[A. Quasi-Judicial Hearing - Application for Minor Site Plan: Conditional Use with New Construction has been submitted by property owner, Iglesia Biblica de Fort Pierce, Inc. and Representative, Redtail DG, to develop a 5,520 sq. ft building at 3240 S. 25th Street., Fort Pierce, FL. The dedicated space for religious and community activities. The property is zoned Single-family Low Density (R-1). ]

THIS EVENING. IT'S A QUASI JEW I SHALL DID HEARING FOR AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR SITE PLAN CONDITIONAL USE WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION. SUBMITTED BY PROPERTY OWNER INGLACE I CAN'T BIB LICKA FORT FIERCE INC. AND REPRESENTATIVE RED TAIL DESIGN GROUP TO DESIGN A BUILDING AT 3240 IN FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA. THE DEDICATED PACE FOR RELIGIOUS AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES, THE PROPERTY IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY

LOW DENSITY R1. >> ALL RIGHTY.

[00:05:02]

MS. HEDGES, WOULD YOU READ THE PROCEDURES FOR QUASI-JUDICIAL,

PLEASE. >> YES, MA'AM.

THE CITY COMMISSION SERVES BOTH A LEGISLATIVE AND QUASI JEW ADDITIONAL ROLE. WHEN ACT AGRICULTURE AS LEGISLATIVE BODY THE COMMISSION ENGAGES IN LAWMAKING COMMITTEE BY PASSING LAWS AND ESTABLISHING POLICIES.

WHEN ACT I AQUASI SCWHRIECIALLY IT'S HELDER TO STRICTER PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT. JAWS I JUDICIAL PRETTYINGS WHY LESS FORMAL BY MORE FORMAL THAN A NORMAL COMMISSION MEETING.

JAWS I JUDICIAL MEETINGS DECISIONS MUST BE MADE ON COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. THEREFORE COMMISSIONERS HAVE A DUTY TO CONDUCT THE QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS MORE LIKE JUDGES RATHER THAN LEGISLATORS.

THAT IS WHY THE COMMISSION HAS ESTABLISHED THE PROCEDURES THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED THIS EVENING. FINALLY NO ONE SHOULD APPROACH ANY MEMBER ON THE CITY COMMISSION ON THE DIAS.

THE CITY ATTORNEY OR THE CITY CLERK DURING THE HEARING.

IF DOCUMENTS ARE TO BE GIVEN TO THE CITY CLERK, PLEASE GIVE THEM TO THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS WHICH ARE ANY OF THE POLICE OFFICERS

IN THE CHAMBER. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

MADAME CLERK, HAVE WE MET THE NOTICE AND ADVERTISING

REQUIREMENTS? >> YES, MA'AM, WE HAVE.

>> ALL RIGHTY. WOULD YOU ASK COMMISSIONERS

ABOUT EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK?

>> NOTHING TO REPORT. >> COMMISSIONER ZED OFF SKI?

>> I HAVE NOTHING TO REPORT. >> COMMISSIONER GAINES?

>> NOTHING TO REPORT. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON?

>> NOTHING TO REPORT. >> AND MAYOR HUDSON?

>> MOM. AND WOULD YOU LIKE TO SWEAR IN

THE WITNESSES. >> YES, ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> PLEASE PROCEED. >> THANK YOU, MADAME CHAIR.

CITY COMMISSION, THIS APPLICATION IS A CONDITIONAL USE. IT'S --

>> CAN YOU KEVIN FREE MAN FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT?

>> I AM KEVIN FREE MAN FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

>> THANK YOU, GYRE I'M ANNOYED WITH MYSELF, NOW, MAYOR.

THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE, IT'S REQUIRED BECAUSE OF THE PARTICULAR USE IN QUESTION. RED TAIL IS THE DESIGN GROUP.

THE PROPERTY OWNER IS I GO GLACE I CAN'T BIB LICKA, THE FORT PIERCE INCORPORATED THE REASON S IN THIS LOCATION IS THAT -- AND BEFORE YOU NOW IS A CONDITIONAL USE.

FUTURE LAND USE IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

ZONING IS R1 SINGLE FAMILY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

HERE IS THE SITE PLAN THAT CAME IN WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE YOU'LL SEE THERE IS A LOT OF OPEN SPACE REMAINING.

THE RENDERING OF THE CHURCH BUILDING ITSELF AND THE COLORS TO BE USED IN THAT LANDSCAPE DETAILS.

THERE IS A STABILIZED PARKING AREA INCORPORATED IN THE SITE PLAN. THE BUILDING DESIGN.

SO HAVING -- BEARING ALL THAT THIS MIND AND THE STAFF ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR THE FUNDAMENTAL -- WITH THE FOLLOWING NINE CONDITIONS. LAND CLEARING PERMIT MUST BE APPROVED PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT WITH MITIGATION IS REQUIRED WITH APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

ALL SIGN PERMITS SHALL BE FILED SEPARATELY FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, THE CITY APPROVE LANDSCAPE INCIDENCE IN A AGREEMENT MUST BE NOTARIZED AND SUBMITTED.

A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS SHALL BE COORDINATED AND APPROVED WITH THE COUNTY. PERMIT REQUIRED -- IS REQUIRED FROM SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND THAT WILL BE APPLIED FOR SEPARATELY. ANY WORK WITHIN THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL REQUIRE COORDINATION WITH THE ST. LUCIE

COUNTY FOR DRAINAGE CONNECTIONS. >> WEEPING YUAPON HOLLIES SHOULD BE RELOCATED OR MODIFIED FOR LESS INTRUSIVE SPECIES.

YAW UPON. OR REMEDIES APPROVAL.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MR. FREE MAN, CAN YOU TELL ME, WAS -- I DIDN'T FIND THE PLANNING BOARD VOTE ON THAT. DID THIS GO BEFORE THE PLANNING

[00:10:04]

BOARD? >> IT DID NOT.

BECAUSE IN THE CODE, A MINOR SITE PLAN WITH A CONDITIONAL USE DOES NOT REQUIRE MANAGE BOARD APPROVAL.

>> OKAY, I WAS HOPING THERE WOULD BE A GOOD REASON, SO I THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND SO WEEPING YAUPON HOLLIES ARE NOT -- ARE THINGS THAT ARE NOT GOOD FOR THE CLIMATE, I

GATHER? >> CAN YOU ANSWER THAT, KERRY?

