City Commission - Special Meeting

I'd like to call to order this special commission meeting of the City Steward Commission on August 3rd, 2026 at 3.30 p.m. Mary, if you could do the roll call.

Mayor Reed.

Here.

Commissioner Clark. Here. Commissioner Giobbe. Here. Commissioner Ritt.

Here. If everyone could join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

with liberty and justice for all.

Comments by city commissioners. Commissioner Rich.

I have none, thank you.

All right, Commissioner Giobbi.

I have one briefly. Number one, I want to thank everyone. Of course, this is an off-schedule day. I appreciate everyone coming and being here, those online and here in person. 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, but it really is about who will control And who will have the power from today, from when the amendment is accepted and going forward? 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?

Thank you. I just want to say that I had my... probably over 60 people here for the weekend for a event with my family, and they got to see Stuart, and they had so many wonderful comments about the city of Stuart, and so I just wanna say that whatever we're doing in Stuart, we just need to continue to do that because we have so many business people and so many residents and visitors who really appreciate what we have here in Stewart. And I just wanna 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. Thank you for Commissioner Giobbe to clarify it. That's 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. What we should be discussing is the language on the referendum. And that's probably one of the most important things. 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. Comments by city manager?

Good afternoon, Mayor. I have nothing.

Thanks. Can I get a motion for approval of the agenda?

Move approval of the agenda as published. I'll second the motion.

We have a motion for approval of the agenda by Commissioner Clark and seconded by Commissioner Giobbe. Are there any public comments on this motion? Seeing no public comments, all those in favor? Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Moving on to comments from the public on non-agenda 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, so seeing no public comments, we'll move on to ordinance first reading, Ballfield's referendum. Lee, if you could read that.

Sure, ordinance number 2553-2026, an ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Stewart, 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 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 public meetings on this issue leading up until where we are today. Our last meeting was a discussion and deliberation on the July 27th general city commission meeting. And during that meeting we had gotten a consensus from the board to make a few edits to the last proposed ballot language. 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. I'm happy to read it or if you guys have 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?

Yeah, so 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. The 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 right-of-way. And you have a blank space for yes for approval and a blank space no for rejection.

Thanks, Lee. Sure. Commissioner Clark, your light was on.

Yes, are you ready for discussion on the item?

Sure.

Okay. I'm going to direct these at 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 move that we... Well, actually, I'm going to ask for some changes to the language. But just for discussion purposes, I move that the proposed ordinance number 2553-2026 be approved to be sent in for second reading. Yes.

And then we can just, okay.

All right, so we have a motion by Commissioner Clark and seconded by Commissioner Giobbe to move the ball field referendum to the second reading. Are there any public comments on this motion?

Yes, I have Derek Ogden.

Welcome, Derek. There's, hang on one sec, Derek. Sorry to interrupt you, but there's no microphone at all. We're gonna fix that for you.

One second.

No comment. Thank you, Mary.

Thank you. My name is Derek Ogden. 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.

Take two.

Okay.

This commission talks a lot about protecting the character of our city. But the character of Stewart 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 Stewart, 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. And let's be honest about how we got here tonight. This should have been settled on May 11th. The motion died because two 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 four 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.

Thanks.

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.

Will Laughlin, 950 South Kenner Highway. Thank you all on this commission. You spend your time and energy on this. This is not an easy task being a commissioner. The many people I know and speak with, they want to see the ball fields protected. 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 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 endorse transferring it over in order to be used for housing or whatever. We've had the city manager in the past identify there are 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 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 Stewart and the residents here to have 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. Lucie 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 delay this action. Thank you.

Next, I have Frank McChrystal.

Welcome, Frank. Well, thank God for political seasons.

I thought from the beginning that If we do have the ability to change language tonight, which I just heard Mrs. Clark mention she was going to change some language, here is 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 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 future plans for a public transportation hub, which is a necessary center of the 15 minute city, so to speak. And if you 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 comments.

Thanks, Mary. Commissioner Clark, your light's on.

Okay, thanks.

You're welcome.

Okay, let me go to Mr. Baggett. 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 analysis in the City of Stewart, you know, the cost-benefit analysis, whatever it was, the third page or so. So looking at that, there's some language that is not consistent, so I'm just gonna try to bring up a couple of things. I don't have that print out with me, so I'm just gonna go from memory a little bit. But number one in the title, where it says, approving, I guess, when it says general election, where is that? Directing, okay. November 3rd, Maybe that wasn't in this part. To place.

