Editor’s note: The article has been updated to correct what was salvaged by the Hamiltons, specifically windows and wood trim, during the construction. There was also information added for context regarding re-opening of a permit.
The 1895 Church of Stuart, located on 3rd Street in Stuart, Florida, has become an unfortunate encapsulation of the mismanagement of taxpayer funds at a local level.
The Church was the recipient of a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) with funds from the state of Florida’s Department of Housing and Urban Development. The intent of the grant was to allow the church to be improved while retaining the structural and historic integrity of the historic aspects of the church.
The funds from the state of Florida are issued to a municipality – in this case, the City of Stuart – to be disbursed for improvements.
In 2022, the City of Stuart was awarded $750,000 in funds from HUD. They contributed $50,000 making the total available $800,000. There was a workshop on March 9, 2022. Robert and Olga Hamilton, owners of the 1895 Church, applied and received a grant of up to $80,000.
Because the program is managed by the municipality to whom the funds are awarded, the homeowner does not get to source bids and hire the contractor. That is performed by the municipality in concert with a private third party. The third party used by the City of Stuart is Guardian who is paid a fee by the municipality to oversee any construction improvements to any properties approved for a grant.
Guardian then sources the contractor bids and makes a recommendation for the contractor to be used.
Guardian verified they received notice from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) it was okay to proceed. This meant that any improvements that were proposed for this building met the standards to retain the historical integrity of the building.
To sum up, Guardian assumes the role of the on-site project manager, overseeing the construction efforts. The City of Stuart performs its duties, as it normally would, issuing the permits and performing the inspections. Paperwork is sent to Guardian verifying the work has been done correctly and is up to code. Guardians states the paperwork is in order and advises the municipality to pay the contractor for the work done.
But, ultimately, the municipality receiving the funds is identified by the State of Florida as the project manager.
They were and are responsible for the oversight being done by Guardians. They are responsible for the oversight of spending taxpayer money. They are responsible for work that they say passes inspection.
The City is identified as the responsible party for the project. Full stop.
The damage done to the historic Church
There were eight documented failures identified in our previous article on January 5, 2025.
You can read the original article posted January 5th here. “Mismanaged and poorly executed… so who’s on the hook?”
The Hamiltons had been diligent about documenting the work done to their Church. They have a multitude of pictures and videos detailing the finished product provided.
They have been diligent about learning about the CDBG process to determine where the breakdown was in the process specific to their home.
Throughout the process, Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton documented their concerns on their website. All of their concerns were reported to the City of Stuart on multiple occasions.
For example, the Hamiltons were so concerned about the work being done, they even went so far as to contact a home inspector in August 2024 about the “strong ties” used to secure the trusses to the roof. The manufacturer provided information and pictures to the home inspector stating “the Simpson H3 hurricane tie should be installed as illustrated below. Any other installation application for a roof truss/rafter-to-wall connection would be considered a mis-install.”
The inspector sent back these pictures of the installed hurricane ties.
The manufacturer responded stating, “Unfortunately, the installation application shown in your pictures is not a proper install for the Simpson Strong-Tie H3 connector. For a top of wall to side of roof rafter application, the Simpson HGA10 for wood-to-wood or the Simpson HGAM10 for wood-to-GFCMU/concrete would be the appropriate solution. Also, it appears that the connectors shown in your pictures is attaching the ceiling joist to the wall. The connector should be attaching the roof rafter to the wall, not the ceiling joist.”
The Hamiltons sent this information to the City of Stuart on August 14, 2024, and asked the City of Stuart to re-open the permit associated with the work.
More importantly, regarding the inspection of the roof permit files, on August 22, 2024, the Hamiltons notified the City of Stuart Building Department and the City Manager “Notice of the inaccurate, and/or incomplete information, provided by the contractor on the permit BP-24-684” that the contractor (Patriot Response Group) didn’t submit any specifications on the hurricane ties installation, and installed the hurricane ties without any proper documentation and without the approval by the Building Department.
CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE DOCUMENTED TIMELINE REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION AT THE CHURCH.
This is but one example of the documentation of the work done to their home that they provided to the City, the State of Florida, and others responsible for the work done to the Church.
As a result, on March 5, 2025, a supervisor from the State of Florida’s Small Cities CDBG Program met with staff from the City of Stuart. That supervisor then reached out to Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton advising them on the outcome of the meeting.
The City of Stuart and FloridaCommerce agreed to the following:
- The City is materially comfortable with the work write-up provided by McKee Renovations and FloridaCommerce is also comfortable.
- Prior to any additional construction occurring, the City requests that a structural engineer of your choosing evaluate the property to determine whether any additional work is needed in addition to the work write-up provided by McKee Renovations. Please coordinate to identify three (3) qualified and reputable structural engineers that you would be comfortable inspecting your home. Once you have identified those companies, please provide the related information and I will coordinate with the City for their consideration of the engineers.
- The structural engineer will provide a written estimate of any work (in addition to the work proposed by McKee Renovations) that needs to be done on your home. This should be consolidated into a single scope of work for any and all work that must be completed.
