City Commission Regular Meeting - Regular Meeting

A lot of people will use tailored tests, so it involves, like, little different chemicals. You would fill up a container and drop them in, like, a certain amount, and then Yeah. Basically, it'll calculate from there what your pH and chlorine is. This is the daily tasks? Yeah. This is what we do at the start of every day.

Inside the control room, he fired up the valves that get the entire water park up

and running. When we have everything going, the water level will be back up. But since we're not running everything in the moment, it'll drop it down a couple inches.

Next, he showed me the daily checklist for the park.

And we have our chemical data sheets. So, basically, just making sure, like, that our comp pool, lazy river, kids pool are all where they need to be anywhere between two parts per million or 10 parts. And then pH is somewhere between seven point two and seven point eight for a healthy pool.

There you go. Then came the backwashing and wasting process, flushing the filters to keep the water flowing freely or removing excess water from the system to keep the water levels balanced.

And then it'll start coming out in this pit.

So this this whole pit will fill in about three minutes. Really? Over there? Yep.

Next, we changed out one of the strainer baskets, which helped catch large debris before it can reach the pumps.

I'll trace you that one. Thank you. Then new one goes in just like that, and we usually let those dry out. I'll clean them later this week.

Before joining the team in Northport, Matt worked as a lifeguard in Charlotte County under Trish Sturges, our assistant director of parks and recreation.

So I've known Trish a very long time, so that definitely was one of the influences of wanting to come work at the aquatic center. Had me go out for an AFO course recently, which is aquatic facility operator course. Basically anything and everything relating to a facility like water chemistry, safety rules, that, this and that. So I went there, I just passed that class, so it's a little bit

of knowledge under my belt. It was definitely useful. Well Matt, we're grateful for your time and your experience and all you've put into your career here. I congratulate you on your certification, and you do amazing job. Thank for joining me today at the North Ford Aquatic Center. It's a great facility. I wanna thank director Sandy Funheller, assistant director Trish Sturges. I have learned so much amazing things today. I would like to say that the technical expertise that goes to keep the water safe as well as the people safe is an amazing combination. See you on the next job. Thanks for being here.

Hey, City of Northport. My name is Sandra Boudreaux. I am with AECOM, and I'm representing the City of Northport on this glorious Price Boulevard project. We are here on Price Boulevard at the Blue Ridge Waterway.

Good evening.

Today is Tuesday, 04/21/2026 at 6PM. We're in the city chambers, and I call the city commission regular meeting to order. Commissioners present are commissioner Duvall, commissioner Stokes, mayor Emerich, vice mayor Langdon, and commissioner Petro. There is a quorum present for this meeting. Also present are city manager Fletcher, city attorney Fowino, deputy clerk Powell, board specialist Linder, deputy chief Morales is in the back, and fire chief Titus.

I'm gonna call on mister Omi Patel. Will you lead us in the pledge this evening, sir? Thank you, sir.

Moving on to the approval of

the agenda, request a motion.

So moved. Second.

Point of order. Go ahead. Would it be possible, with the concurrence of my fellow commissioners, to move the item under general business discussion of possible action regarding mandatory vote of order to move it up so that folks who have come here don't have to sit here all night if they don't wish to. And we can move it up to right after the first resolution, right after the quasi judicial.

Okay. With that, I would need Commissioner Duvall to remove his second and for you to move your motion.

Aye. If

you wish to make a motion. Okay. You want to put that in motion form,

please, I'd like to make a motion to move item 20 six-six 50

up

in the agenda to right after Resolution twenty twenty six R-twenty. I

have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Stokes to move general business item A26-six 50 after item the resolution twenty twenty six dash r dash 20, the quasi judicial proceeding. That motion is made by commissioner Stokes, seconded by commissioner DeBall. Anything to that? Let's vote. That passes five to zero. That item will be moved forward.

City clerk,

general public comment?

Yes. We have some voicemails we'll start off with here.

Public comment from that part of your agenda. I do believe that I'm a concerned resident of Northport, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I have several questions and concerns about this mandatory wire hookup, and I do believe we need a public workshop so we can answer these questions, concerns, and, frankly, some confusion. Thank you very much. Okay.

K. Couple more.

Hi. This is Dean Toparz calling. (860) 965-3749. Calling regarding the meeting on Tuesday, April 21 at six You know, we really own the city to add more commercial. This multifamily is going to add more people to the area.

It should stay commercial. People that live down in the area do not have any commercial services available to them. And plus the fact across the street, there's already been a multifamily project approved, the serenity project, which is gonna add multifamily homes to the area. So this area should stay zoned commercial and, allow the city to get, their tax dollars that they need. Thank you.

K. One more. Okay. Now on to e comments. First one is Holly Morgan.

With the way our economy is today, making these connections mandatory is hurting people. If nothing is wrong with the wells and septic, it needs left alone. I don't know anyone can just come up with all that money, slow down the building. There are thousands of houses sitting empty and have been for years. Grandfathering houses already built and make new construction mandatory if you want.

Some that bought new houses in past five years paid for well and septic including new purchase. Do that with new constructions and keep from hurting families here. Steven Harrison, thank you for the opportunity to submit this comment regarding the Northport Advisory Boards. I recently completed a cap capstone project focused on recruitment and retention for municipal advisory boards using Northport as the primary case study. My overall conclusion was that Northport already has a strong advisory board system in place, but there are realistic opportunities to improve how residents are recruited and how volunteers are retained over time.

Advisory boards are one of the most important ways residents can participate in local government without running for office. They provide public input, professional expertise, and community perspective on issues such as planning, parks, charter review, art, and economic development. My research found several common challenges. First, many residents may be willing to serve but do not know openings exist or do not know how to apply. Second, applicants may not fully understand meeting schedules, attendance expectations, or responsibilities before appointment.

Third, retaining experienced members is just as important as recruiting new ones because turnover creates delays and loss of institutional knowledge. The good news is these issues can be improved without major cost. My recommendations include clear public postings, stronger onboarding for new members, better communications, public recognition of volunteers, and broader outreach through schools, civic groups, and community organizations. There are practical administrative improvements, not expensive reforms. Strong advisory boards help create stronger local government by increasing participation, transparency, and trust.

Northport already has the foundation. With thoughtful improvements, it can become a model city for civic engagement. Thank you for your time and service. Next, David Kascansichik. Mandatory connection to city water. Would like to discuss this and why we are being forced to connect now. Additionally, my home was built in 2023 and city water was out from prior to construction. Need to discuss why Northport missed this. Next, Nicole Rafael. As a concerned resident of Northport, I believe there should be a public meeting on the mandatory water connection.

I'm sure I'm not the only one with several questions or concerns on this issue. Next one, Robin San Vicente. I am commenting ahead of item 26 dash zero six five zero regarding the mandatory potable water service connection so that my comments may be considered during your discussion. One, under Florida statute one eighty, it is not state mandated. It only gives local municipalities the power.

Two, the code of the city under chapter 78 provides for the following. Article II, section 20 eight-74V extenuating circumstances. A request for waiver of any provision under this section may be submitted in writing to the utilities director for determination based on extenuating circumstances. The utility's director has complete discretion in their determination. Section 70 eight-thirty one three gs early connection early connection incentive.

A customer who enters in a connection payment agreement before the expansion project makes the city's systems available to connect to the customer's property shall pay no line extension fee or any on-site cost to connect their property to the city system. This section was not mentioned to the citizenry. Article three section seven eight dash six zero connection requirement. The city commission made for good cause extend the three hundred sixty five day requirement for a particular lot or parcel. I ask that you please seriously consider following.

One, given today's economic state and the impacts on individual homeowners, is it a really good time to mandate connections at this time? Two, consider the citizenry and the additional burdens this action will have on them at this time. Three, this commission has the authority to postpone until a later time period and show the citizenry that they really understand the hardships facing them. Thank you for your consideration. Next, Hannah Crosby. My name is Hannah Crosby. For over twenty years, our family has responsibly maintained our own well system. It has been a safe, reliable and cost effective. We've done exactly what responsible properties are supposed to do and take care of what is ours. During that time, the city's water system has had repeated boil water notices.

Residents have been told their water is not safe. We have never had that problem, not once. And during hurricanes, when power is out and systems fail, we still have access to water. That is not a luxury in Florida. It is a necessity. So why are we being forced to abandon a system that works, that we trust, and that has proven itself over decades only to be pushed into one that has shown it is not reliable? This is our property. This is our home, and we are being told we have no say. What makes this worse is how this has been handled. The messaging has the messaging has lacked transparency and respect, and at times has felt dismissive and pressure driven.

And this is not the first time residents have felt ignored by the individuals on the dais to include the city manager. Families are now being asked to take on over a $10,000 connection cost plus ongoing monthly bills at a time when property taxes and living expenses continue to rise due to the decisions this board keeps making. As the person who manages our household, I can say clearly that there is no extra money for this. It is not feasible. This directly impacts a 100% disabled veteran, someone who has already given more than most and is now being told that none of that matters.

If the city truly respects veterans and property owners, that respect shall be reflected in your decisions. We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking to be left alone to maintain what already works. Next, Chris Gearhart. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Chris Gearhart, and I'm a resident of Northport. I am here to oppose the city mandatory water connection requirements. Policy raises serious concerns under the fifth amendment in Florida law. Homeowners with lawful functioning private well systems are being forced to abandon them and pay over $12,000 for a service they did not request. That goes beyond regulation.

It removes the use and value of private property. Under the fifth amendment, private property cannot be taken for public use without compensation. Forcing residents to decommission wells they have already invested in effectively destroys that value without compensation. This also implicates the Burke J. Harris Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act section 70 dot zero zero one Florida statutes, which protects owners when a government action inordinately burdens an existing property use. For many, this mandate meets that definition. There are also due process concerns. This is a blanket policy with no clear exemption process and no individualized termination of actual risk. Residents are not opposing safe water.

We are opposing being forced into significant cost and loss of property rights without out adequate legal safeguards. I urge the commission to pause this mandate, exemptions for compliant wells, and evaluate the city's legal exposure. Thank you. Next, David Barrow. Good evening.

I wanted to begin by reading a short quote from the city website. Government transparency is crucial in Northport, promoting openness, accountability, and honesty. This transparency builds trust, ensures good governance, and aligns city projects with community needs. I will spare you the rest because it doesn't seem to really mean anything. Why did the city push through an ordinance last summer when many snowbirds were gone and people were on vacation to require approximately 500 homes to spend 12 to $15,000 to connect the city's water system with not so much as a postcard that cost a few cents?

I have worked for Lee County, Collier County and Sarasota County. I've always had to provide a public workshop or hearing that required a bailout in the pasty to keep residents informed. We had just gotten a quote for a reverse osmosis system and we're starting the process where we receive the mandatory connection notice. Please, please require more oversight when you are passing ordinances that cost your citizens so much, especially now with such high inflation. I would ask that you consider resending the text amendment for Article five, Section 78.

Faithfully, David Barra. Next, William Essores. I'm one of the residents who received a letter stating that I'm being required to pay a $12,000 to connect to City Water. When I factor in connection fee plus the cost of hiring a plumber, I'm looking at roughly $14,500. That's about 10% of what I originally paid for my entire home.

Just for the privilege of connecting to the city's water, even though my needs are already being fully met by my well and reverse osmosis system. This mandate feels excessive and unfair. It's hard to see how imposing such a costly requirement on fellow Northport residents reflects the values we expect in our community. My neighbor across the street is facing the same situation. She's a single mother of three daughters and is still recovering financially from hurricane Ian with repairs on her own not yet complete.

This requirement has caused her significant stress. I moved to the city after leaving the army in 2013, and I've always considered it a great place to live. However, this mandate feels like a slap in the face. For those who want to connect to the city water, that's their choice, but it shouldn't be forced on everyone, especially when existing systems are working just fine. It's frustrating to feel like residents are being penalized simply because the city chose to install infrastructure like a fire hydrant lube for its own convenience. Next, Faith Sean Lynn. We received a letter saying that we had to pay $12,300 to tap into the city of North Port City's water. We have lived here since last July. We found out today the commissioner did not approve this. We do not approve this.

This resonates shady politics and would like a rebuttal. Okay. Now on to in person public comments. Joseph Majorino.

Joseph Majorino, 2747 Rebel Lane, Northport, Florida. I'm sorry for everybody in this room that has to go through this. I'm sorry that you have to have a city manager and 33, make sure, Phil Stokes, Langone, and Pete Enbridge, They're the cause of this. They will vote with this man. He will break laws. So just the background on him because I looked into him because he tried to have me removed from the building. This is my my issue is a permit. It's different from what you guys are going through, but it's it's the same. We have a metal detector. The police are nice here.

We have a a he has his own private security. Didn't didn't know that. He asked me to to to stop talking to another resident, not for being loud, not for cursing, because he didn't like what I was saying. Tell him there's a per a problem with a permit. He comes from Fairfax County, Virginia, where they were pulling parents out of the meetings. That's right. Right. That's where he's from for the books in the schools. That's exactly where he's from. Okay? Where they found this guy from under what rock he needs to go back to. Okay? This is a problem for the city in Northport, and the three of them who keep voting with him the other two commissioners we

have are excellent.

There's a problem here that exists, and you have to go to the polls. You're gonna have to because he will violate laws left and right. He'll do whatever he has to do. He doesn't care. You can beg, ask nice. He doesn't care. That's how he is. That's that's the kind of person you're dealing Thank you.

Debbie McDowell?

Good evening, everyone. I'm Debbie McDowell. Before I begin my public comment, I want to thank Jason for his tireless efforts and service to this city. He served the city for over five years. Today would have been his last, commission meeting, but he's not here. So thank you, Jason. I wish you the best. Now my public comment. Certainly, there's a huge mess brewing in city hall these past few months, a comedy of errors, you might say. The record shows in January, the city manager sent a memo to city Sarasota County administrator stating the city's desire to annex 3,000 acres into Northport's limits.

This potentially is a huge change to our city, yet he acts on his own accord without consulting the commission or the community. When caught, he includes it in a PowerPoint presentation only to tell the commissioners they can't talk about it. He can. He has that audacity. Excuse me, but since when does a city manager dictate what a perm what is permissible for a commissioner to discuss at a publicly noticed workshop when the information was included in the agenda?

Then the commission grants city manager authority to go to the court to ask the court to interpret the city charter so the city can borrow approximately 35,000 million dollars, $35,000,000 for projects, projects that include constructing buildings for nonprofits. I guess the billion dollars in CIP projects aren't a priority anymore. And I guess the nonprofit surpass everything. When the taxpayers found out the city manager and commission want to circumvent the charter, suddenly clarification is needed, and that's what's on the agenda tonight. You can paint this any way you want to make yourselves feel better, but the perception is the taxpayer's reality.

