City Commission Regular Meeting - Regular Meeting

Every hour, every act, quietly connected. Most of us don't think about how our city works. We drive on maintained roads. We call when there's an emergency. We assume someone's keeping it all running, and they are.

Northport University gives residents a chance to step behind the scenes, to meet the people doing the work, to see how decisions are made, and to understand how we, as a community, can be part of it. It's not just about learning the facts. It's about learning where you fit in and how you could shape the city we call home. The most surprising thing would probably be the opportunity to get taste, which is really cool, understanding how that feels. Would recommend for everyone unless they have a heart condition. I think another thing would probably be how many people it takes to run everything.

It's how well all the departments work together and how well each of the departments know about other departments. So in the case of a big emergency, they already know what other departments are already supposed to do, and they all work together.

This is always a dance. There's always moving parts. There's always things that are that can impact a decision, whether it's state, local, federal, revenue. All these things come into play, and it's and it's just amazing with all these things that how how the city is impacted for the variety of things that can occur.

I feel more confident in the city in the way it operates. I don't see wasteful spending. I see a lot of proactive thinking way outside the box of what I thought a city does.

Well, I was already in love with Northport. I think everyone knows that. I got to meet the people who work here, their love for the community, how hard it is to run a whole city, the intricacies of it, and the why. It answers so many questions about the why things are done the way they're done. So it does,

it empowers you to love where you live more and to get more involved. And I think the important message here is the confidence that I will

Moran, Today is Tuesday, 05/05/2026. It's 10AM. We're in the city chambers, and I call the city commission regular meeting to order commissioners present are commissioner Duval, commissioner Stokes, mayor and rich vice mayor Langdon, and commissioner Petro. There is a quorum present for this meeting. Also present are city manager Fletcher, city attorney Fuino, city clerk Faust, board specialist lender, police chief Garrison, and fire chief Titus.

I'd also like to acknowledge former county commissioner John Thaxton is with us this morning. And I am requesting that all commissioners, public participants, and staff maintain order and decorum throughout this meeting. City commission policy twenty twenty one dash zero three states that attendees shall refrain from engaging in personal attacks and boisterous, immaterial, inflammatory, obscene, profane, or disorderly conduct. Thank you. I'm gonna call on John Thanxton to lead us in the pledge, please, sir.

Thank you.

I

Thank you, sir. Looking for a motion to approve the agenda? So

moved. Second.

Have a motion on the floor to approve the agenda made by Commissioner Stokes, seconded by Vice Mayor. If there's nothing to that, please vote. And that passes five to zero. City clerk, public comment.

I have anonymous employee. As a city hall employee, I'm tired of the same individuals coming to these meetings and hushing a narrative that there's toxic work environment. That film doesn't match reality. What is toxic is the repeated disruption and theatrics brought forward by former commissioner McDowell and the same group of actors who continue to speak on her behalf. If we're gonna talk about toxicity, let's please be honest.

A sitting commissioner being investigated for making threats to blow up this building is toxic. Business associates of and commissioner Petro confronting and arguing with city staff is toxic. These are real examples. Calling this organization a comedy of errors also hard to take seriously when we watch coordinated remarks between commissioners and the public that looks more like scripting than leadership. When one commissioner asks questions and the public having those same exact questions, it raises concerns about independence and judgment.

From an employee perspective, the city manager has demonstrated professionalism, stability, and respect for staff. That's what allows us to do our job and serve the community. I appreciate the commissioners who recognize what's actually happening and continue to support steady professional leadership instead of feeding into distraction and noise. In person, I have John Baxton and Tim Doyle.

Just here or there? Right there, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the commission for the record. My name is John Thaxton, and I am here appearing on behalf of the Gulf Coast Community Foundation. And we have a lot of our staff members that live here in the fair city of Northport. And the other day, we were talking about the history of Northport and I could not help but bring up some of my experiences in Northport in the late '60s as a child, especially talking about Warm Mineral Springs and the amazing history that this place has relative to archaeology.

Ten, twelve thousand years ago, people came to this spring for nourishment, for food, for health, for spirituality. And I believe that tradition carries today. So one of the people that I was speaking to, Kristen Prince, who works at Gulf Coast, her husband is a professional photographer. And they had to see what I was talking about. Obviously, they couldn't get into the Cyclorama because it's been closed for years. But they did go to The Springs and they were in awe. Michael is a professional commercial photographer and he specializes in aerial. What do you call those buzzer things? Drones. Drones.

He specializes in commercial drone photography. And he was inspired to take a photograph. He took the photograph. I looked at it. I thought it was great. And so I brought it here today. And it is a gift from Gulf Coast Community Foundation to the city of Northport.

This is it.

Oh, wow. Oh, wow.

I love the photograph because it it's actionable. It shows the people in the springs. You can actually see them kicking the wave behind them as they as they swim. And I just thought that it really captured the beauty and the spirit of 4 Mineral Springs. And so I hope you can find a suitable place for somewhere on city property.

Absolutely. Thank you very much.

I'll just leave it over here.

It's beautiful. It is. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Good

morning, all. I guess I have to apologize for mispronouncing Moran's name, and I said Morgan. So I apologize to all the Morgans in the world, even Captain Morgan. But it's Moran, all right? I thought my $02 again because I'm going to keep giving you my $02 You're not stealing it from me. I'm giving it to you, right? People are probably sitting at home saying, why is this bonehead going nuts about the penny? Some of you are older than me up there. Last time we had a $05 Hershey bar was in 1967. Maybe some of you remember the $05 Hershey bar.

Today, they took away our penny because they say it's too expensive to make. Tomorrow, it will be the nickel. The next day, it will be the dime. Where does this end? We have a decibel system for our currency. No one wants to go to electronic currency. People in the world don't have bank accounts. People in the world can't get bank accounts. And some people, Chase Morgan, will not give them a credit card. So basically, what Moran did I say that right?

Let me check because I don't know the man. Moran, to me, is stealing. There is no law that allows this. There was a law passed or maybe an executive order passed saying to get rid of the penny. This is the problem with the politics and our politicians. They do something, but they don't know the consequences. I have personally called senator Scott on this matter. I personally called the governor's office on this matter. I brought it up in this room. Someone's got to do something.

This is ludicrous. I mean, I hear Senator Scott on public TV on a Sunday morning program and get up there and say, he's fighting Iran for our democracy and safety. Meanwhile, gas prices are about $10 a gallon in some parts of the country. Do you know in Alaska, they're flirting with $20 for a gallon of fuel because of the rural areas? And they don't they have a lot of oil, but they have no refineries.

So the oil comes out, they have to bring the gas back. This is ludicrous what these people are doing. We can make bombs to go blow up Iran, but we can't make a single penny to make our currency work. That's a problem. I feel you should kick the county out of this building, let them build their own building. The police department needs a vault for all their evidence. Make those rooms into evidence lockers. Kick the county out, and let's find a new county. Thank you.

All right. Moving on to announcements. City Clerk.

The current vacancies for the following boards and committees include our advisory board, auditor selection committee, charter review advisory board, citizen tax oversight committee, community economic development advisory board, debt management committee, environmental advisory board, historic and cultural advisory board, joint management advisory board, police officers pension trust fund board of trustees, parks and recreation advisory board, and planning and zoning advisory board. Sarasota County advisory council vacancies include one resident of Northport to serve on the Sarasota manatee metropolitan Organization Citizen Advisory Committee and one resident of Northport to serve on the Citizens Oversight Committee for School Facility Planning. If anyone would like more information, please see the city clerk's office. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to the consent agenda. City manager, has any of the items been pulled? No service, sir. Do we have any public comment?

And, again, I'm giving you my 2¢. So I have to talk about all the topics on here. I know how to do this. So a 26Dash0339, approval of state of Florida Department of Environment Protection Standard Grant Agreement, blah blah blah, for the North Port Blue Ridge, blah blah blah, phase one in amount of 3,000,000. So I think you should go get the money to do this so the taxpayers don't have to pay for it.

The other thing, thinking about this water and source, since it's on the agenda and there's been so much compulsory in this room about what things cost. Maybe the water department should do away with meters for all residential houses. Then there's no meter fee. We can cut down some of the bills we have, and it's a generic bill for everybody. Now all the heavy users, meaning the industrial, the commercial, they should have the water meters.

They can afford to pay for the water meters. They can afford to pay for their water. Now, if you wanna have two sets of, billing, one who has a sprinkler and one who doesn't, I'm all right with that. But I think the water department could save a lot of money by getting rid of all the meters, and the people of this town could save a lot of meters. So that's what I have to say on that, and you should get the money to help the people.

So the next one is D26Dash0534. The amount of 300,000, right, to replace the playground. Again, this is for the goodness of the kids and the people in the community to use. You should go grab the money. See if you can get more money. These are the type of things that our city should be doing for the residents. I don't think the water projects are important, but this keeps kids out of the street. When I was a little kid, I grew up in a part of a town that was called the Indian Village. It was called the Indian Village because every single street was named after an Indian tribe of this country. It was done in respect.

And we had this association, and it was called Sunny Acres. And I used to go to the park every summer, play knock hockey, make little pot holders for my parents and my mother. My mother probably got sick coming home with all these weaving things and stuff. But I feel that keeps the kids off the street. I feel parks are a good thing for our community.

Next one is F26-five 58. Approval of the appointment of Daniel I can't pronounce his name, so I'm not going to say it, no disrespect to anybody to serve as a Planning and Zoning Advisory Board. The only thing I have to say on that, I hope this gentleman understands that people own their property. I hope this person will understand that I have a right to do anything on my property, and he should not interfere with me on my property, especially since it's homesteaded. Thank you.

Thank you. That's okay. All right. I'll be looking for a motion.

I'll make it.

Go ahead.

I move to approve the consent agenda as presented.

Second.

I have a motion on the floor made by vice mayor to approve the consent agenda as presented, seconded by commissioner Duvall. If there's nothing to that, please vote. That passes five to zero. Moving on to public hearings. Wow. And this would be for ordinance number twenty twenty dash 11. I'm going to request a motion to direct the city clerk to read by title only. Move.

Second.

I have a motion on the floor made by commissioner Stokes, seconded by vice mayor Langdon to direct the city clerk to read by title only. There's nothing to that. Please vote. Nine passes five to zero. City clerk.

Ordinance number twenty twenty six dash 11, an ordinance of the city in Northport, Florida amending the unified land development code to consolidate the revenue account formerly known as the tree fund into the environmental protection fund by amending section six point one point three, providing for findings, providing for complex, providing for severability, providing for codification, and providing an effective date.

Thank you. City manager, this is your item.

