I'd like to call to order this special commission meeting of the city Stewart Commission on August 3rd, 2026 at 3:30 p.m. Mary, if you could do the roll call. >> Mayor Reid >> here. Commissioner Clark >> here. >> Commissioner Dobby >> here. >> Commissioner R here.
>> If everyone could join me in the pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands. One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all. >> Comments by city commissioners. Commissioner Rich, >> I have none. Thank you. >> All right, Commissioner Gio. >> Um, I have one briefly. Number one, I want to thank everyone. Of course, this is a off-scheduled day. I appreciate everyone coming and being here, those
online and here in person. Um, I want to talk a little bit about what this meeting is about and it's about the ball fields. And even up until yesterday, I was receiving emails. I think there's still a little misconception of what this referendum will be. The ball fields are not for sale currently. Uh but it
really is about who will control and who will have the power from today from the when the amendment is um accepted and going forward. If if that amendment is accepted no longer will five commissioners be able to decide the fate of the ball fields. It will be in the
hands of the city residents and that's where it should be. And that's all I have to say. >> Thank you Commissioner Clark. [clears throat] >> Thank you. Um, I just want to say that I had my um probably over 60 people here for the
weekend for a event with my family and they got to see Stuart and uh they had so many wonderful comments about the city of Stewart and so I just want to say that whatever we're doing in Stewart, we just need to continue to do
that because we have so many business people and so many residents and visitors who really uh appreciate what we have here in Stewart. And I just want to thank our commission for all the things that we do for our city and to
make sure that our city remains a beautiful slice of paradise. Thank you. >> Thanks, Commissioner Clark. My comments are simple. Uh thank you for Commissioner Gio to clarify it. That's [clears throat] exactly what a referendum does. It takes the power away from us and it gives the power to the
constituents that give us the privilege to sit in these five chairs. I don't see why any elected official would be ever against a referendum. Um what we should be discussing is the language on the referendum and that's probably one of the most
important things. Um we set policy up here but yes the language I think is the most important. That's all I have to say as well regarding the referendum. Uh comments by city manager Good afternoon, Mayor. I have nothing. >> Thanks. Um, can I get a motion for
approval of the agenda? >> Move approval of the agenda is published. >> I'll second the motion. >> We have a motion for approval of the agenda by Commissioner Clark and seconded by Commissioner Gio. Are there any public comments on this motion?
Seeing no public comments, all those in favor? >> I. Motion passes unanimously. Uh, moving on to comments from the public on non-aggenda items. Just remember, you're limited to three minutes. And if you
could speak into the microphone. >> Do we have any public comments, Mary? >> I do. I have Derek Ogden. >> Oh, I'm sorry. No general public comment. It's all on item number one. >> Okay. >> So, no public comments then. >> Okay. Okay. So, seeing no public
comments, we'll move on to ordinance first reading uh Ballfield's referendum. Lee, if you could read that. >> Sure. Ordinance number 2553-2026, an ordinance of the city commission of the city of Steuart, Florida, approving ballot language and directing the
supervisor of elections of Martin County, Florida to place a referendum on the November 3rd, 2026 general election seeking voter approval on a proposed amendment to the city charter pertaining to the sale or lease of city-owned property containing recreational ball
fields, providing for codification, providing for conflict, providing for an effective date and for other purposes. Earlier this year, the city commission had instructed city staff to bring forth an ordinance requiring uh votes to pre-approve via referendum any sale or
long-term lease of the city-owned property containing recreational ball fields. We've had a couple of uh public meetings on this uh issue leading up until where we are today. Our last meeting was a discussion and deliberation on the July 27th
general uh city commission meeting. And during that meeting, we had u gotten a consensus from the board to make a few edits to the last proposed ballot language uh included in this ordinance and instructed staff to return the ordinance for a first reading, which we
are here today. We are on a special meeting because of time deadlines in order to get it to the supervisor of elections in time. So, we have attached the proposed ballot language. Um, I'm happy to read
it or if guys heard it enough and we're ready to move on. It's up to you. >> Yeah, if you could read the ballot language where it starts at the sale or lease of city property containing. Correct. That be the >> Yeah. So it um it would be titled sale or lease of city property containing
recreational ball fields must be approved by referendum vote and then the body of it will say shall the city charter of the city of Stewart, Florida be amended to add the following provision. City Commission shall not sell, convey, or lease for more than one
year, including any renewal options any city-owned real property containing recreational ball fields, unless first approved by the voters through a public referendum held under charter section 9.04, procedures for vacating public streets
or abandoning rideaway. And you'll have a blank space for yes for approval and a blank space no for rejection. >> Thanks, Lee. Commissioner Clark, your light was on. >> Yes. Are you ready for discussion on the item? >> Sure. >> Okay.