>> WELL, I CAN WAIT UNTIL -- I CAN ASK HIM WHEN -- I'M JUST CURIOUS, I'M NEVER HEARD OF THEM BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT -- I

JUST -- I'M CURIOUS. >> THE LANDSCAPE EXPERTS -- I'M

NOT SURE WHY -- >> COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS?

>> YOU JUST ANSWERED MY QUESTION BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO ASK IF THEY'RE NOT GOOD OR THEY'RE -- IT SAYS LESS INTRUSIVE --

>> YES, RIGHT. >> JUST MOVE THEM, I MEAN -- OKAY. SO I'LL WAIT.

>> ANYBODY ELSE, QUESTIONS? OKAY.

ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY.

SO IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, THIS IS YOUR CHANCE FOR ASKING MR. FREE MAN QUESTIONS.

SO YOU MAY BE EXCUSED AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND SO I WOULD LIKE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL ME WHETHER YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS

OF MR. FREE MAN. >> GOOD EVENING, MADAME MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. FOR THE RECORD MY NAME IS TODD MALLORY. I'M WITH RED TAIL.

AND IN TERMS OF PRESENTATION, KEV HAS THIS READY BUT IN LIGHT OF EVERYTHING, I THINK I'M ACTUALLY GOOD WITHOUT THE PRESENTATION. HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU

MAY HAVE -- >> DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF

MR. FREEMAN? >> I HAVE ZERO QUESTIONS.

I APPRECIATE STAFF IS ALWAYS -- THEY DID A GREAT JOB.

>> MAYBE YOU WANT TO ANSWER MY QUESTION RIGHT OFF THE BAT.

SINCE I CAN'T PRONOUNCE THAT BUW ABOUT THAT.

>> SO THESE PARTICULAR HOLLY, BECAUSE OF THE HEIGHT THAT THEY CAN GROW AND THE POWER LINES, WE HAVE WHAT'S CALLED RIGHT TREE RIGHT PLACE GUIDELINES, SO WHENEVER YOU DO A DEVELOPMENT, WHETHER IT'S RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND IF YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING NEAR WHERE WE HAVE POWER LINES, IF YOU'VE EVER SEEN WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE TREE COMPANY COMES IN AND THEY CUT IT AND IT LOOKS LIKE WHAT DID THEY JUST DO TO A TREE, WE TRY TO AVOID THOSE SITUATIONS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, SO WHENEVER YOU HAVE POWER LINES, BECAUSE OF THAT PRINCIPLE WE TRY AND MAKE SURE WHATEVER IS PROVIDED WILL NEVER GROW INTO THAT POWERLINE. SO WE MODIFY THOSE OUT AND WEE PLACE IT WITH SOMETHING THAT'S CALLED AN UNDER-STOREY TREE, SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE BELOW THE CANOPY OF A NORMAL TREE LIKE A LIVE OAK, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THAT'S WHY --

>> GREAT, OUR ELECTRICITY -- >> STAFF NOTICED THAT AND SAID

PLEASE MAKE THE CHANGE. >> OUR ELECTRIC CUSTOMERS ARE VERY GRATEFUL, RIGHT? ALL RIGHTY.

OTHER QUESTIONS OF MR. MALLORY?

>> I HAVE NO QUESTIONS. >> QUESTIONS? ANY CONCERNS? OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> APPRECIATE IT.

>> YOU WERE SWORN IN, I SAW THAT.

>> I WAS THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE? ANY OTHER? OKAY.

I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION. THERE'S A MOTION AND SECOND.

CALL THE ROLE, ROLL, PLEASE. >> THAT'S WITH THE NINE STAFF CONDITIONS. CONNER BRODERICK? COMMISSIONER SOD OFF SKI? COMMISSIONER GAINES?

[A. Resolution 26-R46 - Interlocal Funding Agreement Between the City of Fort Pierce and the FPRA for Code Enforcement Officers in an Amount Not to Exceed $183,200.]

COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> MAYOR HAD YOU HAD SHONE? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> NEXT WE HAVE RESOLUTION 26-R46 A RESOLUTION IFT CITY OF PORT FIERCE, FLORIDA ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE FLORIDA AND THE FORT PIERCE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WILL PROVIDE FUNDING DEDICATED TO PROVIDING ENHANCED AND TARGETED ENFORCEMENT SERVICES WITHIN THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA, PROVIDING FOR FINDINGS, PROVIDING FOR AUTHORIZATION, REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS AND CONFLICT HEREWITH, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR

AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >> IS THERE DISCUSSION OR A MOTION? (CALLING OF RECORDED VOTE).

[B. Decision to accept, reject, or counter a settlement offer received from the Plaintiff in Case No. 562025CA002199: Keene v. City of Fort Pierce. ]

>> OKAY, NEXT WE HAVE A DECISION TO ACCEPT, REJECT OR COUNTER A SETTLEMENT OFFER RECEIVED FROM THE PLAINTIFF IN THE CASE NUMBER 562025CA002199 KEANE VERSUS THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

>> THIS WAS LAST WEEK. SHORTLY BEFORE YOU ALL WERE TO CONSIDER THE SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL WE RECEIVED A REVISED SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL FROM THE PLAINTIFF SO WE HAVE NOW UPDATED THE SUMMARY LANGUAGE TO WHAT THAT NEW. THE SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL THAT YOU

[00:15:10]

ARE CONSIDERING IS THE REVISED SETTLEMENT OFFER THAT IS ATTACHED. THE KEEN V CITY SECOND SETTLEMENT OFFER IS THE PREVIOUS ONE THAT'S BEEN REPLACED SO YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE REVISED SETTLEMENT OFFER WHICH IS WHAT I PASSED OUT IN HARD COPY LAST MEETING AS WELL.

SO JUST AS A REFRESHER WHERE WE ARE STATUS WISE OF THIS CASE, IT WAS DISMISSED ONCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE SO THE PLAINTIFF COULD ATTEMPT TO REFILE. THE PLAINTIFF DID REFILE.

I FILE ANOTHER MOTION TO DISMISS THE JUDGE DID GRANT THAT MOTION TO DISMISS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO BRING A PROPER CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE MAIN THING BEING STANDING.

