a curb cut on Baker
Road. He has concerns about the curb cut on Baker Road because just like the the Shell station on Right Boulevard, when people go to pull out of the Shell station, the cars get backed up at the
light and they try to pull out and get in between the cars and turn left there and kind of wreak havoc. And so he contacted me and wanted to know if the city of Stewart would be interested in
working a deal with him where he would actually build our entire trail head, the parking lot, the bathroom, the lights, and then just like our code requires, and you can look up and down
US1 and everywhere else, we require cross connections to keep cars cars off the roads anyway when they can interconnect so that he could make it so that cars leaving his property wouldn't be going directly onto
Baker Road right there, but they would be going further down and they'd go into the parking lot of our trail head and then go out onto Baker Road, creating the expansion. I told him no, the first time he called me, just no.
Um then he was insistent on following up and then we had the meeting where you guys discussed coming back with the referendum on the um trail head idea up on Baker Road and he called me again and I said look I
don't know what the commission is one way or the other on it. I will bring it up at our next meeting. I will mention it to them and if the commission wants you can come in and answer questions or you can do a
uh proposal or submit it to them one way or the other. I just didn't I did honestly didn't know what the commission's temperature was for it. I can tell you I mean the property's been kind of underdeveloped for a long time because the errands family had no
interest in selling it. But I believe that um it's already transferred and the state issues are over with and it's probably going to be developed whether it's developed with a connection to that trail head to it or not. I don't know
that it makes any difference one way or the other. I just wanted to tell you that this phone call came in. If you guys want me to schedule the guy to come in and give you some kind of presentation, I will. But there's really not much need
for one. I on last agenda I attached and you guys had the pictures of the parking lot of what our trail head would look like. And so the only thing that would be additional is literally
a connection through to the next parcel >> on um uh onto Aaron's property. Um the advantage to it would be one of the biggest concerns I get into when we start talking about doing these types of
projects is the on and m um because we have to maintain the parking lot. We have to maintain the lights, we have to maintain the bathroom, we have to, you know, ensure it. We have to do all this stuff. If he was willing to build it for us,
number one, that alleviates an ex an extreme expense to us. But more importantly, if he was willing to maintain the parking lot, ensure the parking lot, pay the electric bill, and maintain the that access for us so that
we didn't even have to do it. The perpetual nature of that from a management perspective is great. the the um negative aspect is
well the city's cooperating with the developer or whatever it is. Now the developer is going to use the parking lot. I'm sure they are. I'm sure cars are going to drive from his property right through the parking lot and right out onto Baker Road,
>> right? But if you're serious about doing the Baker Road um trail head, imagine not doing the the deal with the developer and now we spend the 700 grand or
whatever it costs and we maintain it and we do the lights and his employees still park in that parking lot. We just insure it. it still gets whatever it gets and it's just simply that we get zero dollars from it. I
should also mention that that particular property on the errands property is not in the city of Stewart that is in the county. So that corner is county land. So, it will be going through whatever
development approvals it's going to go through. It's not going to come through the city of Stewart, of course. And again, this is all conjecture and speculation. I mean, the guy hasn't made any offers. I don't have anything in writing. He was just calling to see what the city felt about it. But
if you wanted to talk to him, you could say to him that you would only approve it if he annexed into the city or if he didn't annex into the city or if he did X, Y, or Z. I mean, that would be the discretion of the board and for you guys to talk about. The the fact of it is is
that I originally told him it was Haney Creek. I didn't think the commission would have the tolerance to do really anything. But then as this has evolved a little bit now there's been more discussion about potentially going to a referendum and potentially building this trail head. I said to him, "Look,
I'll I'll I'll bring it up." So, here it is. I brought it up. If you guys want me to do anything, let me know. For now, I'm It's not an agenda item. You don't have to vote on it. You don't have to do anything. Just letting you know. >> Mr. Vice Mayor >> Sean, were you able to see You were on vacation that day. Were you able to see
those slides from that meeting where it showed that trail head off of Baker? >> Yeah. I have a question for the city attorney though, too. >> So, I just wanted to see if you were familiar with that. It would be >> I met with I met m with Commissioner Reid on Friday and showed him those
slides. >> And so, those prices, you know, one of your concerns was, oh, what if it's five million or 10 million? >> Yeah, I think it was like six or $700,000 at the time. >> Correct. So, if you put that two acres into conservation just because we can't talk otherwise. So, >> that's why I wanted to ask the city
attorney something on this uh agreement prior. >> Sure. You go ahead. >> Um Lee, so I and you can correct me if I'm wrong. I just want to understand it, Lee. So, if I'm looking at the term of the agreement, section 4, >> you talk about the interlocal agreement
with the county. >> Yes. and and as far as um the termination and the terms and it says section 7, 8 and nine will survive at the expiration of the termination, right? And then when you go
to section eight, it talks about a management plan and it talks about land uses that are compatible with the restoration goals and purposes, conservation and appropriate public recreational uses where such recreational uses are
compatible with conservation requirements. You can come up with a management plan such as conducting limited land clearing for the purpose of constructing such pvious facilities as docks, boardwalks, or mulched walking trails. Would we still have to go to referendum in order because that
survived the term? >> So, >> no. So, the referendum was to whether or not to do a long-term lease of the property. That's all you have to go to referendum on. This was an interlocal agreement. Gotcha. So, this would be uh terms that the staff and and commissions
on both boards would agree to and they agreed to in 2011, but if we're going to do an amendment, it would be uh both boards currently. >> So, like that section, the whole 78 and N9 isn't even applicable anymore. >> No, it is long. It is. >> So, that's that's what I was trying to explain that the way this was written
that the term expires after 5 years. >> 7 8 N. >> Right. Right. >> So, that means some of it survived. So that's why it's a question of is it an amendment or do I have to do a whole new interlocal agreement? If >> I can bring you up to speed when you were out of when you were not president, you're out of um town. The discussion
was can we take the two acres and stop using it for commercial activity, >> put it in conservation >> and the put in the conservation, make it a trail head, whatever. And the city attorney said there was a referendum
and the public voted and the referendum says we shall list this property for commercial lease. >> Mhm. >> So we can't put it into conservation if there's a clause that says we have to list it for commercial lease because they're contradictory that's
contradictory language. >> So this is just a funding agreement then between the city and the county and then you have the ref. >> We're not funding anything. Well, that's what it's called. It's called agreement between the >> This is back in 2012, correct? >> When they were merging their So,
>> and when was the res? >> In 2012. >> No, >> back in 2011 when the tax money came in, the city owned a property called the flag parcel >> that's down by where Frankenstein's used to be.
The county and the city pulled their tax their halfscent sales tax money to buy the last 53 acres of Haney Creek from C Coast Bank who had it in foreclosure from a developer. Jeff Kroskoff wanted to
take the two acres and use it for commercial purposes to provide a perpetual funding source to pay for the maintenance of Haney Creek. In order to make everybody whole, Jeff
Kroskoff had the city donate a flag parcel to the Haney Creek project, >> which was roughly two acres. It was a road that was finished with the all upland and dry at the end of it. So
there was going to be no loss of land. There was then a big hoopla about well would the city use the money for other purposes? And Jeff said no, they would do it for just the management of Haney Creek and all of the money generated from it would
go back to Haney Creek. So, the county and the city entered into an interlocal agreement saying that yes, we're going to buy the 53 acres of Haney Creek together, hence the name, the funding agreement. And yes, when we buy the
Haney Creek property together, the city is going to throw in the flag parcel. In exchange for that, the county is going to agree to allow this other parcel at the entrance of North Shores be
surveyed, staked, and a lot created so that the city could then have a 2acre parcel that the city would then be responsible to go lease it out for commercial purposes and 100% of the revenue that was generated from that
lease would be reinvested into Haney Creek so that Haney Creek could the maintenance would be insured or paid for. That's where we were. >> So the the referendum overrules the this >> the referendum the county doesn't need a
referendum. >> I I know you want to respond. What's just so I understand. >> So the ref the referendum is to we did a referendum to take the two parcels and convert it to commercial so that it can pay for the rest of the park. The referendum was because Haney Creek is a
watershed that is on a tidal basin and section nine of our code says prior to leasing or renting any land in the city of Stewart that is on water that city owned there must be a public referendum.
Since Haney Creek was adjacent to a tidal creek, it qualified under the referendum to be required before it could be leased out for more than 10 years, there had to be a referendum. As a result, a
referendum occurred in l in in in concert with the agreement that the county and the city had entered into in the interlocal agreement. The language of the referendum is what the city attorney was interpreting that said it told us we need to do this. Now, if we
want to not do this, what do we do to correct it? >> You come back with another referendum, >> right? I understand. And that's where we are. >> How come the referendum So, this was a referendum specific to this parcel then, right? Correct. >> Correct. >> That's what I was getting at. How come it's not in the agenda packet then?
>> Um, well, it was in the last agenda, but I the only thing I was talking about today is the process. I understand >> the process of of I've already discussed that. I already brought the language. I I in the last agenda item. >> It's very brief. You can read it. Right. >> Right. I can read it.
>> It's very brief. >> I'll get it. I'll get it online. >> It would have given Yeah. >> So the last time we had it on the agenda, I attached the referendum language and the interlocal agreement and I discussed the background and the history of it. Today I was just trying to explain the process because you guys
wanted to go forward with it. >> What do we have to do? we have to go out for referendum and we have to mend the interlocal agreement or draft a new interlocal agreement with the county. So the the interlocal agreement i.e. the funding agreement >> the funding agreement is an interlocal agreement. I know it's titled funding
agreement and like Mr. Mortell said it was about funding the whole project. The county and the city both own the Haney Creek wershed district 5050. These 50 it's 51 and a half acres I think and the two acres come out of that. we have to
undo by referendum what we did by referendum only on the two acres the the all the other conditions as far as u maintenance and so forth we did it in the original funding i.e e interlocal agreement. So we would need to do all that stuff by interlocal agreement with
the county. So the county will have to have a a commission meeting on on an amended interlocal agreement and so will we. And so each board will do a resolution adopting a new interlocal agreement. The if if what you're if you want to consider what Mr. Mortell was
talking about today by this uh developer. The two acres would just be converted into conservation land and then the trail head would be around the corner um on Baker Road and and we would develop the trail head there versus on the two acres. >> I mean whether or not that developer
would go that path, that's something we could do is have that Baker Creek um trail head be what we develop versus that two acres. two acres would go conservation and then if we wanted to trail head it >> or regardless we have to convert the
commercial zoning to >> yeah to conservation land so even to do the trail head so >> correct >> commissioner clerk >> it was just um this is probably getting into the weeds but it was just the idea
of if if he built the trail head and would possibly maintain it. it was just about liability and about annexation. And I know that Mike already brought that up. Um so, you know, if it would be treated as a
regular um road right away, uh public road right away and um even though it's going over quote unquote our land, but it would be a long-term lease, I guess, if we decided to do it that way.
