STUART – The City Commission struggled to reach a mandatory super-majority consensus on its 2027 millage rate due to last minute opposition by two commissioners, resulting in a half-mil reduction Sept. 14 in the 5.0 millage set five days earlier to fund the proposed $104.9 million budget.
That reduction resulted in the Commission majority directing staff to shore up the tentative 2027 Fiscal Year Budget out of the unallocated General Fund Reserves against the advice of some commissioners and one particular public speaker.
While the Board has been divided ever since the 2024 elections shifted the pendulum towards slower growth, the August Primary results reversed that focus and created more havoc in City Hall.
The City of Stuart lost both its city manager and finance director in recent weeks, requiring Community Services Director Jim Chrulski to take the helm and a finance employee hired in April to assume control of the budget.
Those changes came on the heels of losing City Manager Michael Mortell last fall – who the new Board majority is hiring back – and the loss of long-time finance director Louis Boglioli.
During the first of the two final budget hearings on Sept. 9, Commissioner Sean Reed voted against both the proposed 5.0 millage and the budget, although he’d actually seconded Commissioner Campbell Rich’s motion for approval on the latter.
Mayor Eula Clarke opened up the second and final budget hearing with a simple question.
“Any comments by commissioners on the 5:15 agenda?” she asked.
Commissioner Reed didn’t bat an eye repeating the same comment he’d made twice during the first hearing.
“I don’t support raising taxes on our constituents,” he said.
Afterward, Chrulski formally presented the agenda item to the Commission.
“By Florida law, two public hearings must be held to adopt the final millage rates and budget for the City of Stuart,” he said. “The first, or tentative hearing, was held on Sept. 9. The purpose of tonight’s final public hearing is to hear public comments, amend the budget if necessary and adopt the final millage and budget for Fiscal Year 2027. The rollback rate is 4.7499 mils. The city is proposing a millage rate of 5.0 mils, [which] exceeds the rollback rate by 5.27 percent.”
Mayor Clarke immediately asked if any members of the public had comments on the budget resolution. When none came forward, Commissioner Rich made a motion to approve the millage, which was seconded by Commissioner Merritt Matheson, who was elected to the seat formerly occupied by Christopher Collins.
The mayor then asked City Attorney Lee Baggett and Budget & Procurement Manager Anthony Cooling to read the millage resolution and provide any other details, respectively. The latter added a couple more facts about the General Fund Budget, which is only a portion of the total budget that includes all the city’s enterprise funds as well.
“The [millage] amount is 5 mils, and the total levy would be $20,112,867,” Cooling said. “We’re required to budget at 95 percent of that, which comes out to $19,107,224.”
Commissioner Matheson, who in one of his first official actions voted to fire former City Manager Michael Giardino on Aug. 24, took potshots at his colleagues opposing that millage rate.
“We’ve had two budget workshops, and we’ve had one millage rate meeting,” he said. “The four sitting commissioners have had months to talk with staff. I’ve heard no one make motions to reduce the budget, so it’s easy to sit up here and say you don’t support staff’s recommendation. It’s a little harder to say reduce the budget here here and here. That hasn’t happened, so I do support the millage as proposed.”
Mayor Clarke again asked for public comment but got no response. Chrulski then stated a fact that hamstrung the Commission that night.
“Florida statute will require a two-thirds vote, which would be four members,” he said.
Commissioner Reed then wondered if his goal at the rollback rate – the amount needed to support last year’s budget with no increases – might still be possible by default.
“If this motion didn’t get four yeas, would it roll the millage back to 4.9 or to the rollback of the last fiscal year?” he asked.
Chrulski’s response, however, only addressed the reason for the super majority rule.
“The rate of not more than 110 percent of the rollback rate may be adopted if approved by a two-thirds vote of the membership of the governing body,” he said.
The Board then voted 3-2, with Commissioners Giobbi and Reed dissenting. The lack of a super majority then resulted in much more deliberation and even fingerpointing from members of both sides trying to assign blame.
Realizing the budget would need tweaking in order to balance it, Mayor Clarke asked Baggett if they could delay the vote and tackle the budget first.
The city attorney’s answer was firm.
“No, we need a vote,” Baggett insisited. “We need a motion – whether it’s a different [millage] number – and that number with four votes.”
Commissioner Rich offered his colleagues an olive branch in response.
“I’m going to split the difference here because no thought has gone into how this budget is going to get balanced up here on the dais,” he said. “I propose a millage rate of 4.95.”
Matheson seconded that for discussion and Cooling came back to the podium.
“Actually, we were prepared for that,” the latter said. “So, 4.95 would be a reduction of $201,128 that we’d have to either spend from our unallocated fund reserve or reduce positions or take a gamble that there’s not going to be big insurance claims. There’s all sorts of ways we could balance the budget.”
Since Cooling had already admitted the proposed budget already included $800,000 from the fund reserves, raising that to more than $1 million gave the Board angst.
Currently there’s about $6 million in reserves, but up to $8 million is needed for the statutorily required 90 days of operations.
The mayor’s next call for public speakers got a handful of responses beginning with Althea Wiley, who chided those opposing the original 5.0 millage.
“So whatever’s happening up here, you’ve got to figure it out,” she said. “This is not about you. There are people behind these decisions, and you really have to ask yourself, why am I holding out?”
Mortell subsequently warned the Board that the potential fallout from Amendment 3 if passed could chew up the rest of the reserves in a heartbeat.
“The best bet for the city is to pass the budget at the 5 mils,” he said. “That is the city’s best chance of having the financial resources necessary to balance itself. If we drop the budget to 4.95 to make this political compromise, it’s still a $201,000 deficit being created out of thin air. When we get to this same budget meeting next year, we’ll be looking at a million dollar deficit.”
Commissioner Giobbi, however refused to consider changing her previous vote.
“In the spirit of compromise, I say yes to the 4.95,” she said during the subsequent roll call.
That 4.95 millage passed 4-1, with Commissioner Reed dissenting.
The budget itself did not require a super majority and passed 3-2, with both Giobbi and Matheson dissenting.