TO COMMISSIONER GAINES' POINT AT THE LAST MEETING I THINK IT'S SEPTEMBER 17TH ABOUT WHEN THAT 45 DAYS IS SO WE DID MAKE SURE TO GET THIS BROUGHT BACK BEFORE YOU IN PLENTY OF TIME FOR MR. KEANE TO HAVE AN ANSWER. GOING THROUGH WHAT HE IS REQUESTING THE CITY DO, IT IS MAINLY WHAT YOU CONSIDERED PREVIOUSLY AND SAW IN THE INITIAL SECOND ROUND RELATED TO LITTLE GYM COMPLIANCE, RELATED TO A REFERENDUM FOR VOTER APPROVAL FOR WATERFRONT PROPERTIES.

OF THE NEWEST EDITION OF THIS SECTION 3 CURRENT LESSEE RIGHT OFIST IF REFUSAL, ESSENTIALLY RELATED TO THE LITTLE GEM PROPERTY AND THE CURRENT OPERATOR BEING ALLOWED TO I GUESS MATCH IS THE BEST WAY TO . I'M LOOKING FOR DIRECTION ON WHETHER YOU WOULD LIKE TO ACCEPT THIS OFFER, REJECT IT OR ANY SORT OF COUNTEROFFER YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE TO THE PLAINTIFF. BECAUSE THIS IS A DISMISSED CASE CURRENTLY THERE'S REALLY NO ACTION HAPPENING UNLESS AND UNTIL HE FILES AN AMENDED COMPLAINT.

BUT WE COULD STILL SETTLE DISMISSED AT THIS POINT.

>> IS THERE A POTENTIAL FOR THIS PLAINTIFF TO INCUR ATTORNEYS'

FEES? >> YES, MA'AM.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'LL -- AS IT RELATES TO THIS CASE PARTICULARLY -- WHEN THE PLAINTIFF KNOWS OR SHOULD KNOW THAT THE CLAIM IS NOT SUPPORTED BY MATERIAL FACTS TO ESTABLISH A CLAIM OR NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EXISTING LAW TO THOSE FACTS, SO IF THIS IS A FRIVILOUS CASE, THE DEFENDANT, RESPONDENT CAN GET ATTORNEYS' FEES AND THAT IS IN THAT STATUTE.

WHAT IT SAYS THOUGH IS REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES SO THERE IS CASE LAW THAT SAYS REASONABLE IS NOT LIMITED TO MY SALARY. IT IS WHAT A REASONABLE ATTORNEY WOULD BE. SO CURRENTLY, TRACK -- HE HAS INCURRED ABOUT -- I THINK IT WAS ABOUT $3600 FOR MY TIME FOR WHAT YOU PAY ME IN HOUSE. BUT WHAT THE LAW SAYS BY STATUTE AND CASE LAW IS THAT YOU'RE NOT LIMITED TO THAT AMOUNT, SO WHAT THE COURT WOULD ORDER IF HE IS FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED THAT STATUTE IS REASONABLE I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THIS LITIGATION FOR SEVERAL REASONS. I WON'T GO INTO IT BUT FAIRNESS

[00:20:02]

IS ONE AND UNREASONABLENESS IS ANOTHER AND I'M WONDERING IF THE COMMISSION IS INTERESTED IN COUNTERING AND SAYING WHY DON'T WE ASK HIM IF HE WILL -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROPER WORD IS -- DISMISS OR CEASE THAT WE WILL NOT SEEK ATTORNEY FEES.

>> MADAME MAYOR, THAT'S THE EXACT CONVERSATION I HAD WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY. AND I SAID THE OTHER NIGHT WHEN MR. KEANE WAS HERE THAT SETTLEMENT OFFERS GO BACK AND FORTH. I KNOW I GUYS WILL LET ME PUT ON MY ATTORNEY'S HAT BUT AS AN ATTORNEY IT'S NOT ALWAYS GOOD TO "BID AGAINST YOURSELF". THERE'S NO IMPENDING LAWSUIT SO WE SHOULDN'T TAKE ACTION UNTIL HE DOES SOMETHING.

HOWEVER, IF WE CAN GET OUT OF THIS, MY SUGGESTION LAST WEDNESDAY TO MADAME ATTORNEY WAS TO SEE IF WE COME TO SOME AGREEMENT THAT YOU SETTLE WITH PREJUDICE, WE WON'T SEEK ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LET HIM SAY YES OR NO TO THAT.

BUT AS FAR AS SOME OF THE CONDITIONS THAT HE'S ASKING FOR, I THINK SOME OF THOSE ARE BORDERLINE ILLEGAL OR RIGHT CLOSE TO -- RIGHT CLOSE TO BEING ILLEGAL.

>> MIGHT ALREADY BE. >> MIGHT ALREADY BE ILLEGAL, ESPECIALLY PUTTING OUT AN RFP AND THEN GIVING SOMETHING RIGHT TO MATCH. I'M NOT TRYING TO GO TO TALLAHASSEE, I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY MARSHALS KNOCK ON MY DOOR SO I KNOW IF YOU COME UP WITH SOMETHING I WILL NOT BE VOTING ON A NUMBER 3. AS FAR AS THE STATE AND WHATEVER WE GOT TO TAKE CARE OF THE STATE, WE ALREADY HAVE TO DO IT.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE ALREADY HAVE TO DO WITH THE STATE AND WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF TAKING CARE OF THAT.

SO AGAIN JUST TO GET OUT OF -- TO SEE IF HE WANTS TO GET OUT OF THIS AND MOVE ON I WOULD BE WILLING TO MAKE AN OFFER FOR HIM TO DROP THE LAWSUIT WITH PREJUDICE, YOU KNOW, NOT FILE

AND WE DROP OUR ATTORNEYS' FEES. >> COMMISSIONERS?

>> I'LL SECOND THAT. IF THAT'S A MOTION, I'LL SECOND

IT. >> IS THAT A MOTION?

>> I DIDN'T MAKE A MOTION. I'M JUST GIVING MY TWO CENTS.

>> I AGREE WITH HIM. YOU WERE CLOSE, RIGHT.