Um I'm going to direct these at um Mr. >> I mean you can make a motion for approval or denial. Well, we've done it both ways. So I think it depends on who's in the chair position. I'm fine either way. >> We are looking for a motion and transmit it to secondary. I may I move that we um
well actually I'm going to make some ask for some changes to the language. So I but for just for discussion purposes I move that um the the proposed ordinance number 2553-2026 be um approved to be sent in for second
>> reading >> then we can Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. So, we have a motion by Commissioner Clark and seconded by Commissioner Gio to move the ballfield referendum to the second reading. Are there any public comments on this
motion? >> Yes, I have Derek Ogden. >> Welcome, Derek. Hang on one sec, Derek. Sorry to interrupt you, but there's no microphone at all. We're going to fix that for you. >> One second. >> No comment.
Thank you, Mary. [clears throat] >> My name is Derek O. I'm a resident of Stewart. >> Hang on, Derek. They're going to start your time over. Mary will acknowledge when you're ready to go, I guess. >> Say hi. >> Take two. >> Okay.
Uh, this commission talks a lot about protecting the character of our city. But the character of Steuart isn't just the buildings and the waterfront. It's the people who live and work here. It's the kids out on these baseball fields because that's where they're building their character. Those kids are the
future of this city. So, if you really want to protect the character of Steuart, protect the place where that character gets built. We already do this for our waterfront. This just gives our kids ball fields the same protection. Let's be honest about how we got here tonight. This should have been settled
on May 11th. The motion died because two commission commissioners let it die. And that is the record. That delay cost this city three months and forced the special meeting that we're sitting in tonight. And I hope that Commissioner Rich and Commissioner Clark give this the
attention this deserves this time, even if to just save face with the residents. As far as I'm concerned, that would be a win. Which brings me to why tonight matters more than it looks. The second reading is set for August 17th. That's 4 days
before the county's ballot deadline on the 21st. Four days. I'm a pilot. I often concern myself with runway length. That leaves us no runway. We don't have any room for mistakes. So, a change on the 17th means that this
ordinance doesn't happen and doesn't end up on the ballot on November 3rd. So, my point is, let's work this out tonight, however long it takes. Let's get all the language updated. Let's come to something that everybody can agree on, and let's get this thing done tonight so
we can pass it clean on the 17th at the second reading. So, let's get it settled. If we let this go to the 17th and we start making changes, that's deliberate. That's how I view it.
I want this done right. No matter what happens this election season, those ball fields need to be protected. A lot of people have said, "This isn't about development. This isn't about selling the ball fields. No more loopholes. Protect this. Give the power
to the voters. It's the residents property. give them the authority to say yay or nay if you guys decide to sell it at some point no matter who is on the commission. >> Thank you. >> Next is Will Laughlin.
