City Commission Regular Meeting - Regular Meeting

I'll adjourn this meeting. Let me know when you're ready. Ready? Okay. It's 518 and I call the, we're on road and drainage. Road and drainage district budget meeting to order. Everybody still here? Nothing has changed. I'm going to request a motion to approve the agenda.

Second.

I have a motion on the floor to approve the agenda made by Commissioner Stokes, seconded by Vice Mayor. If there's nothing to that, please vote. That passes five to zero. City Clerk, public comment? Debbie McDonald.

Good evening everyone, I'm Debbie McDowell. I've been before you on the same subject, and I do have a valid legal concern. The commission approved the road and drainage methodology report, but it's not being followed. If any assessment increase is approved, the city could be exposed to a legal challenge, and I have shared these concerns with you in the past. The not to exceed rates do not align with the commission approved methodology report. The methodology report states that the assessment for 2026 slash 2027 fiscal year is to be zero, zero. Rate increase concern is because the not to exceed rate was originally set at 15%. increase, and later was reduced during the July budget workshops to 5%. However, an assessment increase of 15%, 5%, or any amount above zero falls outside of the approved methodology report. The resolution in the final whereas clause for the not to exceed resolution 2023 R-23 refers to unforeseen circumstances, which is allegedly contained in the methodology report and resolution 2023 R-64. Guess who checked? No, it's not. It's not in the methodology report. It's not in the resolution. Unforeseen circumstances is just something that was said and included, but it's not verified to be there. I urge you to ask the city attorney about the purpose of a methodology report. The state statutes governing how ad valorem assessments can be imposed and the consequences of not following state law regarding to these assessments. Or you can just choose not to ask him, but you are aware of what's happening in Sarasota County and how the county and the commissioners are being sued officially and in their individual capacity for allegedly knowing about and not following state law. You guys were very scared about the data centers and how important it was to make sure you follow state law. This is no different. State law and the methodology report demand a zero assessment for 2026 and 2027. Poor planning on the city's part does not constitute a justification for the assessment.

Greg Cullen.

Greg Hewlin, Northport resident. Here we go again. Let's review my property rent and drainage tax assessment for the past four years. 2022, I paid $173. 2023, $220, a 27% increase. 2024, $253, 15% increase. 2025, $291, 15% increase. And my trim notice shows for 2026, $335 for another 15% increase. Compounded, that's 93% or almost double in four years. What is wrong with you five commissioners? Do you really agree with this garbage? How can any of you justify this level of budgeting and spending using someone else's money, our tax dollars, and worse yet, you five continue to let it happen without even a challenge? Are you five bought and paid for by Red and Drainage? Why do you continue to rubber stamp this city's out-of-control spending? If the city manager and a road drainage department head was in a private sector job and couldn't control their cost to within 93% over a four-year span, they would be fired. Thus, you should fire these two incompetent people. Instead, you give them $10,000 annual pay raises when you gave yourselves $10,000 pay raises. Yet, when you double my assessment, you don't even care. You're smirking snicker at us citizens. And to add insult to injury, we've had zero work done on the road and or drainage of Overhand Street where I live in the past four years. But I get to pay double in assessments. And my corner, I'm going to remind you five, you work in this whole city hall, you work for us, the citizens. We don't work for you. You are not kings, you're not queens, and you're not the royal court, and we are not your lowly peasants you get to kick around and tax to death and tax out of our homes. I am sick of your outrageous tax hikes and waste when you clearly are just padding your own pocket with $10,000 raises. It's just simply greed, waste, and your own huge $10,000 pay raises and self-enrichment. I thought there was only this much greed and waste and self-enrichment in Washington, D.C. But since Fletcher over there, big spender Fletcher, has mounted his throne, he has brainwashed you five into rubber stamping his outrageous spending and taxation while sticking it to us residents, us taxpayers. I despise all five of you for not representing and supporting us taxpayers. You five make me ill with your greed, your hypocrisy, and your total lack of backbone. Say no to Fletcher. What a bunch of self-serving, bought-and-paid-for people.

Thank you. Thank you.

One comment from Yassine Rosani. I'm a North Port property owner who has been engaged with this budget process in August 2025. I want to sincerely thank Mr. Speak and the commission for reducing the proposed road and drainage assessment rate from 15% to 5% in response to constituent concerns. That reflects genuine responsiveness to public input, and I'm truly grateful. I hope the commission will go further today. The city's own budget data supports a 0% increase this year, consistent with the adopted Stantec methodology and trade-off With this commission made in 2023, that said, I submitted for specific written questions to Mr speak that remain unanswered and I respectfully am asking the commission to pose them directly today before any vote is taken. 1st, the 2023 Stan tech methodology projects, 0% rate increases from fiscal year 27 through fiscal year 33, having deliberately front loaded increases in fiscal year 20. 25%, fiscal year 25, 15%, and fiscal year 26, 15%. So this year could hold flat. What is the legal basis for a 5% increase when the adopted methodology calls for 0%? Second, the city's own budget shows fund 107 total operating expenditures decreased 3.6% year over year. Salaries rose 1.9% versus 4% assumed. Health insurance came in completely flat versus the 10%. per year STANTEC assumed? Which specific cost categories actually justify departing from the 0% projection? Third is fund balance restoration. Rather than rising operational costs, the primary driver of the proposed 5% increase, and if capital projects are the real driver, has the city considered a one-time capital assessment under Florida Statutes 197.36321G rather than a permanent ongoing rate increase? Fourth, a methodology study will only redistribute how costs are divided among property owners. It will not reduce the total burden. What specific steps is the city taking to reduce the overall cost of operating the road and drainage districts so that property owners see actual relief rather than simply a reallocation of the same or growing burden? Let me make sure this one is... Okay, that is all.