>> Well, as far as the two acres is no lease, we >> Yeah. Well, if we if we ever did that >> entrance of the agreement with the developer road, it would be whatever agreement you entered into. Okay. >> He owns it. >> Well, no. Our piece would
>> Well, >> can we bring it back and talk about it before 2026? >> Commissioner Jobi would like to make >> Oh, sorry. Yeah, I would like to entertain at least finding out what, you know, his plans are, you know, what restraints we could have on
restrictions. Um, also, do we know what he's planning to build on that other property or it's already built or? >> Well, there's already a nursery that's been on the property for at least 50 years. I think it was probably the 60s is when it was built.
>> But I suspect he's going to be building a gas station, a fast food store, or a CVS because it's the corner of US1 and Baker Road. >> But he can come in. Now, by the way, that's likely going to happen >> no matter
>> whether you get your trail head or not. It's not in the city of Stewart. It's a county parcel. It's not in the city. We're not going to have anything to do with it. And that's why I told him originally no. I said that our original referendum on the two acres was saying no to that stuff. And so the real thing
for us is if you're really serious about doing the trail head, there's going to be whatever it is next door. Let's say it's Dunkin Donuts or let's say it's 7-Eleven next door. They're going to have a curb cut right onto the road. And then we're going to have our parking lot, which is another curb cut right
onto the road. And it's going to be a race to FDOT to see who gets the first curb cut because then they can't be so close to each other and, you know, all the other stuff. Whereas if we were both doing the project, >> then the the question would be what
would be better from the standpoint of the traffic on the road or not? And honestly, I mean, obviously the answer and the easy answer would be why doesn't he sell us the land and let us make it all part of Haney Creek and use the halfsent sales tax to buy that. >> There you go.
>> That was the first thing I offered. >> It didn't work. >> Well, there's other options, too. We recently entered into an agreement with um I honestly don't remember the name. It was to be a conservative where people could come and fish, walk trails, and I
forget what that was. conservation easement where >> no we we entered into an agreement to be part of this trail >> where people could come you know we had to have the right trails for people to come and access to walk to different I don't remember what the name of the project was so in line with that maybe
he would at least build some stores that would attract more people to the park I mean he's just looking for I mean I'm just saying there's an exchange of ideas that we could do I mean maybe >> I mean there's no doubt about that the The dialogue is the question, right? So,
whatever that might or might not be, I mean, I can give you guys his contact to him individually. I could give it to him separately. I did I just said to him that I'd bring it up and I would get back to him. I I didn't really have >> Well, I agree with you, Commissioner Joby. I think we should at least talk to
him. >> I I do too. See what it is. Would it be >> Commissioner Clark, would you agree with that parking >> word I was getting at? >> Yeah. Would this be overflow parking? This would be through parking lot. >> I think it's to again there's the shell station just on the north side of the
Roosevelt Bridge. If you pull into that Shell station and you pull out onto Wright Boulevard to try and get back on US1, the curb cut is really close to US1. So the cars turning right off of US1 are constantly coming around the
corner and the cars waiting at the light to get onto US1 back up. So it makes it so cars pull into right boulevard and then they're kind of stuck there in limbo and there's like mini traffic jams all the time. What he is looking to do
is shift the curb down to where the entrance to public is down on the western end of the Publix properly. So, our entrance would be right across from that so that it'd be a straight line, moving it west of the entrance of US1
>> so that people could pull through the parking lot and pull out over there without getting caught up in that traffic jam. If we say no, he can go ahead and build it and he's got the curb cuts. They're already there. You can look at it on a map. It's just going to be a a tied up mess.
And and it may be better just to say no, not to get caught up in the mess with it. But I didn't want to say no without giving you guys the chance. And I didn't want to give him your phone numbers and have him start calling you without having talked to you or brought it up because I didn't want you to get bombarded with stuff you had no idea
what was coming. >> Mike, I got a question. >> Oh, can I just finish? I'm sorry. No, it's it's okay. Um, I guess that if we're going to discuss it, this would be the time to discuss it to see if we're even in agreement. I I'm not adverse to hearing what he has to say and how it benefits us and obviously it benefits
him also. But I'm just saying if a majority of the commissioners aren't in favor, then we're wasting our time. >> So this is the point for us to have a dialogue. I mean, this is the only time we can have a dialogue about this. >> Well, it seems currently a majority are
in favor of at least listening to what he has to offer. >> Cost anything to listen to him? Yeah. Um, can I >> Commissioner Reid, do you have >> Yeah, I just I wanted to stay on the record, too. There there two different zonings right now. There's two Is it two Is it the both parcels there, Mike? >> Because one's B1 and then one's general
commercial, too. >> I I I have no idea. >> Okay. >> I mean, I'm I'm not I have nothing to do with the development. I have never looked into it. I never contacted the county. I don't know the guy. I've never even met him. I mean, I've never even
met him. I didn't I wasn't concerned with what his development was because it was in the county. It's not even city land. >> It's not in the city limits. It's county county land. So, I don't know what the zoning is. I don't know. >> I mean, I'm assuming that Erin's
>> uh nursery was probably a at one point. I mean, it's been there a long time. >> So, how would it work for discussion with them? Like, >> did he reach out individually? Well, I think we need to have the discussion here first to decide what it is we'd even be looking for.
>> What are the things we wouldn't accept before we even entertain the idea of speaking to him? >> Well, when you guys say what you're looking for, what you wouldn't accept, if he builds a racetrack gas station
>> and it gets approved by Martin County, >> which it will, >> then I'm not sure what difference it makes. The question still is, would you connect to the parking lot to get the parking lot for free and maintained for free or would you say no, we want two
curb cuts >> um on Baker Road? >> Because I mean, to me, that's the only issue. I mean, there's no there's no real benefit to the city at all other than we're not having to pay for the the trail head. If we weren't doing the trail head, the answer would be really
easy. It'd be no. No, go away. We're not doing anything. But if I'm the only reason I'm even bringing it up is because if we're actually considering building a parking lot there and building curb cuts and putting lights in so that it's lit and putting a bathroom in so that people aren't going to the
bathroom in Haney Creek and putting the facilities and structures there then the idea that someone else might pay for it has an appeal. But how much is the appeal and and what's the benefit?
>> Mr. that you can provide us with this map as to the cut through that you're talking about like from that property to >> it was on last agenda right like July 28th. >> So if you pull up on your phone right there Baker and and US1 that property on the corner >> have it pulled up
>> I mean I I I'll email it to you anyway just so you have the benefit of >> that's okay. wants it to be opposite the entrance to the public s is what it is. >> So you can see that on the map, >> Mr. Vice Mayor. >> Yeah. So for me that would
>> I'm sorry. Were you were you done? Commissioner Joy. >> Well, I thought >> is that something that I can show Commissioner Joy Lee? >> We're not talking. >> Yeah, I can show it from my computer. I just want to make sure it's >> talking to each other privately. No. But if it's part of the public discussion,
then yes, >> I can show you on a map what it looks like. the trail head. >> You want to go ahead? >> Yeah. So, for me that >> that kind of a thing assuming that that's a gas station. Oh, wait. >> All right. >> From Alaska.
>> Thank you. Never mind. I have >> I was just looking. The Publiclix is right across the street basically. >> Yes, that's Publix there. >> So, now you're looking at it. You can see it. >> Yeah. So to me that would defeat the
whole purpose of a park there if you basically extend the parking lot of like a Wawwa or or this kind of a thing into your park versus having a separate park that has a sign there that it's park and
parking for the park for the park. Um, I'm sure that would help that um, gentleman. But to me, that's a deal where it's it's more damage than than I mean, we're blessed that we have the half cent sales tax money there to even
um, trail head up there. You put that two acres in conservation, that's done. And then you have a separate park. I I don't want to be connected to whatever he's going to turn that into. I think it's messy if it gets sold. If I I'd
rather just have a park there. Imagine I imagine my four little kids while people are zooming in and out to get to a gas station. >> It's just a mess. Like I >> Well, after seeing the map, what I do realize is that um >> Yeah. It's almost like, you know, on one
where you have TD Bank and Waw Wa, it would be that same kind of Yeah. >> To me, it's a mess. and it defeats the whole like exclusivity and you know you're tucked into a park to have that kind of a through thing if it was another sort of uh
commercial property that the city owned or something that's different having that connectivity but you want your park to be isolated would be my take on that. So I'm not really interested in that kind of a deal. What I want to see is just as soon as possible because there
are two separate issues. One is the the um Lee what you were talking about where we're going to referendum for the two acres going to conservation. The other is you know separately what are we doing with that parcel and trail head off
Baker. So, as soon as possible, I would like to see, you know, and have us all talking about if there's something different that we would like to see other than what Tim Vulker had put together for the ARPA money for that
site and go into a little more detail uh with the halfsent sales tax money. Commissioner Clark, >> it's been a long time since I saw this um resolution, but just mean uh Mr. Mr.
Bagot on section 8.4. I forgot why we had that phrase in there about the city providing the annual income of anything that happens on the 2acre parcel to the county. because we were going to show that we were
maintaining >> Haney Creek with all of the money. So if we rented it out for a million dollars a year, we would have to demonstrate to the county that we were spending a million dollars a year on Haney Creek.
>> It all came from the carve out parcel, >> right? >> It's been a while. I >> mean, that's the the greatest appeal to me of that document is that It says that these this financial
revenue will be dedicated to the maintenance of the park in our cost cutting fervor here. The easiest thing to start cutting is going to be maintenance of these parks and especially a 50acre parcel. We don't take care of the interior of that. Not that many people will see it. So
I I would like to praise those of you who were involved and had the foresight to commit those resources to the maintenance of this very large park. Um and I hope we can see that take place.
Um I've never been a fan of providing a trail head on US one of the busiest streets in the city of Stewart. Um, so I think we and Commissioner Reid, correct me if I'm wrong, but there seems to be a majority that's willing to at
least discuss with this gentleman what options he may feel he has. If we can if we can have somebody else build that trail head, we're sort of eating our cake and have it too, it seems to me. >> While it sounds enticing, I have to be honest, once I saw the map, it basically
then looks like Wawa and TD Bank. So you have this intercross of that road and it's just too much. >> Well, it doesn't have to be that. We could give him his access and then move our move the park down a little and have a separate perhaps he'd be willing to
provide a separate entrance to the trail head. Then the two don't have to be connected. All he wants is that cut down the road a little. I don't think it necessarily has to be attached to the entrance to the trail head. >> But we have money set aside for this purpose. What what's the u what's the issue?