I WOULD SUPPORT THAT AND I THINK MY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE ATTORNEY, WITH ATTORNEY HEDGES WE ARRIVED AT THOSE SAME RESULTS AND IT IS ILLEGAL IN MY BOOK ON SOME OF THIS STUFF THAT'S BEING ASKED THERE AND I'M JUST NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THAT.

SO I THINK WE OFFER THIS AND SEE WHERE IT GOES AND THEN THE BALL WILL BE BACK IN HIS COURT OBVIOUSLY SO --

>> COMMISSIONER? >> COMMISSIONER GAINES, I THINK YOU SAID IT IN THE FIRST PART OF YOUR CONVERSATION, AND THAT IS

NOT BIDDING AGAINST OURSELVES. >> I HAVE NOT HAD THIS DISCUSSION WITH HIM TO SEE IF IT IS SOMETHING HE WOULD BE AMENABLE TO. IF THIS IS APPROVED, I WOULD RELAY THAT TO HIM. IF HE ACCEPTS IT IT WOULD COME BACK TO Y'ALL WITH A FORMAL AGREEMENT TO APPROVE BUT I DON'T KNOW WHERE HE STANDS WITH IT BECAUSE I HAVEN'T HAD THOSE

CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM. >> I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT HAVE OPENED UP A CONVERSATION, WHATEVER WHEN HE SENT HIS REVISED VERSION OF HIS LITIGATION.

>> NO, SIR. >> SO ARE WE READY TO MAKE A MOTION? ARE YOU THROUGH, COMMISSIONER?

>> I WAS GOING TO PUT SOME THINGS ON THE RECORD BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR THE CITIZENS OF FORT PIERCE AND THOSE WHO APPRECIATE LITTLE GEM AND THE VALUE IT HAS FOR OUR CITY. BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO GET TOO FAR INTO, YOU KNOW, A DISSERTATION BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO PUT SOME THINGS ON THE RECORD, BECAUSE THE PUBLIC I DON'T BELIEVE -- OR I DO BELIEVE THAT THE PUBLIC MAY BE THINKING THAT THE CITY IS THE REASON FOR ALL OF THESE CHALLENGES, AND THE TRUTH IS THAT THE LEASEHOLD IS RESPONSIBLE FOR A LARGE PART OF SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE FACE.

NOW, WE TALKED ABOUT IT EARLIER IN MY TIME HERE ABOUT HOW THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NEED TO BE REVIEWED AND CHANGED AND SO ON

[00:25:03]

AND SO FORTH IF WE'RE MOVING FORWARD IN THAT REGARD I WANT THE PUBLIC TO KNOW EACH ONE OF US CARES VEHEMENTLY ON HOW OUR WATERFRONT PROPERTIES ARE BEING UTILIZED, HOW THEY'RE BEING TAKEN CARE OF, HOW WE APPROACH THOSE THINGS.

AND I APPRECIATE THE PASSION OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO BROUGHT THE LAWSUIT. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE CITIZENS TO HAVE A SAY-SO IN WHAT HAPPENS IN OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, UNLIKE TALLAHASSEE NOT LETTING US HAVE A SAY IN SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING AROUND HERE SO I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE PASSION OF THE INDIVIDUAL BRINGING THE SUIT. BUT ALSO THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN PARTICIPATING ON SOCIAL MEDIA, TALKING ABOUT HOW VALUABLE LITTLE GEM IS TO OUR COMMUNITY. BUT I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S UNDERSTOOD THAT A LARGE PART OF WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE, INCLUDING THE FDP ISSUES, THE PERMIT ISSUES AND FAILURE TO GET PERMISSION TO I AM PRIEWRVETION BUILD OR IMPROVE, D OR DEVELOP NEW DOCKS AT THE PROPERTY HAVE TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED. OF THE WASN'T THE DOING OF THIS COMMISSION OR THE CITY MANAGER OR ANY OF OUR STAFF BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THAT BE ACKNOWLEDGED.

I THINK EACH ONE OF US AT SOME POINT OR NOTHING IN HAVING THIS CONVERSATION UP HERE HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THE CITIZENS ARE IMPORTANT, THEIR POINT OF VIEW IS IMPORTANT AND THEY SHOULD BE HEARD. AND I JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT TODAY, THE PASSION OF THE ACKNOWLEDGED BY ME AND I HOPE FOR MY COLLEAGUES, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS ON THE RECORD, BECAUSE WE DO DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THIS COMMUNITY.

WE CAN'T ALWAYS AGREE 100% AND SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO COMPROMISE, AND I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THOSE COMPROMISES THAT COMMISSIONER GAINES HAS BROUGHT FORWARD AND HAS BEEN SECONDED AS AN OPTION AND OPPORTUNITY. BUT I WILL JUST LEAVE IT THERE FOR NOW AND I'LL WAIT UNTIL IT COMES BACK, IF THE MOTION IS MADE APPROVED AND THE ATTORNEY BRINGS IT BACK TO US.

>> ALL RIGHTY. I THINK WE'VE HAD -- I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY COUNTLESS MEETINGS ABOUT LITTLE GEM AND TRYING

TO -- >> I WENT TO A LOT OF THOSE.

>> I KNOW, YOU DID, YOU DID. SO WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO IT.

SO IS THERE A MOTION? >> MADAME MAYOR, I MAYOR A MOTION THAT WE COUNTER, MAKE A COUNTER SETTLEMENT TO THE PLAINTIFF, THAT IF HE'S WILLING TO DROP THE LAWSUIT WE'LL BE WILLING TO WAIVE THE -- I THINK THAT'S THE CORRECT TERM -- WAICH OUR WAIVE OUR ATTORNEYS' FEES.

CHANGE IT? >> I WAS GOING TO ASK A POINT OF CLARIFICATION: TO DROP IT MEANING DISMISS WITH PREMISE, NOT REFILE, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION?

>> BOTH. ALL OF THE ABOVE?

>> ALL OF THE ABOVE. HIS ABILITY TO REFILE, OUR ABILITY TO -- OUR ABILITY TO FILE FOR -- AND MAINTAIN A SUIT

FOR ATTORNEY FEES. >> UNDERSTOOD, YES, SIR.

>> YOU'VE GOT IT RIGHT, COMMISSIONER BRODERICK? CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. WAIT A SECOND, COMMISSIONER?

