[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6146717,"mediaKeyId","5524742-e9f5026105bb649001d9c5437e9a3d2e","parentId",5524742,"title","Commissioners discuss returning Haney Creek two‑acre parcel to voters for conservation; staff to consult county","audioSeconds",363,"startMs",8493000,"endMs",8856000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5524742-e9f5026105bb649001d9c5437e9a3d2e&start=8493&end=8856","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5524742-e9f5026105bb649001d9c5437e9a3d2e/thumbnail_8493000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6146717/Florida/Commissioners-discuss-returning-Haney-Creek-twoacre-parcel-to-voters-for-conservation-staff-to-consult-county","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6146717-0f8f47172106b0d594c47f7a96a8b603/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143287&Signature=NNUn~PohhXxH4wBRL6ZXTAkoTIxjvp1U3CmQPtmW2xu6Ada9r3TspMm5cyyJoWIvdzyt~3pz5FtgJODWQHpyfrHo7y0sKwiSpFbLSTlnkk1-yCTuL-VkcnqpAUyxUZQnqeCCGyyOLVZHuxquMv8e11hACP7dyvP~zEPYEzUyiICma6XZt4HaQ11O~pxvefq99YHvVRtyjJ6grhwCvJojTgHa4~xkJL24R9Y3EQeFzOdkVg4uuvabxtc-jQKFAJwXVE2J8-p2RqrvnFRbOR4Yb~dRxhFrkMNggM1DnqhxNkYSYM8tsWpULHGREbxybKkzRhobCrY91Jug-alO5GwcQw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Stuart, FL","date","2025-08-01T16:52:06Z","article","The City of Stuart’s long‑held 1.97‑acre carve‑out of the Haney Creek property — a parcel originally set aside for commercial use to fund the adjacent preserve — drew renewed attention at the July 28 commission meeting, where commissioners asked staff to explore returning the parcel to conservation through a voter referendum.

Background and legal framework
City staff presented the interlocal funding agreement with Martin County dated June 14, 2011, which carved the commercial parcel out of the larger Haney Creek acquisition. The agreement says proceeds from sale, lease or other revenue from the carve‑out shall be \"perpetually and exclusively used for the improvement, use, management and operation\" of Haney Creek and related conservation parcels, and it delegates annual accounting obligations to the city.

A 2011 referendum question authorizing a long‑term lease of the parcel was attached to the agenda; staff noted that roughly 76.5% of voters who considered that question approved the authorized commercial lease language at the time.

Commission discussion and recommended next steps
Some commissioners urged converting the two‑acre parcel into conservation and using other funds (including half‑cent sales tax money previously discussed) for trailheads and preserve improvements. Staff advised that changing the parcel’s use to conservation would require amending the interlocal agreement and returning the matter to voters, because the original referendum language used the word \"shall\" in authorizing commercial use.

\"If you wanted to use it as a passive park and/or a trailhead…you would need to return it via referendum,\" a staff presentation said, citing the agreement language and the referendum result.

The commission asked the city attorney to research the legal steps required and requested staff coordinate with Martin County; staff committed to bring a draft letter or item for the commission’s consideration at an upcoming meeting (the city attorney will review the interlocal terms and the city's options for a referendum).

Cost and alternatives
Staff noted earlier engineering and permitting cost estimates for a trailhead project (figures in the packet included past estimates of several hundred thousand dollars for construction and consulting/permitting), and commissioners discussed using conservation designation and trail connections instead of commercial development to preserve the watershed and reduce long‑term management costs.

No vote taken
No binding action to change land use or to submit a referendum was taken at the July 28 meeting. The commission directed staff to consult the county and return with legal guidance and a possible draft agenda item for a future meeting.