Thank you, mister mayor. Back on 10/06/2024, city commission adopted ordinance numbers twenty twenty four dash thirteen and twenty twenty four dash 14, which ordinances adopted a new ULDC to be effective in 10/28/2024. Section 6.13 of the ULDC establishes the environmental protection fund providing those administrative costs, fees, and penalties collected as part of the enforcement of chapter six natural resources to be placed in said fund. This fund may be used to support the operations of the natural resource division of the development services department and for the following purposes, for the acquisition and ongoing maintenance of environmentally sensitive land, the acquisition of land for sustainability projects, planting trees in public spaces, maintaining trees to protect health and safety on public lands, and tree education, planting, and conservation programs. With the adoption of the ordinance number twenty twenty four dash 13, the clear legislative intent is to consolidate the remaining tree fund balances into the environmental protection fund was not explicitly established in that section six point one point three of the ULDC even though the fund itself was renamed.

Adoption of this ordinance will clarify that intent and allow expenditures of revenues under the former tree fund consistent with the environmental protection fund provision. We ask today that you will approve option, excuse me, accept option one, which is approved ordinance number twenty twenty six dash 11 as presented and continue the second reading on May 19. Myself and my team are here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, mister mayor.

Thank you. Commissioner Stokes?

Yeah. I have no problem with this at all, but since this subject came up, would love to know at what point in time will staff report back to commission on we have, I believe, dollars 2,500,000 of this fund set aside in our budget for environmentally sensitive land purchase. So I'm kind of anxious to hear, since we're well into this fiscal year, what properties we might have identified, where we stand. And are we going to be spending $2,500,000 this year for environmentally sensitive land?

Yes, Commissioner Lori Barnes, Deputy Director of Development Services. Natural Resources is actively corresponding with the property owners who own the properties that were on the list presented to commission when we requested, direction to move forward with the program. Once we have an accounting of willing sellers, we'll bring back a report to the commission to advise you on which properties we've identified willing sellers for and the process to move forward with the property acquisitions. As to the $2,500,000 expenditure of the full $2,500,000 may not occur in this budget year. Our plan is to encumber those funds in a project, So any remaining funds that are not expended this budget year would roll into the next budget year for continuation of the program.

Beautiful. So it will build on. That's what I want to make sure that because I know realistically it's going to transcend fiscal years. I just want to make sure it doesn't fall back into the general bucket. And we build on it so we continue because there are some lands eventually we've got to find our way to get our hands on. So thanks

for it.

Yes, sir. And also as an aside, we actually have some property owners who were not on the list that we presented to commission that have expressed interest. So if we proceed with any of those properties that were not on the original list that you approved, we'll bring them back one by one to receive direction to pursue the purchase of those.

Thank you, ma'am. That's all I got there.

Thank you. Commissioner Duvall.

Thank you, Mayor. I have some problems with this. Back in 2021, there was an ordinance passed, 2021 dash '46. And that was regarding, tree regulations and enforcements that repealed and replaced ULDC chapter 45. It's 44 pages long.

And one of the things on that on page three, it says under 1.03 delta, preserve and plant trees that shall result in a 35% canopy coverage citywide, 50% of which are comprised of native species. In this ordinance you're asking us to pass, that's just not there anymore. That just goes away. When the ULDC was passed, it created the environmental fund, okay, which is paid for up to 50% by the tree fund. That tree fund was created for trees.

Now it wants to get rid of all of the specifics that were in the tree form to begin with. And it's hard for me to support something that has been kinda watered down and now just wants to be changed into something else. And I'm definitely not saying that the environmental division does not have good things on its plate. It's just that I don't wanna see the tree fund just totally depleted and and gotten rid of. You know? Where is that 35% canopy?

Commissioner Duvall, I can speak to that. The 35% canopy vision is incorporated in our comprehensive plan. That has not gone away. It is a comprehensive plan policy that the city shall strive to maintain a 35% tree canopy citywide. Our natural resources division has completed a canopy assessment that has been presented to the city commission, and that tree canopy assessment is intended to be updated every two years. Oh, every three years. Every three years. So you will be seeing our progress in maintaining and enhancing the tree canopy.

The existing canopy is 38%.

Yeah. So we're at 38% right now. Okay? So that provision has not gone away. Now as far as the tree fund versus the environmental protection fund, in 2024, when the new chapter six of the ULDC was adopted by this commission, the intent was never to create a new environmental protection fund and leave the tree fund behind to be limited to the expenditures allowed under the former code.

Right now, our tree fund balance is approx approximately 5,600,000. About 3,000,000 of that are revenues that came from the tree fund that were restricted to tree planting only. We do not have enough public property in this city to plant $3,000,000 worth of trees on. Furthermore, there are comprehensive plan policies and strategic plan policies that speak to natural resources and environmental protection issues beyond planting trees, including your sustainability projects, acquisition of environmentally sensitive land, sustainability projects like flood attenuation. And and and along with that, wildlife protection and preservation, creation of habitats, and elimination of exotic invasive species.

So all of these environmental protection initiatives are intended to be funded by the Environmental Protection Fund. Under the tree fund, we were not meeting all of the objectives, goals, and policies of the comprehensive plan as to our natural resources here in the

city. I

have no objection to having, you know, you know, an environmental division and having objectives other than planting trees. But I just do not wanna see this tree section just be deleted, that 35%. Last year, we were told that there were gonna be 500 the goal this is part of the budget process. 500 trees planted this year. Did 500 trees get planted?

We are Elena Ray, director of development services. We're probably close to that. We will have that done well before the end of this fiscal year. But, also, I think I'd like to add a little bit of clarity to this. We are not deleting the tree preservation ordinance. That's not what this does. This simply clarifies the naming of the fund and rolls the tree fund into the environmental protection fund. The ULDC contains that was adopted in 2024, contains many, many pages of tree protection regulations. This does not change that. This does not delete them.

It doesn't change it. The regulations will continue to be enforced as they exist today in the ULDC. This is only about the naming of the fund.

I've read some of the revised ULDC. I haven't, at the time, yet to go through all of it, but I didn't see any mention in there of that 35% tree coverage.

That is in our comprehensive plan. So the comprehensive plan is the law of the land in Northport. So that is what we are working to maintain as an established provision in our comprehensive plan. We are currently exceeding that. We're at 38% tree canopy coverage. And we will be evaluate reevaluating that tree canopy survey to ensure that we stay on that track. The tree we are this ordinance does nothing to change the regulations in the ULDC regarding tree preservation.

Okay. Thank you for that. I will let you with holding my approval on this for another two weeks, you know, when it's come back, if it passes today. Thank you.

Commissioner Petro.

Thank you, mayor. My question is how restrictive the environmental protection fund would be as far as the money that we're gonna collect from the tree fund ordinance?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

So we established this. I do believe it was in 2024 spring of twenty twenty four, the tree ordinance, and we established a specific tree fund to collect the money into that fund. Now by dissolving the tree fund or absorbing it into environmental protection fund, how much restrictive policy we will have collecting those money from the tree fund ordinance?

I I hope commissioner Petros that I'm going to be able to address the question that you're you're you're trying So to receive an answer the tree fund monies were always intended to roll into the Environmental Protection Fund. But because chapter six of the new ULDC renamed the fund but didn't explicitly speak to rolling the tree fund balance into the renamed Environmental protection fund, the finance director requested that we bring this ordinance forward to clarify the intent of the former commission in renaming that fund. And using those tree funds, bringing those into the renamed environmental protection fund for the purposes under the new code. Now, I don't have a precise figure of what is in the tree fund that did not originate since 10/28/2024. But our revenues in 2025 were 2,700,000.

Our fund balance right now is about 5,600,000. So somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,000,000 is likely remaining in what was the tree fund intended to be rolled into and renamed into the environmental protection fund. And as I said before to commissioner Duvall, the former ULDC called for the city to use those funds to plant trees on private property. The city owned property we have and achieving $3,000,000 of tree planting on those properties is not necessarily right tree, right place, right separation. So this basically moves those funds into the environmental protection fund with the expanded authority for use of those funds, which is still governed by this commission under the budget process.

You all approve the natural resources division budget every year, and you see where that funding is allocated, whether it be for tree planting projects, land acquisition projects, sustainability projects like rewilding and habitat restoration. All of that is wrapped into the budget that this commission approves.

I guess it does make sense to to rename it and combine it, especially with this section six point one point three. My question is so I guess that it was very restrictive from my understanding. Now we my my question is simple. How much of that environmental protection fund will be spent on future planting of the of those trees collected based on what was passed in 2024? Because we're gonna collect a lot of money. How much of that money will be spent to replant or plant?

We have a number of planting projects in the works right now. We do not have a set percentage of funds to be expended for tree planting versus land acquisition versus rewilding versus refore station versus habitat restoration, we we don't have set percentages because, there needs to be some flexibility in the funding of projects that the natural resources presents to the city commission for approval. We might miss out on opportunities if we were to set a maximum percentage of funding for each area of environmental sustainability. And that goes to grants too. Sometimes we'll have grant opportunities come up, and we might need matching funding.

Well, if we're told we can only spend, 10% on wildlife habitat and we don't have enough for a matching fund for a grant, we could miss out on the opportunity, which is why when we brought the ULDC in 2024, we didn't have set restrictions on percentage of funding to go to each area of, interest as per the comprehensive plan and the strategic plan.

Thank you.

If I can also add, to you, this is Sabrina Coherento, finance director. So yes, the tree fund was more restrictive. The environmental protection fund opened a little bit more for environmental sensitive land purchases when the tree fund didn't. So we couldn't just roll the balance from the tree fund into the environmental protection fund because tree fund was more restrictive. Restrictive.

Thank you. Yeah.

City clerk, public comment?

I see nothing wrong with changing the name or moving the money out. But what I see in this and what they're saying is there's $5,000,000 there. And according to this, and what I'm reading on your thing is that money can be used to buy sensitive land. Sensitive land was mentioned in this room yesterday. So I wonder if they will take any of this $5,000,000 and go and look at the land that the county owns or private people own that are on county property for a road from here to inland, an East West road like we're talking about.

So according to this, we could buy the land, we could build the road, and we can replant all the trees. We can make animal crossings over the road with this money. We can make animals crossing under the road with this money. So the way I see it, I see nothing wrong with this. I see opportunity for the town to take care of the citizens of this town and take care of your tree problem. You don't have places to plant all those trees. You're gonna make a road right across. You plant all new trees. You make all these wildlife things. They do them up north all the time on the highways, the deer and everything.

So it sounds like this project could help us with the ESF Road. And and what you know, I'm gonna say something. You know, in today's world, the government thinks that they can take everybody's cell phone data for a square mile if someone has a gun and know exactly what I'm doing. You follow me? So we are using money that shouldn't be used for things.

