City Commission - Special Meeting

61 Southeast Federal Highway. I've been a local taxpayer for more than 26 years. First, please place the arbitrary sign-face change permit and fee on a future D&D agenda. Now, my main concern. I'm here because alleged violations were inaccurately found to be violations with deadlines and fines imposed based on inaccurate and incomplete staff testimony. I sell sheds and rent trucks. Home Depot does the same, yet the city accepts one retail BTR for those operations and its dozens of other activities. I hold that same retail BTR plus two additional BTRs, yet staff is demanding two more, one for shed sales and one for truck rentals. Staff claims this is a change in my permitted use list requiring a costly and discretionary major CPD amendment. I asked staff to produce this list of permitted uses supporting that claim. They could not. The city attorney later acknowledged that my CPUD agreement has no development order, no list of permitted uses, and is ambiguous. Because of a city defect nearly 20 years ago, no permitted uses were ever listed, yet the documents expressively identified two prohibited uses, neither being sheds or truck rentals. The city must recognize the uses that existed and were accepted into annexation in 2007, rental, storage, retail, and service. Those uses remain today and are allowable under the land development code. Staff may say that a new brand is being rented or a new product is being retailed. A change in a brand or a product is not a change in land use. Nevertheless, staff's assumption presented under oath became the basis for violations, deadlines, and fines. On July 29th, staff demanded and accepted payment and issued a BTR with four classifications that would stop the fines, then revoked one classification and refunded my payment without due process, triggering fines of $250 per day. This contradicts the very LDC provision that staff relies upon, requiring a change in the list of proposed uses. Staff admits no such list exists. Staff cannot manufacture a change to a list the city never created and then punish me for it. I'm willing to help correct the city's defect and establish a list of current and requested uses. However, as stated in the annexation agreement, I should not incur any expense whatsoever to correct the city's failure. I ask the board to direct staff to correct the city's defect at the city's expense with a minor amendment or administratively. I remember when the city embraced and supported its local business owners. I urge the board to return the city to that common sense approach of supporting local businesses. Thank you.

Thank you, Robert. Thank you. Are there any further public comment?

No, Mayor. There's no more.

All right. So the last email that I received regarding that was on August 5th. Chief Z, if you could get with Mike just so he can provide us an update with Lee just so we're aware of where it's at in the process. Yes. Because from what I understand, he needs a PUD amendment to come in front of the city board sometime down the road. That has not changed. Okay. All right. Thanks, Lee. Let's see. Can I get an approval of the consent calendar?

Move approval.

I don't think we need to approve it.

No, we approve the agenda.

We approve the agenda.

Move approval of the consent calendar, which includes the minutes.

Yes. I'll make a motion. Oh, is it?

Yes, you're right.

To approve the consent calendar.

Okay. Do we have a second?

Did you want to?

I thought I made the motion, but that's okay.

Okay, sorry. Then I will second her motion. Okay.

All right, so we have a motion by Commissioner Clark for approval of the consent calendar, seconded by Commissioner Giobbe. Are there any public comments on this motion? Seeing none, Mayor, if you could do the roll call. Thank you.

Commissioner Clark? Yes. Mayor Reed?

Yes.

Commissioner Giobbe? Yes. And Commissioner Rich? Yes.

Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Moving on to commission action, agenda item number two, it's the Haney Creek Referendum. Lee, if you could read that, thank you.

Resolution number 40-2026, a resolution of the City Commission of the City of Stuart, Florida, providing for ballot language for a referendum under city charter section 9.05, seeking voter approval to rescind the November 8th, 2011 election ballot referendum requirement to lease an undeveloped 1.97 acre commercial parcel fronting US-1 opposite North River Shores Boulevard. That was to fund the maintenance of the Haney Creek Preserve so that the 1.97 acre parcel may be converted to conservation and added to the Haney Creek Preserve, providing for an effective date and for other purposes. We just had this at our last meeting on August 10th. We had a D&D giving a significant background. We've chosen not to give a presentation in a background. I've chosen not to do the same today since it should still be fresh in your memory. On August 10th, we were bringing for a D&D with the proposed language for the referendum to be placed on the ballot. You guys had no changes, and you just asked us to move forward with bringing back the resolution. Again, we have two agenda items on referendums tonight. I just wanted, for the sake of both of them, this one is a resolution, and so it's the first and only reading. The next one is an ordinance, two readings, and we're at the second reading. But they're two different things. So today is just one reading. I just want to make sure you guys aren't thinking that we have to bring this back at another reading. So this is, in this case, the charter language is already there. And back in 2011, we put this issue out to the voters, and they voted to lease out this approximate two acre parcel for commercial purposes to help fund the Haney Creek Preserve. In order to undo that, we gotta go back to the voters to seek rescission of that prior referendum and instead to convert the two acres into conservation. I have nothing further unless the commission has any further questions from myself or city staff.