>> Welcome Will. >> If you could just make sure you speak into the microphone as well if you have to raise it up or Okay. Thanks. Well, offline 950 South County Highway. I thank you all on this commission who spend your time and energy on this. This
is not an easy task being a commissioner. [clears throat] The many people I know and speak with, they want to see the ball fields protected. Uh the concern that maybe many of the residents don't recognize is the Senate bills that have passed, the
live local act and Senate Bill 180 in particular enables those ball fields to be developed. If you have commissioners who are willing to essentially yield and give up that property, we have [clears throat] a zoning risk right now. So, it's a legitimate risk. Being zoned
urban general puts it at grave risk for developers to possibly get a commission that would be willing to uh endorse transferring it over in order to be used for housing or whatever. We had the city of manag we've had the city manager in
the past identified there were three lawsuits pending based on Senate Bill 180. Fortunately the commission majority at that time agreed to join other municipalities to defend against Senate Bill 180. We had two commissioners that chose not to. Those two commissioners
also were the ones running resistance to this referendum. Is that a coincidence? Do they recognize the risk? I don't think they have a proper risk assessment of this. It is very good to see they are now willing to move forward. So hat tip to those uh individuals that were
initially resisting protecting the ball fields. I hope they continue to push forward and build a wall around the ball fields that will enable Stuart and the residents here to have a a rather iconic
field that the children of this area and the county and potentially other counties around according to our comp plan. We might even use people from St. Lucy County coming down to visit that or from out of the state even for that matter. So, thanks for your time. give
it careful consideration and I hope you do recognize the risk that is there and I hope you're not in the pockets of developers for those individuals who in the past have voted to um delay this action. Thank you.
[applause] >> Next I have Frank Mcrist. >> Welcome Frank. Well, thank God for political seasons. Uh, I thought from the beginning that if we do have the ability to change
language tonight, which I just heard Mrs. Clark uh mentioned she was going to change some language. Here's a new language I propose. Instead of ball field specifically, all green space and recreational land in
the city of Stewart shall be protected by by needing a referendum, which is we the people deciding when we're going to give up our green space and any recreational land. The strategic value of Sailfish
Fields is obvious because it's located close to the train station and any uh future plans for uh a public transportation hub which is a necessary center of uh the 15minute
city so to speak. And if you uh look those up, you can see what surrounds those public transportation systems that allow us to get rid of the evil car. So again, if we have the ability to change the language, let's just get this
done with. All recreational and green space in the city of Stewart will be protected with this referendum. Thank you. >> Thanks, Frank. >> I have no further public comment.
Thanks, Mary. Uh, Commissioner Clark, your lights on. >> Okay. Thanks. >> You're welcome. >> Okay. Let me go to Mr. um Bagot. I'm just going to ask you a couple of questions on the reading the title and reading the staff report and then the comments like
the um analysis in the city of Stewart um you know the costbenefit analysis whatever was at the third page or so. Um, so looking at that, there's some language that is is not consistent. So
I'm just going to try to bring up a couple of things. I don't have that print out with me, so I'm just going to go from memory a little bit. But number one, in the title where it says um, uh, approving
I guess, um, when it says general election, where is that directing? Okay. November 3rd. Maybe that wasn't in this part to place a
>> after the word ballot. Uh uh okay. So I want to add the word ballot after where it says um >> uh general election. I forgot where it was reading now. Um,
>> it doesn't mention that in the referendum how it's currently written. >> Yeah, it just I just wanted to say the um I have my notes here, but I don't know where it got add the word ballot after where it says general election and I think that might have been in the in
the actual reference to the to the staff report itself. Actually, let me see here where it says >> it might say it in like the ordinance itself. >> Approving the ballot language directing the supervisor of election. >> The title of >> That's the title.
>> It says it in the ordinance itself, Commissioner Clark. >> Okay. So, wherever it was reading logically, I think the word ballot would have um come better for that. And then where it says and for other purposes for Yeah, it's
probably in the in the language itself right at the very top. >> If we could just word the word and where it says for other purposes or >> Yeah, just in the ordinance itself, the language of the ordinance. >> I agree that's missing. We can add that.