Ending note
The question pits the city’s long‑term conservation funding model — which relied on commercial revenue from the parcel — against current interest in preserving and building public access to the Haney Creek Preserve; staff work with the county and legal counsel will determine whether a referendum path is required and feasible.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","07/28/2025 City Commission Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Staff told the commission the 1.97‑acre commercial carve‑out of Haney Creek was approved by referendum in 2011 to allow commercial use to fund preserve maintenance; several commissioners favored conservation and asked staff to consult the county on next steps toward a referendum.","taxTitle","City of Stuart, Martin County, Florida","taxId",71255,"location","Florida","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6146721,"Commissioners raise parking, jurisdiction and shared‑use questions for proposed Brightline station at county courthouse lot",1619,2947000,4566000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5524742-e9f5026105bb649001d9c5437e9a3d2e&start=2947&end=4566","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5524742-e9f5026105bb649001d9c5437e9a3d2e/thumbnail_2947000.jpg","/articles/6146721/Florida/Commissioners-raise-parking-jurisdiction-and-shareduse-questions-for-proposed-Brightline-station-at-county-courthouse-lot","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6146721-dd84b3e9088bdcbfe65fb124dc0ed46c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143287&Signature=gO-jsqokgnvdADWgUM4-GkMqDoriB5531Ru26UPyVn0ku1V~iR5kjkJxwAz2BQgSDMnQQ2IbNbExWt0Oi8LWjGrnjmgGk7Wu4PPecroTB7fZ0ETLaF5atfZqhPIDWzU0IJ1svg31BrI~jnD4K7hJj8QwQ3suBeb-~6tPbxjBNl9VsHAQWdmbf7SOR4Ek4fQVJne5zgg0-R7aQNnHsRWb8QWRIOhjeKsd5CsrYdSkPkJ0MM1uR5bLmnvfix7kK3EAgz7gEqMVdMvr65WVV4bU~W8X4oUc0fZlcnVEgrxB2mLvUuW6oFXmVv9z9u~yXnyfQxnBQKpHASFb1UeM~b9iFg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Stewart City Commission debated July 28 how a proposed Brightline station at a two‑acre parcel adjacent to the Martin County Courthouse could affect downtown parking and who has regulatory control over the parcel once leased to a rail operator.

City staff and several commissioners spent most of a lengthy discussion identifying legal, planning and jurisdictional questions: a 1988 city resolution reduced the courthouse’s required parking by 65 spaces to preserve Gazebo Park; the two‑acre parcel currently contains roughly 160 public parking spaces; Brightline’s request in earlier procurement materials sought 200 parking spaces; and staff warned that if the parcel becomes part of the rail corridor a federal agency could assert jurisdiction.

Why it matters: Commissioners and the public said they fear courthouse parking could be displaced onto neighborhood and on‑street spaces if the county’s courthouse is forced to rely on a Brightline‑managed parking area that may operate as paid parking. City code does not currently distinguish paid from unpaid parking when calculating required parking for uses, staff said.

Staff presentation and outstanding documents
City Manager and staff summarized the parcel history: in the late 1980s the city and county negotiated to preserve the historic courthouse and to shift 65 parking spaces to a two‑acre parcel the county developed. City staff cited Resolution 33‑88 (1988) as the formal record establishing the 65‑space waiver. Staff also said code requirements would treat a train station differently (Chapter 6: four spaces per platform) than an office building (one space per 300 square feet), and that the city’s existing code does not distinguish paid vs. free parking for counting spaces.

\"If they built 200 spaces, they're actually building 40 over,\" staff said, referring to a hypothetical in which Brightline built 200 spaces on the county parcel and the county retained the 160 needed for courthouse functions. Staff also cautioned that if the county leases the parcel to a railroad and it becomes part of the rail corridor, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) could claim preemption over permitting and site control.

Commissioner concerns and missing evidence
Commissioners repeatedly pressed staff for documentary evidence showing the courthouse’s historical parking requirement and how the 65‑space waiver was calculated; staff acknowledged some materials were not in the meeting packet and committed to bringing resolution 33‑88 and supporting documents to the next meeting. Commissioner Clark and others warned that allowing a rail operator to treat the entire parcel as Brightline’s paid parking could push courthouse and downtown parking out into neighborhoods.

Public‑policy levers discussed
Staff proposed operational measures such as painting diagonal stalls on a paved site behind the water treatment plant and designating three‑hour city parking in nearby lots to prevent long‑term commuter parking from usurping public spaces. Commissioners suggested communicating with the county and obtaining clear plans from any rail operator before final agreements are executed.

No action taken; staff follow up requested
No formal vote was taken on Brightline or any parking change. Staff said the Brightline‑related leases and more complete documentation would be brought back to the commission on Aug. 11; commissioners asked staff to meet with the county and to provide a clear accounting of current required parking for the courthouse, the number of existing spaces, and the legal status of Resolution 33‑88.

Ending note
The discussion highlighted competing goals: preserving downtown green space established decades ago, maintaining sufficient parking for courthouse functions, and assessing the impacts of a potential passenger rail station that could be governed in part by federal rail rules.