>> The issue is why not take advantage of someone >> because it would destroy the very nature of having a secluded park for a family. >> He's going to build there anyway. >> Yeah. It's >> So why would you connect to what he develops there? >> I'm saying the trail the entrance to the
trail head does not necessarily need to be connected to his little road to the to the cut. >> That's exactly that's what he wants. Ironically, I ironically I think that if you if you I think it would he absolutely wants to be connected to the park,
>> but I also think if you look at the um entire corridor or any other corridor in Stewart that you would also find that our code requires us >> to like when developers come in, they actually have to ask to a for an
exception to deviate from the code not to interconnect their parking lot with their adjacent parking lot >> service. >> So we require like if you go to Walgreens on East Ocean Boulevard, you can drive through to Stimmel Sports without going on East Ocean Boulevard because we required them to connect the
parking lot. And then from Stimmel, you can go into the next park parking lot because we required them to be interconnected so that cars don't loop in and out onto the road. >> So to his adjacent parcel or an adjacent parcel. Well,
>> you said his adjacent part. >> And is it specific? Does it include parks? >> I don't have any idea where we're where we're going here. I know that his commercial property >> if it was being built in the city next to another commercial property, >> but it's not that's that's a hypothetical. It's not that's not what
we're talking about. >> I totally agree. It's next to the city. It's next to the park, right? >> Can I make a motion that we >> two parking lots you're going to have people pull out onto Baker Road to pull into the parking lot? is what the like that's what what would
you be faced with if let's say it was a subway and somebody went into the subway and bought a sandwich to go for a hike in the park then they'd have to pull out onto Baker to pull into the parking lot >> to go to the trail head because the two parking lots weren't connected
>> correct >> right >> somebody zipping through that parking lot >> you like to make a motion >> ask kids just to get through there to get back onto the onto Baker. >> Mr. Reed.
>> Yeah. I just I had another >> Are we willing to speak with the gentleman? >> It's Mr. Reed has >> I had a question. So like I don't know, Mike, if this is something would it come before the no board because it's a county road too. >> No, >> they wouldn't want to signalize light there at one point because it's already
hard enough coming out of Even if they wanted a signalized light there, >> MO is FOT. Those are state roads. The county roads, >> the city, the the MO doesn't address those. >> It's this was just a presentation. I
just wanted to bring up we're way in the weeds. >> I don't it's it's not that significant to me. I'm going to tell him I didn't get any clear direction. If he wants to call you guys directly, he's welcome to. >> All right. >> Sometimes you need to get into the weeds just to get where we want to go. All right.
>> You feel you have sufficient direction, Mr. Mortell? >> Okay. >> Comments by city commissioners. Commissioner Reed, I'll still let you go first. >> All right. >> I thought that we Are you sure that's
where we are? >> Yes. >> Am I in the wrong agenda? >> Mhm. >> Right. >> Environmental attorney presentation. approval of vision. >> We're not there yet, Commissioner Sh Clark. We're getting there.
>> Yeah, I I did want to reiterate in my commission comment for emails to be online. It's something I'll continually push for. And I also wanted to mention um I spoke with city manager Mike Mortell and the Hamilton's
their project is supposed to come up as an agenda item at the September 8th meeting and they asked me to get a consensus from board majority that they don't want their project presented yet. Um they said they're waiting for something from Florida Commerce. So, if
I can get a consensus during everyone else's commission comments to let city manager know that they're not ready for it to come in front of us, that'd be great. >> Is that the case, Mike? >> Well, the Hamiltons won't speak to me.
They sent me an email saying that they're waiting for an answer from Florida Commerce. I spoke to Florida Commerce on a conference call on Friday. Board of Commerce provided me with a copy of the answer that they had already
given him. Um, his answer was related to the money that was used by the city to pay for the Patriot Group to do his roof. Essentially, the gentleman at Florida Commerce by the
name of Graham told Mr. Hamilton that we used the administrative matching funds at his direction to pay for that lean to be removed from his house when he was complaining about it. He now
wants to say that Mr. Gra that Graham told him that they couldn't use CDBG funds because at the meeting I said we use CDBG funds to do it. The city of Stewart has one account that has the CDBG funds in it. It was
the 50,000 that the city put in as the matching funds and the $750,000 that we got was all comingled at the direction of Florida Commerce. That's how we paid it. I sent copies of
those emails to Mr. Hamilton last week and nonetheless the question that was being resolved was we had all backing it up. We had
his scope of services was to get a roof, windows and doors with some insulation. Started moving forward on that. There's been a calamity of issues. We then got to the point where we were doing another scope of services and we said here's what we think the scope of
services is. He said he wanted to do his own scope of services. He hired a group called McKe group to do the scope of services. He presented that to the city. I reviewed it. Panel reviewed it. Guardian reviewed it and went through it and
said, "Okay, we'll agree to this scope of services." We then took the pricing off of it and took the letter head off of it because a scope of services has to go out to bid and panel sent that to
Florida Commerce and CCD the Hamiltons and said we believe we've agreed on a scope of services. Mr. Hamilton submitted this to us. We don't have any changes to make. We're agreeable to this as well. That's when Mr. Hamilton
accused uh the CRA director of fraud because she took McKe's letter head off and changed the prices. And that's when he said he was entitled to get his own um without going through procurement, could use his own contractor and didn't
have to go through procurement. We had a conference with Florida Commerce. They said it has to be procurement. They said let us call the Hamiltons. They then called us back and said, "The Hamiltons will not talk about
this anymore unless they speak to all of us with Congressman Mast present." We said, "Okay, great. Schedule us when Congressman Mast is present." No one contacted us. The Hamiltons
contacted Commissioner Reid. Florida Commerce thought his >> When you say us, who do you mean, Mr. me, panel, guardian, the city of Stewart or anybody to participate in that phone call. The Hamiltons had contacted Commissioner Reid to participate in this
phone call. Commissioner Reid sent an email to Florida Commerce. Florida Commerce thought Commissioner Reid was representing the city of Stewart to resolve that scope of service. They had the meeting on the scope of service. >> They didn't really talk about scope of
services though. >> Well, okay. So that becomes the issue. According to Florida Commerce, they did talk about the scope of services and the Hamiltons wanted additional work done such as an air conditioning system and some electrical work done that was
outside of the scope of services and no one from the city objected to it. So I then objected to it when I found out about it. >> That was discussed on the phone call though. >> Okay. So I don't by the way we don't know what was discussed other than what you were there for. So,
>> I just I just the Hamiltons asked me during my commission comments to get a consensus from the commission up here that they do not want their item heard on September 8th and because they were not ready something to do with Florida Commerce. I don't know all the details.
I'm just trying to give >> that's that's good for me. I'm >> someone give it. It's it's more complicated than that. >> I'm sure it's very complicated. >> I can't not have it on the September 8th. >> Well, why not? Because the city also said that Guardian shouldn't receive any
additional tax dollars and Guardian is involved in the Hamilton case. The city said Guardian shouldn't be involved anymore. Commissioner Goi said we should start the procedure to have them removed from the file. We can't move forward on a co scope of services until Guardian
goes back into Hamilton's house and then >> they've already been paid, >> haven't they? Or they would still be paid because they process. still involved. >> So even if we remove them, they would still be paid. So there's no point even discussing that. >> I'm not I I don't I'm not Are we removing them? Because that's all the
more reason to have the hearing. >> No, we had a we had a meeting, >> right? But the the but >> So there's no point. We had Guardian wants to come put on their side of the story. >> Guardian got >> a lot of things said about them last
meeting that they totally disagree with. Hamilton's don't want Guardian to come put in on their side of the story. But it gets better because this is a CDBG grant. It must be
completely finished by January 1st. That means we have to figure out the scope of services. If you fire guardian, we have to hire a new >> firing them. They would still get paid anyway. So that's why there's no point discussing that. So, I've learned a lot
more since >> the last meeting and that's >> Well, I know that's how you feel, but the board is still discussing it, >> right? So, by the way, for the board, even if you did remove them, they would still get paid. So, what would be >> the point in removing them?
>> First of all, remove them. I was >> I don't feel comfortable even taking the position that they should be removed because >> correct, that's not what we're discussing. >> I don't think they did anything wrong. >> Nobody's saying that, right? >> Well, yes, they did. Yes. Yes, we are. Mike, that was at the last meeting, by the way.
>> What you're talking about is not >> No, what I'm talking about currently is not having the Hamilton's project on the September 8th meeting. And I was trying to get the consensus from the board majority. So, you had a >> direction trying to explain some of the problems with that. So, if we don't have
it on September 8th, when are we having it? >> They'll probably notify us. >> Who? >> The Hamiltons. >> Okay. They've received the response from from um the Florida Commerce Commerce
>> and they received that >> like two weeks ago. >> Okay. Well, I haven't heard anything since. >> I know. And they and as of Thursday, they told me they were waiting for the response, too. And I sent them the same responses and the emails again. But here's the thing.
If we don't do it and we don't get the scope of services and then we don't go out to the 30-day bid to get the job bid and then we don't issue the PO or the purchase order before December,
it's over. There is no more grant funding to reimburse. So January, don't think you get to send in the bills. >> Where does it state that at? Well, actually they claim they discussed it on the phone call with Brian Mass's office,
but I wasn't there, so I don't know. Does >> is it in a contract with Guardian? The >> entire grant the CDBG grant program ends January 1st. Yes. Just like the ARPA funds ended. That's the same exact thing. And it Yes. >> So, we still have time then.