Would you like to see the full agenda item?

After the word ballot. Okay, so I want to add the word ballot after where it says general election. I forgot where it was reading now.

It doesn't mention that in the referendum, how it's currently written.

Yeah, I just wanted to say, I have my notes here, but I don't know where I got, add the word ballot afterwards as general election. And I think that might have been in the actual reference 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 directed to the supervisor of election.

That's the title of it.

That's the title.

It says it in the ordinance itself, Commissioner Clark.

Okay, so wherever it was written logically, I think the word ballot would have come better for that. And then where it says, and for other purposes. Yeah, it's probably in the language itself, right at the very top. If we could just write the word and, where it says for other purposes.

She's talking about the actual ordinance.

Yeah, just in the ordinance itself, the language of the ordinance.

I agree, that's missing. We can add that.

Yeah, okay. 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 a word, a proven ballot language up there, but it would be on the general election ballot itself. where they 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 for more than one year, but just to be consistent, 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 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 more than that.

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 the word public, and I don't know if, 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. uh... the public's interests i just want to make sure that we have the correct uh... yeah so after the public's interest and then there was that section one at city's general election ballot at that long-term lease okay and i looked at the references to nine oh four And I didn't see, I mean, I saw the, I wish maybe the public would have given us some other comments on this business impact estimate, and it was in the package. I mean, all I saw were, you know, we had no impact, no impact, because of course it was 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 or if any of us had any other thing, because the City of Stewart cost benefit analysis just showed, you know, there's no impact, so there's nothing 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 our 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 Commissioner Giobbe brought it up and I think Mayor Reid. Again, if you could just explain to the public in Section 904, what we've done before with properties such as the waterfront property 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.

Mm-hmm.

Our city charter already has a section 905, which is termed, it's titled long-term lease or 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 Stuckey, a local attorney more specifically, gathered enough signatures through the process 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 pretty much, used this process that they did in the past 20 years ago, and I used very similar language because that worked 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 wanna do the same thing, but with city-owned property that has ball fields on it. Since this was voted by and approved by 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, the restriction on the waterfront properties, has leasing for more than 10 years. So we still have a restriction on leasing, but last meeting, Commissioner Richard moved to shorten it to one year, and he wanted to remove the term long, the adjective long term lease removed. So that's why we removed it, and you guys, We're 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. It's used by Martin County and Port St. Lucie. 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 what a typical 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, multiple leagues, which I believe our Parks and Rec, folks 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 convey, sell or lease for more than one year, 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 convey or lease 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 at least for more than a year from this point going on into the future, at least not currently, but after if it passes by referendum in November. I hope that clarifies the question to you. Sure.

Mr. Mayor, can I continue? Yeah, you're still recognized. So with that, Mr. Baggett, I think just to make it clearer to the public, I see that 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 ordinance, Property containing recreational ball fields. If we could, because the public. Well, actually, they're gonna see the ballot language. They won't see this, and I'm just thinking of consistency. They are gonna see the ballot language. The ballot language does say for more than one year. I was gonna say we could put in the ordinance title also just after Ball Field's put for more than one year there also, but what the public is gonna see is the ballot language. that says for more than one year. So I guess that gives them good information that they can work with. And that's it for now for my comments on this. I just wanted to ask Mr. Baggett or clerk if, well I guess it's Mr. Baggett, if the comment that Mr. McChrystal made if that would make everything start all over again, if something like that were added for all green space, all recreational land, is that something that we probably need to reconsider for another time, or is there something that we could look at how we can incorporate any type of language, or will that change everything because of our advertisement schedule?

I would recommend not using or not adding all green space. 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, in eight months in the process of getting here on the ball fields by adding something that's a lot more expansive. And then what is the definition of all green space? That would be my concern.

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 Mr. McChrystal wants to be able to do what is best for the city. So I just want to make sure if this is not the time when 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, Commissioner Clark. I have a question for the city manager. Do you think we could limit all agenda packets to ten pages or less? Because this thing gets more scrutiny than anything I've ever seen at the city of Stewart. I'm 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. Commissioner Rich, your light's on.

Mr. Baggett. Microphone.

Microphone?