All right. Thank you, sir. All right. Moving on to Resolution 2026-R-51. City Clerk, can you read by title only please?

A resolution of the City Commission of the City of North Port Florida as the governing body of the North Port Road and Drainage District adopting, certifying, and confirming the non-advalarm assessment rates and capital improvement assessment rates and adopting and certifying the non-advalarm assessment role for the Northport Road and Drainage District for fiscal year 2026 to 2027, providing for bindings, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing an effective date.

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

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Resolution number 2026-R23 established a not to exceed fiscal year 2026-27 assessment rates reflecting a maximum potential of 15%. Those rates were not final adopted rates. During preparation of the fiscal year 2026-27 budget, The City Manager's revised proposed budget reduced the proposed assessment increase to 5%. Therefore, Resolution Number 2026-R51 proposes final assessment rates reflecting a 5% increase over the fiscal year 2025-26 rates. We ask today that you take the recommended action of approving Resolution Number 2026-R51 to adopt a 5% increase to the non-advalorial assessment rate for the Northport Road and Drainage District for the fiscal year 2026-27. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, sir. Commission questions? Commissioner Petro.

Thank you, Mayor. Just for the record, nothing's wrong with me. I have not voted for my race. The race was increased before, and I'm not bought or paid for, but I did vote for Actually, against not to exceed ordinance rate in the amount of 15%. Uh, and I did voice my position back then in the month of July, I believe. Because our own methodology say the. Uh, says that for the fiscal year 2627, the rate to increase is 0%. So, I'm not willing to even. Increase by 1%. because we have to follow our own law, let alone, I mean, we have to follow the state stature and methodology report study that was presented to us. So I just, if there's any clarification, unless the methodology has changed since we adopted, which I don't believe it was changed, I'm not in favor of this ordinance. to be passed. And for the record, I did vote against raising the rate for the non-district road and drainage district last year as well. So when people generalize people, that's not a good way of assessing who is who. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you. Commissioner Stokes.

Yeah. City Manager Mike, we have... Mike. Thank you. City Manager, may we have somebody shed a little light on this methodology and why a 5%? So not just we, but the citizens here can understand why the methodology said zero and here we are at 5%. Yes, sir.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners. Peter Napoli, Stantec Consulting. When the methodology report was conducted for the city, essentially there's two components of that report. There's the methodology report, which supports how the road and drainage rates are calculated, which establishes the allocations between roads and drainage. And then for roads, there's base and enhanced. And then for drainage, there's tier one, tier two, and tier three are primary, secondary, and tertiary benefits. performs a cost allocation of the road and drainage budget, allocates those costs, administrative, allocates those costs into those separate buckets, and then generates rates in order to recover that cost appropriately. That's the road and drainage methodology. then as part of that study and as part of that process we also provided a financial projection of the road and drainage district and their budget but that is purely an estimate as the city only budgets one year at a time we knew the upcoming budget for that the year in which the study was performed but we didn't know how costs would grow beyond that we provided a projection based on what we knew at the time with the capital improvement plan that we were given and the operational cost increases that we had seen in the past for the city. But there was no commitment to those rate increases that were provided in that projection. It was purely an estimate. What was the commitment and what was adopted by the commission in the city was the updated rates based on the allocation and based on the methodology as outlined in that report.

So city attorney, I would ask you, we heard the rationale. Is it legal to have a methodology report that shows a zero increase for this year, and then we're able to change that based on the information that we're hearing now? I mean, is this a legal process? Are we breaking the law here? Are we all going to go to jail, get sued?

And in your resolution that adopted that methodology, it's section 2.02. I have it up here. And that's resolution for the record 2023 are 64. Section 2.2 says the board hereby adopts the option to increase the assessment rates up to a maximum 15% per year to allow the district to react to future unforeseen circumstances without having to update your methodology. Send the 1st class mail notices and conducting special hearings.

Thank you city attorney. That's all I have here. Uh, vice mayor.

I withdraw my question, thank you.

That's what I was gonna ask as well. Commissioner Petro, you're up again, sir.

Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Stokes actually addressed my question, but I have another question on the methodology. A few years ago, there was a rate increase that was 30%. Can you remind us when it was and for how many years it was?