DZADOVSKY? >> AS A QUESTION TO THIS SIMPLY TO BE STATED: COULD IT BE MADE CLEAR IN THE ARGUMENT IT DOES NOT GORE IF I HAVE ANY EXISTING LEASE VIOLATIONS, IT DOES NOT APPROVE ANY DOCK, WALKWAY OR OTHER APRIEWFT, DOES NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE SUBMERGED LAND ISSUE DOES NOT GIVE THE LESSEE A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL, DOES NOT GUARANTEE A NEW OR EXTENDED LEASE, DOES NOT IMPOSE NEWSPAPER RESTRICTIONS UPON OTHER CITY OWNED WATERFRONT PROPERTIES AND DOES NOT OBLIGATE THE COMMISSION TO INITIATE A CHARTER AMENDMENT OR REFERENDUM AND LEAVES THE CITY'S EXISTING RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES CONCERNING LITTLE GYM FULLY INTACT. MADAME ATTORNEY?

>> MS. HEDGES? >> MADAME MAYOR, YES, WE COULD EX-APPRENTICE ITALY INCLUDE ALL OF THAT IN ANY SORT OF AGREEMENT THAT WE ENTER INTO BUT FROM THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE, IT IS CHEER TO ME THAT THAT IS WHAT THAT MEANS.

BUT I CAN PUT THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE IF YOU ALL DESIRE.

>> COMMISSIONER GAINES? >> I'M NOT GOING TO -- IF THAT'S WHAT THE COMMISSION WANTS, I WILL REMOVE MY MOTION.

MY MOTION IS VERY CLEAR. WE -- IN LAW A SETTLEMENT OFFER IS COUNTER OFFER. WE GOT A SETTLEMENT OFFER WITH A SET OF CONDITIONS. WE DON'T WANT TO DO THE CONDITIONS, WE'RE MAKING A COUNTER SETTLEMENT OFFER TO THE PLAINTIFF SAYING WE WILL -- IF YOU DROP YOUR LAWSUIT, WE WILL DROP OUR RIGHT TO ATTORNEYS OWE' FEES.

[00:30:02]

IF WE AGREE EVERYTHING ELSE GOES AWAY.

IF YOU START ADDING MORE WORDS TO A SETTLE COME BACK TO BITE YOU SO EITHER HE'S GOING TO SAY YES OR HE'S GOING TO SAY NO.

IF HE SAYS NO THEN IT'S GOING TO COME BACK TO US AND THEN AT THAT POINT WE CAN EITHER SAY NO WE'RE NOT ACCEPTING OUR SETTLEMENT OFFER, OR WE ARE. THAT'S HOW THAT WORKS.

SO I WOULD SAY LET'S SEE WHAT HE WANTS TO DO.

IF HE SAYS NO, WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING, WE REJECTED HIS SETTLEMENT, HE'S REJECTED OUR SETTLEMENT AND WE CAN COME BACK AND SAY WELL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO AGREE TO YOUR SETTLEMENT AND WE MOVE FORWARD. AND THEN HE HAS I THINK MADAME ATTORNEY SAID SEPTEMBER 17TH, 19TH WHATEVER IT WAS TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS TO DO AND THEN IT'S BACK INTO COURT.

UNLESS THE WAY TO STOP HER IN THE OFFICE FROM RUNNING UP ATTORNEYS' FEES AND THIS IS THE WAY TO SAY, HEY, NOT PUTTING ANY OF US AS -- I'M GOING TO SAY REAL CLOSE, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SAID, IT'S ILLEGAL, SOME STUFF HE'S ASKING IS JUST OUT RIGHT WE CAN'T DO AND WE NEED TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW, WE CAN'T DO THAT, IT'S JUST AGAINST THE LAW. SO THIS IS THE EASY WAY FOR EVERYBODY TO SAY, OKAY, HE HAS PASSION, I AGREE, EVERYBODY HAS PASSION ABOUT LITTLE JIM, I AGREE.

IT'S THE EASY WAY FOR TWO SIDES TO COME TOGETHER AND SAY THIS IS THE BEST WAY -- BEST WAY TO RESOLVE THIS AND THEN WE DEAL WITH LITTLE JIM, ANYTHING ELSE WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH WHEN IT'S THAT TIME. SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT.

IF YOU WANT TO ADD IT, I'M GOING TO REMOVE MY MOTION AND LET SOMEBODY ELSE MAKE THE MOTION THAT COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY

WANTS. >> MAYOR, IF THE LEGAL MINDS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS DIE AS BELIEVE THAT IT'S GOING TO DO JUST THAT, THEN I'LL BE ON BOAR. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THOSE THINGS ARE RECOGNIZED. I'M ON THE RECORD BUT I'LL RESPECT MY COLLEAGUE'S MOTION AND I'LL BE SUPPORTING IT.

>> COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY, FOR EVERYONE'S KNOWLEDGE I CAN PROVIDE THIS POINT OF LEGAL CLASSIFICATION AS WELL: WHEN YOU MAKE A COUNTEROH, IT IS DEEMED A REJECTION OF THAT ORIGINAL OFFER. THAT'S THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE.

SO IT IS REJECTING WHAT HE PROPOSED BY SAYING ESSENTIALLY NO, WE DON'T WANT THAT BUT HERE IS WHAT WE WILL DO.

SO I WOULD NOT BRING IT BACK TO YOU ALL AGAIN, BECAUSE THIS COUNTER IS REJECTING WHAT HE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED TO US.

>> OKAY, I'M CLEAR NOW. >> EVERYBODY CLEAR? ALL RIGHTY. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

>> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK? >> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> COMMISSIONER GAINES? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> MAYOR HUDSON? >> YES, MA'AM.

[C. Discussion, direction and/or selection of an Interim City Attorney.]

>> ORGANIZE, THETHE NEXT ITEM I, DECISION AND DIRECTION AND/OR SELECTION OF AN INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY.

>> MR. CHESS, DO YOU HAVE MR. SORENSON?

>> MR. SORENSON IS GOING TO GIVE A BRIEF SUMMARY.