>> Yeah. Okay. To place general general election ballot. Okay. You see where it says after November 3rd, 2026. And maybe it's a repetition general election ballot seeking voter approval. I know that it has the word approving ballot
language up there, but it would be on the general election ballot itself where the um would come. So it would be after the word election. If necessary, put the word ballot. That's one thing. Then in the discussion
we have said sale or lease but at times we have used the term long-term lease and I know that we have more than for more than one year but just to be consistent um when we describe it and we talk about
it and we give the reason why we want to do it. we say long-term lease, but then in the in the language itself and in the ordinance, we just say lease. So, we just need to decide if we're going to say sale or long-term lease because
we've used that before in other places or we should just say sale or lease or add long-term. It's it's one >> for more than one year. I I know I said that it says more than one year, but there are other places where we've said long-term lease and then but just, you
know, it's just one of those things. I just want to bring that out. And then um the word public and I don't know if um when we say in the public's interest, is that apostrophe after the S or in
between the C and the S? It's a couple of times in there. um the public's interests. I just want to make sure that we have the correct um >> yeah so after the public's interest and
then where was that section one at city's general election ballot I have that long-term lease okay and I looked at the references to 9004 and um I didn't see I mean I saw the the
I wish maybe the public would have given us some other comments on this business impact estimate it and it was in the package. I I mean all I saw were you know we had no no impact no impact because of course it was um city ball
field property which is not anything intended for any commercial or any type of development. So maybe that's why, you know, our analysis says no impact. But I was just wondering if city manager if any of us had any other
thing because um the city of Stewart uh uh costbenefit analysis um just showed um you know there's no impact. So there's nothing uh to say that why this wouldn't we wouldn't want this to go
forward. But I think the impact is we need to preserve and make sure that we have um our uh public lands and that they're controlled and for the future by referendum if they ever need to be
changed and leave for the sake of the public since um Commissioner Joby brought it up and I think u Mayor Reid again if you could just explain to the public um in section 9004 what we've done before with properties such as the
the waterfront property um all along here. Why we've put those up for referendum, why it stays like that and what that language means and how it relates to the ball field just for the sake of the public. >> Okay. So,
what we are doing in this ordinance is we are amending our city charter. Mhm. >> Our city charter already has a section 9005 which is termed it's it's titled long-term lease or convey conveyance of
waterfront property subject to approval at referendum. So about 20 years ago the city I think they didn't do it by referendum initiated by the board. I think it I wasn't here. I'm just going
on stuff I read. I believe it was initiated by the public. >> Max Stucky, an local attorney, more specifically, gathered enough signatures through the process to um um to initiate
this process. And so it went out just like we're doing now and they had to go out for referendum to approve amending by adding this language. So when you this board asked me to do something like that for the ball fields, I I pretty
much you know used this process that they did in the past 20 years ago and I used very similar language because that worked in p in the past on this issue. We wanted to do the same thing that they did back then on city-owned waterfront property.
We just want to do the same thing but with city-owned uh property that has ball fields on it. Since this was voted by and approved by the the public and it was approved by our prior board, I thought the closest to being to this
language that we already had in our charter would be the best way of accomplishing this. Now the city commission um the restriction on the waterfront properties um has leasing for more than 10 years.
So we we still have a restriction on leasing but last year last meeting um Commissioner Rich moved to shorten it to one year and he wanted to remove the the term long the adjective long term lease
removed. So that's why we removed it. you guys were in agreement with his motion. So that's why I took out the term long-term lease. So it's just sale or lease of city property, but it is for more than a year including renewal. So the longest someone could lease out the
property at the ball fields would be one year. But we don't lease when we do our recreational leagues and any concessions and so forth. We don't lease, we do user agreements. >> User agreements are very common. Um, it's used by Martin County and Port St.