I don't, but is it possible to put on the projector what the actual language, how it's written? Because those are really the only two things that are probably gonna get discussed this evening.

Mr. Krolski is walking up to the computer and he did have it on a presentation if he still has that available. It looks like he might.

And I also wanted to announce the lighting system's not working here for the public, to be aware, but city clerks, they have it over there.

Which item, Lee? First.

It's the increase. They're wanting to see the proposed ballot language. I know you had it on the slide.

Very brief language.

Commissioner Giobbe, your light's on.

Yes, I have a question for the city attorney, Mr. Baggett. I believe that we would have to make a motion so that we can then discuss this first resolution.

Sure, we've done it both ways. I'm okay either way.

I am too, but I just want to make sure that we're doing it by the book tonight.

Well, that's up to you how you want to proceed, but I guess someone had asked for us to put the referendum language up.

Yes, no, I think that we certainly should look at this and everyone should read it.

So this is how the referendum language would be posted on their ballot in the general election in November. It might be a zoom in, maybe.

This should be on the bottom.

Bear with us. No worries.

No problem. Thank you.

We appreciate you guys.

This is the last minute. Thank you so much.

I wonder if it's easier to pull it up from like, I mean, can everyone see that? Just making sure it's legible. Because we have a hard copy, so it's a little different. Any other commissioners have any questions, comments, or emotion regarding the ballot language? Anything you don't like? Commissioner Rich?

Mr. Baggett, isn't it currently in the Haney Creek Preserve?

No, it's currently zoned. It's a CPUD. Okay. They kept it out.

Okay.

I think if you recall, former Commissioner Crosscoff came and they actually kept it separate. All of it was commercial PUDs and we ended up acquiring all with the county and they kept two acres, this approximate two acres separate by itself. They converted everything else but this.

Can I ask you one more question? I just spent three days with the Florida League of Cities. freaking out about amendment three. If Amendment 3 goes on the ballot, elected officials are actually quite restricted in how they may speak for or against the ballot item, correct? Are you aware of those prohibitions?

Yes. It's my understanding that the city cannot use funds to take a position one way or another, but I believe individually, not on behalf of the board, you can speak your mind on certain items.

You can't do it up here.

Correct.

I'm saying that you could be... Would that same prohibition exist with regard to these local referendum items?

As far as when it comes up on... If it goes on the ballot and the elected officials... We're not supposed to use any resources to fund, to promote it, publicize it, other than just letting them know that it's there.

And the prohibitions apply broadly to social media too, so it's just something to be aware of.

Again, if you're out in the public on your own, you can express your own opinion as a resident on the issue. Thank you. And we're not allowed to expend any funds, obviously.

uh... in one second so for clarification commissioner rich and and lee basically if we're sitting at the dais elected officials should be saying whether or not they support this referendum on the ballot or not. It's more so the language that we're discussing.

You have to support it if you're gonna vote for it today. The board can't go out and publicize and advertise, please vote yes for this. Yeah, that would be inappropriate.

We can't spend any money to promote it.

But once it's on the ballot, you cannot, if you have commissioner comments, you go, this is on the ballot, I want you to vote for it. You can't do that sitting up here.

Correct. Has that happened, or you're just, it's a statement?

I don't know, I sat in a 90 minute session with three lawyers who were saying, be careful.

They were talking about Amendment 3, which is the same thing.

Right. Right, so my question to you was, does that prohibition also apply to this local referendum item? Who's saying that? Yes, I would, I assume it does.

Right, I'll get you a better answer to be more concretely, but I know as a matter, of course, that we're not allowed to promote it, we're not allowed to spend money on it. And I would say up here as a board telling people to vote yes for it, obviously you can support it today when you're voting on it, but I think we should probably be dissuaded from bringing it up after this date unless you guys vote it down.

Thank you for that clarification.

And I don't know if that's happened in the past or not with other referendums. I've only been here for two years.

I don't think Commissioner Rich was saying that. I think he was saying that he was with the League of Cities and they were discussing Amendment 3, the tax exempt issue in lawyers for the League of Cities was having that discussion, right? Correct. You aren't alleging that we have violated this? Not at all.

It's informational.

All right. Commissioner Giobbi, your light's on.

I just wanted, I've been doing a lot of...

So the light system for us is working. It's the public comment light. Sorry for not clarifying that.

