City of Stuart

CITY COMMISSION MEETING JULY 8, 2024

The regular commission meeting was preceded by the first budget meeting.

The budget director, Louis Boglioli, was there with his usual thoroughness. The millage has been a constant 5 mills for many years. If it is left at that level (which it should be), it will result in a little over $17 million in ad valorum. That doesn’t even pay for the fire and police budgets. This is consistent with how things happened in other years.

The rate of increase in taxable value is now less than in the previous two years because most of the new projects have come online. As a result, going forward if there is no new development, there will have to be either millage increases or budget cuts. And that is without any recessions or a drop in property values.

Funding for the CRA has increased by $517,000. As usual there are no official state numbers yet of what things like sales tax will be. Collective bargaining contracts are not resolved. And the budget presented is without any of the manager’s cuts. There is $1.2 million more in expenditures than income. That is about the amount it is out of whack on the first pass in most budget cycles.

The number of fire fighters and police officers in the budget are more than last year. Some of that is due to the opening of another fire station in North Stuart. But that must be watched very carefully, or the city could end up like the county with the tail wagging the dog…much of it due to commissioner meddling. (See the next story)

And increases are not because of some massive population growth. From 2001 until 2024 and with 2025 projected to be the same, Stuart has grown by 228 residents per year or 1.4%. That is right in line with the rest of the county. At that rate, Stuart’s projected built-out population of 23,900 will take another 25 years to happen.

So, when we hear dire predictions of Armageddon, the long-term statistics tell the story. The increase in traffic is not due to Stuart’s growing but rather the increase growth in St. Lucie and Palm Beach Counties residents who are going through our community to work and play. That is not going to stop.

You can see the presentation here 

Then there was a presentation by Joe Gillio about trying to clean and public use of Poppleton Creek Lake, which is a storm water treatment area. It was created by the city to take the runoff from roads and developments. The STA was subject to limited chemical spraying to control weeds before the experiment. It still is.

There are non-native plants, and they should continue to be sprayed. Other grasses such as tapegrass should be planted and expanded. There are other recommendations in the report that can be read here 

During public comment, Stuart Loyd, a Cabana Point resident, which is not located in the city, spoke about the removal of campaign signs from the rights of way and he claimed also private property.

City Manager Mortell informed Code Enforcement to remove all signs (campaign or not) from the public right of way and throw out the signs. Mr. Loyd pointed out a section of the code where it said that such signs removed should be returned to the candidate.

The section of code cited was passed prior to a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling (Reed vs. Gilbert, Arizona) where the court ruled and according to Mortell’s email to Loyd which was sent after the meeting “The Court ruled unanimously that a local ordinance in Gilbert, Arizona, which imposed stricter regulations on signs based on their content (such as political signs compared to other types), violated the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. The decision emphasized that content-based regulations are subject to strict scrutiny, meaning they must serve a compelling governmental interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The ruling reaffirmed the principle that government regulations of speech must be content-neutral to withstand constitutional scrutiny, ensuring equal protection for all forms of expression.”

In other words, all signs must be treated equally and there is no such thing as a candidate sign. Perhaps the city attorney should craft a change to the code removing the now unconstitutional language from the code. The commission can therefore then vote to remove it.

Having been a candidate, I know a thing about signs and their placement. And yes, I placed them in the rights of way knowing that they would be taken down at some point and placed behind a dumpster at the city garage to be retrieved.  Though you were never able to salvage all your signs, many of them were right back in the right of way. I suspect as a former elected city commissioner, Mortell knows the game as well.  

Two other things I have noticed in this election cycle, signs are not playing such a large part in campaigning. They have become increasingly expensive and there are diminishing returns and sign pollution. The other is that social media is playing a larger and larger role. That is where advertising dollars should be spent.

As a taxpayer I also know that if our code enforcement people are picking up signs, they can’t do their real jobs. I will also say that candidates know they are doing something that should not be done. Most, if not all, are relieved about this development. In Stuart, the best thing you can do to be elected is knock on every super voter’s door. Talk to people and look them in the eye.