When there's a then there's the city water mandatory hookup letters. Public records show that the city manager didn't get the memo to his boss until the community uproar on social media. Oops. I'm sorry. Today, the city manager is asking the commission to decide whether to proceed with the mandate or to pivot. He's known about this for months. Why the heck did he send the letters out without consulting with the commissioners and the community? They deserved a town hall. They deserved a q and a before those letters went out. He is delusional to think that nobody would have noticed and just go ahead and connect.

In the past, when I raised concerns about the decision making of the city manager, my words were twisted and be and I became the fall guy. Go ahead and continue doing that to make yourselves comfortable. It won't change the truth, and don't even get me started on the continuous erosion of public trust in this room about the lack of transparency.

Tim Doyle. I'm sorry. That is not allowed here. If you agree with whatever spoken or said, give a thumbs up or a thumbs down. We have a hard time hearing up here with the way that the acoustics work in this room. It comes to us like a thunderstorm. So please respect us as we respect you while we listen to your comments. Or we could take a fifteen minute break until everybody's comfortable enough to sit and move forward. Go ahead, sir.

Alright. There's nothing on this agenda that I'm looking for, so whatever I've been saying in this room hasn't even made it on the agenda. First off, I would like the lawyer to inform the police department about h b two seven nine. That's a law signed by DeSantis on swatting people. Because I feel I was swatted, and I've talked about it in this room.

I know I was swatted by the Sarasota County Sheriff's Department for calling Greg Stubbe and complaining about this politics. Right? I believe they probably called the Northport Police, but the Northport Police was not was smart enough to say, where's your evidence that he threatened his life? And he probably listened to the phone calls, and I never did. But the Sarasota County officer came to my house. One guy was in the woods with a rifle. The other guy was around the corner at my goddamn garage. And this guy, Mr. Tuck, was banging on my door, tells me to walk outside. No warrant, no nothing.

You wonder why I don't like the county? They take my tax money, and they swatted me at my goddamn house. Now, I forget the date, Okay? So this law might have been signed afterwards. But when I was called in for that offense, they lied to you on 09/11. They didn't own that property. According to your police report, they don't even live there. And I know what was said on the phone. I didn't get a copy of the tapes, but I always can. They made claims that were not true. Your police department could have came to my house and shot me, dead on my property. And you guys put guns to my head before, right? So if you wonder why I'm annoyed at the county, this is one reason, Mr. Tuck. And Gray Scooby and Rick Scott, guess what?

You're blowing up the whole goddamn world. I hope the bomb bombs hit their house and not mine. And if people in Florida are getting arrested for speaking up, we have the police departments coming to your house with guns, long rifles. And, again, I want every cop in this town to have a shotgun in their car to shoot down the drones. Because if we go into Cuba, those drones can reach this house. So where are the air raid sirens? But I'll go back there later and some stuff on the agenda. So if you wonder why I don't like the county, why I shouldn't pay taxes, everybody's complaining, stuff like this. You can't even call people anymore and complain and tell them to do. Next thing you know, you got a cop at your door with a goddamn gun.

And this happened. How did I get this car? You think I'm a liar? Everything I ever said in this room up here

is truth.

I asked you to make peace with me. You have never made peace with me, and that's Donald Trump's fault. He doesn't know how to make a deal. He does not know how to make peace. Neither does Rick Scott or Greg Stubbe. These people are gonna get everybody killed, and I'll leave the rest for it because there's a lot to talk about going on here. But please inform the police department about that law.

Josh Smith.

Josh Smith, resident of City Of Northport. I'm doing my best to never come back here. And and, I mean, the list of items you and I had a meeting, vice mayor, where we had a conversation about how disappointed we were in each other. Remember? You can't look at that and tell me that I'm on the wrong side of this one. I mean, come on now. Help me out here. This is just insanity. Five items for borrowing voted down. We all told you, we don't trust you enough for this.

The answer is, let's find a way to borrow the money anyways. That seems to have stalled. So now we're coming out with a new way to borrow some money on stuff that doesn't need money borrowed. There's water structures. There's roads. There's traffic signal issues. I I just do any of you ever stop and talk to anybody outside of this building just once? Just wander on out into the street and ask somebody, and maybe you'll start hearing how it sounds to us. It's craziness, people. I mean, just please start reading a room for once.

That's all I'm asking. If if you think that you can jump an entire CIP list to to try this, where where does that come from? It's gotta be in this building. Please start talking to some people outside of here. Thank you very much for your time.

Baldi Olender.

Good evening. I am Baldi Olender. I am, I come here in peace, and I am not a criminal. And I have a dignity. I instruct you, Emilege, to respect my dignity.

I have instruct you, Emilege, to remove policeman of my back. I'm waiting. Personal dignity refers to the interest intrinsic worth and respect that an individual possess, which is reflected in their self respect, self worth, and and personal integrity. Human dignity adheres to the individual and not require the mediation of the others like you. It involves how a person value themselves and how they expect to be treated by others.

My dignity, I compare to the women. To the

women

know not to be violated without their consent to be raped. What I observe here, we the people are what I compare to the king. All of you, our servants, What I observe here is restituring restituring fifteenth, sixteenth century feudalism, master servant relationship. There is this saying, king that's been with the people may lose his crown, but he never lose his majestat. Selamrich, stop raping me.

Stokes, stop raping me. Duval, stop raping me. Leyden, stop raping me. Petro, stop raping me. Fletcher, stop raping me. Fidel, stop raping me. Morales, stop raping me. Washington, stop raping me. I am ashamed to be citizen of The United State Of America in Northport, Florida under current regime. Are you acting like the white supremacy?

SME. All spending by the city plus they can't gross domestic product. That's what you're doing with. Right?

That that's all, mister mayor.

Thank you,

sir. Announcements, city clerk.

The current vacancies for the following boards and committees include Art 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 Culture Advisory Board, Joint Management Advisory Board, Police Officer Pension Trust Funded Board of Trustees, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Planning and Zoning Advisory Board, Sarasota County Advisory Council of Vacancies include one resident of Northport to serve on the Sarasota Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization's Citizen Advisory Committee. 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, sir. Moving on to item four, consent agenda. City manager has any items been pulled? No service, Amir. All right, I'll attend the motion.

Do you have public comment?

Public comment. Sorry.

Yeah. Tim Doyle?

There's three items on the consent I will talk about. The first one, you know I'm gonna talk about because you got the CoStar station on here, and we're improving it, and we're spending money. You know what this does? This puts the CoStar station on all your TVs. It puts it on your computer. Do you know who knows there's a CoStar station there? The Ukraine. Do you know who else? The Russians. You know who else? China. You know who else? Iran. What did we do in Iran? We blew up all their military. We blew

up their navy. They had no

more navy, man. You believe that? But they're still blowing up boats. Guess what's going to get blown up if they come here? This coast guard station. So I approve of them doing the improvements there because I've used it before. So I'm not speaking out against improvement. What I'm saying is that money should go towards an air raid siren in this community to protect me when the drones come because of the policies of Greg Stubbe, Donald Trump, and Rick Scott. They're going to get us all killed. This is a federal facility, isn't it?

If it's a Coast Guard station, maybe they should pick up the tab. You know what I'm saying here? This isn't nothing we have to discuss. I called Rick Scott's office. I asked him where the fallout shelters in Northport was. I asked him where the any bomb shelters. I never never got back. I've asked you. I've never heard a thing. You know why? Because there are none, and no one has a basement. Did you pass an ordinance where anybody could build a shelter in their backyard without a permit, a bomb shelter? Because guess what? If you get a permit, then everybody knows where your bomb shelter is. Defeats the whole purpose, doesn't it?

Ridiculous. You see this? I got this in the mail. Hey, Finney. This is what my taxpayer paid for coming down my road. I paid for this. And the trillion dollar spending plan. I got a cable company down my road, but I don't have no air raid sirens. Talk about wasting money. They called me on the phone the other day. I can pull it up if wanna see it. So I pay taxes to get this. Funny joke. The dog. Okay.

It's very important to have dogs to do certain type of work. So I agree with the work of dogs using for explosive detection and stuff. So I'm in agreement with that. But the one thing I'm going to say about the dog, a police officer can't bite me, then the dog should not be able to bite me. Walmart, five people got hurt. Two dogs biting. Right? Englewood, a couple weeks ago, a woman was airlifted from one of those dog parks you approved to the hospital because she was attacked by a dog. Ridiculous. Now the last one with giving the dog to the officer, that's humanity. That should happen. Because if that dog thinks that's the parent, then that dog should stay with the police officer. Thank you.

Steven Harrison.

I know it's really easy to get lost when everyone comes up here and starts yelling at you guys. Hopefully, I can get you to listen for just a couple minutes. Good evening, mayor, commissioners, and staff. My name is Steven Harrison. I recently completed my public policy capstone project on recruitment and retention for advisory boards using our city as a case study.

I chose this topic because advisory boards are one of the most important ways residents can directly participate in local government. They give citizens the ability to serve their community, share expertise, and help shape decisions without having to run for office themselves. Northport has advisory boards that support important policy areas such as UNO. When these boards function well, they create real value. They increase transparency, provide informed recommendations, bring community voices into the process, and help elected officials make stronger decisions.

My project asked one main question. Can Northport realistically improve how it recruits and retains advisory board members in a practical and yet affordable way. After review reviewing the research, conducting surveys, and interviewing individuals directly connected to Northport's board system, the answer was yes. I found that the biggest challenge are not a lack of community interest. The real challenge are awareness, communication, expectations, and long term engagement.

Many residents may be willing to serve, but they don't know how the openings they don't know where the openings exist. Some applicants may not fully understand the responsibilities, attendance requirements, or time commitment until after appointment. Some volunteers lose motivation if meetings feel unproductive or if they believe their contributions are not being taken seriously. The good news is that these issues can be improved without major cost for the city. My capstone recommendations have five key steps.

First, make board openings easier to find and easier to understand. Second, clearly explain expectations before someone is appointed. Third, create stronger onboarding so new members understand their role and how recommendations move through the city process. Fourth, improve communication and recognition so volunteers feel supported and appreciated. And fifth, expand recruitment outreach through schools, civic groups, neighborhood organizations, and programs like the Northport University.

These are not expensive reforms, they are management improvements. Some advisory boards help build strong local government. They improve public trust and increase participation and create better outcomes for residents. Northport already has a strong foundation. With a few thoughtful improvements though, the city can become a model for how local governments engage citizens in a meaningful way. Thank you and god bless.

Thank you. That is all, mister mayor.

Thank you. Now I'll entertain the motion.

Take a motion

to accept the agenda.

I have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Stokes to accept the consent agenda as presented.

Second.

Seconded by Vice Mayor Langdon. If there's nothing to that, please vote. That passes five to zero. Zero. Moving on to public hearings, resolution twenty twenty six dash r dash 20. This is a quasi judicial hearing. And deputy city clerk, can you read by title only, please?

Resolution of the city commission of the city of Northport, Florida granting a special exception to allow multifamily residential use located generally at the Southeast corner of South Weda Blade Boulevard and Woodhabid Drive The commercial general CG zoning district pursuant to the City Of Northport Unified Land Development Code section five three dash four zero and five three dash two five nine providing for incorporation of recitals, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing an effective date. We also do have an agreed party received by Ruby Morrison, Billis of Turnberry Trace, HOA president.

Okay. And are they present?

We're here for

Okay.

Okay. I just wanna make sure before I moved on. Alright. I now am to request a motion regarding determination of standing for agreed party status request.

I'll make it.

Go ahead.

I move to approve the agreed party status requested for Ruby Morrison and find that the request meets the following requirements. The request complies with procedural requirements. The the requester resides within the 1,320 foot notification boundary, and sufficient evidence justification has been provided to support the requester's assertion of a protected interest in effect on which it exceeds in kind degree or intensity compared with the general interest of the community shared by all persons.

I'll second that.

I have a motion on the floor made by vice mayor to approve the agreed party status request for Ruby Morrison and find that the request meets the below requirements. The request complies with procedural requirements. The requester resides or owns property within the 1,320 foot notification boundary, and sufficient evidence slash justification has been provided to support the requester's assertion of a protected interest, the effect on which exceeds in kind degree or intensity compared to the general interest in the community shared by all persons. And I believe that was seconded by commissioner DeVal. If there's nothing to that, please vote.

That passes five to zero. Mr. Powell swearing in, please.

Can everyone wishing to provide testimony, please stand and raise your right hand. And this includes anyone making a public comment under this item?

The agreed parties as well.

Agreed parties, applicant, staff, public commenters. Okay. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to provide is true and accurate to the best of your knowledge so help you God?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Alright. I'm gonna go for ex parte communications. I'll start because we did have voicemails in the beginning, so that's the only ex parte communication I have had on this item. Commissioner Duvall.

Thank you, Mayor. The same as Parquet Communications that way. Also, I have had discussion during my, agenda briefing with staff.

Commissioner Stokes?

Yeah. Same thing. Just my

my briefing audio, please. What's that? You're you're hear you.

It's on. It's on.

Yeah. It's on. Yeah. My only expert that communications were my briefing.

Vice

Mayer? Similar. My only ex parte was via email and voicemail.

Commissioner Petro?

Yes. I did that agenda briefing where I asked a question and had a small discussion and also the voicemail as well.

All right, thank you. Now we're going to move on to presentations. And I know that you probably haven't been here as an aggrieved party before, but you're you're offered the same rights as the applicant staff, and you will have the same times and allowabilities to present your concerns as this process moves forward. Advocate, you're first, and you have twenty minutes.

Thank you, mayor. Vice mayor, good evening. Commissioners as well. Let me Let pull up my presentation. My name is Joe Mitter.

I have been sworn in with Genesis Planning and Development. This is XPX 20 Three-five, Fleet 3, called the Toledo Blade Center. It's a special exception to allow for a multifamily residential use in an existing commercial general zone district. It's on approximately 10.23 acres of a 15.97 acre property. The owners are Tavorb LLC, Joe Tevinursi.

Again, I'm Joe Medred with Genesis Planning and Development. Project engineers associated with the application was Southwest Engineering and Design, Nicholas Browning, project engineer, and Ed Lomsky, professional engineer. This is the aerial shown here on the right out of your staff report. It's approximately 15.97 acres located on the East Side of Toledo Blade Blvd. As you can see here.