All right, I just wanted to state that, yes, once it's on the ballot, we have the right to talk about it. We're certainly going to talk about it tonight. We're going to approve it. Once it's on the ballot, whether it's Amendment 3 or any of those, no, we cannot collectively say you need to vote for this or you shouldn't vote for it. We can't take a position one way or the other.

Commissioner Clark, your light is on.

Yes, thank you. You're welcome. On this Haney Creek item, I have like, when we have the language added to the Haney Creek Preserve that covers all of the potential land use designation,

No, we'll have to come back and go through the process of converting the land use.

Okay.

It's currently a CPUD, so we'd have to switch it.

To have it in conservation.

I believe it's commercial and then a land use and then a CPUD zoning. So we'd have to go back and we'd have to go through the process of changing it.

Okay, so if this is voted in, the intent would be there. During this process, this is a one-and-done now for this resolution. If we approve this resolution and if it goes forward tonight, have we heard anything from the public so far? I really haven't had too many comments sent to me, but... I don't know if I've missed some comments. Do we know if we've had any comments from the public other than the fact that this was brought up to be rescinded some time ago as any members of the public? sent in any information?

I'm only aware of a handful of people through the last several weeks emailing. I think we got one today on it. And it was to the Commissioner's general email.

Yeah.

So you all should have got it because I get carbon copied on those emails.

Yeah, yeah. I haven't seen too many either. I was just wondering if I'd missed something. And then the last meeting I had asked if anyone had followed up with Commissioner Cross cough and I don't know if the city manager had done so or not.

No, but if you recall this. Former Commissioner Cross cough came here. I tried to look on to what date he came and did public comment, but he came here and spoke to you all and he asked that you not go forward with this resolution. he was part of the commission that set it up so that this would pay, that the two acre would be leased out.

Pay for the maintenance. Correct. And during the time when we've had this, I think even before the rescission came up, this had come up before when we were trying to lease the parcel for housing to some housing solution group. And that was brought up that the reason why that 1.97 acres was taken out was to help with the maintenance and at that time we had asked for input from our public works director who is in charge of the people who help manage the Haney Creek or whatever companies are hired to do anything in the Haney Creek and I think he had said that the money that had been spent was I WOULDN'T SAY MINIMAL, BUT IT WAS, THEY WERE MANAGING TO DO THE MAINTENANCE WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, OF COURSE THERE WAS NO MONEY BEING GENERATED FROM A COMMERCIAL LEASE, AND THEY WERE STILL MANAGING. SO WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMERCIAL LEASE WENT THROUGH OR THE POSSIBLE REMAIN INACTIVE, I don't think that there was a big push to get those funds from leasing it. And I know that we did try to push to lease it in the early days, but so far nothing happened with it since 2011.

Mayor, Jim Karolsky for the record. Yes, sir. When appropriate, I do have some numbers that I can answer.

Yes, I would like for you to give us anything that you have.

Would that be okay, Mayor?

Yeah, absolutely. I think it was around 5,000 as well.

It was about 5,000. And we estimate probably between five and 10. However, that doesn't include any kind of projects that might arise in the park. The other thing is is that the sign from Lamar Signs, that generates about $30,000 a year. And so what the former finance director did is he, I don't know if he allocated it directly or justified it, but he thought that that money from the billboard was utilizing, was maintaining the park as well.

Okay, did you have an estimate run down for what would have been generated from, technically if it was done as a commercial lease?

I thought about that question being raised, and I think it would depend an awful lot on what was built there. If it was affordable housing, I think the answer would be zero. If it was a gas station, obviously it would be more, so it would depend on the use.

Yeah, I do remember way in the past when we were looking at the housing issue, that came up as a big issue because if it were the affordable housing, then we would not be able to generate the funds that we thought that we would. That's my comment so far.

All right, and as far as like, I think Jeff was the only one that didn't support it. All the emails that we have received, everybody supports this. It's a referendum taking the power from us five and giving it to our constituents. It's very simple how a referendum operates. I'm from the government, but I don't know everything, so I'd rather pass it off to the voters, but Commissioner Jobe, your light's on?

Yes. And I wanted to say that we're doing a lot of discussion about something that happened in 2011. So much has changed since then. We've been through COVID. Cost to do business has been excessive. This would be an opportunity to move this from, again, A majority of commissioners making a decision for the city of Stewart residents and the residents making it. They already had a referendum. At that period of time, it seemed like that might be a good idea. But in those years, what has happened is the amount of development that has happened, all of that, I don't think anyone wants to see another gas station, another Wawa, another... storage center, car wash, or whatever, sitting on the corner of one of our main streets. And we're also wanting to save some green space. We could add this back into Haley Creek and enjoy it. Everyone could enjoy it. But again, it comes down to the fact that this is a decision that needs to be made by the people who live here. I don't understand if there's a reluctance to put these and approve them. We're not saying that they will come to fruition. What we're saying is we're giving you, the voters, the opportunity to either say nay or yay. I mean, that's really what it comes down to. Unless there's people here who don't think the public has the right to say nay or yay, maybe they don't believe that the public is educated enough to say it. But you all live here. It's your taxpayer dollars. You have every right to make this decision, not us. Thank you.