This specifically says, acquisition and ongoing maintenance of environmental sensible land. That's exactly what was said in this room. So I feel you should take the 2,000,000 or $3,000,000 that you can spend on land and try to get that land. And then, you know, we have a new EPA. The EPA will let you build the road.

If they can watch me on a cell phone, watch me in a car, then if the 100,000 people are trapped by a flood because we all know 75 is not safe anymore. I live pretty close to Toledo Blade. I saw all cops the cars coming off the highway when they couldn't go down the highway. They were sitting in our neighborhoods. I would I'm not complaining about that. The people had to have somewhere to go. To me, that's not a problem. The problem was 75 didn't hold up. And the other question I have on this sensitivity stuff is, down here, have pine trees that are foreign. They are not native to Florida.

Pine trees are weeds. They crack and break in all the storms. They are not meant to be here. And I don't know how this fits into this, but I feel that any pine tree in this town that's not native should be shut down cut down.

That's all in.

All right. I'm going to close this public hearing and request a motion.

I'll make it.

Go ahead.

I move to continue ordinance number twenty twenty six dash 11 to second reading on 05/19/2026.

Second. I have a motion on the floor made by vice mayor to continue ordinance number twenty twenty six dash 11 to second reading on 05/19/2026 that was seconded by commissioner Stokes. Please vote. And that passes four to one with commissioner Duvall dissenting. Anything to that, commissioner Duvall?

Thank you, mayor. No. I'll rely on my previous comments to call.

Thank you. Moving on to ordinances. Second reading, ordinance number twenty twenty six dash 14. City clerk, can you read by title only, please?

Ordinance number twenty twenty six dash 14, an ordinance of the city of Northport, Florida amending the nondistrict budget and capital improvement budget for fiscal year twenty twenty five dash twenty twenty six to increase park impact fee funded project p two four LTC Legacy Trail connection to Warm Mineral Springs in the amount of a $125,000 providing for findings, providing for posting, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing an effective date.

Thank you. City manager, this is your item.

Thank you, mister mayor. During the city commission regular meeting held on 04/21/2026, ordinance number twenty twenty six dash 14 was continued as presented with no changes to second reading on a five zero vote. Ordinance number twenty twenty six dash 14, was submitted to the clerk's office on 04/23/2026 for signature. Subject to commission approval, we ask you today to choose option one, which is adopt order number twenty twenty six dash fourteen as presented. Thank you, sir.

Okay. Commissioners, anything to this? Commissioner Duvall.

Thank you, mayor. This is the second reading and I don't see where anything's changed. We did pass it the first time. So, I'm good with passing it again.

Alright. There's nobody else. Public comment?

Again, I don't see any problem with this. You're trying to make a trail for people to use and people to go out and enjoy nature and maybe bring some people to the city to promote commerce. So in the long run, something like this could actually help the city with tax revenue or other things like that. So I look at something like this as an investment. I am worried about fees.

There's no doubt about it. Some of the fees, you know, we gotta be careful. We gotta look at where we're spending some of the other money so we can keep continue to do things like this to enhance our city for everybody. And again, anybody could use this trail or what have you going down the road. So again, I'll support it. And again, we just got to watch the fee side on some of this stuff because what happens if the fees get too high? You can build everything you want. The people aren't going to come. Amusement parks go out of business, because they raise their fees, everybody. So you just have to be careful on the fees. And I don't know what the right number is, But I support it, and that's all I'll say. Thank

you. That's all. All right. If there's nothing else, I'm going to close this public hearing and request a motion.

I'll make it.

Go ahead, sir.

I move to adopt ordinance number twenty twenty six dash 14 as presented.

Second.

I have a motion on the floor made by commissioner Duvall to adopt ordinance number twenty twenty six dash 14 as presented, and that was seconded by vice mayor. There's nothing to that. Please vote. And that passes five to zero. Moving on to resolution number twenty twenty six dash r dash ten. City clerk, can you read by title only, please?

Resolution number 2026DashR Dash10, a resolution of the city commission of the city of Northport, Florida amending and restating the citywide sponsorship policy here and known as the sponsorship policy for our city events, activities, programs, and designated public spaces, providing for incorporation of recitals, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing an effective date.

Thank you. City manager, this is your item.

Thank you, mister mayor. At the city commission workshop on 02/02/2026, there was consensus by the commission to direct the city manager to update the citywide sponsorship policy considering new or additional ways of enhancing the value of the presenting sponsor and to bring back a resolution for commission review. So staff have prepared resolution number twenty twenty six dash r ten and amended the citywide sponsorship policy incorporating the discussed revisions including adjustments to cost alignment, renewal timelines, and payment windows. Additionally, presenting sponsorship benefits have been adjusted and enhanced to better reflect the level of investment and to offer increased value and visibility for sponsors. We ask today that you take the recommended action of approving resolution number 2026DashR10 as presented.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Mention anything? Not seeing anything. City clerk, public comment?

I

can support this. We need to have places for the public to get together, different organizations and things like that, programs. And we gotta remember a lot of this stuff. Again, we're talking money. We're talking different things. Money is not everything in life. It really isn't. It's corroborate. It's getting together. An ordinance like this can get people together and make our community stronger, make ties with people, bring them together, less friction.

So I support this, and I think, you know, we should promote events and activities and programs in our community. You may not like them all. I might not like them all. But that's different taste. Doesn't mean they're right or wrong. I want to make sure that we don't discriminate against anybody because of the events, because that's the way it should be. So I support it, and that's all I'll say at this time. Thank you.

That's all there. And I close this public hearing and request a motion.

I'll make it. Go ahead. I move to adopt resolution number 2026DashRDash10 as presented.

Second. I have a motion on the floor made by vice mayor to adopt resolution number twenty twenty six dash r dash 10 as presented. That was seconded by commissioner Stokes. Nothing to that. Please vote.

That passes five to zero. Moving on to resolution number 2026 dash r dash 11. City clerk, can you read by title only, please?

Resolution number twenty twenty six dash r dash eleven, a resolution of the city commission of the City of Northport, Florida authorizing the sale of real property located on 2400 Commerce Parkway and described as Lot 8 Northport Industrial Park, Sarasota County, property appraiser parcel identification number 0962110080 incorporating recitals providing for filing of documents, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing an effective date.

Thank you. City manager, this is your item.

Thank you, mister mayor. On 10/22/2024, the city commission directed city manager to work with staff to initiate negotiations regarding the sale of city owned commercial property located at 2400 Commerce Parkway. Following negotiations, staff reached a proposed sale price of $950,000 with Sentinel Fund SPV x I I LLC. An appraisal date of 03/22/2025 completed by Hatima Sabah LLC reflected an appraised value of $920,000. This parcel is zoned IOW, industrial light and warehousing, and is approximately, 2.11 acres.

We recommend that you choose option one and approve resolution over twenty twenty six s r 11 as presented. Thank you, sir.

Sir, commissioner, questions? Commissioner Duvall.

Thank you, mayor. Based on, you know, the statements just made by city manager, was appraised at 920,000, and we've been offered, you know, 950,000. I have to say, this is a good deal for the city.

Thank you.

Thank you. City clerk, public comment. Senator.

I'm not gonna oppose you getting money for piece of property, and that's not bringing in tax dollars that will start to bring in tax dollars to help everything. So this is a good thing. So the only thing I don't see on here, who's buying it, not that might all be private right now. I don't know the deal with it. But what I have to say on this property is it sounds like it's gonna come back before you again in some way.

No one's gonna pay a million dollars, almost a million dollars for a piece of property and not wanna do something with it. So being at a few of these meetings and seeing how some of this stuff is going, please make sure when it comes back to you that maybe this property creates jobs for the community as well as tax revenue for the community because I've seen some of the commercial property get passed where it doesn't really create any jobs for our community. So we gotta make sure, Again, you guys shouldn't sit on things if you can get this type of money, and it will enhance the public's. But we gotta make sure whatever goes on this property fits with the community. And that's all I'll say at this time.

Thank you. That's all. And I'll close this public hearing and request a motion. I'll make it. Go ahead.

I move to adopt resolution number twenty twenty six dash r dash 11 as presented.

Second.

I have a motion on the floor made by commissioner Stokes to adopt resolution number twenty twenty six dash r dash eleven as presented, seconded by vice mayor. If there's nothing to that, please vote. And that passes five to zero. Moving on to resolution number twenty twenty six dash r dash nineteen. City clerk, can you read by title only, please?

Resolution number 2026DashRDash19, a resolution of the city commission of the city in Northport, Florida accepting ownership of donated real property located on Coastal Street prescribed at lot as Lot 5, Lot 2087, 45th Edition to Port Charlotte Subdivision, Sarasota County property appraised with personal identification number 1131208705, incorporating recitals, providing for filing of documents, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing an effective date.

Thank you. City manager, this is your item, sir.

Thank you, mister mayor. Landowner Lorraine and John Damasco are seeking to donate their vacant lot. It's located on Coastal Street in the city of Northport. This parcel is a 10,000 square foot residential lot in Zone Activity Center 6. Acceptance of this donated property by the city will enable its use in future negotiations and related initiatives. Staff have reviewed the offer and approved the request for donation. There are no tax liens on this property according to the Sarasota County tax appraiser. We recommend that you choose option one, which is adopt resolution number 2026DashR19 as presented, authorizing the donation of real property located on Coastal Street, Northport, Florida 34288. Thank you, mister Bear.

Thank you, sir. Commission, anybody?

Commissioner Duvall. Thank you, mayor. It's a gift. I think I'm gonna hope for this, and I'd like to see a letter of thank you sent to the people that are donating this to us.

That it? That's it. Thank you. City court of public comment.

I concur. Someone's given us something as a gift, so you should send a letter of thank you. So I agree with the member on that one. And, I think you should accept the property. No problem. That property could be resold to help some of your bills. That property could be turned into a park for the local community, even though it's only 10 square 10,000 square feet. So you could do different things with it. It does, know, at that point, take it off to tax rolls, but an empty lot, what are you losing? $607,100 dollars a year, so it's not a big deal to me.

But again, I think you should accept it. I think you should send that letter of thank you on behalf of every citizen of the town. And then after you get it, maybe look at it and see what kind of uses you could use it for, not just take it and sit it, but let's does it fit in the community? Because I know, like, the part of town where I live, there isn't one park. There isn't one place for a swing set. So, you know, I kinda like those things for the kids. So so accept the lands and thank the people, and that's all I have to say.

All right. I'm going to close this public hearing and request a motion.

I'll make it.

Go

ahead. I move to adopt Resolution Number 2026R-nineteen as presented with a letter of thanks going to the current owners of that property from the commission on behalf of the community. Second.