Toledo Blade Boulevard, the major arterial and at the corner of Woodhaven Drive Collector. This is also Fairlane Drive, a local road on the eastern boundary of the site. But the proposed special exception is for multifamily residential community with a maximum potential of 155 dwelling units on approximately 10.34 acres, which I'll get into detail later. But it's on this eastern portion of the site out of the 15.97 acre parcel. The remaining 5.63 acres located here along Toledo Blade Boulevard would remain for commercial uses and be connected to the proposed multifamily to create a horizontal mixed use development.

This is a zoomed in aerial from the property appraiser, again, the subject parcel outlined in green and shaded here. This is Toledo Blade Boulevard, again, Woodhaven Drive, and this is that Fairlane Drive. And what I'll touch on and what I want to point out is its proximity. It's a large 15.97 acre parcel in that proximity to these adjacent residential neighborhoods to the North, East, and to the South. Again, that 10.34 acres we'll touch on and show in the plan is on this portion of the site adjacent to those existing residential neighborhoods.

Some background on Tivo, owners. It's a family owned company that has been in operation for over thirteen years. The group has maintained a presence in the North Port area for many years, currently owns several properties in the local area. The subject property has been under the company's ownership since 2012, a little almost fourteen years now, reflecting a long term commitment to the area. And the company strives to responsibly manage its properties and work collaboratively with local governments and the community. Some additional background on the application. The special exception was submitted back in March 2023. It's a little over three years ago. At that time, that subject parcel was zoned CG, so we're happy to be here. It's been a long process.

Some of the reasons, as you know, back in 2024, the city adopted amendments to the Unified Land Development Code, corresponding amendments to the official zoning map, which rezoned the subject property after time of submittal from CG Commercial General to CT Corridor Transitional. City staff confirmed in the staff report that because the special exception application was submitted under previous zoning regulations and the zoning map in effect at that time, the application may be reviewed under the CG development standards in effect at the time of submittal. Here's an aerial of the previous zoning map. You can see the subject parcel outlined in blue. The CG is the red.

You can see that it was detailed at that time. Adjacent to us, that orange, brown, and pink are those residential existing neighborhoods that exist. These are the CG permitted uses out of the previous zoning code, Section 50 three-thirty eight. Some of those uses that I've highlighted here are retail sales and service, restaurants, hotels, vehicle service and repair shops and rentals, car wash, equipment rentals, detailed a couple others that are typically multi story, adult living facilities, office parks, as well as a plant nursery. These are the CG development standards.

It allows a maximum density up to 15 dwelling units per acre, which I'll detail later. We're far below that 15 dwelling units per acre. It permits a maximum lot coverage of 50% and a maximum building height of up to 70 feet, and that would be applied on that 15.97 acres, the entire parcel. This could be applied today. The subject parcel is designated as medium intensity corridor on the future land use plan on the right hand side here.

This is down to the future land use GOPs, and it details medium intensity corridor and describes and and states that these lands are generally located along arterial and collector roadways and are designated to provide for medium density residential uses in various neighborhood serving retail service or light industrial uses. Again, that's policy out of your future land use policy 01/2023. This proposed plan is consistent with that medium intensity corridor as the proposed plan requests under 15 dwelling units per acre and falls squarely within that 10 to 20 dwelling unit per acre range of medium intensity corridor. Highlighted a couple of the examples that are permitted within that future land use designation, residential medium and residential high, again, which allows 10 dwelling units and up to 20 dwelling units an acre. This is the proposed master development concept plan that was part of your staff report.

I've got it dropped in on an aerial here that I'd like to go over with you. To orient you, again, is Toledo Blade Blvd. Here on the West. This is Woodhaven Drive to the North, and then this is Fairlane Drive here on the East. The proposed plan has a gated or has an access point here on Toledo Blade Boulevard across from Kenville Drive.

They would be required to put turn lanes in on Toledo Blade. This would be if you're heading south on Toledo Blade. A turn lane would be required here to turn into the proposed entrance of the site, as well as if you're heading north, a right hand turn lane would be required. Woodhaven Drive, there's an entrance point. There will also be a right hand turn lane required off Woodhaven Drive.

And these exit points all, the one along Toledo would come in, go through the commercial uses, and tie into the proposed multifamily development. The gate is shown here. We've provided significant distance to provide any increased queuing lane. Should the cars back up, they will not back up out onto the roadways. On this 10.34 acres of the site, again, that eastern portion, we're proposing five three story apartment buildings, approximately up to 155 units.

This is, again, 84 units below the maximum, which would be permitted, which is up to two thirty nine. These buildings are positioned and oriented to increase setbacks and minimize direct orientation towards the existing neighborhoods. So, again, we've been in this process for three years. We think we've worked with six different planners here and gone back and forth, really tweaked the plan, oriented these buildings away from the residential to the south, positioned the sides of the building adjacent to the residential to the east, and then we've got increased setbacks here from the residential to the north across from Woodhaven Drive. There is a 5,000 square foot single story amenity building, which includes a staff office shown right here, well as with a pool.

And this is the proposed location of a 2.1 acre storm water pond located on that southern portion of the site, which helps with this increased setbacks. I've added some setbacks here for illustration purposes, again, over two twenty five feet to the nearest residence to the north across from Woodhaven Drive, 179 feet to the closest residence to the east, and over 300 feet away, a football field away from any residents to the South. We respectfully state that the proposed plan provides a transition in land use intensity, creating compatibility by locating residential and adjacent to existing residential. This proposed plan creates a step down in intensity by locating a residential use adjacent to existing residential, those existing residential neighborhoods along Fairlane And Woodhaven Drive, rather than building full commercial on that 15.97 acres directly adjacent to those existing neighborhoods. We believe that the proposed plan creates a more compatible relationship with surrounding land uses while keeping the commercial uses, again, up there on that Toledo Blade Boulevard corridor on those 5.63 acres away from those existing neighborhoods where they should be located.

Again, those remaining 5.63 acres located along Toledo Blade frontage will remain commercial uses and be connected to the proposed multifamily to create what we state as a horizontal mixed use development. On the right hand side here, we did a trip comparison to break down the proposed, which is at the top, which is a 155 multifamily development with approximately 73,500 square feet, which is a modest shopping plaza remaining on the 5,000 acres. And this proposed development plan generates approximately 50% fewer daily trips than a full commercial site. As its zone CG, it is permitted to do full commercial as it could today. We did a realistic breakdown of a shopping plaza, which could total up to 208,000 square feet.

Those trips go over 14,086 daily trips. So the proposed commercial and residential is over six a little over 6,032 daily trips, but the full commercial could potentially allow 14,086 daily trips. That's an 8,000 trip reduction. Listening to the call, I thought I'd add this in here. I think there's some been some statements about the tax benefit for the proposed plan.

I know that on scenario two, which is page seven of the staff report, it details our proposed scenario detailing 73,500 square feet of commercial, but it estimated it at $55,450 This estimate appears to be conservative when compared to a nearby example of similar commercial development. That Publix at Price and Toledo Blade. That Publix is 78,000 square feet. The ad tax paid in 2025 was $219,000 That's more than double the estimated revenue. Grocery stores like Publix are permitted.

Here's the 2025 ad valorem tax bill shown here on the right, that $219,000 tax paid. And then this is a screenshot of the subject parcel. You can see there's the Publix price in Toledo Blade And the gross area shown on the property appraiser under AC is $72,000 Gross area is $78,000 As far as compatibility, on Page eight of the staff report, staff notes that as to incompatible land uses, they state that residential development, regardless of unit type, is compatible development. The development master plan reflects the required buffers on the north, south, and eastern boundaries of the project site. Staff also finds no identifiable hazards associated with the proposed multifamily project, providing emergency access only on that Fairlane Drive entrance point and locating solid waste receptacles a significant distance from existing residential neighborhoods should minimize nuisances.

I had outreach with adjacent neighborhoods, Bobcat Trail back on March 19, their CDD board. I met with Villas of Turnberry Trace HOA president back on March 11, as well as the Woodhaven Estates HOA president March 11. The owners have proffered back at the Planning and Zoning Advisory Board. We proffered stipulations to limit the total residential square footage and building height. These are those two proffered stipulations.

One, the total gross floor area for the proposed multifamily residential development, including the associated amenity building, shall not exceed 185,000 square feet, and those residential buildings shall be limited to a maximum of three stories. This is a 31.5% reduction, approximately 85,320 square feet from the 270,320 detailed in the staff report. In summary, this request is not a rezoning of commercial land. The commercial designation remains in place, preserving long term commercial opportunities along that Toledo Blade Boulevard corridor. The proposed plan provides a thoughtful transition in decreasing land use intensity by locating residential adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods.

And the proposal is significantly below the maximum density allowed, demonstrates a responsible balanced approach to development, approximately 84 units fewer than the two thirty nine permitted on the 15.97 acre parcel. That's a density just below 10 dwelling units an acre, 35% below the maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre. Those residential buildings, as I detailed on that plan, are intentionally positioned and oriented to increase setbacks from adjacent homes, creating additional separation and enhancing compatibility. That layout maintains commercial opportunities along the Toledo Blade Corridor, while avoiding impacts of full commercial build out that could be built there by Wright, balancing residential and commercial uses. The layout will substantially reduce traffic generated trips by 57% compared to a full commercial development, which again is permitted by Wright, reducing traffic impacts on surrounding roadways and neighborhoods.

With that, we would respectfully request approval of special exception SPX 20 3. We request with the six conditions listed on page four of the staff report and the two proffered stipulations below, and I'm available to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Staff?

Good evening. Laurie Barnes, deputy director of development services, I have been sworn. I'm presenting the Toledo Blade Center Multifamily Special Exception Application, petition number SPX23053. The applicant is Joe Medred from Genesis Planning and Development. The property owner is Taborb LLC.

The petition before you is consideration of a special exception to allow a multifamily residential use in the Commercial General Zoning District. The property is located at the Southwest corner Southeast corner of South Toledo Blade Blvd. And Woodhaven Drive. The project area for the multifamily is a 10.34 acre portion of a 15.97 acre parcel. Pre application meeting was held with the staff development review team on 08/10/2022.

The formal submittal was received by staff on 03/17/2023. As the application was submitted before the new Unified Land Development Code was effective in 2024, this petition has been reviewed pursuant to the 2010 Unified Land Development Code and the 2017 Comprehensive plan. The property subject to this request was previously disturbed land. It was formerly a three par golf course. And again, it's located at the Southeast corner of Toledo Blade Blvd.

And Woodhaven Drive. The applicant is proposing a multi family use with 155 units and an office amenity center. Under the 2010 Unified Land Development Code and future land use, The adopted future land use map designation was commercial and the adopted zoning map designation was commercial general. The surrounding land use and zoning under the current zoning map is village, residential medium, and residential high. The property owner, Nicola Taverniz, did submit a written petition request for a special exception, authorized the multifamily use with five three story buildings, the maximum of 155 dwelling units per acre.

And again, this is on a 10.34 acre portion of a 15.97 acre parcel. Under section 3,255 of the twenty ten ULDC, a special exception petition is required to include a development master plan showing the placement square footage height of proposed structures along with ingress, egress, off street parking, off street loading areas, and refuse. The applicant's development master plan did not provide the square footage of the proposed buildings. However, the applicant did provide that information under separate cover. This development master plan shows the location of the multifamily on the eastern portion of that 15.97 acre parcel and demonstrates future proposed commercial outparcels along the Toledo Blade frontage.

The applicant had indicated that their density is below the maximum. In consideration of the 15.97 acre parcel, it would be below the maximum 15 dwelling units per acre. But on the basis of the 10.34 acres, the 155 units would be the maximum 15 units per acre. Staff development review. Other reviewing departments either had no objection to this petition or felt the petition met requirements provided conditions were applied.

Planning and zoning is recommending denial. Staff did review this application in accordance with the 2017 comprehensive plan. Chapter one, Article one, Planning Vision, speaks to the availability of jobs and business opportunities and the availability of employment. While it also speaks to affordable living homes, this application does not include affordable housing. When it comes to diversified housing opportunities, in the staff report appendix, there was a planning study map.

That planning study map represents a total of 3,648 multifamily units within a two and a quarter mile radius of this property. So diversified housing options either currently exist, are entitled, or permitted by right within a close proximity to this parcel. And that figure does not include potential future mixed use residential in the activity center district. Staff did find that the proposed project is not consistent with the planning vision. The future land use element, Chapter two, Goal one, includes a policy that basically speaks to balancing economic development with environmental protection.

Your staff report incorporated analysis of the economic benefit to the city and included two scenarios three scenarios under which the property could be developed. The applicant's proposal does include the multifamily use, and their transportation impact analysis speaks to a proposed 73,500 square feet of commercial development. But there's no condition of approval that can be tied to this application to mandate that commercial development be built at that intensity or that it be built at the same time as the multifamily development because this is under the twenty ten ULDC. Staff found that the maximum development potential for this parcel under the twenty ten ULDC would align with a maximum of 50 residential as a guideline for the next policy we'll discuss and therefore found that this project does not maximize the economic development to the city. Notwithstanding that we didn't identify any compatibility issues with the residential development as proposed.

Staff found that the proposed project is not consistent with Goal one of the future land use element. Chapter two, Policy 1.1, identifies intent for commercial lands under the future land use element in 2017. This policy does speak to a maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre in the commercial future land use designation. It also includes a guideline, not a regulation, speaking to an intent to have a maximum of 50% of the floor area ratio. Some of the Commission has been on the Board in the past when this policy was discussed.

Some of you have not. We believe that the intent when this guideline was incorporated in the comprehensive plan was to follow with a companion land development regulation in the ULDC to specifically regulate the maximum residential percentages in the commercial future land use and zoning districts. However, that regulation was never adopted. So because this is a guideline and not a codified regulation, staff must find that the application is consistent with the future land use element policy 1.1. Future land use element objective three and policy 3.3 speak to increasing the economic base and diversifying the city's tax base and also includes a policy to provide for overall fiscal sustainability and that the Commission should pursue a goal of at least 18% nonresidential development.

In 2024, this Commission worked very hard to bring the city from a 6% nonresidential land area to 16%, and because using commercial zoned land for residential development would reduce the amount of nonresidential land area available for development in the city, staff finds that this project is not consistent with objective three and policy 3.3. Other future land use policies that this project is not consistent with, I do not have a slide in the presentation, are Chapter eight, which is the housing element, Goal one, Objective seven and Policy 7.2, which speak to mixed use development and public amenities and live work space. This project is not consistent with those policies as stated in the comprehensive plan. Similarly, Chapter 11, the economic development element, objective 1.1 and policies 1.1.1 through 1.1.6 of the comprehensive plan speak to business attraction and diversifying the tax base. And staff found that this project was not consistent with those economic development goals, objectives, and policies.