I'm sorry. Thanks. Mr. Baggett, if you look at, it's page nine. I didn't print out everything. 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 see it.

Did the city evaluate, did provide the evaluations required by this in light of the new language?

I see that it still has the 10 years and not one year, so I'm happy to amend that before the next meeting, but I still, I don't think it matters.

I don't think it needs to derail us here, but I would just, I think these questions need to be answered in light of that.

We will correct it and add it to the business impact statement. Okay. And I will change it. after this meeting and we will update the website because this is also posted on the city's website. So I'll do that today and then by the next meeting it'll be corrected. I didn't catch everything.

There is a legal difference between user agreement and lease. Correct. So, and I defer to you, and perhaps the experience of the city manager, which would be the best language here? Because we had discussed actually changing it from lease to user agreement. We've never actually leased the ball fields, I believe. Is that correct, Mr.?

All user agreement.

They've never been leased, so I'm asking.

The use agreements, we have lots of use agreements with multiple leagues, and all of them have a language in there that it can be canceled at any time, but with 90 days notice. So it's not like a lease. You know, if you go outside all along the peninsula here, the city owns all the property going up to the Roosevelt Bridge over to the marina and mooring 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, so.

Oh, I understand, but leasing to the restaurant. Correct. We've never leased Ballfields. 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 more accurate legal term there. And if you're comfortable with lease, then that's fine.

Well, I think originally we took out the last sentence that I said this restriction does not apply to recreational leagues and concessions and so forth. So my intent originally with that language is that it doesn't affect how we're currently using these use agreements with the various leagues.

Okay. That's it, thank you. Commissioner Giova, your light was on and then it went away.

Yeah, no, the question was answered, thank you.

Commissioner Clark, your light's on.

I was gonna ask, so are you saying, Commissioner Rich, that it should say lease or user agreement and or user agreement?

No, that was a real question of Mr. Baggett. 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 actually leased 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 on the other side of the peninsula, some of these leases, it could be like 90 years. So it's in essence a sale almost. All of us will be long gone by the time the lease is over. 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 or like the marina or some other properties that the city has owned and leased, it's been long-term, 30, 40, 50 years, 100 years. So I think that's the kind of lease that is probably covered under that, not use agreements with various leagues, recreational leagues that have a 90-day termination clause in it.

Thanks, Lee. Commissioner, do you have 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. WE WANT TO LEAVE THAT LEASE AGREEMENT LANGUAGE IN THERE JUST BECAUSE THE CITY CURRENTLY DOESN'T LEASE IT OR 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. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE USER AGREEMENTS ARE, AS YOU SAID, 90-DAY TERMINATION AND THEY'RE USUALLY ANNUAL YEAR-TO-YEAR. SO THEY WOULDN'T BE AFFECTED. Thank you, thanks.

Any other comments from the board members. None pertaining to the referendum language or the ordinance. All right.

Well, I guess my question would be, are we accepting language changes that were suggested by?

Well, the language changes, yeah, the language changes, and I have no problem updating them or supporting that through a new motion. And the business impact. Yeah, that was correct. I think the business impact doesn't necessarily have to be done in a motion, Lee, because that's just a clerical.

That's a scrivener's error on my part. And likewise, not having and in the title and for other purposes that I can add that up. It's not adding any change of meaning or value other than being correct.

Yeah, just correcting it.

that was the ordinance languages yeah the ordinance title um commissioner clark added i 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.

If she wants to amend the motion to those two items and you guys second it and vote on it, that's fine. It's probably better to do it that way.

Okay, give me one sec, Commissioner Clark.

Commissioner Rich, your light was on.

Mr. Baggett, could you just clarify for the public what exactly they will see on the ballot?

So that's what I read when you guys asked me to read it. So the title will say Stewart City Charter Amendment. 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 the entirety 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 for approval and no for rejection, correct. 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 parameters.

Okay, just for clarity, thank you.

Sure.

Thanks, Commissioner Rich. So Commissioner Clark, you'd have to amend your motion, then it'd have to get seconded again.

Regarding ordinance number 2553, 2026, move approval for it to move forward to the second reading, add in the word ballot after general election, probably on line five, I think, on that, and then also add in 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 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 Giobbe. Are there any public comments on this amended motion? Do you want new green cards filled out?

I have technically, it's usually one commenter per subject.

Lee, do we need a second green card filled out, or can they, as long as you have one filled, okay.