I've got a motion on the floor to adapt resolution number 2026DashRDash19 as presented. Also adding a letter of thank you to the present owners for from the commission, thanking them for their gift to the community. That was seconded by, commissioner Duvall. Nothing to do then. Please vote.

And that passes five to zero. Moving on to resolution number twenty twenty six dash r dash twenty six. City clerk, can you read by title only, please?

Resolution number 2026DashRDash26, the resolution of the city commission of the city of Northport, Florida accepting the donation of the ACE k nine temperature alarm deployment system from the Retired Law Enforcement Association of Southwest Florida Inc, acknowledging that the Northport Police Department will be responsible for the installation of the equipment, providing for the city's acceptance of the donated equipment, providing for incorporation of exhibits, providing for incorporation of recitals, authorizing the city manager or designee to execute all required documents, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing an effective date.

Thank you. City manager, this is your item.

Thank you, mister mayor. The Northport Police Department utilizes k nine units to support law enforcement operations. Retired Law Enforcement Operation Association of Southwest Florida Incorporated raises funds to support active law enforcement canine units by providing safety equipment and training tools. To enhance canine safety during vehicle deployments, the organization has offered to donate one ACE canine watchdog temperature alarm deployment system to the city of Northport for its Northport's police department's canine unit. We ask that you choose option one today, which is to approve resolution number 2026DashR26 as presented. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Commission, questions? Any? City clerk, public comment? Senator?

I think you should also accept it. It's for the protection of the animal and the people, the way I read it. The one thing I will say about canines, they are a useful tool, especially for search and rescue. But I do not support any canine biting any individual. I'll repeat that.

A canine has no legal right to bite me. That's an attack by a wild animal, a wolf. Follow the genetics. So I support the K9 units, but I don't support dogs biting people. So if this is about training, the dogs should not be trained not to bite me. I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Okay.

I'm going to request a motion. I'll make it. Go ahead.

I move to adopt resolution 2026DashRDash26 as presented. Second.

I have a motion on the floor made by commissioner Stokes to adopt resolution twenty twenty six dash r dash 26 as presented, made by commissioner Stokes, seconded by commissioner Petro. Please vote. That passes five to zero. Moving on to general business, item a 26 dash zero four one eight. Discussion and possible action regarding the fourth amendment to the city of Northport, Florida and Sable Trace Development Partners LLC water and wastewater system developers agreement. City manager, this is your item.

Thank you, mister mayor. Since the approval of the third amendment, the developer has continued pushing this project forward on their end. However, due to unforeseen setbacks, including delays in obtaining necessary governmental approvals and a housing market downturn, they are experiencing additional delays. The developer desires to revise the schedule outlined in section 20.3 so that the developer's next fourth payment for capacity fee shall be on or before 01/01/2030, with subsequent annual payments being due on that date each year thereafter through 2037. The extended deadlines for Fast CP payments provide the developer with extra time to meet their obligations, accommodating challenges in the development process, and ensuring a smoother project.

We recommend that you choose option one today, which is to approve the fourth amendment to the city of Northport, Florida and Sable Trade Developers Partners LLC Water and Wastewater Systems developers agreement. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Commissioner, questions? Anything? Commissioner Duvall?

Thank you, Mayor. This is Developer asking us for something. Basically, it's a delay of paying fees. I did read in the background material where the future dates will be at the fees we're charging at that time. But still, you know and and, you know, fees may go up in time.

You know, cost will go up.

But even still, I wonder if we could consider, you know, possibly adding a little fee or maybe, you know, a little interest charge to this. You know, if they're delaying paying fees to us, it's something an agreement already made, you know, then maybe the citizens should be compensated for that. That's all.

Vice Mayor?

Yeah. Thank you, mayor. It certainly is not in the best interest of the community or the folks living in that development or area to have this developer go belly up. And I know they have faced many, many financial challenges since this property, began development and the correction of the Brownfield situation, the arsenic situation. However, I I tend to be thinking along the same lines as Commissioner Duvall.

I'm a little uncomfortable moving the entire payment out. And I think some kind of fee or interest payment or some type of interim payment makes me a lot more comfortable, than pushing this out to a later date. So I would be very interested in what my other fellow commissioners have to say on the matter.

City manager, what when is their due date at this time? 2028, I believe.

2028 according to mister attorney. Well, the next one says January or 2030. January 1.

2030. Thought they were moving it to 2030. They wished to move it to 2030.

Oh, you know what? Go ahead. I can just

Yeah. Sure. The next payment's, I'm sorry. The next payment's 01/01/2026, and then it'll be 01/01/2027 and then '28.

So what would be what would be the financial impact if per year if we were to push it out to 2030?

It it all depends on what the fee would be at that.

What do they owe for 2026? Let's just shoot with that one. Alright.

Mister Mayor, I wanna see if someone from our team knows the answer to that.

While we're waiting for that, if if I might add, since it's already a staggered payment, some kind of partial payment would be more to my liking than simply pushing it out.

Yes. If I may, mayor, there's a schedule of the payments, you know, and and this change will take one payment and make it due 01/01/2030, but then it continues to another payment, '31, '32, '33, all the way down through 2036.

I understand. I just want this on the record money wise.

Okay. Mike Bulow, assistant utilities director. So the overall scope of the work and what they're paying for right now is a 104 ERCs, which they'll continue to pay to guarantee revenue on. Anything above that so it's a reduction in the actual work. So they will pay the current capacity and ERC calculations at that time. So if it's ten years down the road, whatever those ERC calculations are at that time, anything above the 104 that they currently have and they're currently paying guarantee revenues on, they will have to pay addition to once they use up their 104 ERCs.

And that would be pushed out to 2030?

Correct. They would have to bring that back. We would have to reallocate the EO ERCs back to the project at a later date at the current capacity.

Yeah. And, well, the thing about it is is, you know, we're we're looking at, you know, where the city itself is at a bind as well. And I don't believe that we should push anything out. You know? It it's like if they're using it, they're using it, and we should be compensated for it going forward. I just don't agree with this. So anybody else?

For clarification, if I may, I thought I heard you say that anyone that they will pay for anyone who is using or is coming online to use our water. Is that correct?

Correct.

So what they want to push out are the payments in anticipation of growth. Is that correct?

Yes. It's the overall, they're they're continuing to pay for 104 ERCs going forward. So that is their guaranteed revenue, which is not developed, not constructed, future phases down the road, they're still paying 104 ERCs as future. Anything above that 104, they will need to come back for ERCs back to us for recalculation of that cost because they're not guaranteed to build after that. There's not they have to pay for the capacity at the plant. So and then we'll have to reevaluate our system and our infrastructure to see where we're at at that time.

Got it from everybody. Public comment?

This is a sign of the times. I don't think people realize that. Now if I understand right from what he just said is that they're trying to push off the part of the projects they haven't started building yet to pay you, but they are paying you already for everything that's been built or is permitted, if I heard that right. So the money you're trying to collect might be something that's never built, if I'm not mistaken. But that was my take on what was just said.

You could push them into bankruptcy to the one point that was made, and you'd never get a dime from anything. And again, we're back to the water and sewer department, bankrupting people in this city, bankrupting developers. Now I do think the developers should pay for this when the development is made. That was a mistake in this city. If you wanted war and store, water and store, it should have been put in before you put the streets down. And it wasn't done. That's a mistake you can't go back on. There are some solutions. I don't know how you should vote on this. You know?

But the way I see it, I don't know how you can make someone pay for something that doesn't even exist. And you could push them in bankruptcy. Not only that does that stop the development, that will stop anybody working in the area who's working on those sites. And that will be a domino effect. I can drive around and see half finished houses all over the place.

And obviously, they are doing this because they know they can't sell those million dollar homes or whatever price they want. So it's a hard decision. I'm not gonna take a side on it, but I don't really see how you could make someone pay for something that hasn't been built or might not ever been built. You should go after the money that's already been built and permitted, and they know they're gonna build. And to all your points, if they start building three years from now, you could get more money at that point.

So I I don't know what you know, I didn't read the whole contract with how you guys do these things. But, again, you're charging for something that's not built if I heard everything correct. So that's where I'll leave it. I'll leave it in your hands because you know better than me. Thank you.

All right. I'll request a motion. I'll make it go ahead. I move

to approve the Fourth Amendment to the City of Northport, Florida and Sable Trace Development Partners LLC, water and wastewater system development agreement.

Second. I have a motion on the floor to approve the fourth amendment to city of Northport, Florida and Sable Trace Development Partners LLC water and wastewater system developers agreement made by commissioner Stokes, seconded by vice mayor. If there's nothing to that, please vote. That passes four to one with commissioner Duvall dissenting. Commissioner Duvall, anything to that?

No, sir. Just, you know, I I made my comments that I think we should be compensated for, you know, helping them out on this delaying money. You know, this is the city needs revenue. Citizens have to pay it. You know, I don't think, like, a, you know, a 1%, 2% fee would be too egregious. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to item b 26 dash zero six eleven. Discussion and possible action. Sorry.

May I have a point of order? Yeah. Is it permissible for commissioner Duvall to make a motion, an additional motion regarding this item that we just finished here? Would it be appropriate?

Yes. It could.

Would it appropriate if you wish to make a motion?

A discussion.

You only have to reopen it if you're going to discuss it and get further information from staff or anybody. But if it's just to make a motion, he can do that.

Wow. Making a stab at this. I gotta ask my fellow commissioners, you know, what do you think is fair? You know, 1%, 2% added on to all any of the delayed fees?

If I may discuss.

Can we discuss city board?

We have to open it.

You're gonna have to reopen the public hearing if

you're gonna discuss more.

But if you want to make a motion and then discuss, you don't have to.

Okay. Okay.

So I'll discuss.

Well, he says, you need to make a motion that's more direct. Like, let's say you made a motion for

two Alright.

I'd like to make a motion that we reopen this for discussion.

No motion required. Please just reopen that.

It's reopened. Item number 26 Dash 014. 0, 0418. Sorry. Floor is yours.

Yeah. My my my comment would be I was thinking very much along those lines, commissioner Duval. But then when I heard that the capacity fees could very well go up in the intervening time and the developer could wind up paying that higher amount, if I understood that correctly, then that sort of made me more comfortable with it. So I would be reluctant to assign any additional fee to that. And I I would be doubly reluctant to put in a specific percentage without having staff come back with some assessment of the impact of that and what might be appropriate.

So that's my sense of the matter at this point.

Commissioner Petro?

Yes. Thank you, mayor. I I voted yes on this because, you know, I don't want the developer go bankrupt. It's a substantial amount. But at the same time, a capacity fee, are they gonna be obligated to pay at the time of the contract of the capacity fee, or the capacity fees would be adjusted? And that would be my question to utilities. Because we're going all the way to 2,030. That's all.