However, staff did find in our analysis that the proposed project is consistent with some of the other comprehensive plan elements, goals, objectives, and policies. Now, notwithstanding the consistency with these, the project overall is not fully consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff also reviewed this application for consistency with the Unified Land Development Code, section 53,259. This section provides required findings for the Planning and Sending Advisory Board and the City Commission to approve a special exception, including 16 findings. The 16 findings per the ULDC stand on their own.

So in order for a special exception to be approved, the application must meet all 16 findings. The staff analysis in your staff report, did find that this application is not consistent with three of the findings. It does not meet three of the required findings, including consistency with the comprehensive plan. The proposed use is detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the public and is not an economic benefit to the economy of the city. Reduction of land area available for commercial development would be a detriment to the citizenry in this area of the city.

Your staff report outlines that with the known entitled or permitted by Wright multifamily development and the existing single family platted lots in the area, the population in that 2.25 miles will eventually exceed 58,000 people. And for those 58,000 people, as outlined in the staff report, 2,600,000 square feet of retail space is necessary to serve the population in that area. And currently, there is less than 500,000 in that area. The final finding, the proposed use adversely affects the traffic flow, safety or control on the surrounding roadway system. Staff did find that because the application and the development master plan did not include a turn lane on Woodhaven Drive into the site as required by the transportation impact analysis that the project did not meet that finding.

The applicant, just prior to the Planning and Signing Advisory Board, did provide an updated development master plan locating that turn lane. However, it's policy for this for the city to present the same presentation to the commission as we do to the Planning and Soning Advisory Board. So if the Commission does vote to approve this special exception, please include a condition that it is on the basis of the updated development master plan showing the turn lane at Woodhaven Drive. Notice of public hearings were mailed to the owner of the property and property owners within thirteen twenty feet as required by the ULDC, as well as advertised in the newspaper. The city attorney reviewed resolution twenty twenty six r 20 for form and correctness and has approved the resolution.

Staff recommendation is to deny resolution twenty twenty six r 20. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to the agreed party, Ms. Morrison. You can come up here and speak.

There's really nobody that volunteered to speak.

So miss Morrison support the Hold on, sir. Hold on. So miss Morrison is not here as the aggrieved party? Yeah.

So then

then we don't have an aggrieved party. Is that correct?

Right. If if miss Morrison is not present.

Okay. You'll you'll

all have

your chance

to speak in public comment

then.

This is just part of our legal proceedings that we must follow. Okay? Alright. Rebel, applicant.

Thank you, mayor. Just wanna touch on a couple things As far as some of the inconsistencies pointed out with the findings, again, as stated, as soon as we got the staff report that indicated prior to the zoning advisory board that the turn lane wasn't detailed. We fixed that. We went through a review with the city. It was reviewed and approved. This was just a technicality, almost like a scrivener's error. You can see here what we detailed. Just didn't put in the turn lane arrows. So it's required by code whether we showed it or not. It would be required.

So I wanted to touch on that. The other policies as far as economic benefit and consistencies, we're trying to show is that the site, pull up the aerial, it's kind of looking, the inconsistencies and policies in my opinion would be looking at a broad zoomed out version of the city. And what exists today is residential neighborhoods, again, adjacent to a 15.97 acre parcel. That parcel, the modest approach where we showed the traffic comparison of over 208,000 square feet would be permitted, easily achieved on that site. That could allow, CG could allow heights up to 70 feet.

Our proposed plan is putting adjacent next to those existing residential neighborhoods. Those uses are way more intense than what we're proposing. We've oriented those buildings to lessen any impact against those residential neighborhoods. When you zoom in and look at that, it's a unique site. I mean, it's wider than it is long.

And it's still preserving that commercial, that economic benefit for commercial, along Toledo Blade. Those neighborhood commercial uses would serve the proposed residents, the residents in the neighborhood, just provides a more commercial oriented or commercial neighborhood oriented site as well as they're going to be connected. It is 15.97 acres and it's owned by one owner. It's not parceled out. It will forever be tied together as far as joint use because the storm water associated that we're proposing on the southern part of the site is for the commercial portion.

We have an access point, shared access points. It's under unified control. So we really have, again, worked for three years going back and forth. They're proposing to reduce the square footage. They're proposing to limit those heights.

They're trying to be a good neighbor. No access point to Fairlane Drive, is just gonna be used for emergency access only. Should the site been built fully commercial, you would have an access point onto Fairlane Drive. So I think, again, as respectfully as I can, it's a large commercial property adjacent to these residents, and I strongly believe that this would be a less intense use, a lower traffic generator than if it was completely built out with commercial. So with that, again, we respectfully request approval with the proposed stipulations. Thank you.

Thank you. Staff?

Again, Lori Vines, Deputy Director of Development Services. I have been sworn. I wanted to point out a couple of items from the applicant's presentation. First, the applicant mentioned our future land use element, the corridor, the high intensity, medium intensity corridor future land use, and the commercial transitional CT zoning district. Those are the current designations, but this application is not being considered under the current comprehensive plan or the current zoning district.

It is being considered under the former zoning and the former comprehensive plan. That being said, if this application had been submitted under the current comprehensive plan and the current unified land development code, this project would not be consistent with the regulations for those corridor transitional districts. The comprehensive plan provides a maximum of 25% of commercial in a mixed use district. The Unified Land Development Code requires 35% in that mixed use district. So you wouldn't be able to get to 25% without a waiver to the ULDC.

The applicant's proposed plan as submitted includes 78.6% residential square footage versus 21.4% commercial square footage. And again, there is no mandate for that 73,500 square feet to be developed per the former ULDC. It cannot be a condition of approval, and it cannot be required to be constructed in the two year development order timeframe under the former ULDC. This project also wouldn't meet the horizontal mixed use requirements under our current regulations. Horizontal mixed use requirements under our current regulations require two distinct housing types, and they require the non residential component to be constructed at the same time and be physically and functionally integrated with pedestrian connections, shared amenities, vehicular connections, etcetera.

I wanted to point that out. Another thing that the applicant mentioned was the permitted uses for commercial development under the Commercial General Zoning District. If an application proceeded forward for development on this site tomorrow, those commercial general permitted uses would not apply. Only the corridor transitional uses under the current ULDC would apply, and this commission knows that we carefully reviewed all of the permitted uses in the corridor transitional districts to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential neighborhoods and that the current regulations include compatibility standards and additional buffering for properties that were rezoned through the adoption of the new zoning map. Finally, as to the tax comparison, the tax comparison in your staff report was developed on the basis of anticipated construction type and square footage, not end use.

We can only evaluate based on the limited information that we have available to us. Now, the public's comparison that the applicant provided, we don't know if that ad valorem tax revenue amount is influenced by the type of commercial development on the site and the value of that property based on that particular use. So again, I wanted to mention that we base our estimates on conservative and available information. Staff has nothing further for rebuttal. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Okay. I'm gonna move on to public comment. City clerk?

Yes, sir. We do have a few public comments. When you come up, please state your name and that you've been sworn. If you have not been sworn, please let me know and we will swear you in. Tim Doyle.

I was sworn.

Thank you, sir. Oops.

Thank you, sir.

Okay. When you're ready.

All right. This isn't too far from my house. First off, I'll say, like I say every time, if someone owns the property, they own the property. They should do what they want on their own property. So I'll start off with that. But you guys have laws and regulations. So when I look at this project, I agree with some of the statements. The 155 units is only going on the 10 acres. So I don't buy that jargon as it it meets it because you're taking five acres away. You you have to have the whole 15 acres to do that.

Waiting for later, you guys put commercial on here, this property, to bring in more money. When I was here a couple of weeks ago, you did a meeting for a commercial property. It was just a parking lot. I didn't feel that meant the codes either because it didn't create any jobs. That's one of the considerations you guys talked about. An empty parking lot with boats parked on it doesn't. So, you know, I don't know how many jobs this is going to create. It's going to create jobs when it's building. You know what I mean? But if they don't build anything out front, maybe someone's sitting in that building out back, you know, taking care of the pool and stuff, but really no jobs I see.

I didn't hear what school these people would be going to. I think when they make a presentation, people should know what grammar school the people will be going here. That's 155 units. I know right down the street from here, we talked about this at the last morning. There's big signs up free rent. Remember we're talking about you guys bought up the, you know, cost of living, and and there's no, this isn't cheap rent. I don't know what the proper word is because I don't know what affordable rent is. I'm gonna be honest with you. But people down the street can't fill up their apartments now, and they have signs up free rent. I don't know how much this is needed in our area is what I'm saying.

You go, I'm going by what your laws are. So I don't know if it meets that. But again, they own the property, so they should be able to do something. That's why some of these laws don't make sense. But if you're gonna hold some parties where they don't have to create jobs on commercial property and let them just put down a parking lot, then I don't know how you can turn because this definitely brings in more tax money than that commercial property ever would.

And that was on five acres, I think, or something. I could be wrong because I didn't pay attention to how big that lot was. And I don't know how much money a parking lot brings in compared to a building. I bet you, originally, that plot was supposed to be a hotel or something next to the highway. So I I don't know what the right usage of this property is. They own the property. They should be able to do what they want. But if you're gonna have these laws, you have to follow. And I think that's why a lot of people are mad at you, is there's a lot of laws that you don't follow, and some you follow, and some you give up. And that's the problem here. That's all I have to say.

JAMES Debbie McDowell?

Good evening again, Debbie McDowell. Yes, I have been sworn. Commissioners, miss Elena, miss Laurie, hold on to your seat, please. I agree with the presentation given by staff 100%. This property is zoned commercial.

The permit was put in before the rezone. The purpose of the rezone was to get more commercial. If this special exception is granted, you just contradicted yourselves. We do not need a 155 residential properties, dwelling units on commercial property. There is no guarantee that the commercial component, those four acres, is ever going to be built because there is no timeline.

There's no requirement. Just because a developer is here requesting a special favor because that's what a special exception is does not mean the commission has to approve it. There are reasons that staff gave you that you can deny it, And I truly hope you guys will deny this application just like PZAP recommended you do.

Ray Jarris.

I have not been sworn.

Okay. No problem.

Where are

you in?

Can you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to provide is true and accurate to the best of your knowledge to help you God? I do. Thank you.

My name is Raymond Jarris. I live on Fairlane. I drive by this property probably twice or three times a day to get to my doctor, to get to Publix grocery store, to get where I need to go. This is a residential neighborhood. It's been residential for twenty five years as long as I've been there. We have empty houses that were permitted and built before the hurricane Ian that are still empty and sitting on my street. To put 150 units of apartment buildings there will totally change the neighborhood. It'll be a different neighborhood. I can't move. I'm too old.

I'm too set. I have my house and it's paid for and I'm not moving. But if you do this, you're gonna destroy that neighborhood. This property has waterfront that not waterfront that's wetland down it. It has drainage on it. The last hurricane, we had three feet of water in a street that's never flooded before by my house. I was that far from having my house flooding. The more you cover with concrete, the more you're gonna destroy the drainage in that area. And the more apartment buildings you put, the more you're gonna ruin that neighborhood period. It'll never be the same.

It'll be horrendous traffic. You can't get down Toledo Blade now. You can't get back up. If somebody comes off the freeway at 05:00 at night, there's a probably a mile long traffic jam at Price And Toledo Blade. And that traffic continues all the way up to 41. And I I can't go anywhere. Can you go down 41? Any of you. Can you go down 41 during rush hour or I 75 for that matter? My doctor is on I 75 in Laurel.

I can't get there anymore because every day there's an accident on I 75 due to the overpopulation and overdevelopment to this area. I can't get down 41 for the same reason. And now you wanna bring more people, more development, more apartment buildings. I understand that Northport has the highest rate of permitted apartment buildings in the country, not Florida in the country. It's just what we really need for our quality of life.

When I first moved here, I could sit outside, have coffee on my lanai and listen to the birds and have peace and quiet. Now all I hear is dump trucks going up and down my street, up and down, Toledo Blade, up and down Hillsboro. My fire station, I don't have a fire station by my house. You close the fire station, you closed Price Road most of the time. If I had a fire at my house, who's gonna put my fire out? Who's gonna handle this apartment built complex? There's no fire stations there. You have to build another fire station. Do you want that expense? This gentleman said that they could build a strip center there.

If it was so profitable, why don't they? It's actually more profitable to put up a park with buildings and just to get the rent for the apartment buildings and just build the streets in. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

That is all the cards I received. However, I thought we had some other parties that maybe wanted to comment. No?

Nobody's really prepared to read the petition if you guys want to make sure. You

can submit a public comment card if you like. Okay. Yeah. But we have

some other first or

Just you just fill out the comment card.

And I know she stood to be sworn in

the beginning of this.

So Yeah. Perfect. Thank you.

My name is Michelle Buston, and I am one of the owners of, Turnberry Trace. And I I understand, you know, we want growth and we want, you know, to keep the city building, and it's wonderful. We love it here. But I have to agree with two things with the safety. It is hard to get down these streets. Are you going to come up with a plan to make sure that you can get us in and out of our area? And the other thing I'm really concerned about is our water. We have no water in our retention pot. You're gonna put in another apartment building and again, the concrete, we what are we gonna do about our water? Again, I'm worried about fires.

I'm worried about this stuff. And I'm also wondering if anyone's even done a study to see how many of the apartment buildings that are in Northport are actually filled. If there are that many that I you know, we need it, we need it. But do we? And I I would really love to know if that was found out first before we agree to more apartments. That's that's all I really have.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you. Thank you.

That is

all, mister mayor.

Thank you, sir. Moving on to commission questions and discussions. Commissioner Stokes, you're in the queue first.

Thank you, mayor. Thank you, miss Barnes, for your presentation. Thank you, applicant, for yours. Thank you for all the public commenters on this item. I'll be real brief. This doesn't comply with the old comp plan or ULDC. It doesn't comply with the new ULDC or comp plan, and I will not be supporting this applicant's request. Thank you. That's all I have, mayor.

Thank you. Vice mayor, you're next.

Thank you, mayor. The need for commercial development in this city to serve our residents is so overwhelmingly competitive and required that I I have to agree with our planning and zoning advisory board and with staff that that this rezoning application should not move forward. So I will not be supporting it. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner DeBall.

Thank you, mayor. Our detail met and discussed this and they recommended denial. Our staff recommends denial. It is an exception. We have rules and making exceptions.

And with all the things I look at, a 155 new residences, but no new jobs to go with them. When I campaigned for office, I stood on the corner of Toledo Blade at the last stoplight before he got on 75, and I watched thousands of people leave this city to go to work every day. We need jobs in here, and we have concentrated on that idea of getting a higher percentage of commercial here so that the people who live here can stay here, which will help cut down on traffic on 75 and the other major thoroughfares. So I also will not be supporting this exception. Thank you.