Lucy. I used to work at both of those and they use the same thing with athletic leagues. They just give a use agreement. It's not a lease agreement. It's not a um like what what a typical le lease is. They just have preferential times for scheduling their practices and
games. And so it's a use agreement. So currently what we use with the leagues currently using any of our ball fields is we have a use agreement with the leagues uh multiple leagues which u I believe our parks and wreck uh folks uh went through at the last meeting and
described that process for you. So, but here all we're doing is we're adding language to our charter which requires any time in the future someone wanted to sell or con convey, sell or lease for more than
one year, the the city commission would have to go out to the public via referendum and the public would have to vote to approve this. So no one is trying to sell or con convey or lease uh the ball fields either at Guy Davis or
Sailfish ball fields. This is just a mechanism in place to protect the ball fields from being sold or u or at least for more than a year uh from this point going on into the future at least a not
currently but after if it passes by referendum in November. >> I hope that clarifies the questions you have. Sure. >> Mr. Mayor, can I continue? >> Yeah, you're still recognized. >> Right. So, so, so with that, Mr. Bagot, um, I think just to make it clearer to
the public, uh, I see that, you know, the title is more detailed. Actually, the ballot language itself is more detailed than this proposed ordinance title. And I was thinking that if we could after the word says uh property
containing recreational ball fields if we could because the public well actually they're going to see the ballot language. They won't see this. And I'm just thinking of consistency. They are going to see the ballot language. The ballot language does say for more than
one year. I was going to say we could put in the ordinance um title also just after ball fields put for more than one year there also but uh what the public is going to see is the ballot language
that says for more than one year. So I guess that gives them uh good information uh that they that they can work with. Uh and that's it for now for my comments on this. I just wanted I
just wanted to um ask um uh Mr. Bagot or or um clerk I if well I guess it's Mr. Bagot if um the comment
that Mr. um Mc Crystal made if that would make everything start all over again if something like that were added for all green this all recreational land. Is that something that we probably
need to reconsider for another time or is there something that we could look at um how we can incorporate any type of language or will that change everything because of our advertisement um schedule? >> I would recommend not using or not
adding all green space. Um you know that has not been discussed at any meetings. It was the ball fields that we've been discussing since January. I think by adding all green space and then what does that mean? What is all green space mean? So >> we've had no discussion on it. If that's
something the board wants to do, I would suggest that you bring that up at a future separately from this >> because this is an eighth month eight months in the process of getting here on the ball fields by adding something that's a lot more expansive and and then what is the definition of all green
space? you know, yes, >> we did ask for an inventory to try to help us in the future with certain things. So, I agree. I just wanted to make sure because I definitely know that um Mr. Mcrist um wants to be able to uh
you know, do what is best for for the city. So, I just want to make sure if this is not the time and we can't do it, we need to move on this and keep going with this as much as possible. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you, M Commissioner Clark. Um,
I have a question for the city manager. Do you think we could uh limit all agenda packets to 10 pages or less? Because this thing gets more scrutiny than anything I've ever seen at the city of Stewart. Being comical about it, but it's amazing
how us as elected officials scrutinize one agenda item. It's 10 pages, this entire agenda packet. Um, Commissioner Rich, your lights on. Mr. Bagot, microphone. >> Microphone. >> I'm sorry.
>> Thanks, >> Mr. Bagot. If you look at page nine, >> I didn't print out the back side of the business impact. >> The summary of the proposed ordinance reflects the original language and not
the amended language. So I just >> All right. Well, I >> did this did the city evaluate >> did provide the evaluations required by this in light of the new language? >> I see that it still has to 10 years and
not one year. So I'm happy to amend that before the next meeting, but I I I still >> I I I don't think it matters. >> I don't think it needs to derail us here, but I would just >> We will correct >> these questions need to be answered in light of that. we will correct it and
add it to the business uh impact statement. >> Okay. >> And we I will change it after this meeting and we will update the website because this is also posted on the city's website. So, okay, >> I'll do that today and then by the next meeting it'll be corrected. I >> didn't catch everything.
>> There is a diff there is a legal difference between us user agreement and lease. >> Correct. >> So, >> and I defer to you perhaps the experience of the city manager which is be the the best language here because we had discussed actually changing it from
lease to use agree. We've never actually leased the ball fields I believe. Is that correct, Mr. >> All users? >> They've never been leased. So, I don't I'm asking >> the use agreements. We have lots of use agreements with multiple leagues and and all of them have a language in there
that can be cancelled at any time, but with 90 days notice. So, it's not like a lease. Um, you know, if you go outside all along the peninsula here, the city le the city owns all the property going up to the Roosevelt Bridge over to the
marina and morning fields, but we lease those out to these restaurants, marinas, and so forth. And they're fully responsible for maintenance, insurance, you know, liability. They're they're >> Oh, I understand. So, >> but leasing to the restaurant, >> correct?
