STUART — A divided Stuart City Commission deadlocked last week over whether to continue discussions on a proposed referendum aimed at protecting city-owned baseball fields from future sale or long-term lease without voter approval.
The proposal, first introduced by former Stuart Mayor Christopher Collins, would place a referendum on the August ballot asking voters whether the city should be prohibited from selling or leasing certain properties for more than 10 years unless approved by voters.
City Attorney Lee Baggett said the measure would apply to two city-owned ballfield properties.
“It's not just on the Sailfish ballfields, it's any city-owned property that has ballfields, which right now includes Guy Davis and Sailfish ballfields,” he said.
Baggett said the proposal would effectively restore restrictions that once limited the use of the properties to recreation.
“That was done in I think the 60s or 70s, and I think in the 80s I found documentation that that restriction was lifted, so then it went back to there are no restrictions on the property like what you're talking about with the FURDAP grant,” he said.
Commissioners were not voting on the referendum itself during the meeting. Instead, the discussion focused on whether to schedule a second hearing on the proposal for the board’s next meeting on May 26.
Mayor Sean Reed supported moving the item forward, but some commissioners said they wanted more information before proceeding.
Commissioner Eula Clarke said she supports preserving the fields but questioned the pace of the discussion.
“I don't see any need to rush this ballfield issue,” she said. “I did discuss this with the former mayor. I am in favor of preservation, but I want to make sure that we're using all of our balls, make sure that we are hitting in the right park.”
Clarke said she wanted a clearer understanding of how the proposal would align with the city’s comprehensive plan.
Commissioner Campbell Rich raised similar concerns and pointed to broader planning issues facing the city.
“To proceed so recklessly and indifferent to the requirements to make this decision is a source of great concern,” he said. “These ballfields cost us, last I heard, and this was over a year ago, well over $250,000 a year. Understanding that obligation to the taxpayer in the greater context is only sensible.”
Rich said the city should fully evaluate its options before advancing the proposal.
Commissioner Laura Giobbi questioned the hesitation from her colleagues, noting the board was only considering whether to continue the discussion.
“This is a first reading. We're just asking to move it on to the next reading,” she said. “So I'm not sure what the issue is.”
City Manager Michael Giardino said staff could likely provide the requested information before the May 26 meeting. Reed said he was disappointed the proposal might not move forward.
“I don't think it's rushed by any means,” Reed said. “The motion was to move it on to second reading so all of the questions and concerns from board members of the public could be addressed between now and then.”
“But to see this motion potentially fail and not even make it to second reading, I think it's a disservice to the constituents that I'm up here to represent, because I'm trying to protect green space,” he added.
With Collins’ seat currently vacant, the commission split 2-2 on whether to place the discussion on the May 26 agenda, preventing the measure from moving forward on that timeline.
Baggett said commissioners could revisit the issue later, though doing so would likely require placing the referendum on the November ballot or calling a special election.