Martin County initiates Chapter 164 conflict proceedings with Stuart over interlocal agreement and grant‑support obligations

Martin County commissioners voted Jan. 28 to initiate conflict resolution proceedings under Florida Statutes Chapter 164 with the City of Stuart over Stuart’s refusal to provide a letter supporting the county’s Federal Railroad Administration grant application and other actions the county says violate a Dec. 12, 2023 interlocal agreement concerning a proposed passenger‑rail station.

County attorney Sarah Woods presented the background: the county and city previously entered an interlocal agreement on Dec. 12, 2023 to jointly pursue a Brightline (passenger‑rail) station and parking garage on three county‑owned parcels. The county and city submitted a joint proposal and were notified that they were selected; city commissioners later approved an amended interlocal and a ground lease for Brightline, but subsequently the city rescinded approval of the amended interlocal and the ground lease and later declined to provide a letter of support for the county’s application to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the county attorney said.

Woods said county staff requested support letters from nearby municipalities and that all other Martin County jurisdictions provided letters; Stuart did not. The county sent a Jan. 7 letter reminding the city of its obligations under the interlocal and warning that failure to act could harm the county’s grant prospects; the city presented the county’s letter to its commission but still took no action to provide the requested supporting letter.

Woods recommended the board adopt a resolution to begin the statutorily prescribed Chapter 164 process, which seeks to resolve intergovernmental conflicts without litigation through conflict assessment meetings, joint elected‑body meetings and, if needed, mediation. The board approved initiating conflict resolution, 4‑1, with Commissioner Vargas dissenting. The board also authorized Chair Hurd to join county staff (county administrator and county attorney) in the initial conflict assessment meeting.

Woods and commissioners said the process is intended to be non‑litigious and that the county’s immediate objective is to secure Stuart’s performance under the interlocal, including the requested letter of support, and to encourage cooperative implementation of the joint proposal and any grant applications for station funding.

Commissioner supporters framed the vote as a procedural move to pursue an amicable resolution and to protect the county’s ability to obtain external grant funding, while Commissioner Vargas opposed initiating the conflict resolution, saying she was concerned about escalating conflict with the county seat and the expenditure of staff resources. The motion passed 4‑1.