>> Never leased. >> That's correct. >> So, I'm just wondering which is the >> well I think the concern was that we don't lease or sell the ball fields to >> I'm just asking which is the the more accurate legal term there and if you're
comfortable with least then that's >> well I think originally we took out the last sentence that I said this does not restriction does not apply to right >> um recreational leagues and concessions and so forth so my my intent originally with that language is that it doesn't affect what how we're currently
>> using these use agreements with the various leagues. >> Okay, >> commission. >> That's it. Thank you, >> Commissioner. Do you have your light was on and then it went away? >> Question was answered. >> Commissioner Clark, your lights on. >> I was going to ask, so should are you saying, Commissioner Rich, that it
should say lease or user agreement or andor user agreement? >> No, that was a real question of Mr. Bagot. He's the lawyer. He's the attorney. So, I just know there is a legal difference between those two terms and we have never lease them. We've
always had user agreements with those fields. So, if he's comfortable with that language, then that's fine. >> Again, I think it's, you know, even a lot of these properties like let's say the marina um on the other side of the
peninsula. I mean, some of these leases it could be like 90 years. So, that it's in essence a sale almost. All of us will be long gone by the time the lease is over. But so a lease that's I think the I would assume that was what the city
and the folks that brought forth the waterfront properties to lease more than 10 years that's what they were thinking because a lot of our leases for restaurants um or or like the marina or um some other properties that city has owned and lease it's been long term 30
40 50 years 100 years. So, um I think that's the kind of lease that is probably covered under that, not user agreements, use agreements with various leagues, recreational leagues that have a 90-day uh termination clause in it.
>> Thanks, Lee. Uh Commissioner G, your lights on. I think it's important to leave the lease language in there because that's something we don't want to happen just because the commissioners or city sorry we want to leave that lease agreement language in there just because the city
currently doesn't lease it or uh hasn't in the past. We're trying to protect the fields so it would be going into the future there would be no leasing. And it's my understanding that the user agreements are, as you said, 90-day termination and they're usually annual yeartoear, so they wouldn't be affected.
>> Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Any other uh comments from the board members? None pertaining to the referendum language or the the ordinance? All right. Uh, >> well, I guess my question would be, are
we accepting the language changes that were suggested by >> Well, the language change was Yeah, the language changes and I have no problem updating them or supporting that through a new new motion. >> Yeah, that was correct. I I think the
business impact doesn't necessarily have to be done in a motion, Lee, because that's just a clarifier on my part. And likewise, not ending not having and in the title and for other purposes that I can add. >> It's just it's not
>> it's not adding any >> change of meaning or value to other than being correct. >> Yeah. Yeah. Just correct in it. >> That was the the ordinance language. >> Yeah. The ordinance title. Um, Commissioner Clark added mentioned that I did not have and for other purposes. I
just have four other purposes and I see that now. >> So, we can add that. And I think she also wanted um to place a referendum on the November 3rd, 2026 general election ballot >> seeking she wanted the word ballot added and the the board's all right with that.
I can add that to the next. >> Okay. Without amending the motion. >> Would you? I mean, if if she wants to amend the motion to >> with those two items, >> those two items and and you guys second it and vote on it, that's fine.
>> Okay. >> That's probably it's probably better to do it that way. >> Okay. Give me one sec. Commissioner Clark, Commissioner Rich, your light was on. >> Mr. Bag, could you just clarify for the public what exactly they will see on the ballot? >> So, that that's what I read when you
guys asked me to read it. So the the title will say Steuart City Charter Amendment and it'll and then the title continues sale or lease of city property containing recreational ball fields must be approved by referendum vote. >> So none of what's above that we're
seeing in the agenda or below >> that's of what they will see on the ballot >> the title and then there's the body of it below it. >> Correct. >> And then a vote yes or for approval and no for return. Correct. >> Just I just wanted to >> and there are word limits. So in the title it can't be more than 15 words and
in the body >> 75 >> 75 correct and we meet those. >> Okay. >> Just parameters. >> Thank you. >> Sure. >> Thanks Commissioner Rich. So Commissioner Clark, you'd have to amend your motion and it have to get seconded again.