>> How much How much time do we have? It's September. >> You said we only need 30 days. So >> we need 30 days to publish the RFP >> and then we need 15 days for Hamilton's to pick their contractor which is 45 days. So if we start December 30th
>> and we take 30 back that brings us to Thanksgiving. Then we take it back that brings us to November 15th. >> So we have to have this entire matter resolved by November 15th. There's no way that the city can sign
the scope of services until we have access to the property again. But Guardian is no longer welcome on the property because
the city said that Guardian did something wrong. But I don't The Guardian says they didn't do anything wrong. >> Are you talking about from the last meeting? That's when this Guardian thing got brought up? It's been going on for a year. It's been going on for a year. >> Just out of respect for them asking, can
can we defer the 8th and >> they've been tentatively look at like the 22nd and just see if you guys can discuss this. If you can talk to the Hamiltons or Lee can somebody can talk to the Hamiltons >> because I mentioned to them that they needed to reach out to >> I don't want them to feel >> trying to talk to the Hamiltons for a
year. we've been putting it off and trying to negotiate it and then all of a sudden every time I told them something they'd come into this room and say consider us committing fraud and all these >> and that's why I picked it up in my commission comments and now what they
told me I'm just trying to reiterate to the board that's simple that's all I'm doing I'm trying to do my job that's it >> right >> so they don't want us to talk about it >> they want me to continue getting blamed for all this stuff and they want guardian to continue to be blamed for
all this stuff, but they don't want you guys to see the information. I mean, that's what's happening right now. That's >> I'm just reiterating what I was told. >> Hamiltonians don't need to be here. They don't need to come. They don't need to present anything. There's no reason. I
just want to walk through and show you guys the history of it, show you the pictures of it, and say, "Look, is this a reasonable scope of service?" >> But I disagree. I think that they do. I stated in the city of Stewart and they should be able to have their time just like any developer or guardian or
everyone that we're going to give time for them >> and we are absolutely and have they've been to 20 minutes so far. >> They've been given three minutes every time they come. That's all they get is three minutes like anyone with the public comment. >> Okay. So what I would prefer then is can we assign this
>> one of you guys because I don't have any authority the way this is going. I can't manage it. I can't The Hamiltons won't speak to me. They tell me every time I talk to them that one of the commissioners told them that they didn't have to have a contractor. One of the commissioners told them that they were
going to have their meeting. Then when they don't want their meeting, they turn >> Well, we have a procurement process. So, how would that work for them to even pick their specific contractor that >> under the grant program under the procurement of it, they go out to bid, >> correct? the top any bids over a 15%
threshold are removed and then the remaining bids are left just like they were before. They had two contractors to pick from in their original bid >> and they chose my concern that if we go out to a bid process right now
>> that the Hamiltons if they don't get McKe there's going to be no deadline for them to do it and then they're going to say we didn't get it done. City of Stewart, you need to pay for this. And then it's going to be on the city's tab and and everyone's gonna be looking
at me saying, "Mike, why didn't you get this done?" >> Okay. >> I'm just No, excuse me, Mr. Martell. This lengthy discussion with your good questions, Commissioner Reid, indicate why this needs to be on the agenda. >> Well, they don't want the agenda, Mayor Rich.
>> Okay. But the city has been instructed to pay money. The Florida was it Florida Commerce who told you to write a check, Mr. Mortell? >> This this was in November. >> This was a while ago. Mayor Rich. >> Okay. Y >> but representations are being made to
the Hamilton by a single commissioner of which >> actually by the way I didn't take a stance on anything called is completely unaware why. I mean >> well that's why I'm trying to reiterate.
>> Will you just let me finish? It reminds me of when we had to deal with the restaurant next door. Remember that? And they were asking us to provide them considerable uh compensation to improve the building. That took us a couple meetings. We didn't do that. So, let's
get going on this process. Let the whole I mean, things are said in the meetings with a our congressman that even our city manager doesn't know. I'm very I'm very uncomfortable with that. I would just the more the entire
commission is informed of this issue, the better served everyone will be, especially the H. >> I'm just trying to give the residents what they asked for. >> Yeah, that's okay. All right. >> You've already heard Commissioner Reid say that Brian Mass was not on the call. >> There was a representative
for his purpose of the phone call. What was the discussion? That's all I need to know. >> I wasn't on the phone. >> I know I'm asking Commissioner Reid. >> There was discussion on the process and stuff. That was a majority >> services. >> No, no, no, no. It was processes on how things work throughout the CDBG grant.
Um, there was some comments made towards the city that I necessarily didn't want to hear and that got shut down by Florida Commerce. But to say that I'm like talking about and making I would never do that behind closed doors, that's not >> saying you made a deal. That didn't happen.
>> Well, that's how I feel it's being portrayed. But I'm just my comment is I'm looking for a consensus from the board majority that the Hamiltons do not want their agenda item on the September 8th meeting for what it's worth and that's it.
>> There is no Hamilton agenda item just so you know. >> You told me there was going to be one on September 8th and that's why >> when the board instructed me to correct you want to can the original CDBG grant didn't have the board micromanaging it.
the board has taken over the Hamilton case. If it's given back to staff and we can make our own decisions and I'm not required to come in front of the board and not required to get commission action like the rest of the H the CDBG
cases, then I can tell Hamiltons this is the way it is. We're moving forward and these are the rules. This is the grant and if you don't like it, sue the city. But the problem is the board has taken all my authority away from me and given
it to the Hamiltons and I don't have the ability to implement any of the grant rules. I don't have any of the authority to implement the contract. And every time I tell the Hamiltons something, they run to a different commissioner and say, "I want a public hearing or I want to talk about this." And they come to
the meeting and they post stuff on social media and they put signs in their yards. >> I said what I had to say. >> Right. So, so I'm fine with not having any meeting, but don't we don't there is no public hearing scheduled. There is no decision for the board to make. There is
no nothing. The reason we're doing all that is because the board is instructing staff to do it. >> You just made a statement that they have to be here on the ETH. >> If the board's going to continue managing this project and we're going to finish it by January, then yes. If you
don't want to do that, then I'm asking you guys to take it over and have somebody be assigned from the board be the one that's going to manage the project. Or in the alternative, cancel the public hearing altogether, have the board not have the public hearing. None of the others got a public hearing, and
let the city staff run the grant the way it was originally intended to be run through the grant rules through Florida Commerce. But what's happening with me is every time I try to say the grant rules, they run to you guys and I get
beat up at the next meeting. And then when I'm finally pushing back to them saying, "Fine, you know what? I was trying to wait to get this scope of service assigned, but I don't care. We're going to put this out there. We're going to show everybody what happened." All of a sudden, they don't like that idea. And so now what they're telling
you is don't do it because I know why. so that when we miss the deadline, you guys can then turn around and say, "Mike, why did you let us miss the deadline?" And so I'm trapped in this thing. I don't want to be here. >> Sean, do you feel comfortable talking with the Hamiltons and sort of
>> I told them to reach out to the city manager and panel and let them know, but they said they were waiting on something from Florida Commerce. Mike's saying that they got it two weeks ago. >> It's my understanding that there there was partial information that came from Florida Commerce. They're waiting for the other part. >> Correct. So, they have not received everything from Florida Congress.
>> What is it they want? >> I don't know. >> I don't know. They have another They had a list of questions and and information, >> but to Mike's point, we don't want to get too far behind here to where we can't get it done. >> Correct. I understand that. But I feel as if we still have time. >> When would you need to have this this
buttoned up, Mike? >> Am I handling the matter? >> So, why don't we certain What's a date certain that we need, Mike? And I'll make >> September 8th would work for me. What what's our absolute last deadline? >> Next. >> So, what is it that you guys want the
hearing to be about? >> They want an opportunity from what I understand to present their side of what has happened to who? >> And they don't get to do that in the three minutes they have. >> So, they can have that whenever they want. I don't care about that at all. But if you guys are authorizing me,
>> what if we did it October 13th? >> Continue with Guardian and I don't care about the public hearing. You guys can give that to them anytime they want, but let me handle the CDBG grant and let me write them a letter and tell them if you miss these deadlines, you're done and I'm moving on without you and that's
that. And treat them the same way as the other grant people, that's wonderful. But if there's some kind of public hearing that gets to take place where it's the whipping boy where they want to slam Mike Mortell and and Panel Gandhi, I'd like to get it over with
>> and be done with it. Would October 13th give you enough time >> to do what? >> I don't know. To have it as an agenda item and then hopefully >> I don't have an agenda item from Florida. >> I don't have anything for you to vote on. >> I'm not sure exactly what they're waiting for either, but apparently they're waiting for something from Florida Commerce. They asked me during my commission.
>> Why don't we get them in here and hear what they're waiting for? >> Well, >> and at least start the process of understanding what they feel they need. >> That seems like the perfect reason. >> Mayor Rich, if the consensus is not made right now, it's coming on the September 8th meeting regardless. take it off September 8th and and never put it on
another meeting until you hear from them till they come in and ask for it. >> There you go. >> What what what Commissioner Reed is asking for is what would be the deadline date with October 13. Is that the next date after 28th? >> So recognize this if they come in on October 13th. >> Okay.
>> And they whatever they say, whatever you hear, I promise you they are going to be really upset after that hearing. and it's going to take some there's going to be some healing necessary.
So, when they don't respond and we don't get anything done and we go past that January date, the question is going to be why did we go past the January date? My preference would be no hearing at all. I don't want there to ever be a hearing. I was
originally asked to do a presentation to the board as to what happened in Hamilton's. I told you all that I was going to present it when the matter was over because I didn't want to say anything during that public meeting that would offend Hamilton's that would slow
down the process. But now it's been manipulated into a situation where every time I try to move something along in the grant, the Hamilton's run back to the board and say I'm committing fraud or I'm breaching the tax dollars or I'm
doing this or doing that. >> Okay. questions they're asking for Florida right now. >> Either we let Mike handle it fully or we schedule this instead of the 8th, let's make it the 22nd and unless we hear back from you that >> that's not okay.
>> But out of respect, we won't do the 8th. Let's do it on the 22nd. >> Okay. 22. >> And then you can >> you can report back. >> What if they say they're not ready on the 22nd? Why are we Why don't we just let >> just That's fine with me. If they're not ready by the 22nd, they're never going
to be and we'll just deal with it. >> Mayor, and I've had >> Commissioner Gobi. >> Okay. So, I I just want to there's some misstatements that are made. Mike, you made a statement before saying that we asked you to remove a guardian. We asked how could we remove guardian and we were
told it's my understanding that that wasn't possible. We could not. They were um in we could not unless someone found cause for them to be. That is what you said. No, what I said was we couldn't approve Project Lyft and not pay
Guardian. No. And we couldn't remove Guardian and not pay them for the work they'd already done. You can remove Guardian right now without cause for 30 days notice. >> Yeah, but you didn't say that. >> That's not what you said. That's not what you said at the last meeting. At the last meeting, you said the only way they could be removed is if they had
done something wrong or or screwed up a project or whatever. And other than the Hamiltons, according to you, that hasn't happened. I don't think No, no, no, no, no. Let's be clear. Not other than the Hamiltons. I think in the Hamilton's, Guardian has been our saving grace. Guardians been the ones that helped the
city. Guardians are the ones that keep pointing out the stuff at Hamilton's. Patriot was the one that Hamilton's had a problem with. >> Not a good job, >> but not Guardian. It's not the Guardian. >> Understanding that part of the CBG grant is if work is not done or not properly done, they should not be paid. That is
part of the CBG grant process because I did I went to look it up. >> So, right. So, now we're having this hearing that I'm talking about and I'm being accused of failing to follow the CBDG grant. But the reality is I gave the Hamiltons the letter from Florida
Commerce that told me to use those funds. Gets better because even after they told us to use those funds, we said, "Nope, that's not enough. We need Hamilton's signature." and we couldn't get Hamilton's signature. So then we got a second letter from Florida Commerce
that said pay this money without their signature to get this lean removed and they instructed us to do so based upon their communication that meeting >> and so we did it. >> Okay. The other thing is that you had mentioned that the CBG grant for there's
two. There was a MIT and another that guard guardian um had put in for an RFP for these CBG grants and they were on record. But I went to the procurement site on the city and those CBG grants
with them with Guardian had expired in April of 2025. I >> I have the printouts if you'd like. >> Okay. So, I'm not sure what you're saying. I don't know. >> But according to this, they're not even the holders of these CBG grants any
longer because this what's on the procurement site says that they have expired in April of 2025. >> I'm not sure what's on the procurement site, but their bids expired in April of 25. >> Well, I >> no, the contract I sent email on it as well.