","City staff and commissioners debated whether a proposed Brightline station and its requested 200 parking spaces would displace county courthouse parking that was historically reduced by resolution; discussions highlighted gaps in documents and federal railroad jurisdiction concerns.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6146726,"Stuart vote to cap millage at 4.75 fails amid budget and staffing debate",145,1352000,1497000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5524742-e9f5026105bb649001d9c5437e9a3d2e&start=1352&end=1497","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5524742-e9f5026105bb649001d9c5437e9a3d2e/thumbnail_1352000.jpg","/articles/6146726/Florida/Stuart-vote-to-cap-millage-at-475-fails-amid-budget-and-staffing-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6146726-0b2eec2a5a35cbf83004c285f1bb898a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143287&Signature=VaJ9JUW43YaMfOpKEU5LofoLA7rb~gYRbODpxRKX5UJejsUPC8k2vUaCbU~CfnvDXtY7W4YnO7W3i4YWHimmaQG~Gav7ksZobnACu1Nx1HeES2fE8Pdt~z0WhkoS4P9aADUyomw8B2rKR6sYuvPD5yXdhjWQASceisXBYhX6mIyhRW9wwKkIM0Ur4L4apTxqoaUbpd6wqdWbqRbnaHaiCQu-KN2KHbqFJImaTAJDEHCBxSZ3YuvYpi65qAAHf~aKT72cH75DlEe1MoxpI0W2KuM0Zoh5gZKRwsbJWLrtm3YUDhVtq1C7y8xp05WAUUpicRveSuYW0Sm2CrWC9dypCw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A proposal to instruct staff to file a DR‑420 (the required 'not to exceed' notice to the property appraiser) capping the city’s millage at 4.75 failed at the Stewart City Commission meeting on July 28.

Vice Mayor Collins moved to set the 'not to exceed' millage at 4.75, and Commissioner Gioby seconded. After discussion and public comment, the roll-call vote failed — the motion did not carry.

Why it mattered: The city manager told the commission the finance director must file the DR‑420 by Aug. 4 unless the commission gives staff a different direction. That form sets the not‑to‑exceed rate used to calculate required notices and advertisement for the budget process; the commission can later adopt a lower amount but cannot adopt above the not‑to‑exceed figure once filed.

Arguments for lowering
Vice Mayor Collins argued for a lower not‑to‑exceed cap to align spending with recent reductions in property‑value growth. \"The only lever that this commission has…is to lower millage,\" Collins said, urging the city to begin adjusting spending now rather than responding reactively to a downturn.

Public safety and staffing concerns
Public speakers urged caution about reducing the available revenue. Travis Decker, speaking for Local 2411 (the firefighters’ union), said Stuart Fire Rescue currently operates at minimal staffing levels and that lower revenue could further constrain personnel and operations. \"When we talk about lowering the millage…we're already at bare bones,\" Decker said.

Helen McBride, a longtime resident, urged the commission to keep the rate at the prior year’s level to avoid cutting services residents depend on, repeatedly urging the commission to \"leave it at 5.\" Another resident noted uncertainty about state changes to homestead exemptions and other revenue impacts.

Commission votes and immediate result
Commissioner Clark voted no; Vice Mayor Collins voted yes; Mayor Rich voted no. With the motion failing, staff noted that absent a new motion the last adopted rate would remain the not‑to‑exceed rate (5.0 mills). The city manager said staff recommended keeping the not‑to‑exceed figure at last year’s rate while the commission continues budget discussions and scheduled budget presentations.

Next steps
City staff will present the full budget on Aug. 11. The commission can adopt a final millage and budget at a later meeting but must meet statutory advertisement and filing deadlines tied to the DR‑420. The city manager said the finance director needs the commission’s direction before Aug. 4 if the city is to file a different not‑to‑exceed amount.

Ending note
The failed motion leaves the city on the existing not‑to‑exceed figure while the commission continues budget deliberations and considers the balance between service levels and tax relief.

","A motion to set the city’s 'not to exceed' millage at 4.75 failed at the July 28 Stewart City Commission meeting; commissioners and public commenters debated pacing of spending, service levels and public safety staffing.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6146731,"Stuart commissioners transmit ordinance to rescind ZIP changes tied to SB 180 amid calls to join lawsuit",4285,306000,4591000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5524742-e9f5026105bb649001d9c5437e9a3d2e&start=306&end=4591","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5524742-e9f5026105bb649001d9c5437e9a3d2e/thumbnail_306000.jpg","/articles/6146731/Florida/Stuart-commissioners-transmit-ordinance-to-rescind-ZIP-changes-tied-to-SB-180-amid-calls-to-join-lawsuit","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6146731-53d10da9c7fe998d14740085089d67ec/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143287&Signature=hpSc4YGb1WA-UKqNSzZYhwFBOFxdKdgvnYzQ0WV9wgqgKB5yPSnUZ79gV-0HgBLpbBbOdPMhPiKyrJCx9YTXStnojP-TcYSdukEhIf1axK1UGMGRgGNjwXuTENu03lITvR0hhQyJFzeYWWS1nH3A7T~5xQUvmEF0axrSNBNANTBMfkNi3sdvt~ZKqLWgl2pyJteJC~ixfGwP3MyZp-sP7Zzzy3ppCYRTwPjnydqGDvjP3khMwuKyyVsLFxQxtSGUtd8WekVweKoty7L7wHYrgxdUyddP2bkdWJrZONNlC5r4DeUPKi2xP6Osxr3gycSmPTPwe0esUYI5s~2Ralz8qg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Stewart City Commission on July 28 transmitted to a second reading an ordinance to rescind land-development changes adopted during a recent zoning-in-progress after the state’s Senate Bill 180 took effect July 1.