>> CHAIR SORENSEN, HR MANAGER. GOOD EVENING, MADAME MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS. I'M HERE TONIGHT TO BRING TO YOU TWO NAMES THAT WERE FORWARDED TO ME AS POTENTIALS TO BE INTERIM CITY ATTORNEYS. ONE IS DANIEL S MCINTIRE, WHICH YOU SHOULD HAVE A COPY OF HIS RESUME ATTACHED IN FRONT OF YOU AND THEN THE OTHER WAS JOHNANCE JOHN JOHN ANASTASIO. I'M LOOKING FOR WHAT DIRECTION THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE ME TO TAKE.

>> MADAME MAYOR I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT MAY SETTLE THIS ISSUE, MAY OR MAY NOT. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFER TO REMAIN WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE THROUGH DECEMBER 21, 2026 WHILE WE SEARCH FOR A PERMANENT CITY ATTORNEY ON THE CONDITION THE CITY PAY HER 90 DAY SEVERANCE AND SHE WILL WAIVE ANY CLAIMS OF LITIGATION AGAINST THE CITY. WHAT THIS DOES, IT ELIMINATES THE WHOLE INTERIM ATTORNEY SITUATION, I BELIEVE QUITE WELL.

SO I'M MAKING THE MOTION. IF I CAN GET A SECOND.

>> IS THERE A SECOND? THERE A SECOND? I'LL PASS THE GAVEL TO COMMISSIONER GAINES.

AND I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION. WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS IT,

COMMISSIONER BRODERICK? >> WELL, I JUST THINK THAT IT'S A SIMPLE WAY TO AVOID THE INTERIM SCENARIO AND WITH THE RESIGNATIONS OF THE BALANCE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, I BELIEVE WE'RE KIND OF IN A CRISIS SITUATION, YOU BRING SOMEBODY NEW INTO THAT IT'S GOING TO BE DISASTROUS FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. THIS BEGINS US A TRANSITION TIME, GIVES US TIME TO HIRE THE PERMANENT CITY ATTORNEY THAT WE NEED TO FILL THE ROLE MOVING FORWARD.

SO I THINK IT'S ADVANTAGEOUS FOR ALL PARTIES INVOLVED.

>> I TOO AM WORRIED ABOUT THE CITY ATTORNEY -- WHEN THE -- OF

[00:35:03]

THE RESIGNATION. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT MS. HOLLOMAN WAS DEALT WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT VERY EXPERIENCED AND ALSO MS. HEDGES. IN FACT WHEN WE HIRED MS. HEDGES AND CITY ATTORNEY SHE WAS ONE OF THE THINGS I SAID TO HER IS I REALLY WANT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO GIVE THE FULL SUPPORT THAT IT NEEDS TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

SO I'M WORRIED ABOUT THAT AND THERE IS THAT WE HAVE A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT ARE COMING UP THAT NEED TO BE FACED WITH THIS TIME PERIOD AND WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE AND THE ACTUAL FAMILIARITY WITH WHAT OUR CITY IS DOING RIGHT NOW I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE COMMISSION'S INDULGENCE IN LEAST GIVING THAT SOME SERIOUS CONSIDERATION FOR

WHAT WE'RE FACING. >> MADAME MAYOR?

>> VICE MAYOR? >> MAYOR PRO-TEM.

>> OKAY, IT'S INTERESTING THAT THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS ARE ON THE LIST FOR INTERIM. HAVING SPENT 16 YEARS WITH THE COUNTY, DAN MCINTIRE WAS A COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR 46 YEARS AND SOMEWHERE IN THAT TIME I THINK HE SPENT FOUR SEPARATE TIMES HERE AS THE INTERIM FOR THE CITY WHEN YOUR ATTORNEYS ARE GOING OUT OR BEING REPLACED SO MR. MCINTYRE HAS ALL THE EXPERIENCE POSSIBLY NECESSARY TO STEP INTO THE ROLE.

THE OTHER APPLICANTANCE TASTEIO I UNDERSTAND WAS A FORT ST.

LUCIE CITY ATTORNEY ASK BOTH HAE SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE. WHILE I APPRECIATE THE MOTION, I WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTING IT AND I WOULD BE SUGGESTING THAT OF THE TWO INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE HERE, MR. MCINTYRE HAS AN EXTREMELY VAST KNOWLEDGE OF THE CITY, OF THE COUNTY, HE'S ACTUALLY NEGOTIATED A LOT OUR INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY. SO I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE BENEFICIAL AS WELL. FROM THAT STANDPOINT, ANASTASIO, AGAIN HAS SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND IN CONTRACT LAW, WORKFORCE.

HE HAS TRIAL ATTORNEY EXPERIENCE.

SO THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF EXPERIENCE HERE THAT I THINK WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO THE CITY. IN ADDITION, I DON'T KNOW HOW THE -- IF ANYTHING IS APPROVED TONIGHT, HOW A NEGOTIATION WOULD GO WITH THE SALARIES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT LET'S START WITH ONE THING FIRST. I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION FOR THOSE REASONS, THAT I THINK THE EXPERIENCE THAT IS HERE FROM AN INTERIM STANDPOINT WILL GET US TO WHERE WE NEED TO BE AND GIVE US A SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND AND KNOWLEDGE NECESSARY TO MOVE THE CITY FORWARD IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

MS. CHAIR? THANK YOU.

SO MAYBE I MISSED SOMETHING. BUT MY COMMISSIONER COLLEAGUE HAS BROUGHT FORTH SOMETHING THAT I WAS NOT AWARE OF, IN THIS MOTION. SO I GUESS THINGS HAPPENED BETWEEN THIS LAST WEEK OR WHATEVER TO CARRY ON THAT CONVERSATION. I'VE GOT CONCERNS, I'VE GOT HR CONCERNS. I AM CERTAINLY NOT IN A POSITION TONIGHT TO TAKE ON THIS CONSIDERATION, BECAUSE I HEARD A NUMBER OF THINGS IN THAT OFFER, IF I HEARD RIGHT, IS SOME FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF THIS MOVING FORWARD.

I HEARD, YOU KNOW, SOME OTHER THINGS THAT I GUESS WILL FACTOR IN AT SOME POINT WHEN IT COMES TO EMPLOYMENT AND EMPLOYMENT LAW. I KNOW WE HAVE BEEN HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR OUTSIDE CONSULTANT ON THIS AND I KNOW AT ONE POINT THERE WAS A PROPOSAL MADE OF A SEPARATION AGREEMENT, HE IS, AND THAT WAS ET CETERA AND THAT WAS REJECTED.