Mike Lewis, assistant director. Yes, they they they still and and we gotta remember that they installed all of the infrastructure and conveyed all of this already to us. So we're we're we're managing and operating that entire system as part of that. The the cost, and they're still holding for future development, and they're paying for a 104. So we're not deferring any payments. We're not they're still paying guaranteed revenues on the 104. Their initial ask of the $6.50 has been delayed, but that's not they don't pay that till the connection. So there's not a delayed payment mechanism.

And the payment that they pay is the capacity fee at the time?

Correct. It's at the current time that they they make the payment. Now now the 104 that they're locked into that's part of this contract that they're paying guaranteed revenues on locks in at this price right now. So they're paying they've already built 292. They've already used 292 ERCs.

They have a 104 left over that they're still holding on to, that they're still paying for future development, they're paying the guaranteed revenues on that 104 ERCs to keep the pricing as it is today. Anything past that 104, they're gonna have to come back, and they're gonna pay the current capacity ERC calculation at that time. So if it's ten years down the road, they have to pay whatever's outside that 104 ERCs at a later date whenever they come back. And they'll have to come back to us for another agreement on that. Okay.

That makes sense. Thank

you. Vice

Mayer?

Yeah. My only other comment is specifically knowing that this developer paid for the infrastructure, and it's not like the city has some costs in the infrastructure that it's awaiting some reimbursement for, that would very much change my point of view on this. But I see this as a reasonable request, given, you know, the market and and the situation for that developer.

Yeah. I'm also in agreement. I wouldn't add anything onto it because if it puts them into dire straits down the road as well, it's like it's just we're not solving anything at this time. So all you, sir, back to you.

Alright. I'm good with that.

Alright. Draw your motion. Thought I heard one.

Alright. Thanks. Alright. I'm gonna reclose this item. Moving on to 26Dash0611, discussion and possible action regarding Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommendation memorandum for event cost reduction strategy.

City clerk, you're supposed to introduce this item.

Yes. Commission was emailed a memorandum through the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on 03/30/2026 where they had made motions to recommend that fees for bounce houses and specialized activities at special events be charged to offset costs. And they also made a recommendation to the commission to explore sponsorship opportunities. I believe Trish Sturges is here at Sandy Funheller in case you have any questions.

Alright. Commission commissioner Stokes, I might suggest that this item be continued to the Thursday workshop since on Thursday, we're gonna be talking about

a whole lot

of things with regard to a couple of departments, parks and recs to be included. And, I mean, it seems like there's gonna be some redundancy here. So that's just my comment. Other than that, I have nothing on this at this time.

Commissioner Petro?

I don't believe we should be charging to offset the cost. I mean, to offset our breakeven, we'd have to charge 20 plus whatever dollars per per entry. I think it's quality of life, and we should be okay with that, not to offset the cost. That's just my view on this.

Yeah. I'm I'm in agreement. I don't think we should, you know I I when we had the one on one, I discussed about these are our signal events, you know. What are the families and the kids gonna do if we did like commissioner Petro just said, if we have to charge $20 entry fee, it's just these are our community events. We're giving back to the community. We're trying to do the best we can. It is for a family time, and I I wouldn't even look into this even on Thursday about this area. I mean, there's a lot of other areas we definitely gotta discuss, but this area right here, I'm fine with not not going forward with it. So that's my 2¢. Anything else?

Public comment? I

concur. $20 to let someone in a lot of money even with the wages today. I did like hearing maybe get some corporate sponsorships, put up some signs, let people do that. Maybe they can donate. Again, I don't know what it all depends on the event. You know what I mean? Again, a lot of these corporations in town are stealing $02 at a time. Maybe they could give that money back to us somehow. So if there's other ways to bring in money to offset some of the costs and keep the price as low as possible, I would go with that. So again, I concur $20 is way too much for something per family. That's $80, right?

Alright. I'm gonna request a motion.

I'll make it.

Go ahead.

I move to direct the city manager to work with staff to develop a sponsorship strategy to offset signal event cost to to be brought back to the city commission for review at a later date.

I have a motion on the floor made by vice mayor, city clerk. Can you read that back, please?

To direct the city manager to work with staff to explore event sponsorship opportunities and or sponsorship program to be brought back to the city commission for review at a later date.

Thank you. That motion was made by vice mayor. I'll go ahead and second it. So if there's nothing to that, please vote. That passes five to zero. Moving on to 26 dash zero six twenty. Discussion and possible action regarding formal commission approval of the facility lease policy for the city owned facilities, including selection of a set discount based on market value. City manager, this is your item.

Thank you, mayor. On January 20, staff presented two potential approaches for incorporating discounts within the proposed facility lease policy. During that meeting, the commission made the following motion to direct the city manager to bring back the facility lease policy for formal commission approval using a set discount based on market value. There was also discussion and direction for staff to return with additional detailed examples demonstrating how a standardized discount would be applied to market based lease rates. In response, we prepared the spreadsheet that was attached to the agenda item illustrating sample scenarios of how market based discounts could be applied under the proposed policy.

Under this framework, leases for city owned properties would generally follow a commercial lease structure. Tenants would be responsible for improvements to their lease space subject to city approval as well as utilities and other costs associated with their use of the space. The city would retain responsibility for for maintaining common areas, major building systems, and the overall structure of each facility. The proposed facility lease policy would not apply to air and ambulance leases, cell tower agreements, daily or short term rentals, or similar specialized agreements. Staff are prepared to finalize the final facility lease policy upon city commission approval and direction on the standardized discount rate based on market value.

We ask today that you have a discussion of possible action regarding formal commission approval of the policy for the city owned facilities, including selection of a set discount based on market value. We're happy to answer any questions you may have, mister mayor.

Thank you. Questions, commissioners? Vice mayor?

Thank you, mayor. I have a few questions. A couple of tenants on the list, I'm not familiar with them. One is Flotilla ninety two. Who are they and what do they do? And the very last one on the list, SHD.

Chuck Spiek, public works director. The flotilla is the Coast Guard Auxiliary, and the SCHD is Sarasota County Health Department.

I'm sorry, Sarasota County?

Health Department.

How are utilities currently handled? And how are you thinking of handling utilities going forward or under this new policy?

So under the new policy, the utilities would be the responsibility of the, leasing party, the the lessee. I just messed that up. Currently, it's a mix, but mostly, the city pays all the utilities on these buildings.

Okay. Now if someone is renting a building, it makes it pretty easy to figure out their utility use. And a use like our social services building, how would you envision utilities being handled just as what percent of the space?

That how you would

see it?

If if we don't have separate meters for a facility, it'd be broken out by square footage.

Okay. And they would be billed?

Correct.

So it wouldn't be embedded in the lease. It would be an additional charge

to the lease? Just like a monthly utility bill.

Okay. Thank you. I did just sort of a quick back of the envelope, what's the impact to certain nonprofits? I guess what I had in my head was if we did proceed with market rate, and I'm just sort of throwing this out, and we looked at a 50% discount across the board, that's sort of not horrible, horrible are currently leasing, you know, a thousand square feet or more. And I forget if I had this conversation with city manager or if we actually had it up here, but, I I think part of this exercise or process needs to be working with some of these nonprofits to determine if some of the space that they're currently renting isn't being fully utilized by that nonprofit, could we convert some portion of it to shared use as a way of softening the impact to that nonprofit.

I mean, the increase in rent for several of these would really be egregious, and I don't think we really want to do that. So, last time we had talked about this, I had suggested looking at a tiered structure, you know, depending upon the scope and nature of the work that that nonprofit did. I don't see that that recommendation has been picked up. So I'll go with what's in front of us.

I can touch on that, Vice Mayor, just so we can put that to rest. That's not legally defensible.

So you would

put hear

in the state statute, there was provisions in there so long if you create tiers, that every nonprofit in that tier be, treated the same in terms of the discount. Now, I would defer to our city attorney, for his take on it. But

It's it's that's sort of what I read.

Sure. But it's it's proving that benefit to the community is the hard part. If that's already broken out in state statute, that's a different story. At the time of our legal review, that wasn't an option that I'm aware of because that's where we always came back to was proving the the benefit to the community and putting a dollar amount to that.

City attorney.

Well, don't have the statute that you're referring in front of me, commissioner mayor. Excuse me. But I think as the the, director just pointed out, the the difference the problem is going to be tearing them in practicality. And how are you gonna do that? Because if you're not able to do that in practicality, then you're gonna be treating like entities differently. And that's going to be your constitutional problem.

Okay. Thank you for that. Another question. The Loveland Center is one of those nonprofits currently leasing a large space. I had heard rumblings in the community that they were moving out, that they had found larger dedicated space. Is that accurate?

Yes, ma'am. And these are just examples of what we had in place.

But there are a lot more.

There are other examples. There are some here that are just, the Loveland is just an example of that space that's within that building to give you a square footage. I didn't want to not have a name next to that because I wanted reference if you've been in these places so you would know what that looked like.

I'm going to yield the floor to any of my fellow commissioners who might have other questions, but I I might come back for more discussion.

Anybody else? Commissioner Stokes?

Mhmm. Yep. Here we go. It I mean, if the philosophy here is to provide space at an affordable rate that these using these as an example can afford, I mean, we're going to need to be in the 80%, 90% discount rate. I mean, you've had 50%, it's going to price some of these nonprofits out of the market.

Couple it with the fact that we don't have a funding mechanism in place to either rebuild or replace the Awaken Food Pantry space or, all the wrinkles aren't worked out on what we're gonna do about, if at all, building another building that would house nonprofits. Coupled with the fact that we have no earthly idea what the state's gonna do to us property tax wise, I I don't see any value, quite frankly, in addressing this policy at this time. It's like, to me, the cart before the horse. Let's figure out what it is as a city we have the ability to provide for our nonprofits. Then figure out what it is we can or should or might charge for this because anything we say here is gonna be affected by what happens in the not too distant future.

It seems to me, you know, we're putting the party before divorce. So I I I don't support doing anything on this item at this time, but that's just my opinion.

That's all I got, mayor. Thank you. Commissioner Petro?

Thank you, mayor. I concur with commissioner Stokes on this, but I also wanna say that, you know, there's a legal defense on treating one not for profit over the other. And example would be Waken Food Pantry. And it's fairly easy to defend how much they contribute to the citizens of our community. That being said, you know, a good portion of residents are being fed by that not for profit.

And thus, minimizing theft or whatnot and conserving the the resources of the city. So in my opinion, it's it's not as easy, but it's fairly doable to treat one over the other, especially this and we can take one I one nonprofit by one going one by one and assessing it. We, as a city, we have that power. But again, this is just, you know, a discussion for now, I guess. But we do have to keep in mind that if that non for profit contributes to the city, we have to be on on the same you know, not charge the market value because, you know, they do they do support the city.