>> Contract with Guardian and there's two of them. So, so we're still working with Guardian every day. Hamilton's were supposed to be done in 24. >> They won't let us be done. >> Hamilton's, >> this wasn't even in relation to Hamilton's. It was in my relation to the
question, which was we were told, Sean and I both wanted to see what could be done to have the Guardians off of the CBG grant. >> Right. >> You did tell us that was impossible. It could not happen because they hold these RFPs. these two >> I that what we said was we'd have to go
back out to a new RFP to hire a new company to like if they walked off the job today if Guardian quit who would finish the reporting and do all the the work who would finish the reports >> but again wouldn't they or shouldn't they have valid CBG contracts on our
site? >> We do have valid contracts with them. We're continuing to work them. No one has terminated the contracts. Just like when you sign a lease with a landlord and the lease is for a year and you continue to live there after the lease runs out. You can terminate the
contract. You guys could terminate it, but we need to hire someone else to do their job. And we don't have time to go out to RFP and hire that someone else and then get them on the job and then them get them in inspect and then get
the scope of services and then go out to RFP on that scope of services and then pick the person that does it and then them to come back and do it and then to go and get the job done by Thanksgiving. It just won't happen. >> Mayor Rich, may I?
>> Sure. Commission. >> Okay. So, we had a meeting on um August 11th, city commission meeting. I was told by city manager that when you look at it, there's a termination section 6 6.2. I was told there was only
termination for cause. That's absolutely not true. You can also terminate for convenience in section 6.1. Um, also to clarify the term of the contract in section 1.1, the term of this agreement shall commence on the date of execution by the city and
continue through approval of the final reports by the city. This agreement shall have an option for extension of this agreement as necessary to complete the services or to provide additional services not to exceed 5 years. The agreement was executed on the 27th of
April of 2020. So, you absolutely could extend it. You could also terminate it. And this was an email that I sent to city manager Mike Mortell and city attorney on August 12th at 12:38 p.m. the following day because
I knew you could terminate for convenience and I knew that it wasn't valid. >> And my response to that email was that at the meeting you had discussed that they had done shoddy workmanship. also for the evidence. >> They also want to see the document.
Correct. >> Okay. Could you >> I'm finished. But >> those those are the facts and I also stated that's what the Hamiltons asked for and I was just trying to give them what they want. This spiral >> Let him finish, Mr. Mortell.
>> This spiraled out of control, but I was also told there was only termination for clause and that absolutely was not true on August 11th meeting. >> Okay. and I'm here with the facts. >> We've the the facts at the August 11th meeting was that no one knew that you
had appeared on the telephone call with Brian Mass's office until you told us on August 11th. That was a surprise to me. It wasn't on the agenda. It was out of left field. No one knew what happened. When I started asking you what happened
at the meeting, I still don't know to this date. I don't know what was discussed. I don't know what what the purpose was. All I know is that Florida Commerce told me that the purpose of it was to get them to sign the scope of services that they had originally
submitted and agreed to. When you and I spoke about it afterwards, you told me that they also said they wanted a steeple. They wanted electrical work done on their house. They wanted air conditioning done on their house. >> Mike, you knew about the electrical work though when >> But you told me that that happened
during the conversation with Florida Commerce. No, that was that's >> that didn't happen on that meeting. >> Okay. All right. Excuse me. >> I think it's clear and Mr. Vice Mayor, correct me if it's wrong that there are at least three of you who would wish to
continue this to the 22nd. >> Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> That's we're going with and I can just ask what is being scheduled for the 22nd. >> Whatever was going to be on the >> So this would be the presentation by Guardian. What was the presentation?
>> Will the Hamiltons have an opportunity? >> They certainly will. They will not be >> Commissioner Reid got up on the 11th and said the Hamiltons have a presentation they want to do on September 8th. >> Now, the Hamiltons are saying they don't
want to do a presentation. Do they want to do one on the 22nd? >> I I don't know. They just said they were waiting on a response from Florida Commerce. I would just like to make sure that they have the opportunity to if they would. >> Yeah. So, >> Mr. Mayor. >> Okay. Commissioner Clark, >> so what if um Guardian does their
presentation on the ETH and the Hamilton can do any rebuttal or anything on the meeting after that? That way we know the information. We know what Guardian is presenting. >> I think we should do it on the 22nd.
>> I think it efficiently it would make more sense to have one hearing. >> Okay. So two >> just do one. I mean no matter what it's >> the Hamilton. >> It doesn't matter who's doing it >> as long as they're not limited to three minutes. The >> I mean it's going to be a presentation,
>> right? And then so for clarity, >> can we find out if they excuse me? >> Is the commission terminating the contract because it expired in April? Is that what I'm hearing? >> I don't There's no motion for that. >> There was no motion. >> Well, I know, but it's not in existence. Do you want me to another agenda item to
extend it? >> It wasn't in effect when Project Lyft was here either. So it's >> So do you want me to schedule another? >> That's not what I said. The point we're trying to make is that we asked for information and we got back information that really wasn't it was halftruth.
>> Actually, it was tied to the discussion we were having at the time. The discussion was saying that the Guardian had done all this shoddy work and that they weren't to receive any tax dollars. And I said, "You can't do that and you
can't do it unless you can show cause. Now, you can terminate the contract at will, but you can't take the tax dollars away. You still got to pay them and fulfill the terms of the contract that they fulfilled." They were you're
comingling both issues, right? Last time the meeting was don't give them any money from project and don't give them any other tax dollars from the these grant things and I was saying you can't do that unless you show cause >> that is got to be done.
>> There were several questions. I think Commissioner Reid if I remember was saying that these are tax dollars, >> right? >> And explain that they they could not be removed. Meanwhile, they really don't even have a contract. Let's not let's not we're not going to get into the we >> let's not start talking about project
lift. I would remind the commissioners that if they ask for information from either we have now three direct employees Mr. Martell Mr. Bagot and Miss Holmes. If you ask them for information, whether it's in a public meeting or in private, and they give you information
you feel is incorrect or incomplete or a falsehood, you don't have to wait for the meeting to say, "I'm confused. You said this this, you know, could you please explain it in greater detail to me?" Um,
I appreciate that you've drilled down, but just to we're on the very first commissioner's comments still and uh >> I'm finished. >> So, he has made the request that the item that was on for the ETH is now
on for the 22nd. Is that sufficient? We're moving on. And does that conclude your remarks, Commissioner Reed? >> It does. And I want to state I'm not up here to argue. I'm here to clarify things for the record on what was said at last meeting and what actually exists in a contract and what was actually said
between the Hamiltons and myself. And as far as the phone call, I'm not here to argue with our city manager, nor am I here to argue with you, Mayor Rich. I just wanted to present some things that I thought needed clarified. And I respect where you're coming from, Mike, on it. I just I feel like I'm doing my
job by stating that this is what they asked for and I feel like I wouldn't be fulfilling my obligation if I did not at least attempt. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Mayor Rich. >> The Hamiltons have gotten what they wanted. >> Well, are they question? >> Oh, no. You can clarify if you welcome.
I want to clarify if um that would require them to provide information to the city manager in time to have it in the agenda packet for the 22nd so that that time frame is provided to them that
anything that they want to have in their presentation that they'd give it to us ahead of time in the time frame and have that available and then whatever guardian is going to present or whatever Mr. Mortal is going to present that will also be on the agenda item. I want to
make sure that we don't have any confusion and that there's complete cooperation by everyone. >> I've already told the Hamiltons that they're not required by law or otherwise to present anything in advance and that they don't absolutely have to give it to us. I just wanted to give them the
opportunity if they wanted it to be attached to the agenda to present it in advance. And it's got to be on the like for the 8th it would need to be tomorrow. >> Okay. >> But for the 22nd it will be the 9th
>> on the 9th. Okay. The day after the meeting on >> they're not obligated to not compel them but right if he can request >> let them know. >> Thank you. >> Commissioner Reed do you have any additional >> I'm finished. >> Commissioner Gobi. >> Hello. It's my turn. Number one, I want
to welcome I also want to welcome attorney Holmes. Thank you so much for being here. But I have to say while we're in this budget phase, some individuals continue to mention the cost of hiring an environmental attorney for the city of Stewart. I would like to
remind everyone that if we do not aggressively attend to the repair of the St. Lucy River, anything else we do in the city will mean nothing. The river provides life to the city, boating both personal and boating industry, fishing both personal and fishing industry, and
tourism. So, the implication that this is not money well spent is misleading. I'd also like to request now that the attorney Holmes is on board, uh, I would like to set up meetings with all the commissioners and the attorney so that we can discuss strategies, etc. going
forward. I'll let um Commissioner Bagot discuss it with you, but the only place or not Commissioner Attorney Bagot to discuss it with you, but the only place you can have private meetings with all the attorneys going forward would be if you're in litigation. So, you have to file the lawsuit first otherwise it has
to be on the DAS >> one-on-one. What about one-on-one? >> Oneonone would be so much more effective if we were all there. So the question is this is talking to basically an employee which doesn't really come under the
>> private is a public >> it's a public if you if there's more than one commissioner present it has to be a public meeting. >> Would you like to have a workshop or something? >> But it's still a public meeting. All right. Then then maybe a workshop if a >> you can make a presentation and we can question much more effective if we're
all there to discuss it rather than doing it one by one. But we haven't had the opportunity to even talk to each other as to some of the things we'd like to be, you know, addressed in the strategy. >> She could make a presentation and we could all speak with her. >> Add to it. Yeah, >> we could do that. >> That's the simplest. And
>> we got room on September 8th. >> A little less formal. >> You have room on September 8th. Oh gee, I wonder why. But we don't know if that's agreeable to attorney Holmes. She's prepared to do that. >> Well, we're we're able to instruct her. >> She's instructed on how to put a
presentation together. I have to be honest. Okay. So the next thing is on the August 11th commission meeting, Robin Cartwright, a resident of Stewart, stated during her public comment that she had reached out to the city manager, Mike Mortell, for
the opportunity to create a committee for residents to navigate issues with the commissioners. I agree with Commissioner Reid regarding transparency within the city government, and this type of interaction between residents and commissioners might be the answer to gaining the public's trust. Once again,
I would like to see this on an agenda so that the commissioners could discuss and vote on such a committee. Once this item has been added to the agenda, it might be helpful to ask Miss Cartwright if she would like to share her vision for this type of committee. And there might still be room on September 8th if Miss
Cartwright is available. >> Um, in response to Commissioner Gobi, the original meeting I had with Robin Cartwright was when I was the city attorney and David Das was the city manager. I met with Robin and Virginia Sherlock for about two hours and we actually went over a very detailed list
of things related to the uh code of conduct and other methods and potentially creating a a committee that would hear um challenges to um actions by city commissioners. >> Um for one reason or another uh it
didn't end up getting put on a an agenda. Um then when I became um either acting city manager or city manager, Miss Cartwright brought it up again and I actually put it on an agenda, presented it to this board and you guys voted and told me not to go forward.