It closes with “depending on the work identified by the structural engineer it is possible that additional consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office may be needed.”
As a result, in order to truly evaluate if any damage was actually done by the contractor and to determine any efforts needed to restore the Church, a structural and electrical report was ordered.
The recent inspection report
The report, ordered on 4/4/2025, was “requested and commissioned by the City of Stuart to assess the structural condition of the structure.”
The report found that the building was (is) in good condition.
However the report notes, as did the initial article published on January 5, that the windows were incorrectly installed. Specifically, the report notes that all of windows that were replaced and installed were the wrong size, were not properly sealed, and have “excessive gaps.”
The report addresses the roof and includes comments about the clips that are missing screws or “have issues with missing screws.”
The report states that the fascia, which was mentioned previously as a “cosmetic issue,” was actually installed incorrectly. It also states, “The fascia was installed using nails into the ends of the rafters. Using nails in this manner is not acceptable, screws are required.”
Finally, the electric was noted having “no issues.”
However, it is the COMMENTS section that is of the greatest interest.
The COMMENTS from the inspector
The inspector made a point in the first paragraph to state that trim and sill material has more than just an ornamental concern and that the aesthetics of a historic building are a concern.
There are at least three paragraphs that discuss the nuances to a historic building. The Hamiltons were able to save a few of the original windows and salvaged some exterior trim by removing them from the dumpster during the renovation. The inspector noted “historical lumber is much stronger than today’s commonly used lumber, so a one to one replacement is not the same.”
Regarding the windows, the inspector wrote, “There are too many specific issues with each and every window that have been replaced. To reduce redundancy this report will not comment on each item listed. The pictures record the issues. Bottom line is, each new window needs to be removed and replaced.”
Regarding the hurricane ties, he wrote, “As seen in some of the pictures, in the front and back or cross section of the building hurricane clips were installed. A few of these clips were not installed properly. Typically, hurricane clips are installed directly to the members being joined at the connection. In this case they are installed over the wall covering. This is not detrimental to the structural integrity of the reinforcement but if the screws are not long enough to penetrate the structural substrate the clips may not be as effective as intended.”
There are other comments from him, all of which are important. You can read the text of the report HERE.
He then went on to make recommendations for the building.
The inspector’s RECOMMENDATIONS
The inspector provided the following recommendations. These are directly from the report.
- … all of the windows need to be removed and replaced with windows that are sized according to the original design. The framing at each window that requires it should be restored and / or reframed using specified and appropriate methods and materials for a building designated as historical.
- Where applicable the interior wall covering, plywood, should be removed around the affected windows to reveal the structural framing. Once revealed, each opening should be reevaluated for its structural integrity.
- Where missing, the Sole or Bottom Plate should be restored to its original condition with connections to the adjacent structural members and wall framing above. Trimmers and properly oriented headers should be installed with Cripples and Jack studs used where appropriate.
- Additional gable end bracing should be added to further storm readiness of the building. This report also mentions the need for additional collar bracing and collar ties added where missing or only sporadically used.
- Remove the Drop-Down Ceiling where it exists as original the roof and ceiling structural members were not designed for the additional loading. Insulation should be added to help provide a more comfortable living environment.
- To ensure compliance and safety, have a licensed electrician evaluate the wiring’s condition and consult with your local building department for any specific regulations. If insurance is a concern, you may need to replace some of the wiring to meet insurer standards, even if the FBC allows it to remain.
What this means is that the work that was done and paid for by taxpayers to the previous contractor needs to be re-done.
So who pays for that?
We do. One way or another.
What's next?
The Hamiltons have made public comments to the Commissioners at multiple meetings addressing the shoddy work done by the contractor, the lack of oversight by the City of Stuart, and other issues. They have asked repeatedly to be able to speak before the Commission to address their concerns and have repeatedly been told that they would have their opportunity to have their Church as an actual agenda item.
As of the publication of this article, it has not been scheduled.
At the core are two major concerns.
The first concern is who pays for the repairs to the Church.
There have been discussions as to what FloridaCommerce will pay for and what the City of Stuart will pay for.
Regardless of who pays for work that clearly needs to be done, all of these funds are provided by taxpayers, whether they are disbursed at a state level or from local ad valorum taxes.
We will pay for it. But that brings us to the second concern.
If the work had been done correctly and, more important, the City of Stuart had been good stewards of the money at the state level as well as local funds, this would have been addressed or, more importantly, possibly avoided.
It is clear that the City failed. They failed to properly oversee the work that was being done. The City failed to properly inspect the property for any deficiencies in the work done. The City failed to be stewards of taxpayer money as they paid the contractor and the 3rd party manager with documented concerns about the work being done.
The City failed.
If the City is failing, then we need to look at WHY the City is failing.
Is staff overworked? Is staff overwhelmed? Is staff underqualified? Is staff undertrained?
What’s clear is staff is not accountable. And that is the real issue.
We will keep you posted as to when the Hamiltons finally have an opportunity to speak to the Commissioners and have their voices and their concerns heard.