The ordinance — drafted to withdraw provisions affected by section 28 of SB 180 — was presented at first reading by city staff and moved to second reading by Vice Mayor Collins. The motion to transmit was seconded by Commissioner Gioby and approved at the meeting; final action will occur on second reading.

Why it matters: Section 28 of SB 180, the city attorney and staff told the commission, applies retroactively to Aug. 1, 2024, and bars municipalities within certain federally declared disaster counties from adopting \"more restrictive or burdensome\" land-development regulations related to recovery. City staff warned that failure to act after receiving a written notice could expose Stuart to litigation and attorney-fee claims.

City Manager comments and staff recommendation
City staff explained that the ordinance focuses on section 28 and does not take final action tonight. City Attorney Baggett read the ordinance title and staff summarized the law’s retroactive reach and the mechanics in the statute that allow a resident or business owner to obtain a preliminary injunction once notice is provided.

\"This law does apply to the city of Stuart,\" the staff presentation said, noting Martin County’s inclusion in the governor’s federal disaster declaration cited in the bill. Staff recommended rescinding the local changes now to avoid being put in a position of receiving a notice that would trigger the 14‑day cure period in the statute.

Public comment: pushback and defense of ZIP
Members of the public who addressed the commission urged opposing positions. Robin Cartwright, who said she had spoken with Deltona officials and counsel for the municipal coalition, urged Stuart to “push back to Tallahassee” and to join the lawsuit challenging SB 180, saying the law could be permanent and could strip municipalities of local zoning powers. \"Every municipality should consider joining this lawsuit,\" Cartwright said.

Another resident, Walter Lloyd, told commissioners: \"Do not rescind the ZIP. Do not rescind all of that action that was put forth. Because if you rescind that, you're basically rescinding your commitment to your constituents.\"

Commission remarks
Vice Mayor Collins urged the commission not to \"roll over\" and described the issue as a defense of home rule; he said he would prefer to keep the city's ZIP changes but acknowledged the legal risk. Collins read portions of a draft resolution circulated by a municipal coalition and said he wanted Stuart to be an \"ally\" of other cities pursuing litigation.

Commissioner Gioby said she had concerns with the ZIP process previously and said the city had not followed certain procedures. Mayor Rich repeatedly urged caution about exposing the city to potential attorney-fee awards and said the commission must follow state law even if members disliked it.

Next steps and legal follow-up
Commissioners moved and approved transmitting the ordinance to second reading, where the city will consider final action. City staff told the commission they will place a fuller discussion of litigation options and counsel on an upcoming meeting; the city manager said he would have the city attorney present additional legal information at the next meeting. Several commissioners requested that staff and counsel continue to coordinate with municipal counsel networks and share more detail before any decision about formally joining outside litigation.

What was not decided
The commission did not adopt a resolution tonight to join any lawsuit and took no final action to rescind ordinances. Multiple commissioners and public speakers discussed the trade-offs between standing on principle and the financial exposure of litigation, but no binding vote to join outside counsel or sign on to a coalition complaint was taken.

Ending note
The item will return for a second reading at the commission’s next meeting; staff flagged the need for timely counsel and warned that receipt of a written notice by an aggrieved party could impose tight statutory deadlines.

","The Stewart City Commission moved the city’s first-reading ordinance rescinding portions of a recent zoning-in-progress (ZIP) after state Senate Bill 180 took effect; commissioners and public speakers debated home rule, legal risk and whether Stuart should join a multi‑municipality lawsuit.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commissioners discuss returning Haney Creek two‑acre parcel to voters for conservation; staff to consult county

Commissioners raise parking, jurisdiction and shared‑use questions for proposed Brightline station at county courthouse lot

Stuart vote to cap millage at 4.75 fails amid budget and staffing debate

Stuart commissioners transmit ordinance to rescind ZIP changes tied to SB 180 amid calls to join lawsuit