>> Regarding ordinance number 2553 20226 move approval for it to move forward to the second reading adding the word ballot after general election. uh probably on line
uh five I think on that and then also adding the word and before for other purposes general election comes after November 3rd 2026 general election ballot seeking voter approval
and so that's with regard to the ordinance and that we would um move this forward to a second reading. I will second that motion. >> There's a motion from Commissioner Clark amending her original motion with the
updated language and seconded by Commissioner Gio. Are there any public comments on this amended motion? >> Do you want new green cards filled out? >> I have technically it's usually one
per subject but Um, Lee, do we need a a second green card filled out or can they as long as one film? >> All right. >> Primarily, I assume for your purposes to identify who it is when we're doing minutes.
>> Okay. >> All right. Who's the first public comment then? >> Um, Derek Ogden. >> Welcome, Derek. >> So, just to be clear, If all the language is perfect the way it is right now on this motion, we
should be clear to vote yes on this on the 17th. So we have plenty of opportunity right now to discuss everything we need to discuss and make sure that all the language is exactly how everybody up on this dis wants it. I just want to make sure that that's
clear. I think we're all this is important enough to everybody that we take the time to do this and that nothing gets reopened on the 17th. Thank you. >> Uh seeing no further public or
got one. Welcome Frank. >> Thanks for the seconds. Hey. Uh, so question. Are tennis courts ball fields? There's a ball involved. Are shuffleboard courts ball fields? Again,
I don't see why we're just trying to protect ball fields and not all recreational and green space in the city. Um, again, the specific area of Sailfish Park, it's going to be a strategic area
for those who would like to see the center of our town be something very different with that being the transportation hub. Um, so I can see because the tennis courts are in a ball field, I can see
them being parking lot. I can see the shuffleboard courts being parking lot. So, I just I think you're missing opportunity to protect protect everything that we have. All right. Thank you.
>> Thanks, Frank. No comment. >> Uh, seeing no further public comment, Lee, could you uh address that public comment regarding the ball field statement, whether it would apply to pickle ball courts, because I believe this referendum was specifically for the
sailfish ball fields in general. >> Well, I I would say it would be a field that has ball sports on it, such as baseball, softball, football, soccer, those types of sports. I would probably say that by my opinion that tennis court
would not fall under a ball field and a shuffle board would not. But those but those at least at Sailfish Ballfields Park those u activities those courts are on property owned by the city that contain
ballfields. So, but nothing prevents the city from changing those into a parking lot now for the use of the ball fields. But um that's when you create a parking lot where there's tennis courts and shuffleboard court, you're not selling
or leasing that property to someone else. You if you're converting them into a parking lot for the use for the rest of the property. But um again, you're not going to be able to sell the shuffle balls court because it's on the ball. It's on the same property that's owned with ball fields on it. >> All right. Thanks, Lee. Uh Commissioner
Clark, your light was on. >> Yes. Thank you. So with regard to language um this is not the ballot language but the the ballot language is contained within the ordinance um itself but at the top the the fourth whereas
clause for grammatical purposes Mr. Um, Bagot that P U B L I C the apostrophe should be on the other in between the C and the S as opposed to the other side. That's all.
>> Okay, that can be corrected. >> Thank you. >> Does that conclude your comments, Commissioner Clark? >> Yes, sir. >> Thanks. Commissioner Rich, your light was on. >> Yeah, just to be clear, this does not apply just to Sailfish. >> This also applies to Guy Davis. Yes,
ball field. >> It is not just sailfish. >> And the second whereas it says Guy Davis Park in S park. So >> yeah. So the >> no I was >> okay. So the language of uh the
ordinance 2553 2026 the entire ordinance as well as the language these are the directives uh well the preliminaries that go into the reasons for the actual charter amendment
language which is what people are going to see on the ballot. And so, uh, I think whoever is wanting to know more information, and I'm sure that there's a link on our website, not just to this agenda item, but hopefully we'll have a
whole link about the um, charter amendment coming up after we get this approved in August and to go into November so that people will be able to um, to know exactly what the um, charter amendment language is. But I do agree
that if we're going to do uh the second reading, we need to make sure that it it covers everything and everybody needs to be clear about selling, conveying or leasing for more than one year, including any renewal options. And that
is so important because we've had issues especially with sailfish ball field where we've um leased or have user agreements with other persons and I think that it needs to be very clear
um when somebody says well so Mr. bag it when somebody comes in and says, "Well, um, even if it's more than a year, uh, well, and I hear that, Commissioner Joby, and we know what the the the the
course of business that we do that we only do it for up to a year. Uh and uh it's so then it wouldn't make any difference uh if the user agreement because it has to be um renewed every year as a user
agreement or as a lease depending on how people look at it. Um it it it is uh it it want people want need to be very clear. Did you Yes. This this Okay. So, this restriction does not apply.