Alright. That's all I see in the queue. I'll move on to closing arguments. Staff, you're first.

Thank you, mayor. As per the comprehensive staff report, staff is recommending denial. The proposed use is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed use is is detrimental to the health, safety, welfare, morals, order, comfort, convenience, appearance, or prosperity of the neighborhood or adjacent uses and is not an economic benefit to the city. And as submitted, without the Woodhaven Drive turn lane, the proposed use would affect traffic flow safety or control on the surrounding roadway system.

So staff does appreciate your consideration and recommendation for denial for this project. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Applicant, closing argument?

Thank you, mayor, madam, assistant mayor, commissioners, and just wanna say, appreciate, staff being so helpful. It's been a long process. I will we do understand, your comments. Again, just we think that it's a more compatible use instead of going all commercial. I would note that we did go back and forth with staff over the years about just applying the CT standards.

It is large enough to accommodate. I know that staff stated that it can't achieve the c g state or excuse me, the c t current standards. We just didn't design it that way as we move forward with the c g. There was points in time that certain staff said, stay with c g. And then we had another one that would say, go with commercial trans CT.

So it went back and forth, then it just got so far along that we wanted to stay the path that was proposed. We did appreciate staff working with us. It's been so long. I would note again that it is permitted, for commercial. As staff stated, if they want to apply the c d CT standards, they can't achieve that for mixed use.

It would come back before the board, as well as corridor transitional uses do allow the 50 feet in height. It is a large site. And for what it's worth, they are proposing market rate. Special exceptions have time limits here in the city. If for some reason they did a market study and it wasn't worth building, you retain that commercial designation. It's not being rezoned. It's a special exception to allow multifamily residential use on that. So should they not move forward, if it didn't make sense, they wouldn't build it and it would go back to commercial. The proposed plan creates a binding effect for that portion of the property to build residential. I believe it's an eighteen month time limit.

Should they not move forward, that would expire, and it remains commercial. So we're not changing that. And then just for what it's worth, it does qualify for Live Local. They're proposing, as you know, what can be proposed with that as far as mixed use development approved by Wright, higher densities, higher building heights, it does meet that criteria. It would qualify. This is a modest approach to what could be built there today and realistically, it's what could be built in the future. But respectfully request approval and appreciate your time this evening. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm gonna close this public hearing and request a motion to make it.

Go ahead. I move to deny resolution number twenty four six dash r dash 20 as presented.

Second. I have a motion on the floor made by commissioner Stokes to deny resolution number twenty twenty six dash r dash 20 as presented. And I know it was a coin toss, but I did hear vice mayor second that. So if there's nothing to that, please vote. And that passes five to zero. The has been denied. Alright. We're gonna take a ten minute break before we get into the next one because I'm sure we're gonna have lots of comments and stuff. So if anybody needs to use the restroom.

Alright. Back in business.

We're back in session. Moving on to general business item a 26Dash0650. Discussion and possible action regarding mandatory potable water service connection. City manager, this is your item, sir.

Thank you, mister mayor. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this item. First, I wanna apologize to the commission for our memo dated March 26 that did not reach you from my office prior to the community receiving their notifications. Staff prepared communication on this process, and this should have come to you before it went to our residence, and it didn't. And that breakdown is on myself.

Second to our residents, many of whom are here or watching, I under understand the frustration. My apologies for not providing better communication to you as well. Hurricane Ian recovery dominated city operations for a long time, and now the staff is restarting this process, the communication sequence mistake has made the timing feel harsher than it needed to. The letter felt abrupt, and I understand why it did not sit well. Let me separate what has become two blended conversations on the letter.

This item tonight is not the septic sewer expansion program. That expansion project remains in design and has its own funding strategy, incentives, and future decisions. Tonight's discussion is about something different. It's about the mandatory portable water connection once service becomes available tied to water distribution or looping projects as we call them, some of which date back to 2016. It's not a new policy.

The requirement to connect when water is available has existed in the city code for years since 1992. Our city code mandates it, not the actual state. What is new in this process is that the process was restarted after a long recovery period when the end of the state of the emergency of the city ended from hurricane Ian, which lasted a a very long amount of time, but it just ended a few months ago. So once it ended, staff started and restarted the outreach, and we did not execute communications in the sequence that

we should have.

So prior to sending out the letter to approximately 500 residents, utilities and communications worked together to to develop the letter, update our web page, and frequently asked questions in preparation for your questions. So let me clarify what residents are being asked to do. So when portable water becomes available, property owners have three hundred and sixty five days to connect with the city to come up with a plan for how you want to move forward. That current cost is approximately $12,600, which does include capacity fees, line extension fees, and meter installation. The capacity fees support long term system infrastructure, and the line extension fees are recovering for install previously infrastructure costs.

Residents are also responsible for the private side of plumbing costs. But to offset this, the city offers thirty year financing online extension and capacity fees, a one year financing option for the meter fee, and there are deferral options for qualifying homeowners under hardship provisions. It's important to note that every home that has connected in the past and every new home being built today pays these same categories of fees. It's not a new charge structure. But the resident's feeling justified.

Really frustrated. I understand. The question is what level of relief can we responsibly provide while still protecting the financial integrity of the utility system? So staff is asking for commission direction on practical targeted relief options. There can be an extension of the compliance period.

There can be waiving of the administrative fees tied to financing, and we hope hope that they will evaluate whether to reduce or waive a portion of the line extension fee in this specific situation. What we do not recommend at this time is broadly waiving the capacity fees as those are directly tied to maintaining and expanding the system and will require further legal and financial analysis. If the commission does choose to modify the fee, we need some direction on who qualifies, what the criteria are, who approves those determinations, whether this only applies to this group or future projects, and how we address equity with residents who have already paid. And we will execute that direction the right way at this time with the proper communication sequence handle. Thank you, mister mayor.

We're happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. That was my team. Yes.

We're moving on to commissioner questions and discussion, and I know that commissioner Stokes was the one that put this on this agenda. So you have the floor first, sir.

Thank you, mayor. Yeah. I mean, this is tough. This, as city manager explained, is separate apart from the water sewer expansion program. This is a looping system which addresses water quality.

There are a whole lot of good technical reasons why this is not a bad idea for those people who like public water and sewer. My problem with it is that speed mandated. Prior to my getting on this commission, I believe it was October '22, a month before, I believe this came before commission. And it bothered me at the time that people were being mandated. What about that person or that family who spends a lot of money on their septic and wells and they're operating fine?

Where's the compensation for that? Why should they be required? I appreciate that the state has mandated by law. One day, we will all be on public water and sewer, and I get the reasons why they did it. Let them pay

for it.

Not us.

But that said, my problem is in the here and now, we're asking people in this economy, unlike four or five years ago where the world was a different world than it is today, I think it's way onerous. I would like to see that for anybody who voluntarily wanted to within the next three hundred and sixty five days could add in cost one half of the 12,000 the city's asking. Because after all, if you're in an area where water and sewer expansion is going to take place, I believe the cost is capped somewhere around $56,000. Here, we're asking folks to pay twice that. So I would suggest, and certainly would love to hear what my fellow commissioners have to say about cutting this number in half.

I don't care how you divide it up among the three fees. That's for staff to figure out. Half the price, optional for the first 365 days. If you wish to, you can and you reap the benefit of this discounted 50% off. If not, at some point in time, if if future commissions ever decide they're gonna mandate it, so be it. This, as I understand it, is code. We actually have the ability to change that code. It's not state law. So that's my recommendation. That's the way I see a pathway forward to be a little more reasonable.

And it allows people to opt in or not opt in. And I appreciate that some of the money that these fees would go to would be to help maintain these systems. So I I question whether or not when the calculations were made, did they include just rooftops that exist or did they include every lot? I'd love to hear from utilities on that. Trish, did you I mean, do you know the question I'm asking?

I'm In other words, when say the capacity fee was calculated, was it based on saying, alright. It takes so many years to retrofit, refix, upgrade, or whatever. So let's say there's an x amount of dollars and the life of this system, the the pipes that have been run already or so many years based on the number of households of properties that presently exist, if you figure it all out and came up with the number, did it take into account every empty lot as well that has not yet been built on?

Yes, sir. It took into account and Tricia wasn't our utilities director. We recently had that rate study. When we did the presentation, the rate study looked at the next so many years. And based upon what we forecasted to be the demand on the system and what the plant would need to do to produce the water to meet that demand, that was what was calculated into the capacity fees. So the capacity fees go to maintaining the plant, the line extension fees are for the work to design and implement and install the pipes that are in the ground, and those are different. But

when the capacity fee calculation was made

Yes.

And you figured out how many dollars it would take to maintain and upgrade or maintain that system And you have to figure out how much each individual property owner was gonna be charged. Was it based on the number of properties that exist right now or based on the potential full build out of this loop?

It was based on what the cost is to supply a normal house with water. So it's it's it's the equivalent residential unit. So when they look at how much water a house typically takes and the work to bring the water in, clean the water, pump it back out, get it to the house, all of the machinery in in the route, that's the fair share for that much water in the pieces and parts of the system. So we weren't calculating to get to an end dollar amount, we were calculating to cover costs. So it's not quite based on rooftops, it's based on how much it costs to build a system that would provide that much water to a home.

But when you look at the the lines are already run. So they've never connected the houses, but they're run.

That's different, if I may. That's the line extension fee. That's a different fee. So you're talking capacity fees. The line extension fee was set by this commission in the ordinance of twenty twenty two dash twenty four. That's a different fee. That's that $7,000 fee. That's that's a different fee. The capacity fee that you're discussing is similar to impact fees. That was created through the methodology, the rate study, where they evaluated the cost to serve, basically.

How much does it cost for us to make enough water at the plant to make sure the plant is functioning, to make sure all of the pieces and parts of the house are functioning to serve a normal resident. The fee is different. A capacity fee is different for a resident than it is for a commercial property because there's more demand. So that's where it kinda stacks up just very similar to an impact fee, but it's called capacity fee because it makes sure that there is going to be room in the plant when we need to serve water.

Again, that said, you know, I I have to say that the number is just two way. If it were me, I would be going out of my mind just like these people are going out of their minds. I I I do not support this. I don't care if we have to change the code. I don't know what we need to do, but I have to say my I would love to hear what my fellow commissioners have to say because because my thoughts run along the line of making this one voluntary. Two, you got 365 to opt in at 50% of the twelve six. The city will have to figure it out. Future commissions will have to figure out where the money will come from. I still don't understand all the math here. Okay?

And I'm not sure I'm convinced on all the math here. But the bottom line is, I can tell you, I couldn't afford it. I wouldn't pay it. And I don't expect these people to pay it. And I'm not going to support it. So I want to hear your questions.

Please. City manager, you're in the queue.

So Thank you, mayor. Just one clarification. The state did not mandate water and sewer. They only mandated sewer.

Correct. Right.

Clarifying with David that was just saying.

Alright. Thank you. They can pay for that. Vice mayor, you're

next. One: Thank you, mayor. Ideally, the hookup to city water or sewer, for that matter, should take place at the time the dwelling is built. And that way, the cost is incorporated into the price of the home just in the same way a well or a septic system, the cost of that is, built into the price of the home. But the way I look at it, we have a very we have three different scenarios going on here somewhat simultaneously.

So I feel the need to split some hairs, so bear with me. First off, we have homes that were built before water was available. In this situation, I agree with Commissioner Stokes 100% that the tie in should be optional. I'm sure there are some homes in those 400 homes that would love to be on city water, and they'll opt in, to tie in. That's great.

Some won't. I I don't believe we should force them. Now, when that property changes hands, when it's sold, when the title changes, then something needs to happen at that point to cover the costs of providing, water and and utilities to city residents. The second situation is homes that haven't been built yet, empty lots where water is available, definitely mandatory tie in, no wells. They'll have access to water.

They'll need to tie into water. That's very, very clean in my mind. But then we have this odd situation of homes that were built after the water was available, and they didn't tie in. I don't know how many homes that is of the 400, and I have no desire to play a blame game at this point. But I look at that group of residents or or homes as being similar to group one.

I don't believe they should be forced to tie in. The homes are relatively new, and the price of their homes, they already paid for for, a well and and septic. How do we compensate them for that? This is a sticky situation in my mind. So I'll smarter people than me to figure that one out, but I also don't believe that those folks should be required to tie in.

Or there should be a time frame or a trigger. Let's say their well fails. At that point, again, I don't know the legalities of it. Trish, you're a lot smarter than I am in this area. But maybe if the well fails, then there's a requirement to tie in.

And if I may, you know, the question is why are we doing this now, right? There's been a lot of looping projects. And if we can just step back a second for a little bit of context. So we blame GDC for a lot of things, but this is GDU, GDC kind of. When they were building the city, they built water distribution system kind of in spurs.

So instead of being a nice systematic system where it's thoughtful, they kind of jutted off into different places that ended in a bunch of dead ends. The dead ends, unfortunately, result in poor water quality. So when you drive around the city and you see the fire hydrants going at full blast for two days, that's because we're forced to take water that we have cleaned and pumped and put money into, and we're dumping it on the ground, which is really not a great resource use. So we've done some of these looping projects. The looping projects themselves help.

However, if you're not drawing the water from that loop, really not making the benefit, we'll still have to be dumping a lot of water. Maybe not as much, but we will be dumping water because we're not having the movement within the loop. So we've completed capital improvement projects with funding from SwiftMUD to improve our water use, our water quality, and reduce our lost water. And by not having these connections, we are very much negating the improvements that we have put in place. So that's one thing to keep in mind.

Another thing is, as we're developing throughout the city and more and more wells are going in, those wells are, you know, maybe 30 feet deep. Our water supply is a 300 foot deep well, and we're also getting water from the Myakahitchie Creek. The city has resources that will provide water to residents as needed. However, if you're on a well and your well goes dry, it's not likely that you'll be right next to a line that's already been installed. It's more likely that you might be three miles away from a line and we won't be able to be installing that line to you.

So that means you are now in a situation where there may not be a viable well for you. And as we continue to draw from the aquifers, we're gonna start to see this more and more. That is a concern. That is one of the reasons for this. This by having people that are within the area that we can serve use this water, it does leave water for the residents that we do not currently have the ability to serve.

So keeping all those things in mind, we understand this is a difficult conversation. We understand this is an expense. There are values that come from having water, city water, including not having to work on your well, replace pumps, and there's typically a value for resale for your home value. But we're open to suggestions.