Commissioner Clark, your light's on.

Jim, this is going to be on the fly because I don't know if you're prepared for it, but since we're discussing this again, it's a one and only. Do you have a picture of the subject parcel and the relationship to the current Haney Creek? Thank you.

That's the aerial and then this is the map and this is the two acre parcel. Can you see where my cursor is? Yes. Okay, 1.97.

And thank you. Can I ask the city attorney, if the public approved this referendum, if we agreed to move this forward, if it goes on, will we still be able to have that? Because we have a contract with Lamar that's not expired. How do we continue to work that?

The electronic billboard is not on the two-acre parcel. It's up the road further. It's a little bit north.

Okay.

You see Baker Road? See where he's pointing to now? Perfect. That's where the sign is.

Perfect. Perfect. That's fine.

It's completely undeveloped, the two-acre parcel.

Okay. It's very close to wet areas. I know that area.

It's right across the street from North River Shores Boulevard, that light, that puts things in perspective.

Yeah, yeah.

It was just a request we've been here several times I just asked that all the commissioners We've had this information for over a week now And I think that if we have questions or we want items put up on that we let the staff know in advance I think that is just Something we should be doing it's not waiting until the meetings here. They have to look through for where it might be We've had this material we've read over it and we certainly know what questions we wanted Giving it to the staff when we're sitting in the meeting. I just think is not acceptable. I think that we have They're willing to talk to us on the phone They'll answer an email just send it out to them and say gee could you be ready? On Commission night to present this information that we might need that's all Thank You Commissioner Joby

All right, I'm just gonna pass the gavel and get the show on the road to Commissioner Clark. I'm gonna make a motion to approve resolution number 40-2026 for the Haney Creek referendum.

There's a motion. Is there a second? I will second the motion. There's a motion from Mayor Sean Reed, seconded by Commissioner Giobbe. Resolution number 40-2026. Clerk? Actually, any comments?

We have a public comment. Ms. Emily Lanthier?

Do you have a comment? Thank you.

I think it's very important for the citizens to be able to vote on this. I think there's still some stuff that should be done on this property. There has never been an environmental assessment done, and I think it's very important as it has a lot of upland habitats. It has scrub, which are endangered habitats, which also contain the now critically endangered gopher tortoise. Within the year, they went from vulnerable to critically endangered, lost 80% of their population due to habitat loss. So I think it needs to be very clear what the language says. I'm not sure. I'm not... I don't know if it's possible to add the sensitive habitat. I don't know what to put on there. But it needs to be clear to show that it is going to be preserved. And those habitats do have a number of other endangered and vulnerable plants and animals. And if we were not to keep this property and we were to build, let's say, a gas station, it also affects the neighboring environment as well from runoff. Same thing with like a car wash. We have all the chemicals and stuff. And then we're also fragmenting the habitats as well. So it ends up affecting the populations that are in that habitat not being able to interact with each other.

I'm just kind of winging it right now.

I didn't write anything. This is very last minute. And I know the Native Plant Society, I've talked to a few people, and they'd be happy to help with an environmental assessment to figure out what's on the property. I think that's all I have, really.

Thank you so much. Commissioner Clark, she didn't introduce herself.

Yeah, could you give your name again for the record? And if you spell your last name, if it's difficult.

Emily Lanthier, L-A-N-T-H-I-E-R.

Thank you, Emily. Thank you, Ms. Lanthier.

Commissioner Clark, can I ask a question to Emily, just a clarifying question? Okay.

Yes, you may, sir.

So the referendum, how I understand it, is to, it gives the power to the voters. If anything development happened from the city or something like that, I would imagine they would support the environmental assessment and everything moving forward with that. Because I know you had sent us an email requesting, yeah, so we did see that. But you're in support of the referendum process And we're limited by 15 words for the heading and then 75 for the body. Correct, Lee? Correct. Yeah, so Lee had to get very thinking on this and getting the language right. But that's all I have to say.

Thank you. Mr. David Kelman.

David, can you repeat that again, clerk? Mr. David Kelman. Okay, thank you.