>> Commissioner Clark, is there language that you wanted to add to make it clearer? >> Well, just to make sure that it's clear. Okay. >> It was it was left it was left off. >> Okay. You may want to ask >> is there >> Okay. So, this language that was in We have two different um
>> city agenda. >> Well, is this a different print out? >> No, it's same thing that I printed out. Well, it stops at uh let me see right ofway. This one stops at right of way. And Mr. Bagot, the the information that
was published for today to the public since we have two printouts, does it have that last section about it is not restricted to lease? Because I want to make sure because I think when I read my other copy, I didn't see that other language either. This restriction does
not apply to leases reasonably necessary to sport sports, recreation or concession uses serving the property. >> Okay. >> When I that was in the proposed language before, the one that was not passed and then when we brought it to the DND at the end of July, that language was in
there and as part of Commissioner Rich's motion, he requested that be removed, which you all agreed voted yes for. >> So that has been removed. >> But again, >> can we think about that again? But again, we're not this this restriction will not >> approve it at the last meeting.
>> Yeah. This restriction will not apply to use agreements. So to to we currently do use agreements with multiple leagues. Um they don't have exclusive use of the property. They they just have preferred times when they can use the property so
that people can successfully have a league. They need to have designated times. And uh in the last DND, the parks folks went through that process with you on how they give various leagues the ball fields at Guy Davis and at Sailfish. Now the purpose of this is so
that the city commission cannot sell or convey the property to someone that's permanent. But you can lease property to someone for 50 years and that's plenty enough time for them to build um you know a 400 apartment complex and get their money's worth at the end of
the 50 years. So they can destroy the battlefields and build apartments there if you lease it to them for 50 years. So that that's the whole point of the long-term lease and that was the whole point when they wanted to put that restriction in for all waterfront property. As you know, the city owns all the waterfront property from here going
down to the Roosevelt Bridge and out across on the other side to the marina. So, we own a lot of waterfront property and they wanted to let the voters vote on stuff when it's long-term leases because we have a lot of long-term leases that are 50 years, 99
years. And again, it's it's the same thing as selling it to somebody because they have it for a long enough period of time they can develop it and make a profit before those buildings are no longer worth the value in it. So again, that this I I put in that language last
time and I think if I recall, Commissioner Rich and his motion wanted it removed because it's kind of confusing and afterwards I agree because all of our concessions and our leagues are done not by lease but by user agreements. I don't want to speak half of Commissioner Rich, but I believe that's how it went down last time at our
DND. >> Thanks, Lee. >> Sure. >> I We have a motion and a second. The language is acceptable. I mean, Commissioner Clark wishes to withdraw a motion, she can do it. But I thought we discussed
this issue at length and we did and we agreed. >> We actually voted on it at the last meeting to update the language. Yeah. I just I get confused at >> I just want to make sure that the public because you know people are saying there's nothing. So I just want to make sure that people understand how the process has gone.
>> Um thanks for everything that you've done for this Lee. Um you're not perfect by any means. I don't think any of us claim to be perfect. I think those little scriber errors are easily fixable before the second reading. Um just to confirm
the second reading is on August 17th. Is that correct? >> Okay. >> Less than 10 days. >> Yep. So, seeing no further discussion or comments from board members, Mary, if you could do the roll call on the updated motion from Commissioner Clark.
>> Commissioner Rich, >> yes. >> Commissioner Clark, >> yes. >> Commissioner Gio, >> yes. >> Mayor Reed, >> yes. Motion passes unanimously. Uh, seeing no further discussion, I'm going to adjourn this meeting. Thanks, guys.