I I appreciate that, miss Wissner. And, typically, I'm a big supporter of the city really covering its costs for delivering services. But I just have a really tough time of forcing it on people who don't want it, particularly those whose homes were built before the water was available in their area. So, I would much prefer to again, new homes being built should have to tie in, no question. But for the other two groups, I would rather see more educational outreach.

I think in the concern about having these costs forced on them I think a lot of people really didn't look at some of the options, the ability to finance it over a long period of time. And I think when people stop to think about it, homes that are already hooked up will sell faster and at a higher price to a comparable home that's still on a well. And and I I understand the cost requirements to the city. I think part of the reason we're in the pickle we are with our infrastructure is in the past, we didn't collect enough through impact fees and other fees to keep the costs whole. But I look at it as my job to try to balance the being fair to the community and trying to keep the city whole in terms of what it spends to deliver quality service.

I know that people who have city water I always think of Commissioner White, every time she had the opportunity to say she's so happy she's on city water. And I think other people will be, too, if they have the time to really consider it and think about it and have conversations with staff about it. But I just can't support mandating it. Now, I would be open to incentives if maybe for people who connect within a certain period of time, they get a discount. I'm not sure it's 50%.

I'm not sure that that deep a discount keeps the city whole or even 80% whole. But I would be very open to our taking a look at other incentives that would make it easier for people financially to consider, hook again. So I suspect if if we give people time to consider it, do more informational sessions with people so that they really understand the benefits and the importance of going to city water, and maybe provide some incentives and make it more optional, I suspect I don't know about you. But I think, for me, the being forced is worse than figuring out the cost of it and the benefit to me as a homeowner to do it. So I'm not going to repeat myself.

I think I got my point across. But I'm not quite where Commissioner Stokes is. But I'm much more open to incentives and just keep giving people time to consider and not really making it mandatory. I can't imagine when I do my morning walks, I'll have some of those rotten eggs, people irrigating their lawns with well water. I can imagine someone not wanting to stay on a well.

But I know people have put in reverse osmosis osmosis. I hate these late meetings. I lose my tongue. You know, a lot of cost to try to mitigate the awful well water. But again, I think with time and working with people individually, I think most people would get there. I don't know. Am I wrong? Anyway, I've talked to

them. Question.

Yes, sir.

Hopefully, you have the answer. When these looping projects began with the line extensions, why were those lines extended in the first place?

They were noted they were identified as areas that would increase the water quality and reduce water loss by making that connection.

So it wouldn't have anything to do with any developments or schools or anything like that needing city water to have those lines put out there. And the reason I asked that is I looked at the maps and specifically looked at Haverland. We have development out there. We have schools out there. They're on city water.

And now the residents that are abutting that are now being forced to add into that looping project. So I'm just curious and maybe something to look at in the future whenever a development takes place, then maybe they should make the cost of the line extension and at no cost to the citizens whatsoever. And and another thing about the line extension, I believe that's $7,000 in in approximately on what the cost factors was. Each house is either 80 by one twenty or let's say a 100 foot of line in front of their house is now costing them $7,000. To me, I and this goes back to where commissioner Stokes was talking about 50%.

I would eliminate the line extension fee because it's way too big. Because it's already existing. It's not that we're putting it out there now. It's there. It's been there.

We're forcing well, trying to mandate the citizens to hook up to it at this point. So yes, capacity fees, hookup fees, that's fine. But let's get back to the city water, city sewer that we're talking about that the state has mandated the sewer part of it. We had commission discussions up here, and I believe we brought it down with grants this, that, and the other to $5,400 ish, Some are commissioner Stokes said between 5 and $6. So if we were to mandate these individuals to be put on city water at this time, it should be, in my opinion, at the same exact price.

And then when sewer is available, that's already included. They've already paid for it. So if they're paying $5,400 just like City Water City Sewer that we mandated at a discount, these citizens should have that same exact benefit. Because what are we really doing? We're expanding our services to new customers. So that's where I'm at on this. And another thing, I am not in agreement of the administration fee of $10 a month for the utility department to do their job in billing. I'm sorry. I just I can't sit with that either. And I'm not picking on nutrition.

Picking everything that's in this because, believe me, when I went to Walmart, I got an ear So I just wanted to let you know this is where I And I want the rest of the commissioners to put their ideas together. And hopefully, we can come up with some sort of solution. So that's all I had. Dimitri or Commissioner Petro, you're next.

Thank you, mayor. Of course, the notification letters were sent out to nearly 400 people, I believe, about the mandatory water hookup. The commission had no idea about this. The commission still was uninformed until mid of April. Sadly to say, I've learned a lot about this issue from the residents and not from the city manager or his office. So my question is why do we have this discussion now and not before?

That's a great question. First, you have made this a strategic pillar within it's number six, within the infrastructure and facilities integrity section of the strategic plan, is to continue the looping projects. The looping projects have come before the commission as capital improvement projects for many, many years with the discussion that there would be connection associated with that. They have also come forward when we would bring forward the construction contracts and agreements for approval. So all of those items have come before commission.

Commission in, 2022 through ordinance twenty twenty two dash 24 discussed the fees and charges associated with these kinds of connections. So in total, providing the fees and charges, providing that it's a strategic plan initiative, a priority, providing guidance on the capital improvement plans, really provided the outline for the goal for the commission to increase people connected to water, in this case, and water and sewer through the strategic plan.

Thank you. It's just by looking at the memo that was sent out to commission. I think the date was March 19. But we didn't get the memo until mid April, And that's the question I have. But there shouldn't be a proper order of events. First, we have this agenda item before the mandatory letters. But I appreciate the apology, city manager. I really do because it's it should be a proper order of events. But I just wanted to be clear that this codification of this mandatory hookup was, I believe, 2022, you said?

No. Sir, commissioner, was the last time we talked about it publicly. It's been in your code since 1992. Mhmm. And it says shall hookup, not may. Shall. And that's a code that the city commission is responsible for, not city staff.

Mhmm. So we, as the board, we can make as commissioner Stokes said, we can make our own adjustment to that code, if I understood correctly. But I do believe that I do believe in options. I do believe in options. And reading the legislative text and looking at the pros and cons, I I couldn't help but notice that, you know, there are three options.

And I'll go with this option number two. And it says eliminate mandatory portable connection requirement. So if anyone wants to be connected as the line goes past his or her house, let them do it. If people don't want it, let them use the wealth that they have, that they invested in. And this is just my take and this is my view.

I did a study and looked at the pros and cons. And you are correct by saying it has to be flushed. Hydrants would have to be flushed. But the residential units would not be in that capacity to do so. You still have to do flushing if it's a dead end flushing.

Or if the line stops at the dead end, you still have to flush it. It might not be as much, but it is to protect water quality maintenance and hydrant functionality, preventing stagnation. And that, you know, the amount, and I wrote down something. Flushing pushes these materials out at a high speed to keep, the water safe and clear, which is not possible to do at the residential level. There are not many capacities, you know, all the showerheads and all the faucets, they have the control of a flow regulated by EPA.

So

If I may. Sure. We wouldn't expect the water pressure and water use from one resident to equal when we're flushing a hydrant. What happens is because there's constant movement throughout the line, instead of the data and stagnation, we don't have the need to

we don't have

the water quality issue that requires that kind of flushing. It's just the actual movement that keeps it going instead of the dead end. So it doesn't need to be the same volume or velocity. It just needs to keep moving.

Correct. And people do not tap into the main, the water just keeps flowing. That's my take. Maybe I'm not an engineer, but

It's a demand system, so it would still it would come when it's being pulled. So if there's no pull on the line, it's going to stop and stagnate again.

So in conclusion, I can say that I'm in, in agreement with commissioner Stokes, commissioner, the mayor, to some extent, vice mayor. I would not charge even the house that is up on for sale and would not mandate even that. Only if they choose. And we can go even further and make an ordinance saying that it is volunteer connection if people choose. Let let it be protected because, you know, down the line, the commission says, yes.

Let's do mandatory again. We're gonna be at the same spot as we are right now. So I'm I'm going a step further to protect our citizens and residents from being mandated and forcing against their will to connect. But if they choose so, let them let them do it. But that's my my take on this. Thank you.

Mr. Duvall.

Thank you, mayor. I agree and disagree with a lot of statements that have been made so far. Tricia, I have one question for you. This is for the members of the public that are here. We have a city code 78Dash31.

That's what covers this. And in there, my question to you, as I followed it through reading it, I got down to to a seventy eight thirty one parenthesis b parenthesis three, small letter g, parenthesis I, and it talks about early connection incentive. And that incentive said that that 7,000, you know, dollar fee for the piping, if people signed up early,

that would go away.

And it's hard for me to say that, gee, people knew about this early, and they could have applied early, and they wouldn't have to pay this fee. That just doesn't it doesn't compute with me.

If I may, there's a there's a couple nuances that need to be evaluated when you're looking at the code first. This section of I'm sorry. If I may, there's a couple of nuances that need to be considered when you're looking at that section of code first. Most of the projects were done before this part of the code was implemented on 10/25/2022. So it would be a moot point for those.

However, while it's not clean and we're working on code revisions, the term expansion project is defined up above where it talks about the line extension charge. And it states that the expansion project basically is that sewer project that was really being talked about at the time when this ordinance came forward. If you look at the whereas clauses in the ordinance, the whereas clauses in the ordinance really talked to the 44,000 septic tanks, and that was considering when they did this. Unfortunately, they said the expansion project, in the code, in quotes, making it reference back to that septic expansion project. That's what's been called the neighborhood expansion project.

All of that has really been about the sewer or the septic to sewer project. These are little looping projects. They are not the same thing. They are not that nine hundred year expansion plan that has been accepted by the commission. That is a wholly different plan.

These are small CIP projects to address water quality. So while there's some room for improvement in the code, if you look through it, it appears that those that wouldn't have applied here anyway. But first and foremost, this code wasn't in place when the projects happened. There would be no way to provide forward notice because there was no need for forward notice at the time the projects happened. So kind of a dual discussion point there, lets us know that we need to clean up the code, but it could be something that would be considered in the future.

Thank you.

Again, someone's already mentioned this. The way the letter went out to the public, they're offered the ability to finance this for thirty years with no interest. But there is that $10 a month maintenance fee, which, you know, over thirty years comes to $3,000, you know, that's that sounds like interest to

me. Yeah.

I'd like to see that go away. And if there is, you know, that early connection incentive in some place in our code for some places that I think that should be available to some Also people for the people that are here listening, there are programs available to help. There is a ship program Help primary. Which is a possibility. There my point being here is to have people that need help ask for it.

I don't know if my fellow commissioners got all the same emails I did, but I got one from a lady who has autoimmune diseases. She can't drink water out of a plastic bottle. She has the RO, the, you know, reverse osmosis system installed in her home. And so this is something that, you know, City Water, she wouldn't be able to to use, you know, for a woman, for a person like that, you know, I have sympathy and I and I'd like for them to have some options. And from the city's viewpoint, I understand, you know, one of the worst things for anything mechanical and even some electrical things is to not be used.

You put your car in a garage for thirty years, just leave it there and don't use it. I guarantee you, it will not start when you try. And with the water, the flow. Okay? We need that flow to help keep that water at good quality.

And water in this state is going to be at a premium in the future years. You know, and for us to be flushing if we do not need to and wasting water in that way, I'd like to see that avoided. I also see, like commissioner Stokes mentioned in the beginning, this is expensive. Cutting this in half, you know, which comes back to that $7,000 piping fee. You know, to get rid of that would make it a lot more palatable to me.

You know, cutting down fees, offering that option of the thirty years as vice mayor mentioned, I believe it was, getting to the point of when the house is sold. Okay? Not connect now, but when that house is sold to a new owner, then those fees have to be paid, then that connection has to be made. Those are my thoughts on it.

Thank you.

Thank you. Before I move back to you, Commissioner Stokes, I had a quick question that popped in because there was a lot of rumors going around where if this was mandated and they were hooking up to city water. A lot of people were discussing that their wells had to be capped, and they could no longer use them. And I know that when we discussed the wastewater sewer, they could keep their wells for irrigation and such and stuff like that. I just wanted that on the record.

Yes, sir. For clarification, they would complete a permit to switch it from a potable well to an irrigation well and would be able to continue to use that well.

Okay. Commissioner Stokes.

Yeah. To try to pull this all together a little bit, obviously, communication, as city manager said, could have certainly been better than it was. There was a long lag time. This is a long standing program. That does not mean after x amount of years of dormancy, it should be launched on everybody with a letter. And certainly, commission should have been briefed ahead. That was an error, a mistake, whatever. All that said, that doesn't address the issue at hand. The issue at hand is simple. You made a compelling argument for why loop systems are important.

Water quality is important for the same reasons commissioner Duvall mentioned. I got no problem with any of that. But the people who are being forced who are potentially being forced to hook up to this shouldn't have to pay for it as far as I'm concerned. Find another find another way to maintain your system, to do whatever we gotta do here. But the reality is, if you wanna voluntarily hook up, it shouldn't cost you any more than it would cost you if you were in some other area that didn't have water and sewer, and all of a sudden, we're putting water and sewer, and we cap the fee at five or six square.

The cost double doesn't, in my mind, make any sense at all. And, you know, yet I appreciate the value of why it's important to do this. I just don't think anybody should be forced to have to do this if they don't want to do it. And so I will be making a motion after we hear public comment, and then we can beat it to death and try to figure out something that's a fair, reasonable compromise. But, you know, we will deal with this. That's all I got.

Vice mayor.

Thank you, mayor. I I'm really uncomfortable comparing the cost of this project with what we discussed with the neighborhood expansion many years ago. I In all honesty, while I loved the $5,000 price tag and wished that my neighborhood that I think we'll get to in 2153 was first on the list, I always questioned our ability to deliver on that promise. And given what has happened with inflation all the things that have occurred in the past three or four years, I highly doubt that at some point, when a future commission takes a look at that program, that they're going to be able to meet that number. I'm also I'm really concerned because I know in the past commissioners with were all good people with good hearts and wanted to give our residents the very best deal they could for, services and programs from the city, over the years, we didn't do ourselves any favor.

I mean, any resident who's looked at our CIP lists and and how much the the the need to improve our infrastructure, I just I wanna make this as easy and affordable as our rest for our residents as possible. But I don't want to do something today that forces the city to incur costs that we can't even be near to recouping. So for me, I'm way open to incentives and maybe reducing some of the costs for people who take the leap and make their decision of what they want to do in the first three sixty five days. I'd love to give those people a big break, but I don't wanna do something that is gonna handicap the city to continue to provide water at a high quality and at, a good level of intensity. And I fear that we would be doing that if we get too aggressive.