SO THAT PARTICULAR POINT IN MY MIND, YOU KNOW, IT'S TIME THAT WE MOVE ON. AND SO I'M COMFORTABLE CERTAINLY WITH MR. MCINTYRE, AND WHEN I TALKED TO YOU, SIR, IN HR AND LEARNED A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HIM -- I KNEW HIM WHEN HE WAS IN HIS OFFICE AT THE COUNTY, EVERYBODY KNEW THAT, BUT I THINK

[00:40:01]

THE COMMENTS OF HIM FILLING IN AT SOME POINT HERE AT THE CITY AND THAT PERSPECTIVE I THINK BRINGS A LENS TO THINGS THAT I AM CONCERNED WITH TOO. WE'RE NOT ONLY IN BALLOTS WITH THE BATTLE WITH THE CITY, WE'RE IN BATTLE WITH THE STATE, WE'VE GOT SERIOUS CHALLENGES WITH THAT AND CERTAINLY I THINK THAT OUR ABILITY TO DEAL WITH THESE -- THIS CONTRACT ISSUE WITH OUR EMPLOYEE I THINK NEEDS TO COME TO AN END. SO CERTAINLY I WILL NOT BE

SUPPORTING THIS MOTION. >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

I'M SORRY. >> YOU'RE THE MAYOR.

>> I MEAN -- AND I READ THIS AGENDA.

DID I MISS THIS PROPOSAL OR THIS OFFER? WAS IT ATTACHED TO THIS MOTION IS THIS WAS THIS ATTACHED TO THIS AGENDA? SO WHEN DID THIS PROPOSAL OR MOTION COME ABOUT? DID YOU KNOW ABOUT IT?

>> IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S COMING FROM MY OFFERS, NO, SIR.

THE TWO NAMES -- THE LAST DIRECTION THAT I WAS GIVEN WAS THE -- TAKE THE NAMES FROM COMMISSION OF PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE INTERESTED IN BEING FOR THE INTERIM AND THESE WERE THE ONLY TWO NAMES THAT I RECEIVED AND THESE ARE THE NAMES THAT I

ATTACHED. >> I BELIEVE THIS WAS IN A CORRESPONDENCE THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY SENT TO THE COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY. CORRECT?

>> SO THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION A WHILE BACK THAT COMMISSION ASKED US TO GO BACK AND TALK TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WHICH WE DID AND THEN WE ALSO HAD OUR LABOR ATTORNEY SPEAK WITH EACH INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONER, AND THERE WASN'T A CONSENSUS ABOUT A DIRECTION FOR US, AT LEAST WE DIDN'T SEE A CONSENSUS SO WE DIDN'T BRING ANYTHING BACK FOR ANY TYPE OF CONTINUAL

SETTLEMENT, IF YOU WILL. >> BECAUSE I'M JUST -- LIKE I SAID, I'VE HAD THAT CONVERSATION WITH YOU AND OUR ATTORNEY, THE OUTSIDE ATTORNEY, AND I KNOW WHAT WAS SAID.

SO I HEARD SOME STUFF TONIGHT YOU KNOW ABOUT ■SOME-- IGUESS MONIES AND MOVING ON AND SEVERANCE PACKAGES, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHEN DID THIS COME ABOUT? DID IT COME ABOUT TONIGHT? DID IT COME ABOUT THIS WEEKEND? WAS THIS THE FIRST TIME YOU OR MR. CHESS HEARD ABOUT THIS SITTING IN HERE? WHEN DID THIS COME ABOUT?

BECAUSE I KNOW NOTHING OF THIS. >> SO WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT AFTER JK, WHO WAS OUR LEAD ATTORNEY, AFTER WE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH ALL THE COMMISSIONERS, WE CIRCLED BACK AND WE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MS. HEDGES AND WE EXPLAINED SO MS. HEDGES THAT WE DIDN'T BREAK ANY LAW OR THINKING BUT WE COULDN'T SEE ANY TYPE OF CONSENSUS SO WE WEREN'T BRINGING ANYTHING BACK TO THE COMMISSION. WE EXPLAINED THAT TO MS. HEDGES AND THEN I CAN TELL YOU THAT MS. HEDGES AND YOUR LABOUR ATTORNEY HAVING SOME DIFFERING OPINIONS ON SEVERANCE, WHICH I THINK EACH OF YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THE LABOR ATTORNEY AND HE EXPLAINED TO YOU HIS OPINION ON THE

SEVERANCE ISSUE. >> HE DID.

AND I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT -- BECAUSE THIS MOTION IS -- YOU SAID IT DIDN'T COME FROM YOUR OFFICE.

DID IT COME FROM YOUR OFFICE? >> NO, SIR.

>> SO WAS THIS THE FIRST TIME YOUR OFFICE OR YOUR OFFICE HEARD

ABOUT THIS MOTION TONIGHT? >> IT IS THE FIRST TIME THAT I'VE HEARD THE MOTION IS TONIGHT, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION -- IT WAS MONTHS AGO -- ABOUT GOING BACK AND TALKING TO HER BUT WE CIRCLED BACK, WE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH HER AND THAT WAS BASICALLY THAT YEAH, THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE TAKING TO CITY COMMISSION.

>> THE LAST CONVERSATION BOARD I HAD ON THIS WAS WITH HR AND OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND THAT WAS AT LEAST TWO, THREE WEEKS AGO.

>> IT WAS ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO. >> TWO WEEKS AGO.

>> I HAVEN'T HAD ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ANYTHING.

SO THIS IS LIKE NEWS TO ME. VICINITY HAD A CHANCE TO READ -- LOOK AT ANYTHING, WEIGH OUT OPTIONS SO AS I SIT HERE TONIGHG FROM YOU GUYS' OFFICE I HAVE QUESTIONS.

SO I CAN LET YOU KNOW NOW THAT I CAN'T BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS WITHOUT HAVING A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT AND SEE WHAT'S GOING ON.