All right. It's primarily, I assume, for your purposes to identify who it is when we're doing minutes.

I can mark it.

Okay.

It's the same people.

All right, who's the first public comment then?

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 dais wants it. I just wanna 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.

Seeing no further public, got one. Welcome, Frank.

Thanks for the seconds. Hey, 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 this city. Again, the specific area of Sailfish Park is gonna 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. 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 an opportunity to protect everything that we have. All right, thank you. Thanks, Frank.

I have no further public comments.

Seeing no further public comment, Lee, could you address that public comment regarding the ball field statement, whether it would apply to pickleball courts? Because I believe this referendum was specifically for the Sailfish ball fields in general.

Well, 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, in my opinion, that tennis court would not fall under a ball field and a shuffleboard court would not. But those, at least at Sailfish Ball Fields Park, those activities, those courts are on property owned by the city that contain ball fields. But nothing prevents the city from changing those into a parking lot now for the use of the ball fields. But 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 if you're converting them into a parking lot for the use for the rest of the property. But again, you're not gonna be able to sell the shuffleboard court because it's on the same property that's owned with ball fields on it.

Alright, thanks Lee. Commissioner Clark, your light was on.

Yes, thank you. So with regard to language, this is not the ballot language, but the ballot language is contained within the ordinance itself, but at the top, the fourth whereas clause, for grammatical purposes, Mr. Baggett, that P-U-B-L-I-C, the apostrophe should be 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. No. In the second whereas, it says Guy Davis Park and Sailfish Ball Park. Yes.

Yeah. So the So the language of the ordinance 2553-2026, the entire ordinance as well as the language, these are the directives, well the preliminaries are going to, the reasons for the actual charter amendment language, which is what people are going to see on the ballot. And so I think whoever is willing 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 charter amendment language is. But I do agree that if we're gonna do the second reading, we need to make sure that 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 leased or have user agreements with other persons. And I think that it needs to be very clear when somebody says, well, so Mr. Baggett, when somebody comes in and says, well, even if it's more than a year, uh... well and i hear that commission job and we know what the the course of business that we do that we only do it for up to a year uh... and uh... it said that it would make any difference uh... if the user agreement because it has to be renewed every year as a user agreement or as a lease, depending on how people look at it. People need to be very clear. 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 left off. You may want to ask Lee.

Okay, so this language that was in... We have two different... Well, is this a different printout?

No, it's the same thing that I printed out.

Well, it stops at, let me see, right away. This one stops at right away. And Mr. Baggett, 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 sports, recreation, or concession uses serving the property. That was in the proposed language before, the one that was not passed. And then when we brought it to the D&D 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 and voted yes for. So that has been removed.

But again- Can we think about that now again?

But again, this restriction will not- We just wanted to remove it at the last meeting. Yeah, this restriction will not apply to use agreements. We currently do use agreements with multiple leagues They don't have exclusive use of the property. 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. In the last D&D, the Parks folks went through that process with you on how they give various leagues the ball fields at Guy Davis and at Sailfish. 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 you know, a 400 apartment complex and get their money's worth at the end of the 50 years. So they can destroy the biofields and pull apartments there if you lease it to them for 50 years. So 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 fifty years ninety nine 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 of it Again, I put in that language last time, and I think if I recall, Commissioner Rich in his motion wanted it removed because it's kind of confusing. Afterwards, I agree because all of our concessions and our leagues are done not by lease but by usurer agreements. I don't want to speak on behalf of Commissioner Rich, but I believe that's how it went down last time at our D&D.

Thanks, Lee.

Sure.

He's not commenting.

We have a motion and a second. The language is acceptable. Commissioner Clark wishes to withdraw our motion. She can do it. But I thought we discussed this issue at length. We did.

And we agreed. We actually voted on it at the last meeting to update the language. I get confused up here sometimes.

I just want to make sure that the public, because people are saying there's nothing. So I just want to make sure that people understand how the process has gone.

Thanks for everything that you've done for this, Lee. You're not perfect by any means. I don't think any of us claim to be perfect. I think those little Scribner errors are easily fixable before the second reading. Just to confirm, the second reading is on August 17th.

Is that correct? Okay.

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 Giobbe? Yes. Mayor Reed?

Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Seeing no further discussion, I'm going to adjourn this meeting. Thanks, guys.