They do contribute to the city. I don't know how much time we have. Maybe we can add the staff. How much I I looked at the options. We have, like, nine nine options all the way to 90% discount. And then maybe this question would be directed to the city manager. How urgent or how soon do you want us to make the decision? Do you want us to make the decision today? I know we've extended some leases previously. I

believe the ones that you've extended, recently are the ones that were had having the highest sense of urgency. But I believe this item has been out there for as long as I have been here on trying to figure out where to land. So if you need more time and information, I believe we're happy to give it unless I'm wrong, mister speaker.

So if you take no action, then we continue business as we have. This policy was was requested by a commission that wanted to ensure fairness. But if you stay with if you choose no action, then we just continue we just bring the leases back to commission at time of renewal, and you make those decisions at that point.

Now my my following up a follow-up question to this. We as a commission, at least myself, I have not met with any not for profits. So you have you've touched, and you know what they do, you know how they do, and you know the financials and, their contribution. You presented us with the list. Right? What would you your recommendation be based on your interaction with the non with those

I I would recommend whatever ever the commission decides. I'm not that one to make that decision.

I a different answer. What I would remind us all is that nonprofits are existing in this city to serve the same population in need that we are serving as a city. If they don't do it, those are services normally that we would have to pick up in some shape, form, or fashion. It is very common for the rent or the expenses of nonprofits to be heavily discounted so that we recognize that they not only serve that population, but they're also most of them are not in the business of making profit. So taking that into account, I would recommend something on the very heavier side of discounting, something that allows you to recoup whatever cost you're trying to recoup, and that's the decision of the board.

But it allows them not to have a financial hardship on them that may prevent them from delivering their service to our city.

That's a good point. But you've interacted with those not for profits. We, as a commission, we have limited information, if you will, because you've met with them, you know how much they contribute, you know their needs, you know how much they they spend. I don't know how much Awaken spends Right. For per month.

What if they spent more than they it's not justifiable. What if they spent so much that they in debt, and we assessing them of fair market value, we will put them at a greater danger to be in debt. So I would like to to ask the staff, what would you recommend on each on each item or on each non for profit? What would your recommendation be?

My recommendation would be that you choose a consistent discount figure for them all. You don't look at each one and say, well, how they run their business and their financial situation is That's really not up to us. What we're trying to provide is a space that they can use for the least amount possible that doesn't harm our citizen taxpayers to say that, well, now we are supplementing more than we should in order to accomplish the common goal. So to me, you know, even when you look on the deeper end of the discounts here, you can see some drastic changes in, you know, like one nonprofit has a dollar rent, which we know that that has been done in the past and we've seen that done before. And then you have if you look at, the senior center where their rent is $200 for a space of nearly 5,000 square feet, you know, that stands out as well.

But if you, as a commission, say, you know what? We're gonna say 75% of market rate, and that's how we're gonna apply it or it's gonna be 80 or 90 or 50 or 30. Whatever you want to apply is where you land. But the reason that I land on the deeper end of the options are for what I stated. And I I believe that you should embrace nonprofits in your community as a as a city government.

Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Duvall.

Thank you, mayor. There's so many different facets to this. There are so many different nonprofits. There are so many different benefits to the city from those nonprofits. But I'm tending to agree with what the city manager just said.

You know, we've gotta try to be fair to all, but we gotta try to be fair to the citizens. I would kinda recommend that we do go on the heavy heavier side of the discounted policy, 60 or 70%, and try it for a year and see what the results are. As commissioner Stokes said, we all know that there's chaos coming as a result of things beyond our control financially. So I would recommend setting it at 60% or 70% now and then relooking at it again in a year when we see what the effects of things coming down the line are from up above us. Thank you.

Quick question. Does the market rate take into consideration the age of the building? Because what was brought up that we discussed, let's say, we're at Social Services Building that's ten plus years old, is it x amount and then you brand new buildings if they were to be constructed, is that a different market rate?

It is, sir. Per square foot. It is. We take that into account, the condition and age of the facility. And we use like comparisons, market comparisons for that type of age and condition building.

Yes. Because the older building could be a little bit less than a brand new building.

Correct. And it's reflected in these costs.

Okay. Thank you very much. Yes, Vice Mayer?

Yeah. Thank you, mayor. I I did actually review the policy, and I have some questions specific to it. One is item B under general terms allocation costs. The staff is recommending a double net lease.

Could and there is quite a list of the tenant being responsible for payment of their share of all operating costs. So this isn't utilities. This is taxes, maintenance, garbage, etcetera, etcetera. How would that work? Can you I'm not a real estate expert. Could you describe a double net lease to me? And then what would be the impact of that on so let's say we set a 70% of market rate. How does item b impact that?

Okay. And which section were you under? I'm sorry.

Allocation of costs.

Allocation of costs.

So double net lease

Double net lease.

With tenant responsible for payment of their share of?

Correct. So the double net lease basically is just that the lessee pays the rent and then any property taxes, which we don't have, the insurance premiums for their space, so they'll help cover that. And the city then we take care of the common spaces that they don't pay for within a building like the community service center.

Right.

Right? That is not reflected in these costs that we've presented. So they would whatever number you come up with, whether it be 60, 70, 80, will be their base rent, and then those other costs will come in after that. And they will be in they they will be responsible for inside their suite as far as cleaning of the suite. And now if we have a janitorial company, again, it will be broken out by square footage, right, the cost of that. They'll be in charge of any kind of the minor repairs. We do the major things.

It's hard for me to determine a percentage when I have no idea of what the impact of some of these other changes, so double net lease and then utilities? I'd really need to see some type of range of impact on what that would look like. So, again, I was very much prepared today to give a percentage. We need to do our jobs, gentlemen, and staff needs some direction moving forward. But I really do need to see the impact on our nonprofits.

I agree with city manager. I I am a huge supporter, of our nonprofits. They do invaluable work in our community. So I really need to understand what the impact of all of these changes would be before I would feel comfortable setting a percentage, today. So that's just sort of a question and a comment.

Have three others, if I may, Mayor. I didn't see in the policy the penalty for breaking the lease agreement. And in the past, we've had some pretty egregious, situations, with folks, getting significant breaks on our space. So I would like to see, you know, what is the course of action. And in my mind, someone not understanding their lease or understanding the limitations placed on them for example, subletting some of their space or charging subrental fees is, in my mind, an egregious violation of their lease, given the brakes we're giving them.

I would want to see a penalty in here and make it really clear. Is it eviction? Do they get a time frame? Is it one warning and then an eviction? So I think that is something we need to spell out.

And so I guess, city attorney, that would be part of what you would need to weigh in on. Another question, would we be maintaining a waiting list of p of nonprofits? So for for any nonprofits that are precluded because we're full up, would we maintain a waiting list, and how would that be handled? I'd sort of like to see some language with that. And then also, what's our service level agreement to the tenants?

So I I really liked the application process and the kind of information that we would be asking of the nonprofit. I was in I liked all of that. But then if if a nonprofit submits their application to the city by June 1, what's our obligation to get back to them with a yay or a nay? So I'd sort of like to see a service level agreement in here, on what our commitment is to the applicant.

So you're looking for a time frame for approval or denial of a application?

Of the application. Yeah. I think that's fair.

So some of that will involve commission approval. So those timelines are going to be fairly stretched out.

So you might be coming back again with some specifics on this? Or

Yes. City manager said. It's the answer.

Yeah. I mean, my feeling, I really wanted to move on this today and give staff some clarity and and a path forward. But just to sort of summarize my comments, until I really understand the impact of, the double net lease and the utilities, those are all additional charges to the basic lease. I really need to see that before I can set a percentage. And I have no objection to our nonprofits paying a little more than they're paying.

I mean, part of the reason we're in the gym we're in with our public buildings is that we haven't had sufficient allocation of maintenance revenue. We've deferred maintenance and deferred maintenance, and now we're paying the price. We've been paying the price, tearing down buildings, etcetera, etcetera. So philosophically, I have no objection to everyone maybe paying into that fund somewhat, but I really need to see what that would look like before I can set a percentage.

Just so I can be sure, vice mayor, what we bring back to you.

For me, it would be what what are the cost implications

Mhmm.

Of Section seven item B, the allocation of costs?

Right, which is mainly going to be built out in utilities. Now do you want that because And

I see utilities as separate because there's a whole different list of items here that would impact the cost.

Correct. Some of those won't apply, right? Those are generic terms for a double net lease. So utilities is going to I'm telling you, utilities is going to be the main factor of that. Do you want that in a I'm trying to think of a format that will work rather than going through every building because every user can have a different level of utility use. So would you like an average based on square footage? And then we can extrapolate that into the square footage of these Yeah.

Would be very helpful.

For utilities? And that will include any utilities they have. It'll be water, sewer, electric, anything any services provided.

Right. Right. But I also see in this list, in addition to utilities, having tenants pay into a maintenance fund, for example, what would that look like? Picking up their garbage and recycling services. What's that gonna

Right.

And that's again, that's that we can build that into square footage

Square footage. Okay.

Based on the the building.

Okay. Yes. I think that would be a a good way to approach it.

Okay. Thank you, ma'am.

That's all I have in here.

Commissioner Stokes. Yeah.

So just to try to wrap my head around all this, basically, we're talking about three spaces, basically. We got we got an Awaken Food Pantry space that is disheveled, fallen apart. We know we have to do something about it. We're gonna have to spend significant investment to maybe $2,000,000 if we're gonna rebuild that. Then we've got the Social Services Building, which is adjacent to that, and that is a building that sits as is.

I assume it's in relatively decent shape and it's yielding what rents we're getting. And then we have a contemplation of building another building where the art center was, which would be a cultural center or whatever it'll be, which is basically a facility, again, for nonprofits. If we're coming up with a formula, a discount off of market rate, and you look at the market value of those three different types of products that are gonna be made available, the numbers are gonna be dramatically different for whatever potential nonprofits want to or need to move into any one of these three or stay where they are. So my question is how in the world are we able to come up with a discounted amount when we don't know? And we also don't know if the senior center is moving to an existing facility that we've already got.

Are we going to establish a market value for that building? Because they're the one that sticks out like a sore thumb. If you use the 60% discount, everybody else pays us a skosh mark, just a little bit more than they are paying or a little bit less. It's not too bad. What is blown out of proportion here is the North Port Senior Center.

They're paying 200 now. Even at a 80% discount rate, they're paying $976 So what are we to do? Throw the old people out on the street? I don't think so. So how is it you can create a consistency of discounted rate off a market when we don't even know what two thirds of the product that's gonna be available is?