>> I think if I remember correctly that was more about rewriting an ethical >> it was the code of conduct and but it was all directly related to the exact same thing. That's what it was. I'm happy to put it on again. I'm just telling you that we did it and if you guys want to do it again, I'm happy to. September 8th. Mayor Rich, may I?
>> Yes. >> I remember I remember you doing it, Mike. I think a big part of it was at the time was something to do with punishment towards city commissioners. And >> I think you should ask Robin because that's what it was. >> Was that what it was pertaining?
>> It was a committee that would hear complaints about commissioners and be able to address those complaints. >> That Well, that may have been, but that isn't what she mentioned on August 11th. >> Yeah. What is it? I'm fine. No, >> I mean we could put on September 8th. I don't have any problem hearing it. I was just told by the board not to.
>> I I thought that's what it was pertaining to. >> Well, if you the majority would like an item put back on the agenda to discuss it, >> you can clarify for the record. >> Well, no, we're not going to start having people come up from the audience
during commissioner comments. >> So, um, >> are you want want to make a comment now? >> No, no, she will make public comment when it's she has time to make public. >> Hear her. So, does that conclude your remarks, Commissioner? >> Yes, it does. >> Commissioner clerk.
>> Oh, brother. >> Um, I have a couple of things. I don't know. We haven't met since um the passing of um Pastor Jerry Gore, who has been very active in our community. And
um his funeral was this past Saturday. and uh uh he's just going to be a loss to our community and I just wanted to just say that from the dis how important participating in the community is and um
I just uh wish his family and and his friends and his entire church has been a great um impact on the community and I'm sure that they will um feel the loss and will feel the loss of his participation especially at some of these meetings.
So, um, that's that's that. And I heard about Pastor Gore's passing on my way to the League of Cities meeting, which was around the 15th, 16th, and 17th or so of um 14th, 15th, 16th of uh of August. And
the to me, the League of Cities meeting, I haven't been in probably like six or seven years to one of those annual things. At least that's what it felt to me. I might have gone to something, but it was well attended. Of course, there's
all these concerns with regard to um SB 180 um home rule and all the other things that are of concern and the things that the league has been pushing with um uh other elected officials at
the especially at the legis state legislative level uh and even congressional level when it comes to having funding to do things uh in our city from the from the federal ederal government level and I went to several
workshops. But I think that people were very cautious. They they want to hear what's going on with the legislature and what's going to happen, especially when it comes to how um SB 180 is going to be
playing out and the potential for uh objections to to that. Um so and which is called the the joint lawsuit which is also on this agenda today. But um I'd say that people
want to serve their cities and their communities when they get on these boards and councils and they are concerned. But I I just know that um people also want to be able to um
participate in a lawful manner with regard to um even if you don't agree with things at national or or state level. And so that was um that was the kind of atmosphere that I felt. But I
know that we have some very good people here on the Treasure Coast who have been participating with the League of Cities and with the Treasure Coast um league and I must say that we should be thankful for the leadership that they
have and that they've been pushing at the um state level. And I I just want to say that all of us together collectively have been really um working hard uh in the state. It's just
amazing to see the the discussions that people had and and to to know that there is just people were on the edge about certain things and um at the same time they were very fervent and want to make sure that their communities are well
represented. So um I appreciate the opportunity to go to the League of Cities. I have information for personnel department, for utility department, for city manager. I took a lot of information and paperwork and I still
have to get that out to them. But um I just think it was it was good for to get an opportunity to participate in that meeting. And the third thing I have for today is um someone brought up um project lift and we know that that's
going to be coming in soon and they're going to be removing the current building that's there in what we call the old Willigary Plaza and I know for years um the NAACP has been having a
small um uh they've had permission to use the building there and I I think that they'd still like to continue to have a relationship with the the city. And I understand that the city may have
um a a mobile building that could be used if we can work together with a contract. And I think that we need to if it's okay, I'd ask if we could look into that and see if that bill if the city
can lease um something to be put on um a property which is actually close. It's a it would be a on private property, but it's actually close to the current location where they've been having um their um meetings on the
on the what is called now the project lift program. the 7 it's 720 Martin Luther King Boulevard um property. So um I'd like to see if we can if it's okay with this commission to ask the city
manager to possibly look into the possibility of using uh uh what do you call it? I wouldn't say a trailer. What's it called? Is it a mobile a mobile building? That's I think it's an old >> it's a building that used to be a part of a old fire station that they're not
using now. It's uh and they they could use that building. >> Yeah, it's behind the sheriff. >> If they if it could be used I'd like to ask if we can I don't know if we need to vote on investigating the possibility of doing some kind of a lease with that so that they could be able to use it and
meet meet but they'd have to put it on their land. Um I don't know if we could ask Mr. Mortell to investigate that. If I need to have a vote on that, I'd like to ask people to if they're interested in seeing if Mr. Mortell could find out
what it takes to do something like that. >> Liability. >> Yeah. Liability. >> I'm happy I'm happy to look into it to see as long as the commission is open to it. We It would obviously secure liability. It would obviously be a lease that would have to be insured and bonded
and they would need to be responsible for providing the land. But I can look into it. >> And they'd pay they'd take care of the liabilities if if you so you look into it. Is that okay with the for Mr. Mortal to look into it? >> This this was for uh the NAACP to have a
>> to use a a mobile building that the city has and it would be >> it meet all fire code and everything. >> Yeah. It'd have to Yeah. They would look into all of that. >> Get of course the liability >> fire building. >> Yeah. Well, >> used to be a fire station. What would that be? Otherwise,
>> well, it's currently we could we would the city has still owns it, >> but we could would normally if we didn't have another use for it, we would normally put it on >> um >> and and and sell it or dispose of it as a surplus asset.
>> Government surplus. >> Um we haven't done that yet. That's just a short-term lease, >> but it's it would be really the discretion of the board if you wanted to do something else with it. >> I'm pretty sure the lease would be negligible >> for what time frame?
>> Well, >> well, hopefully if they can maybe get incorporated back into probably using a room at the new project cliff. I'm not sure. I'm not sure how that will work out. >> Room in that project. >> I don't know. >> I thought Zakio said he'd let him use portion.
>> Yeah, a little room. I remember throughout the discussion he said that they would be able to >> maybe bring back just an item where there's more information and we can >> that's what she's asking. >> That's what I'm asking. >> Not a lease yet, but just more information. >> No, no, right. More information. >> Do we have to have a roll call on that or just Okay,
>> we all agree on that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Does that Does that Okay. No. Okay. I've had three, but I'll do four. Um, I'm definitely going to get involved with Miss Ruth Holmes and I appreciate her
being here and I hope that we can uh work really hard and get some things going because I don't want us to become a ghost town because we have more and more environmental problems and problems with our water. And I know that you won't be able to solve everything, but
we're looking forward to you working with the county and working with the organizations in our community to make sure that we're on top of things. All right. >> Does that conclude your remark? >> Yes. Thank you, >> Mr. Vice Mayor. >> I have none.
>> Oh, I have to stay here. >> All right. I'm going to be the nice commissioner this evening or tell a nice story. So, uh, thank you, Commissioner Clark, for accompanying me to the Florida League of Cities annual meeting. And it is an intense event,
non-stop breakfast through dinner, and >> meetings all day. >> There's many breakout sessions, and fortunately, we were able to cover most of them between us. Um, I brought back what I think is a terrific idea for the school zone we've been working on, and
Mr. Martell is going to bring that to us. Um, so this is the job as mayor does have considerable challenges, but it also has some terrific benefits. And one of them is I get to meet people on a fairly
serious level that I otherwise, let's be honest, I never would encounter them. And one of them was Pastor Gore. And he was a very interesting guy. He felt very strongly about community, his
community. He took to the time to share those concerns with me. And I was I really enjoyed and valued the fact that I got to know him. And I had the honor of
reading a proclamation from the city at is was that the first Methodist? Is that what that was? >> United Methodist. >> United Methodist. And that place was completely full.
>> I wish I had no idea the influence and impact this. I mean, he's sort of dimminionative in stature, but boy, he's big in heart and spirit. And it was such a privilege
to be able to stand in front of that group of people who cared so much about him. and uh share the city's acknowledgement and respect for his contribution. And I just wanted to say that
Mr. Mortell, are you talked out or do you have additional? >> I have nothing for >> Can I get a motion for the approval of the agenda, please? >> Approval of the agenda is published. No items to be moved up or down. >> Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner
Clark. We have a second by the vice mayor. Is there any public comment on this? Seeing none, all in favor? >> I. >> Okay, Madame Clerk. Comments. >> I do have one. It's Robin Cartwright.
>> I came tonight to talk about the Senate bill, but I'm really beyond annoyed. Mr. Martell, you are no victim. Nobody is blaming you for anything. The truth of the Hamilton's case is that was shoddy work done. Period. Full stop. End of story. If Guardian or the city of
Stewart paid any bills when they saw the shoddy work that was done, that is on the Guardians and the city of Stewart. There is no other way to say it. You are responsible. Guardians is responsible for processing it. There are documented issues with all of it. Regardless of how you feel about the Hamiltons, Mr.