Something like that. So that parcel right there, does it affect any trails, part of the dog park, or any other thing? Or is it just on US 1 sitting there, overgrown, weeded, and does anybody know?

It's vacant.

It's vacant.

There's nothing there.

So I'm not saying to go with it. I'm not saying to go whatever. What I'm saying is that parcel, if it could generate some sort of income for Haney Creek, which that's what the money would have to be justified for, correct, on any lease or whatever you may put there.

We'd have to go to Haney Creek.

Now, what money does Haney Creek generate right now to clean up? You're saying something about the past financial guy. Has anybody been to Haney Creek? You walk around there? What are they maintaining there? What are they doing? I walked through there. She runs that park. What are they maintaining? It's very confusing, the whole thing. But if that parcel right there could generate money for Haney Creek, I don't see two acres of land on us-1 doing anything you're gonna still have coyotes running across us-1 you sub bobcats and every other thing and if it doesn't affect trails or dog parks or any other thing I mean it'd be pretty crazy for residents not to wanna have the city do something with it whether it's a bulletin board I'm not saying gas stations car washers or anything like that we have six million of them maybe a bulletin board that could generate So, I mean, that's something everybody should consider. Thank you.

Thank you. Clerk, no, no.

I have no more public comment, Commissioner. I have no more public comment.

Well, you have no more questions?

I have no more public comment.

All right, so no more public comment. All right, Commissioner Jobe wanted to make a comment.

Actually, I just wanted to make a statement to your question. But you had told me no, so.

I ask you to make a comment. You can go on and make a comment.

Thank you, Commissioner Clark. I wanted to state the question was posed, what could be there? What could generate money? If we leave it open, there are a list of items that could be there, including a gas station. We can't say selectively, well, you can only put this. If we leave it open for leasing, then there's a list of items that can be leased. We can't really say, well, you can't put a car wash there, you can't do this, but you could put a bulletin board there. So it leaves it open. And to be perfectly honest, once you do develop that, you are going to infringe upon anything that's in Haney Creek. There'll be runoff, there'll be all sorts of items. I just wanted to mention that.

Thank you, Commissioner. Are we ready for the clerk?

Commissioner Rich's light's on.

Oh, Commissioner Rich, thank you.

You're welcome. Mr. Trotsky, how much removal of invasives has taken place in Haney Creek over the last few years?

I would have to defer to our public works director regarding that question. Mr. Leggett, would you happen to know if exotic removal, pepper trees or anything?

Okay. Okay.

Okay.

Have we built any boardwalks? Have we done any wetland restoration?

Mr. Leggett, could you please come up here for a minute, sir? Thank you.

Share the limelight, Milton.

Milton Leggett, Public Works Director. No, we have not done anything in that two-acre partial at this point.

The rest of Haney Creek.

The rest of Haney Creek? Mm-hmm. Oh. Well, we maintain it, yes, but we, as far as the boardwalk part and all of that, no. It was never designed.

May I ask?

Thank you.

May I ask Mr. Leggett a question? On the east side, is that going towards 707, where we actually have the monument that's Way on the east side. That's the only place that's an active park area, per se, on the other side of the slough.

When you say east side, Commissioner, could you be a little more clear?

On 707. Going from US 1 all the way over.

You mean on Baker Road? Yes, that whole area. The only section there is behind A Ramps. That's where the trail is, back in that area, yes.

Okay.

Are you referencing the entrance on Dixie Highway? That's what I'm saying, on 707.

Yeah, that section. You're still on Baker Road, or are we talking about Dixie? On 707.

Dixie. Okay, Dixie, okay.

The existing trailhead.

Yeah. That's the only active part where people enter and go there.

They can enter from there, and they can also enter on Baker Road also.

Yes, we understand that.

There?

Baker also.

I think it's where it's green, Jim.

Yeah, for the dog park.

That's where the county also owns it, and we agreed to maintain it, and we have a pavilion and bathrooms. There's a driveway off of Baker Road where he's pointing to, and we have a pavilion and bathrooms and a parking lot. And then there's trails.

There's a dog park and a trails.

The Audubon Society does tours. Me and my daughter went on one last year. and they take you through and show you various areas of the park. But most of the trails are up in the green area that are more marked. I think there are trails down around Haney Creek, but they're not as, I guess, generally used. I think there's just been some trails through the years, people have walked through there and stuff, but that's about it.

But I think what the young lady and what Mr. Kelman is going towards is function. So the function of the entire creek is to clean water before it gets down to the river. So it's a whole large area and it doesn't necessarily have to have active parks and active boardwalks for it to do its function. It's conservation land. So that's, you know, and the reason why you haven't spent a lot of money on it is because you're not out there cutting down things every day. It's staying as natural and pristine as possible.