But something that balances things a little bit, maybe the, you know, the city cut some of those costs for people who connect early, I'm wide open to that. I really don't want to specify that tonight. I would like to see some suggestions and maybe a couple of financial models. What would it look like? I also would like to see us do some mini workshops and offer them to the 400 households that are impacted.

When we first found the funding and really started moving ahead with the price widening project, wow, was was there an upheaval of people worried and concerned about that? But we did a bunch of community workshops where people could really see where they were living and and had all of their questions answered. And so for a lot of folks, the concerns that they had going in were addressed, and they felt a lot more comfortable. So again, this is 400 households. It doesn't quite have the same range of impact as the widening of price.

But to offer an opportunity for our residents to sit down with utilities in the way they could, when we did the road expansion, I think would be enormously helpful in helping people decide how to proceed and allaying their concerns. So again, I wouldn't want to mandate what that incentive would be or to what level would we cut the cost of it. Because again, I don't want to impair the city's ability to continue to provide a high quality of water to its customers. And and my fear is we would be doing that.

Okay. Commissioner Stokes.

Yeah. I mean, certainly, having community I mean, remembering that that this goes back this code goes back to the nineties. Okay? Recognizing that I have no real conceptual problem with community get togethers and town halls and workshops and you name it. But when the day is done and all the discussions are finished, even if all those folks who have come out to listen agree that, by god, these closed loop systems are really a darn good thing to do. And as far as your water quality goes,

this

is the right thing for the city to want to do. I don't want to pay for it. And I shouldn't have to pay for it, and I shouldn't have to pay more than what someone's going to pay if they're brand new somewhere else in the city and are getting hooked up for the first time at a cap of $6,500 or whatever the number is. It's just not right. It should be voluntary. We need to change the code. That's what we need to do is change the code. You wanna spend the next 365 days having workshops. I'm good with that. That's all I do is work for the city.

I'll go to workshop every day. I'm good with it. But for three sixty five days, anyone who wants to opt in ought to be able to do it at half the price or whatever number we come up with. But it shouldn't be mandatory, and we need to change the code. Because otherwise, as vice mayor said, some other commission's gonna come along here, maybe not feeling like I do, and might decide, no. We're just gonna force you all to do it, and we're gonna be back right where we are now. So I say we need to fix this. That's just my opinion. Thank you.

Commissioner Petro.

Surprisingly, I'm in agreement with Commissioner Stokes 100%.

I'd like to I'm sorry. I just need a little levity

here. Check.

It's just, you know, government likes to overcomplicate things. To me, that's true. Just give people options and make sure those options are qualified. That if they want it, they can do it. If they don't wanna do it, they don't have to do it.

As far as the cost, I looked at that $10 fee. It's just the money making thing. I I'm sorry if if it was mandated. And as and a lot of people are not sure how the board operates, but the board operates by the majority. So if I'm against and four commissioners are for, it's still gonna go for that mandate, for example.

So but I do wanna speak on the $10 fee. I don't think it's it should be done. Even for the people who do voluntarily want to connect, It just adds so much money at like commissioner Duval said, it's over $3,000. But also, I want to propose an ordinance and not just to eliminate mandatory portable connection requirement, but make an ordinance and codify that it should be optional. For the Sur, it's a different story because it's mandated by the state.

We have no control over. But as far as the local level, we represent the people. And I have not met anyone on this issue, not a single person who told me, I would love to connect and pay that fee. Not a single one. And if you find somebody, refer them to me.

I would be happy to talk to them. But if if people would wanted to connect, I wanna address the issue of the fees and You know, it's connecting to the meter and it's called lateral. Right? First, it doesn't have to be that deep as up north where most of the commissions are from below four feet. But it has to be at least 18 or whatever, 20 inches.

So it's not a lot of so to me, when I look at those costs, which is over $16,000, I do get I understand there's a capacity and all that stuff. And, director mentioned about the pressure. Pressure can be adjusted, and it's always adjusted by the number of users. So, but I do believe those fees are ex excessive, to say the least. And we can find efficiencies, to reduce those fees.

And I not only I wanna codify and make it more simple and optional, I also wanna address the fees, which might not be the topic of today today's discussion, for the time's sake. But I don't think we should go on and on and on, but we should make a decision on making this totally optional and eliminate mandatory requirement. This is not fair to everybody for that. You know, if people want it, they will do it. If they don't want it, let them not.

And I'm going in circles, but that's where I stand and that's what I want. Thank you. Got it? Yes.

All right. Well, you all have listened to us. It's now for public comment. City clerk.

All right. We'll start with the e comments here. Kiwanis Club, commissioner in doing hours of research on alternate alternative ways water supply grants. It shows governor DeSantis invested more than 335,000,000 in water supply projects. It shows Lee County received hundreds of millions of dollars in grants.

Has the city applied for this or other grants through Department of Environmental Protection to reduce the cost to customers asked to link to into the city's water system? If not, please postpone this mandatory ordinance. If you can't, please extend the time to hook up for three years along with three years to pay the $2,000. Most importantly, please hold a community meeting at the Shannon Staub Library for questions and answers. Livestream it for others who can't attend.

Please explain everything to to the residents, including a list of licensed plumbers to safeguard them from scams. The neighborhoods impacted have elementary and middle schools with more than 60% of students on free or reduced lunch. Please remember the cost of food, gas, homeowners insurance, health care, and much more is up right now. People don't have an extra $2,000. Perhaps that's where the grants can be utilized. Police commissioners, you could also ask our statewide elected officials to add this to the appropriations list next year while in Tallahassee. Thanks for your consideration of these ideas to help those in need. Next one, w Doe. When will additional loops be added? We need an updated map so people can prepare.

It seems that we can no longer go by the zones on the map online. Also, what happened to the cost going up so much? What is the $10 fee paying for? Next one, Lucas Livingston. I'm a Northport property owner writing in strong opposition to the mandatory water connection requirement. While I did not personally receive a letter, I stand firmly with my 450 neighbors who did and I am deeply concerned about the precedent this sets for all of us. $12,300 is not a small sum. It is not affordable for families on fixed incomes or tight budgets, especially when they already have functioning well water. A thirty year financing plan added to a monthly bill is not a relief. It is a long term financial obligation imposed without consent.

The city's own admission that the original water system was built without a cohesive plan should not become my neighbor's financial punishment. Residents did not create the dead end problem the city did. It is deeply unfair to shift the cost of correcting that planning failure on the private homeowners. Private wells are not a public health threat. Forcing abandonment of working clean water systems to solve an infrastructure inefficiency the city created at the homeowners expense is wrong.

I urge the commission to suspend this mandate, revisit the city code, and pursue voluntary connection incentives instead. Next one, anonymous. Why are 500 homes being selected and forced to pay for infrastructure and extension of the city water system? The selection seemed random. The bottom line cost to a homeowner is a hardship and would be a $1,355 meter, $5,000 plumber, and any other cost to be determined upon installment for a total of 6,300 and repairs to property after dig.

I have a fire hydrant within 100 feet of my house, so that is not a valid argument and great well water, so none of the pros and cons in the memorandum are applicable nor do I benefit for this costly costly infrastructure expansion and having to go into debt to foot the costs. And, of course, now a monthly bill. There must be a better way to fund this without forcing it on 500 residents and require them to carry debt and a financial burden ongoing. Total cost estimate with these figures at best guess are about $17,000. Thank you for your attention.

Next one, William Esource. I'm one of the residents who received a letter stating that I'm being required to pay $12,000 to connect to City When I fact in factor in the connection fee plus the cost of hiring a plumber, I'm looking at roughly $14,500. That's about 10% of what I originally paid for my entire home just for the privilege of connecting to City Water even though my needs are already being fully met by my well and reverse osmosis system. This mandate feels excessive and unfair. It's hard to see how imposing such a costly requirement on fellow Northport residents reflect the values we expect in our community.

My neighbor across the street is facing the same situation. She's a single mother of three daughters and is still recovering financially from hurricane Ian when repairs on her home are not complete. This requirement has caused her significant stress. I moved to the city after leaving the army in 2013, and I've always considered it a great place to live. However, this mandate feels like a slap in the face. For those who want to connect to the city water, that's their choice, but it shouldn't be forced on everyone, especially when existing systems are working just fine. It's frustrating to feel like residents are being penalized simply because the city chose to install infrastructure like a fire hydrant loop for its own convenience. That's it for e comment. Next, have in person, Tim Doyle.

It would be 16% of what I paid for my house. Couple of things that were brought up. To get rid of the, smell, all you need is a charcoal filter outside and you'll get rid of that, smell. Very easy to do, very low cost. I don't know why you're charging for a meter. A meter is part of this system that should be built in just like the pump at the station. So if the person is paying you $1,300 for that meter, do they own it? If the people are paying for the pipes in the ground, do they own it? They're paying for it. But no, you're gonna take it.

So that's really an eighth amendment violation, if you ask me, okay? See that sign up there? It says incorporated. Do you know why you're incorporated? Because you own a water company and a sewer company. You know how you get rid of this? Sell it to the private sector, let them invest the money, and let them charge the fees that it actually costs. See, that's your problem. You're trying to make people pay for their own pipes, and then you're charging them fees. The fees should cover the expansion.

Whatever you bring in every month should pay for this stuff, not large sums. I own 320 feet of road frontage. How much would you gonna cost me when you bring your water and soar down my street? It's a joke. I've been in this room. I think you'll probably charge me over a $100. What a joke. And you putting it on someone when I sell my house, you just killed my value in my house. That drops the value of my house, what, dollars 50,000? What gives you the right to take $50,000 when I go to take my house?

Again, a Native Amendment violation. My electric bill in the winter times about $100.80 dollars In the summer, it's $180 I don't use heat. I'm from New Hampshire. It's not cold enough for heat down here. Okay, so how much of that bill is for my well and sore? $10 a month? So excessive fees and fine comes here under the eighth amendment. How much are you charging me? That's excessive. We need to take these laws to court and break them with the constitution.

You guys are ridiculous. And a permit? I already have a well. You're gonna tell me I have to go file a permit to use my damn well to water my lawn? Sell the water company. Sell the solar company because we're paying pensions for those people. We're paying their salaries. That's in the fee every month too for their pensions. Right? Why don't you let a private company worry about their darn pensions and not us? Is that what you're doing? You're working for the people in the water company and not the people of the town.

Hayos? H a y o s.

Susan Hayes on San Mateo Road. I'm obviously against mandatory. I'm obviously against the fact for $10. I'm obviously against the fact it is $12,000. I'm most against the fact that they were in front of my house for thirteen months building a waterline across San Mateo, which is maybe two miles.

It took them thirteen months. My entire front lawn was completely ruined for that whole time. We never got nervous. All of a sudden, people appeared and started digging. This whole thing has been handled improperly.

I agree with the fact that it Barbara said something about when you have a house and it's got the waterline there, that's one thing. If you've got a house that you wanna buy, then you should put it do it right up front. That's good. But as far as charging people for getting this waterline put in, it's ridiculous. The town has a responsibility by law to provide water. You defaulted on that obligation when my house was built. It's now time for you to pay the bill.

Thank you, ma'am. Joseph Majorino.

Joseph Majorino, 2747 Rebel Lane. Maybe you guys need to you, mister city attorney, they you guys they're not allowed to talk to each other. That's Sunshine Law. Correct? Yeah. They also aren't allowed to talk to employees or he'll sanction them. Is that sunshine law? Because I'm I'm failing to understand how these things get here. Nobody seems to know. The only way is the city manager tells the employee, the employee comes up, puts the thing up, and bang, it's all of a sudden law.

It seems like they're digging in like they dig into the constitution and they have their own interpretation of what's going on. I e, I'll tell you, the geological surveys, you're the attorney, how'd that get passed? Don't know. He made me get a a a a a a an engineer's drawing for my home because they refused to give the concrete guy his permit. Again again, Elena Ray lied. It's not state law until the building goes up. So I may have to pay for that twice now, which he's gonna pay for cause I'm gonna sue him. Maybe you need to pass a a thing. Maybe you guys need to pick up the phone once in a while. Mister Stokes, I agree with some of the stuff you said.

You should pick up the phone and and and maybe straighten out. Maybe there needs to be something else passed. I agree with the water stuff like that. But how did we get here? It's an out of control person that you have and you refuse to stand up and and have a spine. That's the problem I have. You don't have broken fingers and you don't have too much arthritis in your fingers. You could have picked up the phone even with my issue. I didn't have to have the assistant city manager try to throw me out of the building. And by the way, he got rid of him for two reasons, me and he got rid of him because now there's nobody to take his spot if you get rid of him. Thank you.

Lorraine Plant.

I don't really have any statements to make other than I am against the mandate. I think it's a crime to force something on people that have a working system. You wanna put it on to new builds? That's one thing. If you wanna provide the piping and let the option of the residents hook in, that's another.

That's fine. Let them have the option. My question is with the letter that went out, what is the timeline after that, say, you know, for for people to pay? What is the timeline of the construction? That is what one thing I wanna know.

And I also wanna know that I wanna see the transparency of the cost of the actual project, presented to the residents. The amount of $12,000 is astronomical for piping and meters for everyone's home. The administration fee, over the life of the loan, this $10 fee a month, that's 40

450

homes, that's somebody's salary every month. What what what administration fee is there? Computer, electronic? That's ridiculous. Also, if this is mandated, and say these 450 homes pay the almost $12,000, Where will the funds be deposited that they will be used for the project? How soon after the funds are deposited will the project start? And who benefits from the interest made on that on all those funds?

Hi there.

I don't know what

the cutoff is to say goodnight. I don't know if it's past good evening. Dave Kasanshuk, resident of Northport. I wanted to say that this, letter literally made me sick to my stomach. It even made some of my neighbors cry. Our home was one of those that was a new construction. It was built in 2023, held had wells put in, and my neighbor as well after the looping project was completed. I've spoken to the utilities department and they have confirmed that this was a mistake, that this should have been, mandatorily connected when the house was being built. They apologized for this error but still insisted I have to pay. Northport messed up and they want me to pay for it.

I, along with all my neighbors, believe this connection to be, first of all, unnecessary and secondly, too expensive for all of us. I have a third child on the way and we are a one income family. Many of my neighbors are on a fixed income. Our water bill is not stable. Some people I have spoken to are paying hundreds of dollars a month, and those who have connected have had their water bills double at a minimum.

And many of us have new systems and reverse osmosis and cannot afford to pay and connect to city water. We believe our water to be a better quality, more reliable, free hookup is still too expensive for those who do not want it. And we do not want city water. My, kids have eczema, we have autoimmune issues, and we cannot bathe or, consume any highly chlorinated water. And I would need to install an additional system to be able to use this water, and it would be an additional financial burden on top of the connection plus the plumbers.

