STUART – The Fire Rescue Department’s July 13 request for City Commission approval of the financing for new firefighting vehicles originally placed on the city’s 2024/2025 Fiscal Year Budget led to a question-and-answer session between Mayor Sean Reed, Fire-Rescue Chief Vincent Felicione and new city staff on why bond financing was even needed in the first place.
The request before the Commission that day was to approve $1.92 million in revenue bond financing for the equipment purchase first discussed by the Board two years ago. According to the agenda item report drafted by Financial Services Director Kate Ambrosini, funding was appropriated in 2024 for the future purchase of a $1.4 million ladder truck, a fire engine valued at $830,373.44 and an ambulance to the tune of $398,671.78.
“The ambulance and fire engine will support operations at the city’s new Fire Station 3, while the ladder truck will replace an aging apparatus,” Ambrosini wrote in the report. “The use of existing fund balance and short-term debt were both considered as viable options for funding these apparatus.”
The bond financing requested by resolution will primarily be repaid from the proceeds of Stuart’s two-tiered, non-ad valorem fire protection assessment initially passed in 2014 and now referred to as Fire 1 and Fire 2. Fire 1 is a $108.35 flat fee assessed on every parcel in the city limits, while Fire 2 is a value-based surcharge assessed on parcels.
City Attorney Lee Baggett read the first of the two related agenda items into the record that afternoon, a resolution “authorizing the issuance of a non-ad valorem revenue note, series 2026 of the city, in the principal amount of not to exceed $1,920,000.”
Commissioner Eula Clarke immediately made a motion for approval, which was seconded by Commissioner Laura Giobbi. Commissioner Campbell Rich actually posed the first clarification question afterward.
“What is the lead time on these fire vehicles from the manufacturer?” he asked.
City Manager Michael Giardino fielded that question.
“The two that we’re contemplating this evening are July and then there’s another in November,” he said. “This was in your Fiscal 2024 Budget, which was basically the appropriation to purchase. Now this is the mechanism to fund it, and delivery is forthcoming.”
Chief Felicione came to the podium to provide his perspective as well.
“To answer your question, we’re 2024 until now,” he chimed in. “This again is the financing part.”
Mayor Reed then posed his first questions.
“Why are we bonding something when we budgeted for it?” he said. “Does anyone have an answer?”
When Chief Felicione admitted he had no clue, Mayor Reed continued his inquiry.
“When we budget for something with a purchase order, are we not setting the money aside?” he prodded. “I know how I run my household, and when I budget for something, I’m setting the money aside to purchase that item. I want to make sure we’re on the same page with that definition.”
Ambrosini, who like Giardino was only hired this year, offered her best explanation without being privy to the necessary historical knowledge.
“Our purchasing policy says that if it’s budgeted for and done by PO, the funds carry over,” she explained. “The reason we’re doing it now is because one, we don’t want to do a loan for something three years prior and pay interest and stuff prior to getting it. Also, we just paid off an old loan in April by the fire assessment fees. It’s kind of a continuation when we can pay off one and add on another – it’s a smoother transition.”
The mayor was still left with questions, however.
“Going back to where we budget for it, are we not setting that money aside?” he asked.
Giardino tackled that inquiry.
“When you budget, your budget is a plan,” he replied. “You did not fund it at the time it was in the budget. But this non-ad-valorem assessment, Fire 1 and Fire 2, are revolving, they reoccur. The latest note was paid off in April of 2026. The smart use of these funds in the future is to then incur this additional debt to fund this apparatus. The process has been taking place for well over a decade in the City of Stuart.”
Ambrosini provided more details.
“The other piece I wanted to mention is for that apparatus coming in November,” she said of the fire engine. “We are using impact fees for that, [which] is part of the expansion for the new fire station. Although it’s a loan for these two pieces, it is a blended financing method for all three pieces.”
Mayor Reed acted as though he was then wrapping up his comments, but that actually wasn’t the case.
“That’s all I had to say regarding it,” he said. “It doesn’t make sense for me as a business owner, if we budget for something, to go bond it and pay finance charges when we have the money.”
Once again, Giardino attempted to alleviate the mayor’s financial concerns.
“What you budgeted was actually the authorization – the purchase order – to allow staff to make that order, with the promise that it would be paid,” he explained. “You were secure in doing that because, again, you had established a process to do it. It is being funded by this non-ad-valorem assessment approved by the Commission and proven to have been used appropriately for over a decade.”
Mayor Reed also wondered why he’d not seen any of the city’s sanitation trucks come before the Commission for such bond financing.
When neither Ambrosini nor Giardino could answer that question on the fly, Commissioner Rich referred back to the original fire apparatus inquiry.
“You have to authorize the city to order it first,” he said. “We don’t pay for it until we receive it. In 2024, we said yes, we will take the necessary budget steps to pay for this, knowing that it’s actually three years down the road. That’s the difference.”
After further discussion, the City Commission unanimously passed the resolution approving the bond financing, as well as a 2025/2026 budget amendment for the purchase of the new firefighting vehicles.