We don't know what the market value of that's going to be. We can project the cost of building it maybe. So I just don't see how anything we do here has any application when six months, a year, year and a half down the road, some commission is going to be sitting here having the same conversation all over again talking about how to change these rates. I just don't see why we should be addressing addressing this this issue issue now, now, despite despite the the fact that it's been sitting here for as long as I and city manager and many of us have ever been here. I agree.

And I'm not one for kicking the can. But this I just think we're just going to go back over this all over again because this isn't gonna work for these people. These these groups bring value to our city. We're gonna be affecting them. One way or the other, we're gonna be affecting And if we're trying if the whole idea here is we're making investments into buildings for our city that we're gonna make available to nonprofits, if we're trying to create a justification for fees in order to help recoup the cost of those investments or the ongoing deferred maintenance, I think we're kidding ourselves here.

We're talking about community subsidizing nonprofits. We may not be paying for their operations, but we are subsidizing them. Philosophically, I don't have a problem with that. I just want to do it in a legal way, in a fairly in a way that doesn't just become a redundant issue year after year, commission after commission. And that's what I think this will do. Until we know what we're doing and what it's gonna cost to put people in places, I mean, I I see this as a futile exercise. So thank you, mayor.

City manager.

Yes, mister mayor. One thing that we did bring in that prior meeting in January was to not use the market rate value and establish a uniform cost per square foot for all these spaces. So I've seen other locations where if you were a nonprofit, you were not charged for the rental space of that area because you, in theory, are not paying that rent to someone else. Although you someone can make a valid point of trying to re recoup costs that were needed to build that space. But not having a space fee and charging them only for what you are paying out of your pocket, utilities, you know, maintenance, garbage, you know, etcetera, is a way that would alleviate the problem that you just articulated.

Thank you.

Yeah. The one thing I'm gonna agree with commissioner Stokes on is the way we're doing it now is the way I would like to see us continue to do it. Because the reasoning is, like, we've talked about older buildings, newer buildings. If we were we were to vote and assess on the situation, if we had a nonprofit that wanted to go into one of the older buildings and they came and applied and let's say market rate would be x, then we go, you know, that building is a little older, this, that, and the other. We're willing to give you that 80% off.

But you go with what the nonprofit is, what they supply to community, Awaken Church, you know, might even give them 100% off. Who knows as long as they paid their bills? And that would be a discussion at the time. Not, I don't want to set up 50% across the board, and then all of a sudden we've got empty buildings because the nonprofits can't afford it, so.

So that's Mayor, if that's the case, then I think what city manager just was talking about is the better option than having the percentage off that's actually in this policy. Right. Right? And we had we had both of those directions, and and you guys were leaning us towards the percentage to bring these back to see what they looked like. So if we have to kinda roll that back and go back to the other one where you would still have to determine a square footage price for these buildings, and we could break it out by building based on condition.

But the the key to this whole policy was there was going to be a set number. So there's not a constitutional issue between nonprofits. And to touch on the vice mayor's questions about a lease, so this the policy. So some of the questions that you had about enforcement, those are in the actual lease document that would be prepared and brought to commission at time of approval.

Vice Mayor?

Yeah. One final comment. I I do like the sound of having a uniform price per square foot. I think that alleviates a lot of issues. So I would very much like to see that. And maybe there are and I'm just throwing this out. There are maybe like three steps. And with and without certain costs, I mean, you guys can can sort of figure that out. But I would really like to see that. This is always such a tough a issue.

But I also think we need to bring it back in a workshop. I, for one, am not workshop happy, But this issue has a lot of moving parts. And I just really need to better understand what is the real impact of all of these changes. It's not just about the lease amount in terms of how the policy is set. So I would really like to see this come back with different alternatives in a workshop situation.

Yes, ma'am.

Commissioner Petro?

On a final note, if we're gonna do anything today, and it doesn't seem like we're gonna do anything, But I would like to propose a following scenario, and that would be a trial period. If we do anything, it should be more for, six months or a year to try it out to see what our nonprofits would give us feedback. And also, I I concur with commissioner Stokes' second round, what he said. We only have this much, and we're only dealing with this many not for profits now. We don't even know what's gonna happen on the community center building with court validation.

We don't know what's what what the price of court would would be for the new building, and it's just too too premature taking in account the economic things that are coming very soon. So that would be my final

That's too frustrating. Oh, I'm Quick question.

But if you're willing to do workshop, I I don't know if it's a But we, the commission, we decide now, I guess. So if you wanna make other suggestions. But if we do make any decisions today, I would love I would like to propose to

have some

finite period that would be for, let's say, twelve months and see how the the demand is for the new non for profits, for current existing non for profits, and the feedback from from them. Thank you.

Vice Mayor?

Final final, I promise.

Sure. Sure.

I do have regular and ongoing conversations with our non profit community. And I have many, many takeaways from those conversations. But one is I believe, in general, our nonprofits are open to the concept of flex space and I'll pick on the senior center for a minute I don't think that they need all of that space all of the time. And so if we go to a standard price per square foot, it certainly would motivate some of our nonprofits to reconsider what they ask for in terms of a space allocation. And we might be able to get creative with a concept of flex space, like a large open space that they would sign up for when they need it.

So that that's my last thought. I promise, mayor, I am

done. Okay.

City clerk, public comment.

I support the nonprofits. Maybe not all of them, but you have to support them all. Somewhere along my career, I forget when, what year, what day, there was a saying that was put on the walls, freedom, right, freedom is having options. You don't know your options, so I don't think you're free to make a decision on this yet. I think you should leave everything as is until some of the points were made that you know what your options really are financially and for the community.

Don't hurt anybody. Just I hear what you're saying. You don't wanna put things off. I'm not the type of guy who likes to put things off like that. But there is so much up in the air right now that any decision you make today will not be a quality decision. It might be the right decision for today, but it won't be the right decision for tomorrow. So something like this, I think you really need to wait. And again, what you're talking you're talking September, October, November. You're going to know what's going on. If they don't get this special session done, right, then it might not even hit the ballot.

And you'll know that, too. Looking at this list because they said the the name of the organization, and I don't know what this organization is, but it was called Sarasota County Health Department. Now I don't know if that's a nonprofit or a county department. If it's named like that, that almost sounds like me the county's paying for that. And if the county wants any of our space, you charge them top dollar because we get nothing here from the county.

On the other hand, it says WIC. I know what WIC is. I don't know if that's the WIC I think it is or that's an abbreviation for something else. WIC, to me, is one of the most important programs we have in this country. WIC takes care of babies and feeds babies.

So I don't want to hurt babies. So I don't want people to hate me for saying that this is the county, they should pay top dollar, and then someone doesn't get WIC. That is not what I'm saying here because I could be totally wrong because I could be reading into something here that I don't know what I'm saying. But to me, if it's a county thing that's not a nonprofit, I would charge them top dollar. Thank you.

JULIE get to say good after morning. Elaine Allen Enrich. I am a thirty four year member of Kiwanis Club of Northport, president of Holly's Hope and, Friends of the Library Secretary. None of those nonprofits that I serve do I get a dime for. It's all volunteer work.

It's

very different from the Boys and Girls Club, the, Big Brothers Big Sisters where they have a team of paid employees, a grant writer and a person who goes out and gets sponsorships for things like their rent. So when you talk about nonprofits, it's immediately different. I applied for a grant for the Selby Foundation when the Children's Closet was in the old social services building. So when I was applying for the $16,000 I said to the Selby Foundation, you have me in a category with Big Brothers Big Sisters. I don't have depreciation of vehicles.

I use my vehicle. I don't get anything for it. They have a van. They get depreciation costs. So the point for Selby was, holy cow, we need to do a small but mighty grant and put these nonprofits that don't get paid, don't get a dime, that are constantly fundraising to help give back to the community in a totally different pot than a Big Brothers Big Sisters.

Totally different. So the word nonprofit in and of itself is very different depending upon what whom you're talking about. That's why the senior center, they are seniors who are raising money. They're not, you know, from bingo. They're not so they would have to raise all of this money to be able to just pay the rent, let alone trying to serve the community.

So basically, what I'm saying is there really is a distinction between nonprofits. And absolutely, you can constitutionally find a public purpose. I all day long, counties all over Florida do it with ease. Chris Street has created a nonprofit coalition, and we're pretty much begging, to work with the city. So if you guys have a workshop, at night, the nonprofits will all be here.

We can give you our public purpose, and we can maybe sort of help guide so that you would understand because we have some money set aside for a building. So we would like to help contribute with the city. Thank you very much.

You. All right. I'll entertain the motion.

Don't know if we need it, but I'll give it a shot, sir. I move that city manager work with staff and schedule a workshop time frame to be determined that addresses the questions raised today, presents options based on a fixed amount per square foot and includes an assessment of the legality of offering nonprofits that are 100% volunteer the ability for an additional discount off the flat rate.

Vice mayor, is that it?

That's it. Okay. Usually when I sit back and go like this

Well, thought you might have been thinking for more stuff to say. That's all I'm saying.

I do try to keep it short.

Have a motion on the floor made by vice mayor, city clerk. You wanna give it back to us?

To direct the city manager to work with staff and schedule a workshop at a later date to address the questions raised during this meeting and to present options based on a fixed amount per square foot and include an assessment of the legality of offering nonprofits that are a 100% volunteer the ability for an additional discount off the flat rate.

Thank you. I have that motion. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

I have a second from commissioner Duvall. If there's nothing to that, please vote. And that passes five to zero. Moving on to item d 26 dash zero six four nine. Discussion and possible action regarding approving the appointment of Robin j, Sampecete, Daniel or Danielle Kowalsik, or Jacqueline Torres as regular members to serve on the charter review advisory board from 05/05/2026 through 05/05/2029. Miss Spouse, this is your item.

Yes. We have received the three applications from those citizens that you you stated. We have two openings for regular board members and one could be an alternate. The order that the applications were received was Robin Samicente was first, then Daniel Kowalsik was second, and then Jacqueline Torres was the third to submit their application. Robin is currently serving on one other board, and the other two individuals are not serving on any board.

K. Commissioners? Vice mayor?

Thank you, mayor. I typically look at these things, assuming everyone is equally qualified for the position they're going for to look at them in time order, who applied first, second, etcetera. In this particular situation, though, I've looked at it a little differently. Ms. San Vicente already has an advisory group seat. Mr. Kowalski I'm sorry on the pronunciation of that. We approved as an alternate today on consent. So he has an alternate seat already. And Ms.

Torres has no seat. So I'm inclined to put Ms. Torres in the seat that's avail well, there are two seats available for charter review. So based on my assessment, I would put Ms. Torres and Mr. Kowalski as regular members of that board. And correct me if I'm wrong, city clerk. We also have an alternate position I'm trying to speed read here. And then put Ms. San Vicente as an alternate on this advisory committee.

I'm done.