Martell, you are no victim in this situation. But I want to be very clear about the comment that Commissioner Gobi gave me credit for when uh Commissioner when uh Miss Sherlock and I met with Mr. Martell. That was in October of 2022 and it was to discuss the actions of a
commissioner, Commissioner Bruner, who represented the city without authority on a YouTube channel with the Chamber of Commerce. And I wrote to Mr. Mortell expressing my concern about how it was a policy violation of the city's code of conduct. And Mr. Mortell wrote me a very
lengthy email on October 21st, 2022 if you would like to do a public records request for it or I can forward it to you. And Miss Sherlock actually responded to Mr. Mortell, which is why we had that meeting to have the discussion that we did. And I'm just going to read you a couple highlights because I keep everything just for this
reason. This is from Miss Sherlock. I'm very disturbed by your responses to Robin Cartright's email asserting alleged violations of the city's code of conduct for Commissioner Bruner. You advise Robin that the process for citizens to request an investigation of an alleged violation of the code of conduct is to file a complaint with the
Florida Commission on Ethics. I'm sure you know, however, that the Commission on Ethics does not investigate complaints based on alleged violation of local guidelines or conduct like the City of Sort's code of conduct for commissioners. She then goes on to say, "You advise Robin that quote, "If the city manager determines there is a
violation of the code of conduct, then he will address that with Commissioner Bruner and whoever else he deems appropriate, but it would amount to a human resources policy issue." Your responses to Robin's complaint, which have been adopted by the city manager, are clearly an effort to dismiss the allegations without independent or
unbiased review to determine the validity of the allegations. This is not authorized by the code of conduct or the city code and does not reflect an interest in upholding the public's interest in responding to the resident's concerns on integrity. This is why we asked for the commission so that there would be an opportunity for people like
me who have a grievance with people like Mr. Mortell or any of the commissioners to basically field and vet these concerns so that they could be reviewed. An appropriate nonpartisan nonparty affiliated person could give guidance on what this looks like. It could be go to
the commission on ethics. It could be direct it to human resources. Or it could be these are other resources. You're valid. Your complaint is not necessarily valid. But I hear you and it definitely needs to be addressed. The Hamiltons need to be heard. People like me need to be heard. And Mr. Mortell, if
you disparage me one more time, I'm seriously going to file a complaint with the Commission on Ethics. I have no further public. >> No further. Okay. Can I get a motion for the approval of the consent calendar? >> Move approval of the consent calendar, which is actually item number three.
>> Second. >> And we have a motion by Commissioner Clark and a second by the vice mayor. Is there any public comment on this issue? Seeing none, all in favor? >> I >> I Okay. Mr. Bagot, could you read item four, please, for our consideration?
>> Sure. Resolution number 82-2025, a resolution of the city commission of the city of Steuart, Florida, authorizing participation in a lawsuit seeking, among other things, to declare that Senate Bill 180 180's imposition of a blanket statewide
prohibition on the exercise of home rule authority over land use and zoning regulations is unconstitutional and should be enjoined in retaining Weiss, Serotto, Hfman, Cole, plus Berman PL. i.e. a law firm to prosecute the lawsuit
and providing for an effective date. I know we discussed >> we do some comments on this. >> Sure. >> Um we have already previously discussed this issue. Um you guys asked us to
bring back a resolution u authorizing the city to join the lawsuit. Um, I think it's important to note that the attorney client relationship in this lawsuit's going to be different than what you might be used to with our other outside counsel as we would have
Florida Sunshine um, u shade meetings, uh, where we could talk to the attorneys on a regular basis about status of the case, settlement of the case. Um, it's my opinion that you're not going to have that relationship in this case. So, you're you're part of a it's not a class action, but you're going to be a group
with a large group of plaintists. And I just wanted to point that out that that it's going to be a little bit different. Um, you're not going to have a lot of say so or decisions in the case. You're going along for the ride, I guess, is a good way of putting it. And the law firm
will probably be making majority of the decisions. They can't have, let's say, 30 cities join up. you can't have 30 shade meetings to try and make a decision in the case. So, you're kind of giving up some of the power by joining the case. But there is strength in
numbers. Obviously, if you have a large number of cities, you're going to um make a more of an impact against the state. Um in this in the resolution, we are waving potential conflicts because an attorney is representing multiple parties in the same action. It could it a conflict
could arise with the the attorney like if the attorney is making a decision about the case like I mentioned the attorney can't have every single city make a dec make the decision. So uh there are some potential conflicts that we're going to be waving. Um
one good thing about it is if we went on our own with our own law firm we'd be in a much higher bill with this opportunity. We are capped at maximum of $20,000. $10,000 is for the initial case. Uh and that's that's through the regular uh circuit court. You know, we
would this case is probably going to be expedited. It's probably they're going to file it. I did speak to them. They're going to file it up in Tallahassee and Lyon County. That's where they're going to file the case on behalf of all the cities that join. Probably within six months, you're going to have a summary judgement motion at
the trial court level. And then you get a final judgment. that's going to be 10 grand. If it gets appealed to the First District Court of Appeal, it's another five grand. And if it goes to the Florida Supreme Court, it's another five grand thereafter. So, you are capped at a maximum of $20,000 exposure on the
attorney's fees. um wanted to address um you know we we were getting solicitations from um the law firm and I believe u commissioner Dory Howington uh a commissioner from Deltona
um and I just wanted to address a couple of things I I I saw some at least one communication where she said if you join if you don't join the case you may be left out and I I don't necessarily agree With that assertion,
there's going to be we're going to be seeking injunctive relief and declaratory relief. And I want to separate both uh in the case just to explain to you. So they are going to file a case a law a lawsuit on behalf of any and all cities and
counties that join. And they're also going to file an emergency motion for an injunction. An injunction is to stop someone from doing something. They're going to seek an injunction asking the state of Florida to stop enforcing Senate Bill 180 against us and in the other cities
during the pendency of the lawsuit. So, it's a temporary injunction impending the outcome of the the long-term and the end of this case. U they have to prove to get a temporary injunction during the pendency of case a highly likelihood of success. So, they
may or may not prevail on that. um and and so if you weren't in the case, there's a potential some case law out there that you might not be um included in that injunction. However, the case itself is seeking declaratory relief and the declaratory relief is that this law
is unconstitutional. If the lawsuit prevails and it is declared unconstitutional, then it applies to all cities. So, she kind of made in in one of her communications that if you don't join, you won't get the relief. But I I think
there's kind of half it's kind of half correct and half incorrect. And I wanted to make that distinction because I I feel like you might have had some questions regarding that statement. Um and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to discuss or answer any further
questions about the case. Um but I think I've described everything that I wanted to that I had in there. >> Any questions of Mr. Bagot from the commission? No. >> Thank you, Lee. If not, do we have a motion? >> I move approval.
Resolution 82, 2025. >> I'll second. >> We have a motion by the vice mayor and a second by Commissioner Joby. Is there any public comment on this item? >> I don't have any currently. >> None.
Okay. Are there any questions or comments amongst the commissioners? Okay. >> None. >> I do. >> Oh, okay. Mr. Vice, you're the maker of the motion. >> I would just like to say um I'm all for this.
Um you know, as one of these whereas clauses says SP 180 is unconstitutional and invalid. And my my hope is that more municipalities jump on. I know we're going to be the first wave and the tip
of the spear here. I hope more municipalities jump in because I believe this is what I can't speak for Florida residents overall, but in Martin County, we want to protect the Martin County difference. You know, this is what I believe voters want in the
city of Stewart. And my hope is that Martin County will join in and follow suit with what we're doing as well here. And um because as of yet, they've been pretty quiet. This is the right thing to do. This is us uh fighting back and
truly I mean it when I say this is the Alamo. If SB80 is not struck down, you know, can cities even really can counties even um protect that slow growth difference anymore? Probably not.
So this is this is it for me. This is the Alamo and I'm just so thankful that that this is happening and we have the opportunity to join it. Commission Clark. >> Oh, I did.
>> I know that I've heard about communities wanting to join and I just wanted to ask Mr. Bagot with regard to the status as to the governor and some of these communities that are waiting especially counties. I
think I think it was Manatee County. I was reading about them. Wayne, we've already taken that step and of course we're taking a f we we would take a further step today, but I was just wondering what is um what is the status
uh with regard to some of these communities that um are supposedly going to be in this first wave? Nobody has done anything yet, per se. >> Who has joined? Is that what you're asking? >> Yeah. Yeah, I'm asking. I I I asked that
question of I've spoken to two two different lawyers at the Weiss Serotto Law Firm and I've asked that question who all joined and have do you have the 10 um >> the 10? Yeah, >> they need Okay, so I need to back up because the the proposal for the cap of 10,000, 5,000, and 5,000 is as long as
they have a minimum of 10 municipalities or counties that join. They felt pretty confident they're going to get that number. I asked who's joined, but they wouldn't identify who um to me on the phone. Um and um >> did they say how many?
>> No, they they >> I think we would be number seven from my understanding. >> They wouldn't identify the number or um or who has joined or not joined to me on the phone. They they said that they will be in touch with us on it, but that's
they they did not want to answer my question on it. I' I'd like to take this opportunity, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to add something something else came to mind. We have three 14-day notice letters from um residents/ business owners in the in the
city that are threatening to sue us under Senate Bill 180. And I last time I think I indicated there were two. I got a third one today. Um, and so I just wanted to, this is a good opportunity to tell you that if we get sued, um, we're going to be
defending the case based on it being unconstitutional. So I we're going to have ongoing conversations with the Weissa law firm because they're going to be suing as a plaintiff seeking that it's unconstitutional. We're going to have another case or multiple cases saying on a defense side that it's
unconstitutional. So, um, we're we're going to have to seek action in when we're defending the case whether or not we can seek a stay of the defense of the case because there's this other lawsuit going. And I think that would probably be up to the particular judge that's assigned the case whether or not he or
she would like to stay the case because there's another potential litigation against the state of Florida claiming unconstitutional. >> Consolidated. >> I I don't know. That's that's otherwise you would have two different you could have two different outcomes, you know, or and if we get sued multiple times, we
have multiple I I can definitely see uh in Martin County if we had three lawsuits, they would combine the lawsuits into one. So, it's just judicial economy, it's better than having three separate lawsuits. >> I don't know how it would be handled if they're suing in Tallahassee and we have a case here that we're defending. Uh and
and I don't I don't this would be handled by outside counsel um in on the defense side and on the plaint of side. So we would be retaining outside counsel to defend the city uh for any lawsuit or lawsuits. And I don't want to
speak ahead of time right now and they might have a different you know um strategy or or recommendation on moving forward on that. So you may continue to ask questions. >> And what is the hard and fast uh relationship with this law firm that
it will be limited to the 10,000 then the five and five or will we be suddenly asked for more money and more money more money? >> Well, I mean there is a condition that they need 10 minimum. So they might come back if they're nine. I don't I don't know if they're going to live up to the
to the limit. they could come back and change the amount, but if they get 10, I think that's that's the number that, you know, they drafted the the or the resolution that you have attached to it. So, >> yeah. >> Um, I I can't see them bowing out on that. >> I But I think they're locked in. If they
have 10, a minimum of 10 or, you know, if they have 20, same thing. They're locked in. I think PR-wise it would be bad for them. >> Circuit court or district court? >> Uh, they I did ask today, are we going in federal court or state court? and um they said state court in Lyon County and
Tallahassee. >> I know that you've probably read No, we haven't gotten to reading the title yet, but for members of the public who don't know what's in this um I was thinking of something that I'd ask
you. >> No, no, no, >> I did. >> I was looking at something. >> No, smile. Yeah, I think the main thing is that you know the part about the unconstitutionality that's one of the
biggest whereas clause that comes up. So um uh >> I don't have any other questions on this. >> Any other comments or questions? I just have a brief comment.