Now, there are also trails on the other side of the roadway, too.

Yeah.

Thank you. His comments are going to be off the record because he went on the mic just so you know.

The clerk is reminding me. I'm sorry. There are also trills in that part there too, which is directly behind A ramps.

Okay.

Nature trails.

And you guys have adopted a resolution for us to move forward with doing a trailhead with the half cent sales tax off of Baker Road, which is in that area where Milton was just referring to.

Yes.

Right.

So it's a system, an era where the whole system is going to be working to clean the water.

Yes.

Thank you.

May I conclude my remarks? Yes, sir. Commissioner Clark? Yes, thank you. Again, I just spent three days with the Florida League of Cities that represents 411 cities and towns in the state of Florida as they described the most existential crisis the financial viability of all of those cities and towns that they have ever seen. And that is Amendment 3. I am always in favor of our citizenry being able to make a well informed decision. Until we understand how dire our financial situation may be, until we know whether we could face the loss of millions of dollars. a year in ad valorem revenue, this is just premature for us to take an alternative revenue source away from the citizens and deny some tax relief. There's no hurry. Nobody wants to lease this. It's currently in preserve. The November election will have a much better idea of the situation we face, and one of our primary responsibilities is a financial one, so I don't see the need to rush into this. We can put it on the ballot in two years. Nobody's going to lease this in the next two years. So that is my very strong concern at this point, because I don't know what the future holds. And none of us do. And let's keep our options open.

Thanks for your comment, Commissioner Rich. Commissioner Jobe?

Yeah, first I want to address what you had said, Commissioner Clark, the purpose to Haney Creek and what it's doing. It's cleaning water, it's providing trails, it's a dog park, there are many issues there. Why would we want to develop that land which then would impede some of that going into Haney Creek? That's my question number one to you. To Commissioner Rich, yes, you're right. We don't know what that amendment will do on the ballot. But this is separate and above from that. The county has agreed that they are more than willing to rescind the original agreement. The property has not, and as far as I can tell, will not produce any income. So even if Amendment 3 were passed, we would still not derive any income from that piece of property. And just everybody remember, tomorrow is election day. There's no more pre-election, early election, early voting. Tomorrow's the day to vote, and it really is important how you vote in regards to what you think your options are as citizens and being able to decide your own fate. Thank you.

Commissioner Clark, can I be recognized? Yes. Just to correct the record, this parcel is not currently in preserve. It actually has a commercial PUD. And to address the public comment, when it comes to commercial PUDs, there's multiple usages. Your five elected officials have the say-so in what happens with this parcel currently. So whether or not that's a gas station PUD, commercial retail, it could be any PUD. So as long as three people up here supported it, it could be sold for development, leased for development. So that's all I have to say.

It can't be sold. Can't be sold. Can it? Couldn't be sold.

I believe the original purpose was to lease it long term to generate revenue for commercial purposes.

But it could be sold.

There's nothing in that agreement that says it can't be. The long-term goal was to gain revenue. Lease.

We have an interlocal agreement with the county that it would be leased for long purposes, for purposes of generating revenue to help support and maintain the rest of the park.

And if it were sold, it would generate revenue.

Right, but our interlocal agreement with the county was that we would lease it long-term, generate revenue. And that's being amended subject to referendum. But if we don't go out to referendum, and if it does go out to referendum and the population votes no on it, then we're going back to the original deal with the county.

Do we have any other?

We had someone who wanted to public comment, if you would allow it.

I'll entertain their public comment.

There might be one more. I think there's two.

Could you please state your name for the record and your address?

Derek Ogden, 511 Southeast Hibiscus Avenue.

Thank you, sir.

The property has been sitting there since, is it 2011 or 2012? Nobody has wanted to lease the property. It is sitting there generating zero revenue. All it could possibly do is get developed or become part of the preserve. I mean, these are the options. And all we're asking you guys is to give the voters the choice between those two options. That's it.

Thank you, sir. Did someone else have a comment? Yes.

Good evening, commissioners.

Good evening.

