Commissioners discuss returning Haney Creek two‑acre parcel to voters for conservation; staff to consult county

The City of Stuart’s long‑held 1.97‑acre carve‑out of the Haney Creek property — a parcel originally set aside for commercial use to fund the adjacent preserve — drew renewed attention at the July 28 commission meeting, where commissioners asked staff to explore returning the parcel to conservation through a voter referendum.

Background and legal framework City staff presented the interlocal funding agreement with Martin County dated June 14, 2011, which carved the commercial parcel out of the larger Haney Creek acquisition. The agreement says proceeds from sale, lease or other revenue from the carve‑out shall be "perpetually and exclusively used for the improvement, use, management and operation" of Haney Creek and related conservation parcels, and it delegates annual accounting obligations to the city.

A 2011 referendum question authorizing a long‑term lease of the parcel was attached to the agenda; staff noted that roughly 76.5% of voters who considered that question approved the authorized commercial lease language at the time.

Commission discussion and recommended next steps Some commissioners urged converting the two‑acre parcel into conservation and using other funds (including half‑cent sales tax money previously discussed) for trailheads and preserve improvements. Staff advised that changing the parcel’s use to conservation would require amending the interlocal agreement and returning the matter to voters, because the original referendum language used the word "shall" in authorizing commercial use.

"If you wanted to use it as a passive park and/or a trailhead…you would need to return it via referendum," a staff presentation said, citing the agreement language and the referendum result.

The commission asked the city attorney to research the legal steps required and requested staff coordinate with Martin County; staff committed to bring a draft letter or item for the commission’s consideration at an upcoming meeting (the city attorney will review the interlocal terms and the city's options for a referendum).

Cost and alternatives Staff noted earlier engineering and permitting cost estimates for a trailhead project (figures in the packet included past estimates of several hundred thousand dollars for construction and consulting/permitting), and commissioners discussed using conservation designation and trail connections instead of commercial development to preserve the watershed and reduce long‑term management costs.

No vote taken No binding action to change land use or to submit a referendum was taken at the July 28 meeting. The commission directed staff to consult the county and return with legal guidance and a possible draft agenda item for a future meeting.

Ending note The question pits the city’s long‑term conservation funding model — which relied on commercial revenue from the parcel — against current interest in preserving and building public access to the Haney Creek Preserve; staff work with the county and legal counsel will determine whether a referendum path is required and feasible.