I KNOW MR. MCINTYRE, YOU KNOW, I'VE KNOWN HIM FOR YEARS, AND I'M NOT -- THAT'S WHY I'LL BE ASKING TO COME IN SO I KNOW HE'LL BE READY BUT TO GIVE US SOMETHING TONIGHT AND NONE OF US LOOK AT IT, THAT'S KIND OF -- I DON'T LIKE -- I'LL JUST SAY I DON'T LIKE THAT SO WHY GO ALONG WITH IT BECAUSE I'M JUST HEARING

[00:45:03]

ABOUT IT TONIGHT AND I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW.

>> SO MAYOR PRO-TEM, I -- TO ME THIS IS THE -- WE HAD A CONVERSATION EACH OF US HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MR. SORENSEN OR NOT LINE AND THE OUTSIDE LABOR ATTORNEY AND THAT WAS THE PROPOSAL THAT WAS PROPOSED TO TO US, WHAT -- YOUR MOTION, IS THAT

RIGHT? >> THAT'S WHAT I RECOLLECT, YES.

>> WHAT'S THE PROPOSAL? WHAT I HEARD TONIGHT? THAT WAS NOT PROPOSED TO ME. I DIDN'T -- THAT'S NOT WHAT -- THAT'S NOT WHAT WAS SAID SO THAT'S WHY I HAVE SOME CONCERNS.

WE TALKED ABOUT A LOT OF STUFF AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU -- WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW, BUT THAT -- I WAS NEVER GIVEN A PROPOSAL, WHAT I HEARD TONIGHT. I WAS NEVER GIVEN THAT.

SO MAYBE I WASN'T LISTENING, MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS SAID ON THAT CALL, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER THAT.

>> SO WHEN WE -- GO AHEAD. WHEN WE SPOKE WITH THE LABOR ATTORNEY, WHEN WE SPOKE WITH JK AND WE CALLED EACH INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONER, WE EXPLAINED A COUPLE THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT. WE TALKED TO THEM AND EXPLAINED WHAT IT WAS THAT MS. HEDGES WAS LOOKING FOR AS FAR AS A SETTLEMENT AND THAT INCLUDED A SEVERANCE AT THE END, IN DECEMBER AND STUFF. SO WHEN WE TALKED WITH EACH COMMISSIONER, WE COULDN'T POLL THEM, WE COULDN'T ASK THEM BUT WE EXPLAINED THAT AND -- WHEN I SAY WE, JK EXPLAINED HIS FEELINGS, HIS LEGAL OPINION ON SEVERANCE AGREEMENTS, AND THOSE WERE THE TWO THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT.

>> THAT'S WHAT I REMEMBER MY CONVERSATION WAS ABOUT, THAT.

>> MR. CHAIR? WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

I'M GOING TO CALL THE QUESTION ON THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

AND WE CAN GO FROM THERE. SO I'LL CALL THE QUESTION.

>> READY? COMMISSIONER BRODERICK?

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER SOD OFF SKI?

>> NO, MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONER GAINES?

>> NO, MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON?

>> NO, MA'AM,. >> MAYOR HAD YOU HAD HUDSON?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I'M BACK AS MAYOR. >> MADAME MAYOR, IF THE ISSUE THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE US WAS TWO NAMES SO I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ENTER INTO CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. DAN MCINTYRE BECOMING INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY, CITY OF FORCE PIERCE.

>> SECOND. >> DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHTY. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

>> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK? >> NO.

>> COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> COMMISSIONER GAINES? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> MAYOR HUDSON? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> THANK YOU. I HAVE MY DIRECTION.

SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS I'LL REACH OUT TO MR. MCINTYRE AND BEGIN THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH HIM.

I ALREADY HAVE A TEMPLATE OF WHAT I WOULD LOOK AT FOR ANYBODY THAT WAS NAMED. MY GOAL IS TO BRING THE CONTRACT BACK TO YOU FOR APPROVAL ON SEPTEMBER THE 8TH.

>> ARE WE GOOD? THANK YOU.

YES, I'VE SPOKEN TO MR. MCINTYRE AND I'VE WORKED WITH HIM. HE'S WORKED WITH THE CITY OVER THE YEARS AND SO I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH HIM.

>> AND IN ADDITION TO TO THAT, IF I MAY, ON SEPTEMBER THE 8TH I'M ALSO PLANNING ON HAVING THE CONTRACT FOR THE [INDISCERNIBLE]

TO BE SIGNED AS WELL. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. SORENSEN? OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[14. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Any person who wishes to comment on any subject may be heard at this time. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less, as directed by the Mayor, as this section of the Agenda is limited to thirty minutes. The City Commission will not be able to take any official actions under Comments from the Public. Speakers will address the Mayor, Commissioners, and the Public with respect. Inappropriate language will not be tolerated.]

>> NEXT WE HAVE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.

>> ALL RIGHT, THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.

PLEASE COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME.

AND YOUR ADDRESS. AND YOU HAVE 3 MINUTES.

MS. COX WILL GIVE YOU A TEN-SECOND WARNING.

>> RICK REED, 2625 SOUTH U.S. -- AS I WAS SITTING HERE TODAY, SOMETHING POPPED UP THAT I FOUND INTERESTING.

AND I THINK PROBABLY THE PEOPLE OF FORT PIERCE.

SO I SAT AND I VERIFIED IT. HUTCHINSON MEDIA IS AN ACTIVE FLORIDA COMPANY, WAS FORMED ON JANUARY 13TH, 2026.

FORT PIERCE CITY COMMISSIONER MICHAEL BRODERICK IS LISTED AS ITS REGISTERED AGENT, MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED PERSON.

CHARLIE WILSON IS ALSO LUNAR ECLIPSED AS A MANAGER.

BOTH MENUS 1221 TELL AWARE AVENUE FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA AS THEIR LLC'S ADDRESS. THIS INDEPENDENTLY ESTABLISHED AS A DIRECT FORMAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION BETWEEN BRODERICK AND WILSON, NOT MERELY A SOCIAL ACONVEYED*RG ACQUAINTANCE. THEY BROUGHT PROPERTY AT 624 NORTH U.S. 1, THAT'S THAT LITTLE PIECE OF PROPERTY WHERE SOME PEOPLE PUT THEIR SIGNS AT ELECTION TIME.

AND YOU KNOW, THEY'RE PAID 200,000 IT SAYS.