This was one of the many reasons we needed a house on well. There is no help with payments or any programs. I had emailed Sarasota County about SHIP. They said this does not qualify. They stated that that they will not cover the cost of the connection. Why not let people choose? This is not mandate by mandated by the state, only Suarez. You have the power not to do this.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Steven Harrison still here? Steven, leave? Okay. Debbie Dwight. Hi.

Can I speak over here?

Is that microphone It

should be.

Yeah. It should be.

Yes, ma'am. If the microphone's on.

Hi. I'm Debbie Dwight, and I live on Lapetus Road. The builder built the house with the owner of the property in 2017. We bought it in 2018. We did we had the well. It stunk. We've invested. We've been paying for six years on the reverse osmosis system. We finally paid that off. We got another loan for the damage from Ian. We lost our home over in Harbor Cove, so we moved into the city thinking, this

is

great. We didn't do anything more with the property that you guys approved. The builder got the COO certificate of occupancy. Why would I have to go pay all this? Why didn't you guys put it in your codes for all these builders to get a certificate of occupancy with that water system.

So now I live some of our property is on Hornbuckle and some is on Lapidus. My address is Lapidus. But because our property borders Hornbuckle, now we have to pay for it. It's not improved all around us. My husband said he'll dig it up.

There's 100 feet of trench we have to dig 150. Excuse me. And another thing of pipe, you guys, when I got that letter, I have been up till three in the morning trying to go through all your addendums and all your pages on my little iPhone because I don't have a computer, and I'm 71 years old, it's a joke to give me a thirty year loan unless they come up with some medicine. So that's my opinion on all this. And we're in our seventies. We don't know what to do. That's all I gotta say. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Mark Wessner?

Yes. My name is Mark Wesner, and my wife and I live on North Salford Boulevard. We bought our house in 2018, and we, you know, did the TDS test, had that done on our water because we're on a well, and it was fourteen forty, which is pretty high as far as water quality goes. So we thought, okay. Let's let's bite the bullet and go for a reverse osmosis system.

And so we did that. And the the water quality went went down to 25, which is great. We love it. Excellent water. We spent $10,000 for that RO whole house system. And then we got the letter. Frankly, I've been relieved to hear all of you, each of you commissioners say there's got to be

a better way. There's got to

be a better way. I picked my wife up from the, from the the airport today. She'd been up north with, her elderly, parents, and, I said, honey, we got this letter. $12,300 to hook it's mandatory. We have to hook up to the city water.

And then I agreed on, that's not only. Just not that. But how about this? Homeowners will also be responsible for installation of the water service between the meter and the residence. The homeowner must hire a licensed plumber to make the connection to the meter, and and a certified backflow installer must install and test the backflow preventer. And she's she's going, you've gotta be kidding me. So I'm glad to hear you talk about, hey. Look. Let's let's for those that want it, great. They can they can buy it.

But for those of us that are happy with our water the way it is, could we be exempt from that? I ask you to consider that, please. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Deputy McDowell.

Code's the code. Code's the code. Right, wrong, or indifferent. It's the code. Only you guys can change the code, not him. He put those letters out without asking you, the commission, if this is something you truly wanna do because it had been over, what, four years since the commission has had any public input or any public discussion on the code. The citizens don't know about it. It's been four years, But the city manager went ahead and put that letter out without telling you and without telling them. His apology? Great.

He apologized. It still doesn't absolve the fact that this mess was created. It could have been avoided. It budget is around the corner, And I I'm almost positive the utilities department is relying on some of this money for their budget. So when and you have to take it into consideration because if you're going to change a code, how is it going to affect their budget?

You need that side of the equation too. I know it's not popular to hear that, and I know you guys don't wanna hear that. But, eventually, the people that have city water and city sewer are gonna pick up the tab. Is that fair to them? Because you're gonna have to increase the costs.

As far as SHIP goes, when the commission at the time yes. We were on the board. We figured that this would be a good solution for those that have hardship. I don't know how that changed between 2122 when that was discussed and today, but it's not available. I don't know why.

Requiring a mandatory hookup that for the vacant properties when they're building, absolutely, that makes sense. The state mandates sewer, and sewer requires water, which now requires a mandate for the city water. You can't have sewer without the water, so you have to take that into consideration when you're making these decisions. I definitely see a workshop on the Verizon and, hopefully, few town halls. Once the if you guys are gonna change the code, how are you gonna notify those 400 or 500 people that received a letter?

They're already trying to figure out how to make this happen because they have a mandatory letter. You have a responsibility to notify them sooner rather than later of your plans even if the code isn't codified yet. But I don't know if that's even legally possible. That's something you're gonna have to talk to city attorney about. Remove the damn $10 fee. It's it's a money grab.

Jesse Johnson.

I just wanted to try and address some of the other issues that I haven't heard a lot to talk about until actually just recently with miss, I believe. What are you gonna do about all these vacant lots? You're charge them $12,000, and then they I understand they wouldn't have to hook up until they bill them. But the line's still around due. So you're gonna charge a $15,000 lot, $12?

What are they gonna do with that lot? Nobody's gonna pay that, or they're gonna sell to a builder because that value of that lot is never gonna go to 35,000 from there. Just something I was just curious about. I haven't heard anybody really talking about it. I just bought the lot next door to my house, so I was kinda curious. I didn't know. Do I have to combine it right now? I mean, you know, something something that I need to know. I'm sure there's other people who are making lots out there. The homeowners, obviously, are the most important. However, just another thing I'd like

to hear more about. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Colleen Hibbett.

Hi. Good evening. I'm Colleen Hibbett. So I haven't been sworn in. Is that something I need to do? I'm not sure. Great. Fantastic. So I did receive the mandatory letter. I live in the pilot program off of Garyland Avenue, over by Memoir Park, Gary, where the initial pilot was, probably six, seven, eight years ago. The questions I have are, you know, getting the letter, I thought that it was only approved through commission. I thought it was mandatory. I am a supporter of utilities and the people that work there and the fine water quality that we have. And I understand the benefit of getting on the utility. However, my well pump failed right at the time I got that letter.

So it was either going to be roughly a $1,300 fix to replumb my well. But I called utilities to say, hey, what's coming up? What do I do with this mandatory thing, and how much is the cost going to be? So I went from having a $1,300 fix just to replace my well and have my water back on in my house, or I opted because I'd figure I'd have to do this anyway, is I contracted with a plumber for $3,000 to run the line to my house and install the backflow. I also had to pay the meter set, and now I have a $12,000 loan.

I will soon have an $80 a month bill, which is typical of the capacity fee as well as the finance fee, which comes out to about $960 annually. So again, I went from about a $1,300 fix to a $960 annual bill and a $12,000 loan against my house or against me. So now that I'm hearing you say that it may or may not be mandatory, kind of uncomfortable with that. Now that I hear that you say, maybe we should reduce this if you connect soon, am I getting a rebate on that or a credit towards this loan that I have? So I have questions.

And I hope that utilities can follow-up with me in the future to let me know any further commission decisions that come up. Also, some of the things that some of my neighbors have been asking me are about are they paying line extension fees for their frontage? Which can, if they have two lots and combined on one, have one house on that lot, are they paying for the whole 120 feet? Or is it per ERC? And I couldn't answer that question for them.

Also, something the utilities talked about a long time ago, which I don't know if you know about or have addressed, is if a homeowner has installed a new water system, like some these people were talking about, they put a new RO or they put a new system, will they get a credit for that if they have installed that in the year prior to this letter coming out? So those are my questions. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, ma'am. Larry Santiago?

I'm gonna keep this short and simple. I didn't get a letter. So but I heard about this and concerns me. This has a air of socialism and communism for me, and I think everybody feels this way. Mandate I have a reverse osmosis system throughout my whole house. My water is cleaner than the city water. And I know this because my friend has the city water. I tested my water against his. My system came out cleaner. Why I gotta why I gotta pay $12,000 in the future on my kid for dirty water?

Why can't they just lower the pressure if it's so much water being wasted? Simple solution. Right? Just lower the tap, lower the pressure. You don't have to pull full throttle on water. You just gotta keep the water moving through the pipe so it can keep working. I'm not a plumber. I know that. Now I'm gonna say something because I see a lot of people on social media and all this and that very concerned about this. Everybody's talking primary this, primary that. I think it's gonna happen. People are gonna be watching this. I'm getting text message after text messages. What are they saying? I say, it looks good.

It looks good. There's some people that are for the people. I guess they're hearing your voices. Maybe a little more harassment in Walmart. Who knows? Do it because they're listening, and I'm not gonna wanna pay that $10. You know what I will do? Pay $10 for? To whoever votes for this, get them out. That's what I'll pay the $10 for. I'll I'll back up any candidate. That young man right there, you seem like a smart guy. Run for something. That's it. I got one more minute. Could talk about it. Nah, I'm joking.

Thank you, sir.

Shelley, what's up?

I have not been sworn in. I don't know if that makes a difference or not. I'm here for two for two reasons. One, because we also received a letter. My husband and I are both realtors. I've been a realtor for thirty six years, twenty one years here in the Northport area. We started receiving phone calls from our customers crying and literally crying. In fact, I'm gonna read you a text that we received today from an elderly lady. She says, has everyone received a notice that it's mandatory to hook up to city water at the cost of $12,000? I am losing sleep over this.

I simply can't afford it plus a monthly upkeep. I will fight it, but the bottom line is I can't win. I will have to sell the house. I would probably have to move back to New York with my kids. I'm 84 now and on a fixed income, just wondering whether I'm the only one in this boat. I've been comfortable in this house for twenty six years, and this is really tearing me up. Sorry. I'm just venting. Love you both for helping me whenever you can. We've watched this lady.

She lost her husband. She's maintained two lots because she can't sell her quarter lot because Wells Fargo will not allow her to separate it from her deed. She owes $60,000 on her house, and so consequently, she personally maintains it because she can't afford for somebody else to maintain that lot. And the city of Northport has gone to her and said, you need to maintain this. So she personally does it herself, and we help her whenever we can.

Now, in the last week, the number of homes that have gone on the market in Northport is astronomical. 32 today. What people are worried that they this lien is gonna be put against their house. What's that doing to anybody's property that lives in Northport? If all these homes are going on the market, people are concerned about the cost of this lien going against their house.

And when they go to sell, now they have that much less equity. It's not gonna do anything but devalue the price of the value of everybody's homes at Northport. And to top it all off, four years ago in 2022, we were put on the loop. Our house was put on the loop. We were told that we were at city water. It was $8,000 then we told them we were told we needed to do it. So we started budgeting to do it. We called several times because the hole that the meter is going into disappeared after Ian. And we called several times for them to come do it. Trish had it taken care of yesterday, finally.

This many years later, we were worried that either a person or an animal would fall into that hole. And now we're back to square one. And if we had done it four years ago, when they told us what needed to be done, it would have cost us a lot less money. So I you know, I'm I'm really here for us, but mostly for our customers because I'm concerned about how many people cannot afford to do this if they don't have a choice.

Thank you, ma'am.

That is all, mister mayor.

Thank you,

sir. Alright.

I'm gonna request a motion.

I'd like to try it and see where we go here. I'd to make a motion to direct staff first notify all those who received the letter that this project is being paused. Two, to then work on a change

in the code

to make this service connection voluntary. For those who want to opt in voluntarily within three sixty five days, cost will be capped at an amount to be determined and approved by commission, period.

I'll second for discussion.

Do you mind repeating that if you don't that was a long one. You got me on that one.

I actually can do this again.

Thank you, sir.

I'd

like to make a motion to direct staff to first notify all those who received a letter that this project is being paused. And secondarily, to work on a change in the code to make this service connection voluntary. For those who want to opt in voluntarily within three sixty five days, cost will be capped at an amount to be determined and approved by commission period.

Thank you, sir.

I have a motion on the floor made by commissioner Stokes, seconded by vice mayor. Would you read that back to me, sir, since you've now got it?

Yes, sir. To direct the city manager to notify all those that received the letter that this project is being paused. Second, to work on a change in the code to make the service connection voluntary. And for those who want to opt in voluntarily, within three hundred sixty five days, the cost will be capped at an amount to be determined and approved by commission.

Okay. Vice mayor has seconded that for discussion. Vice mayor, discuss. Yes.

Thank you. I I really like the motion. I'd like to suggest two amendments. One

Only one.

Two, that the connection be optional for already constructed homes. And then to add that for new construction, though, it is a mandatory connection to city water.

I

can agree with those. For the main purposes is that new construction, if there is city water available available Yes. Yes. Should automatically be put on the city water and sewer if that's available Right. For new construction. This way, they're not putting an investment into wells and septic and

Right.

Following the state mandates and everything like that. So, yeah, I would agree with that. Go ahead, commissioner Petro.

What if it's not available for new construction and there's no line running on the street?

They don't hook up. So as How do hook up to nothing?

Will be the obligated one of the line is available and the house is constructed?

I would say it would default to the current thing. So for any house that's already constructed, the hookup would be optional. But if it's five years from now, ten years from now, the terms of that could change as costs change.

Well, I think it could change by commissions, too. But with your question is, if they've already invested into the well and everything prior to that water line being put out there, then it would follow the original motion saying it was be voluntary, not mandatory because they've already made that investment. We're just talking new construction and different avenues to go.

Then we would have to stipulate or define that in your amendment somehow, I guess. That's just my I don't know. We have to consult a city attorney on that.

I don't know. The whole frame of this, if I may, is hooking up to water if it's available. So, I mean, we can add it in, certainly, if it helps clarity. But to require someone to hook up to something that's not available makes no sense.

But later down the road, it will be available. So

Then it would be an already constructed home, and it would default to the policy of an already constructed home before water was available. Okay.

And I think what we're trying to get to here is to try and make some sense out of this to where we're either going to make it mandatory, voluntary. We'll get to the specifics, I believe, in a future meeting to discover exactly what charges we'd like to produce. Because I don't want utilities to come up and say, hey, this is this, this, this this evening. We can go ahead and workshop it, you know, make it available to the public, be able to discuss those parameters. But I think tonight is to let's see where we're gonna go, and and that's why, you know, with some of your amendments, it's like it's getting into the weeds a little bit.

A little bit. But not as much. So, I mean, that's what we got going. Anything else, commissioner?

No. That's it. Thanks.

The one the one other thing, I don't know if you're second.

No. She hasn't made an amendment yet. She was discussing that.

Okay. For the $10.

Well, did you didn't cover that?

No. I didn't.

Okay. So let me phrase a formal Formal amendment. Amendment.

Yes,

ma'am. Eliminate the $10 service fee.

Okay. Is that one amendment?