We've enacted ordinances that are clearly in violation of our comprehensive plan. We're in direct violation of state law by failing to resend and we have no business getting involved with this lawsuit at this time. Roll call, please. Madame
clerk, >> Commissioner Clark, >> you're in public. >> Oh, >> public comment. >> All right. She's No, there there was no public comment. She had none. >> I don't have any. >> I have any public comment? No. >> Yeah, we're voting. >> No.
>> Oh, we're still allowed public comment on the >> If there's public comment, you've got to provide two. >> Okay. >> Come on. >> Did you take my vote already? Are you going to let me get through it again? >> I stop voting. I don't like
>> Walter Lloyd 150 Cabana Point Circle. It's amazing to me that the mayor wouldn't invite the public to comment and I'm just so refreshed by the the >> All right.
>> You asked for public comment >> and then when I said I'm ready, he said, "No, we're voting." >> You guys need to talk. >> I know that we're not supposed to have debate here, but >> No, you're right. Anyway, um I'm refreshed by the members that do look to
the public for their comment. Also, as to the gentleman that's making the comment here, I I got to see how he acted when he was sitting up there, and I'm just thankful for who we have. Um I applaud you for standing strong for the
people that voted for you. Fear is never a reason to make a decision. We know that. So, I just want you to continue standing strong for the people. Even if it meant your removal, >> you're standing strong for your
convictions and for what we elected you to do. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> I have no further public comment. >> Okay, let's try the vote again, please. Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Clark, >> no. >> Vice Mayor Collins,
>> yes. Mayor Rich, >> no. >> Commissioner Gobi, >> yes. >> Commissioner Reid, >> yes. >> Okay. Mr. Bagot, will you Motion passes, will you please read item five for our
consideration, please? Again, I'd like to point out this is the first reading of this ordinance. Ordinance number 2544-2025, an ordinance of the city commission of the city of Steuart, Florida, amending the text to section 11.01.02. 02 of the city's land development code
by deleting the public hearing requirement for major development projects greater than 50,000 square feet and replacing it with public presentation uh with a public presentation to the city commission requirement providing for conflict providing for codification
providing for an effective date and for other purposes. Um, back in uh, April, the city commission had directed staff to initiate a text amendment to land development code. Um, changing the public hearing requirement to a public
uh, rep uh, presentation requirement. You might have the question is how how can we do the amendment here, but we're not allowed to do it under the zoning in progress. It's the city's position that this is not making the lane development code more restrictive. it's actually making it less restrictive, which would
not violate Senate Bill U 180. So, we are um able to to make these text changes to the code. I also want to point out that uh we had the public hearing with the local planning agency last week and they
approved this they approved recommending approval of this ordinance uh with a caveat that to leave the public notice requirement. And if you look at the red lines uh in it in the um in the
proposed text uh deletions, there's a paragraph uh see here it's paragraph F and it has city commission public hearing notice. Notice of the public hearing shall be provided by mailing and by posting the subject property. Requirements for notice for public hearings can be found in section
11.02.00. So, the LPA recommended approval of the changes with the caveat of putting that back in. And and so what they wanted is at a public hearing, you have to put out uh
we have our our ordinance that requires us to put notification out by mail and by posting on the property. And so they wanted that requirement to still be there just for the presentation. >> Um just so you know, a public hearing is quasi judicial. The folks are under
oath. There's a presentation from staff and from the applicant. You guys vote on it. With a presentation, it's just merely a presentation to notify you and the public of this project going on. >> And we cannot vote no. >> Well, that's there would be no vote in a
presentation, right? >> So, that's kind of the issue. I guess this these it was set up originally to create a public notice by having a public hearing, right? and it put the board in an awkward situation where it appeared that they could vote no, but they really couldn't vote no because it
was in compliance with the code, >> right? >> So, this way we're we're alleviating >> it's a public service. Okay. >> Um, do we have a motion? >> I had my light on to but you have I have
asked a question after we have a motion. I'm sorry. No, go ahead. I'll make a motion so that I can ask a question. Uh with with regard with regard to resolution 2544 2025 move approval.
>> We have a motion by commissioner Clark and >> a whispered second by the vice mayor. >> He did. Okay. So my question is I didn't see the LPA minutes but I know that it just happened recently but I'm glad that
Mr. Bagot mentioned um the LPA um vote on this matter. I was concerned about the difference between residential and commercial, but I was told that 50,000 square ft is 50,000 square ft. And of
course the whole idea of um whether or not uh it's um the the the publication part of it and whether or not even when you have that presentation it is just a presentation
for the sake of the public before the commission. It cannot be turned down by the commission. is just to advise the public um that whatever is happening on that property over 50,000 square feet is
happening there uh whether it's whether it's residential or commercial and um I hope we'll be okay. I mean, we we've done we this has been there, but it's just been the con the I guess you'd call
it um I don't if it's a confusion, but potential conflict or or misunderstanding in how it's actually carried out, but making this plain and letting people understand that this is how it's going
to be carried out and there won't be any vote. It's just having it here in front of the commission to speak about it, to make a presentation about it for the knowledge and information of the public. And people might say, well, I'm here
because I don't agree with it and it's going to go well, it's something that can be done and that has been approved. Um whether admin I guess it's administratively and it's something that could be done there and we the
commission at that time cannot um deny that project. >> That's correct. Mr. Bagot, you wish to clarify? >> Yeah, I just wanted to clarify. So the way the ordinance is drafted is it does not include public notice because I have that deleted. So
>> that's what I was wonder. Yeah. >> Right. So you would motion to approve the ordinance as it's drafted. So >> we should put the public. >> So I'm just pointing out >> I agree brought that up too. >> N >> number two. This is the first reading. So we still have to come back for second reading. >> Okay. Okay. Okay.
>> So, normally what we do is we do a motion to transmit to the second reading, but I know you've already and I neglected to say that at the uh at the beginning of my introduction, but since you do have a motion, if you want to clarify that >> my secondary agrees with whatever you just said,
>> right, >> to add that language. >> So, I'm making sure that we're still including public notice. >> Yeah. So, paragraph F would be brought back in and I can make those changes by the second reading. Uh I wasn't able to do it because it was already posted on
the agenda for the first reading even though uh because the LPA happened last week. >> It wouldn't have to go back to the LPA. It would No. No. Okay. >> Any Okay. Now public do we have public comment on this item? >> Madame clerk. >> I have none. >> You have none. Okay.
>> Any additional comments or questions from the commissioners? >> Are you doing all right down there, Commissioner Joy? You look uncomfortable. >> I am. >> Okay. I'm sorry. She plays hurt. You got to give her credit.
>> Okay. Roll call, please. >> Mayor Rich. >> Uh, yes. >> Commissioner Reid, >> yes. >> Commissioner Gio, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Collins, >> yes. >> Commissioner Clark, >> yes. >> We can do it. >> Should have said no.
>> Good idea. >> You probably can change it. >> Mr. Bagot or Mr. Martell, would you like to lead the DND on item six, please? >> Uh, certainly. I um don't know if any of you had a chance to click on the attachments to um item number six on the
DND, but um >> on June 23, >> I'm sorry. >> Yes. Do you have a question? >> So this DND? >> Yes, >> just a DND. >> So there won't be >> I'm going to excuse myself. >> That's fine. That's why I was asking. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Why don't we wait for her to leave the dis? Mr. Martell, do you need some assistance? >> I'm good. It's just that when I sit that long. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I get it. >> So, for for what it's worth, on June uh
23rd, a gentleman from Jensen Beach came in and said that the left turn lane on US1 at Lockhard Street in its current condition was dangerous. and he presented a photograph and I attached the photograph to the agenda item and I
have it on my computer right here. I if you want to look at it and see it but the fact is you can see the dashboard of his like the where the camera was held below the dashboard of his car. You ever sat in your car and had your eyes below the dashboard of the car? That too would
create a fairly dangerous um circumstance for you when driving. I attached pictures three and four to the agenda to show what it actually looks like when Milton took the picture the next day when you're sitting behind the dashboard of a car regularly.
And um >> Milton's got that big rig. >> But anyway, um paragraph 4 gives you a comparison of a car that was in front of him to show you what the uh visuals look like. In any event, during the meeting,
the commission discussed and said that this intersection was very dangerous and needed to um be modified. This is uh US Highway 1. The only modification that the city of Stewart can make is to
remove all of the landscaping from the um center median. We maintain the landscaping well below the threshold that's set by Florida Department of Transportation. It was went out and measured it that week and it was
>> I think 36 in is the maximum height it can be and it was between 12 and 18 in. >> But because the commission concluded that in the position it was in between 12 and 18 in was dangerous. That means
now that if there's a car accident and we have it in this condition, the city will be liable for failing to maintain it in a more safe com um condition. So, I need some direction from the commission as to whether you
believe the intersection actually was dangerous or whether you want me to bring back an agenda item and notify Florida Department of Transportation that you want to remove the landscaping. I think it's fine. >> I'm sorry I didn't hear your comments, Mr.
>> Not dangerous, Mr. >> It's not dangerous. It's fine. >> I would agree with that assessment. >> Commissioner Clark, do you have any comments? >> I turn left on SR5 every time. I don't like it and I don't like the oak tree
and stuff, but I don't think it's dangerous. Well, further down the median. Yeah. I don't I don't think it's dangerous, but um it's like any other tricky intersection, but it's been a big it's always been there. And um
uh I think it's fine. >> And I'm not I as long as as long as there's a consensus from the commission that the maintaining it in the uh standards set forth by the FDOT is okay, >> then I can move forward and that's it. I
just need a consensus and that's all I need. >> Would you like any comments? >> Comment. >> Okay. >> Okay. That's all I have. >> So, you don't need a motion for that? >> I don't. Was this a D and D? If I If you wanted me to bring it back for an agenda item to remove the stuff, then I would.
>> I don't think I we have an interest in that. Do we? No. >> The medians are finally looking nice. Okay. Seeing no other items for our consideration, the meeting is adjourned. >> Thank you, sir.