It's a pleasure to be here and to address the commission. I would just like to say that I am disappointed, terribly disappointed, that we would have any commissioners sitting on that dais that don't have the respect for the voters. This should be a choice that the voters should make. There's nothing wrong with it being put out there as a referendum to tell me that each and every one of you has the power to take it away from the voters is ridiculous. This should certainly be out there. That piece of property, I know I'm very familiar with that piece of property. And if I'm not mistaken, I do believe that at one point in time, and it might have been maybe two or three years ago, I think there was a Popeyes looking at that. There was a car wash looking at that particular piece of property. There's plenty of interest in that piece of property. That is currently part of Haney Creek, and to keep it as Haney Creek is what it should be. And any commissioner sitting up there, I have no respect for you if you decide that you do not feel that the voters have the wherewithal and the intelligence to make their own decisions. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other persons with any public comment? Any other commissioners who have any further discussions? Any comment from our city manager or attorney with regard to? Okay, so Mr. Krolski, even though we're pressing you into working, could you please give us the resolution again on the board, and then we're gonna go to the clerk. So we have a motion and we have a second, and we've had public comment. Clerk?

Commissioner Giobbi?

Yes.

Mayor Reed?

Yes.

Commissioner Clark?

Yes.

And Commissioner Rich?

No.

Thank you. I give back the gavel. I give back the gavel to you. Give back the gavel. Take it back.

Motion passes with Commissioner Rich dissenting.

Thank you.

Moving on to Ordinance Second Reading, Agenda Item 3, the Ballfields Referendum. Lee, if you could read that ordinance.

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 3, 2026 GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT SEEKING VOTER APPROVAL ON A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CHARTER PERTAINING TO THE SALE OR LEASE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY CONTAINING RECREATIONAL BALLFIELDS. providing for codification, providing for conflict, providing for an effective date and for other purposes. Again, this is the second reading of the ordinance, and this is to do a charter amendment, adding this language to the charter, which would be similar to what we just went through with the Haney Creek, because there is charter language in there about selling or leasing long-term waterfront property. And so here where we would be adding to the charter. So that's why it's the purpose of an ordinance. And this also requires it to go out for referendum. In the first reading, you guys in your motion in moving it to second reading requested that we add a couple of words in the title And we have done that, and the words were general and and, and I just read them in the updated ordinance title. But you didn't have any proposed changes to the actual proposed language for the referendum. So I just wanted to point that out, that we made the additions in the title, and you had no recommendations or edits for the language in the referendum.

One sec, Commissioner Jobe. For clarification, though, Lee, this language that is up here, we removed the 10 years and changed it to one year.

That is correct.

Okay. In our agenda packet, it's correct, but...

This is an older, I guess, slide, so before that... but we don't have a slide with it.

Are we able to pull up the agenda packet from the city website then, just to have the correct language, how it's written currently? And Commissioner Giova, your light was on?

Mm-hmm, yes.

You're good. They're pulling up the language from the agenda packet.

I was going to make a motion so that we could then discuss. Okay. Yeah, that's what I was going to do.

All right, that's what you're going to do then.

Okay. I'd like to make a motion that Ordinance 2553-2026... Ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Stuart, approving ballot language and directing the supervisor elections of Martin County, Florida, to place a referendum on the November 3rd general election ballot, seeking voter approval. Key word there, voter approval.

Can I read the whole thing?

You want me to? Sure.

Okay.

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, and providing for an effective date and other purposes.

Second.

All right, so we have a motion of approval for ordinance number 2553-2026 for the ball field referendum from Commissioner Giobbe and seconded by Commissioner Clark. Are there any public comments on this motion?

Yes, Mayor. Mr. Derek Ogden?

Welcome, just make sure you state your name and it's three minutes. And commissioners, if you could, just make sure you speak into your microphone.

Thank you. Derek Ogden, 511 Southeast Hibiscus. If our commissioners don't trust the voters, we're not going to trust you. This is city property. It's owned by the residents. We could have done this in May. The can has been kicked several times. We've already been through this. We went over two weeks ago. We went over the language. Everything was clear. Everybody knew that the city manager was not going to be here tonight. There should be no reason to not say yes across the board. If you don't trust the voters, the voters cannot trust you. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Oh, sorry. Brooks Dubois.

Welcome, Brooks.

Just if you could, just state your name for the record.

Hi. Brooks Du Bois, 908 Southeast 6th Street, Stewart. Just my comment is I grew up in Stewart, moved up from Miami when I was six, played ball all around here, Stewart. It just blows me away that y'all are trying to sell what kids enjoy, the ball fields. It's been talked about for years. I don't understand why y'all keep on bringing it up. It should be staying for the kids. My grandkids play there. My kids play there. What's next? The 10th Street Park. Y'all are going to put that in the... docket to sell that to. I mean, we need stuff for the kids around here. We don't need development. We need more things for the kids. So that's all I got to say. Thank you.

Will Laughlin?

And for clarification, the referendum is written so your five elected officials wouldn't have that decision to sell or lease it. It's given the power to the public. That's what the referendum does. It takes it away from us and gives it back to our constituents that give us the privilege to sit here.