Seeing nothing else, public comment, city clerk.

Senator Boyle?

I don't know any of these people, so I really have nothing to say on who should be voted in or out or what position they have. What I have to say to anybody taking these positions, please come into your job with a clean slate, clear head, with no predispositions. People shouldn't be taking these jobs to just get what they want. They should be taking these jobs for the good of the community and look at all the facts and what you see and make your determinations on what that is. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. I'll I'll take a motion.

I'll make it.

Go ahead.

I move to approve the appointment of Robinson Vicente and Jacqueline Torres to serve as regular members and Daniel Kowalsik to serve as an alternate member.

I have a motion on the floor made by commissioner Petro to approve Robin Sam Vicente and Daniel Torres as regular members and Daniel Kowalczyk as a alternate member to serve on the charter regroup board from 05/05/2026 through 05/05/2029. Anybody else? Any second?

I'll second.

Commissioner Duvall seconded. If there's nothing to that, please vote. And that passes three to two with myself and vice mayor decepting. I did like vice mayor's analogy on this. This way, we would have everybody would still have a seat on a board, and and that would greatly do, you know, more participation from the citizens.

So, I mean, it is what it is. It's good. Congratulations, members. Okay. Moving on to 260682, discussion and possible action regarding senator and sending a letter of support to the house committee on natural resources for h r six four two, Myakka Wilde and Scenic River Act of 2025.

City manager, this is your item.

Thank you, mister mayor. On 04/13/2026, the city of Oak Court received a request from Ronnie Carabia, who is the legislative assistant to congressman Greg Stoopy, seeking the city's consideration of a letter of support for HR six forty two, which is house of representatives, the Myakka Wild and Scenic River Act of 2025.

The request is part of

a broader effort to obtain letters of support from local governments and community partners for submission to the House Committee on Natural Resources. The proposed legislation has received support from Sarasota County and several regional and environmental organizations. We recommend that you choose option one, which is to move which is to move to approve the letter of support for HR six forty two as presented and authorize the city clerk to transmit the letter. Thank you, sir.

Commission, questions, discussion? Vice mayor?

Thank you, mayor. I I do have a concern about this. The act clearly prohibits new dams and other water diversions, diversion projects along the Mayaka River. And that really concerns me because not allowing the city of Northport to make those kinds of changes, to the Myakka River would, in the future, really curtail our ability to ensure an adequate supply of quality water to the residents of this city, which will number more than 200,000 at build out. In fact, I would refer you to the memorandum sent some time ago by Trish Wissner, our utilities director, identifying water supply alternatives for the city.

And one of those alternatives, is diverting which one is it? S W Dash 6. It's diverting water from the river to a water treatment plant in the city for use by the residents. Now, I'm not an environmentalist, and I'm I'm not a utility a water expert. But even though that particular project was not among the two projects that the consultant and the utilities department have recommended that we move to feasibility, it is one of the alternatives identified.

And looking at the yield and cost is, when you look at it, cost per thousand gallons is one of the, I won't say less expense, inexpensive alternatives. It's a little less expensive than many of the others. So I could easily see at some point in the future, this city wanting to take water from the Mayaka, or divert water from the Mayaka, or have the need to dam the Mayaka to control flooding in this city, I'm I'm very uncomfortable. So so back to the letter, I mean, I certainly support the spirit of the letter, and we should restrict commercial and residential development in the area of the Mayaka. But to potentially jeopardize the ability of this city to control flooding, and probably more importantly, to ensure an adequate supply of potable water for the residents of the city, I'm very, very uncomfortable with that.

Commissioner Stokes?

Yeah. I mean, on the surface, the Myakka Wild and and Scenic Rear Act is is is a is a good bill. I mean, it it you know, it its purpose is altruistic. It is it is the right thing to do to help protect this body of water. And it's not unreasonable for this request to be made in in my opinion.

The problem the only issue I have is I don't know what the impact is on the city if, you know, existing or future. I mean, it is there an ink is there an economic impact? Is there a development impact? I don't really know the answer to that question. So it's hard for me to wanna make a decision.

Again, it's just a letter of support. But nevertheless, it's a letter of support. We don't even know what this bill, this amendment to the bill might look like when it weasels its way through, you know, the state legislature. I would like to understand, one, are there any financial obligations that come along with this? If if it in fact gets passed, is the city gonna be burdened?

We have development that's gonna take place in and around everything from environmental issues to to to land development issues to you name it. Like, it's like I guess I'm trying here's here's, you know, Stubbe's office asking for a letter of support for something that we don't really have any real clear understanding as to the impact on our city other than a vote of support for one of our electeds who is promoting this amendment to the bill. So on the surface, the bill is great. But I don't

know anything

about how this affects us. I can't possibly make a decision on this without knowing what impacts there are, what areas that are in Northport are affected by this, adding this stretch of the Mayaka in. I mean, there's no information for which I I can rely on to make a decision. So, you know, I don't support anything here on this. I certainly don't support a letter until I understand what it is we're supporting.

Vice mayor?

And just one final comment that I neglected to make. Once a conservation easement is placed on a property or an area, the county has demonstrated and our various conservation groups have demonstrated their complete unwillingness to entertain a change based on the need of one of their municipalities. And I only have to point once again to the total disregard of the MPO to even vote for a feasibility study to extend Toledo Blade to Highway 72. I'll tell you, I don't think I will ever get over that, that I could not make them understand that a city that will be over 200,000 people has no way out except 41, which is stressed, and 75, which is a disaster. That's it for me.

No more soapbox.

Thank you. City clerk, public comment?

I'm gonna read one paragraph from the letter because you guys kind of brought it up. Importantly, this designation does not impose federal land use or affect private property rights. Instead, it enhances the support of strong framework already in place. So everything that she said contradicts this letter, And I agree with her. If if you get the feds involved, forget about it.

If we need to do any flood control and let's face it, you saw what happened to 75. And my dealings with Greg Stubbe offices are liars. I can say that publicly because he lied to police. So I know that for a fact. So to me, he's a shyster even though I voted for him.

Forget, I vote for these people who I disagree with. But I I I don't think you should do anything on this until you know the facts. And since this is a bill, you can put an attachment on it. If you send them a letter, why don't you ask them to put an attachment on it for $100,000,000 to build the police station? Because they do that all the time. Or to your point, is I already did call Scott's office about extending Toledo Blade and asked him to do something about it. So don't think I don't do things to try to help you guys. But I'm totally in disagreement. You give these guys any access to your point. Some people are very unreasonable.

They will never give in. They will never change their tune. You can't cut down this tree. You can't do that. You can't allow something like that to go through. And the water everybody always talks about global warming and the oceans rising. I'd rather see you, if you're going to take water from someplace and give it to 200,000 people come out of a river than the ground. See, at my house, I have a well. I don't drink my water at home. I'm a be totally honest with you.

My water is recycled. It comes in, goes down my drain, right back into the ground. I do not water my lawn. So every all my water is recycled. It goes right back into the ground. You guys pumping all this water out of the ground, That water sinks the land, and that raises the level of the oceans. As you're taking all this water out of the ground that took hundreds of thousands of years, and you're replacing it back in the oceans. So I'd rather see the water come out of the river than the ground. But I'm not giving up my well or drinking your water. Thank you.

Look for a motion. I'll make a motion. Go ahead.

Make a motion to direct city manager to have staff look into the impact that this amendment to bill HR six forty one would have on the city from a financial and a development standpoint.

Second.

I have a motion on the floor by commissioner Stokes, city clerk. You wanna read that back, please?

Direct the city manager to work with staff to review the impact the bill h r six forty two will have on the city from my financial and development standpoint.

Thank you. And that was seconded by vice mayor. There's nothing to that. Please vote. That passes five to zero. City clerk, final public comment.

I got my 2¢ again. I don't know how I can get pennies, but no one else can. You guys talked about a lot of different things today. It fits into what I'm saying about the penny. You guys talked about, you know, trying to make decisions where you don't know what to make the decisions because you know what know what's coming in a few months.

These legislatures and our president are making decisions, and they don't see the repercussions of what they're doing, and they don't even take it into account. I'm not anti government. I'm anti bad government. If you're gonna take away a penny, you better figure out how you're gonna deal with society. So I'm glad to see some of you are starting to see think ahead and not just going to do things to do things and putting a few things off.

Before they got rid of the penny, they should have made a determination how it would affect the public and not turn corporation into thieves and the Sarasota tax collector. And I don't know if they changed their policy yet because I called everybody, my brother, and gave them my 2¢, as you know I often do. And hopefully, some of these people made some phone calls, and they reversed policy. But I really don't feel like driving down the Clark Road and seeing if it's still up there on the signs or not. I walked over here, but I didn't see anything.

And I'm dead serious about this county stuff. If the county is gonna take my money, do they pay for any of the parks in the town? Do they pay for anything in this town? I don't know. I can go other counties in the area, and the county government provides funding for the parks and the rec and stuff like that.

Does Sarasota County give our parks and rec any money, or do they pay for all the beaches down in Sarasota? Do you follow what I'm saying here? We need to do business with somebody who's gonna take our interest in, and I don't think Sarasota takes our interest in. We have more population and more area. Now they have the high rise buildings, and they might pay a little more in taxes.

But if we go up to 200,000 people, you're going to see the high rise buildings here. And this town will generate more revenue than the city of Sarasota eventually. And then what we get? All our money go to the beaches in Sarasota and nothing for us. So I hope all of you are getting on the phone and calling the county and asking them what they're doing and what they can do for the people in this town. Because I've said it for years, they don't do a darn thing. Thank you.

That's all I have. Commission communications. Commissioner Petro.

Yes, mayor. Thank you. I was in attendance of Alamanda Garden Club of our sixtieth anniversary celebration where I saw our mayor to become emotional when he gave a speech. It was, really interesting to see how people are devoting their lives for gardening. That would be all for me.

Thank you. Vice mayor?

Yeah. I'll be filing my activity report as an attachment, to the final meeting of this month. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah. I attended the Alamander Garden Club. It it was a great celebration. I had worked with a lot of them over the years, and and it brought back a a lot of memories. So at, you know, right place, right time, I was available to be able to present that with them after many years of service with them. It was a great day. So it was very, very good.

You old softy. Ah.

Commissioner Stokes,

nothing for me.

And commissioner Duvall.

I recently attended a rescue garage, event. They raised $17,000. And as a result of that, my household now has a new queen who weighs about thirteen pounds. That's it.

Alright. City manager, anything? No, mister mayor. Thank you. City attorney?

Got it, mayor.

And city clerk. Okay. 1227. We're adjourned.

People running each each of these departments, you know, they are running multimillion dollar businesses all separately, but coming together with tax dollars that that come through. And that is by far not