Hi, I'm Will Laughlin, 950 South Kenner Highway. And to that point, exactly. The reason why we need this referendum is because of the tremendous state overreach, in particular with Senate Bill 180, also with the Live Local Act. This is just an attempt to build another wall to protect the ball fields that the previous speaker just wanted to help defend. We also know that the League of Cities, 411, will provide zero support in defending when the state comes to take these kind of properties. Because this great, powerful league with all their might and lobbying were so effective that these laws, the Live Local Act and Senate Bill 180 almost passed unanimously. It's almost as if they almost want to encourage ball fields to be taken away. So here's a chance for the commissioners to provide the opportunity to defend the ball fields that the residents want defended. And it's a risk that if we don't take steps like changing the zoning from urban general to public and then this referendum that if we get a commission with three commissioners that are the majority, they might decide to say, you know what, this would be great to see these towers built here because that goes right along with this transit-oriented development plan. So I'm hoping that the commissioners here recognize that the voters are smart enough to recognize that we want to protect the ball fields and we don't want to see a lot of affordable housing apartments built there on that location that would be, by Senate Bill 180, tax exempt for 30 years, and they don't even have to be occupied. So let's just keep the status quo. That's my ask, and thanks for your time.

Thank you.

I have no further public comment.

Thank you. Commissioner, do you have your lights on?

Yes, okay. I've received lots of emails, and I think there's a big miscommunication out there in the public. We are not looking to sell the ball fields. We're looking to protect them. All it takes here is the three commissioners with the power to say, you know what? We can make money, because if that becomes the issue that we need money, then we can sell it. okay what we want to do is by protecting them we put that out to the public to make that decision not the commissioners as many people stated if the balance of the commission changes there might be people who are very much interested in having money for the city versus preserving ballparks for our kids so once again this is a situation where We are giving out the power to the residents. You want to protect the ball fields for your kids, you need to vote for this. Okay, this will protect it, this will take away the power from this dais, and it will give it to you, the people. The other difference between this and the previous motion that we just passed is if we send it over to the people, they're not going to sell it. They're going to keep it for their children. There's not to say that it wouldn't be sold if it were left up to the commission. Thank you very much.

Commissioner Rich, your light's on.

Yeah, just to be clear, when you put up the original language, does this, it included the last sentence which we had removed. So this is, which said you could, the restriction did not apply if it was a sports base, right? Sorry, my glasses.

So this is the correct language, okay.

Was there a reason you put up the corrected language the first time, Mr. Beggar? I'm sorry. The first language, I just wanted people to be sure.

Commissioner, that was my decision and I put up the slide thinking that there was no changes and I quickly corrected that with the actual language.

Mr. Karolsky was not prepared to do a presentation today so he was pulling up prior presentations.

Just for sake of clarification.

As you're reading it here and that was how it was posted on the agenda was without that sentence that you guys had requested. This should be the most updated version unless you want to make more edits to it. No. Less is more.

Does that conclude your comments, Commissioner Rich? It does, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Commissioner Clark, your light's on.

So Mr. Baggett, if you're not prepared for this, I guess it will wait till whenever this gets to that level. But any item that's a referendum item, I remember when we had to do the waterfront for more than 20 years or up to 20 years when we had to do that referendum. The advocacy or the information that the city puts out so that the residents know that this is coming up for referendum, what should the residents expect if any of these items are put on the referendum, will be on the referendum for November? How will they get to know about it?

I'd have to look at the details, but I think we would be able to publicize on our website that this is on the upcoming ballot and show it. We just can't take a position and we can't market it. We can't promote to vote one way or another. Just like Commissioner Rich said, he went to meetings on Amendment 3 and they were saying that cities can't the cities can't spend money and start promoting against Amendment 3. You guys can in your individual capacities and so forth, but that's my understanding of the law when you have something on a referendum ballot, just like Amendment 3, just like Haney Creek will be now, and then potentially this one.

And does our charter have any advocacy guidelines for commissioners, whether on their social media pages, just like I think he had asked about the other, the state amendment?

Our charter does not address that, no.

Okay, just want to make sure that we have that information. I keep looking for this thing.

Does that conclude your comment? Yes, thank you. Any other commissioners have comments for staff or any discussion?

Nope.

All right, seeing none, Suzette, if you could do the roll call.

Commissioner Rich?

Yes.

Mayor Reed?

Yes.

Commissioner Giobbe? Yes. Commissioner Clark?

Yes. Motion passes unanimously.

Thanks. If I'm not here ever again, I say thanks to the city of Stewart and Clark.

All right, seeing no further discussion, I'm going to adjourn this meeting at 6.35 PM. Thank you.