Can you repeat that, sir? Chuck Speak, Public Works Director.

In the methodology, which I don't have in front of me, there was a rate increase of 30% a few years back.

I don't believe we've ever had a 30% increase, not since I've been here.

Maybe I'm confusing another district. What was the highest rate increase for the past, let's say, seven, 10 years?

Would have been in 2024, I believe it was 25%. And that was to make up for those previous years where we had ones and zeros.

Okay, that's all. Thank you, Mayor.

All right. Public comment? City Clerk? Susan Hayes.

Can you hear me? Yes, ma'am. Okay. I've been a resident of Northport for 18 years. For 18 years, I've been paying for water on my tax bill. For 18 years, I have never received any water from the town of Northport. I think it is time now that they put finally the water lines in front of my house for the town to pay for those without my having to pay an additional assessment. I have no problem paying for the hookup from the water line to my home, but I have a big problem paying with the assessment for putting in those water lines that I've been paying for for 18 years that I've never gotten any water from. The second thing is it took them, San Mateo is about a mile and a half long. It took the construction crew that was putting in the line eight, 16, no, I'm sorry, not 16, 13 months to put in a mile and a half of line. And then the gentleman was talking about grading. They knew nothing about how to grade what they were doing once they got the lines in. So if my son hadn't been out there, we would have ruined our entire grading situation for the whole home and for that whole street. So I submit that it is time for the town to ante up and pay for that line that needed to be put in after we have paid taxes for it for so many years. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. City Manager, can you please get with staff and have them work with this lady and see what the actual situation is and possibly help her out with what she's been dealing with, please? Yes, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, sir. Debbie McDowell.

So what's the purpose of a methodology report if you're not gonna follow it? I understand what the city attorney read, but I will read the results, the final conclusionary of the methodology report. Can I get my eyes on? 2.2, resolution 2023 R64 methodology report section 2.2 says results. We have prepared a plan of rate adjustments that would provide for stable reserves and financial stability over the 10 year projected period. 10, 10 year projected. That's what their job was, to plan it all out. As shown in the control panel below, Nice little graph, too small for y'all to see this far. The projection begins with one year of 25% rate increase for fiscal year 24, followed by two subsequent years of 15% for fiscal year 25 and 26. The plan shown in this panel aims to maintain a reserve balance of 20% in any given year of the projected period, projected. cash fund of capital programs, and provide sufficient funding for road and rehabilitation fund. So the little graph is correct with the results. 24 shows a 25% increase. 25 shows a 15% increase. 26 shows a 15% increase. Those aren't zeros that were just added 15%. That is what they said to do. 27 was zero, and the reason it was zero is because it was front loaded for those other years, 24, 25, and 26. It's zero. That's what the methodology report shows. It has been followed this way for years, decades, unless the commission said to do it lower. than what the methodology reports said. You can go lower without any problems. You cannot go higher.

And we have a couple e-comments. Yassine Rosani, I'm a North Port property owner and want to raise two critical findings from the September 10th tentative budget that go directly to whether the 5% road and drainage rate increase is still warranted and whether this commission should reconsider before September 24 final adoption. Finding one, the fund balance justification has disappeared. In July, the primary justification for the 5% increase was fund balance restoration. THE JULY 29TH FUND BALANCE ANALYSIS SHOWED FUND 107 PROJECTED TO FALL $204,923 BELOW REQUIRED RESERVE LEVELS. THE SEPTEMBER 10TH TENATIVE BUDGET UPDATED AUGUST 24TH, 2026 NOW SHOWS THE FUND PROJECTED TO BE $4,146,158 ABOVE REQUIRED RESERVE LEVELS, A HEALTHY 17.6% CUSHION. The reserve requirement dropped from $11,485,813 to $7,248,675 between July and September, a reduction of over $4.2 million. The result is complete reversal, a swing from $204,923 shortfall to a $4,146,158 surplus against the same reserve policy in less than two months. The primary justification for the rate increase has effectively disappeared in the city's own updated numbers. Finding two, no material operating cost increase justifies departing from 0%. The 2023 Stantec methodology is only lawful basis for this assessment. It established 0% for fiscal year 27 through fiscal year 33. Having front loaded the increases of 25% fiscal year, 2415% in fiscal year, 25 and 15% fiscal year, 26 specifically. So this year could hold flat. The city's own budget confirmed operating costs are not the driver salaries rose 1.9% versus 4% assumed. Health insurance came in completely flat versus 10% per year assumed and total fund. A total fund of 107 operating expenditures decreased 3.6% year over year. There is no material operating cost increase that justifies raising rates above the methodology 0% ceiling. Raising rates above the adopted methodology without a new study also raises serious fair apportionment question under Florida law. I respectfully ask the commission to reduce the fiscal year 27 rate to 0% before September 24th, final adoption. Next one is from D. Conrad. Please do not increase the budget for road and drainage. And last one is Yulia Stashanisheva. Dear City Commission, I am a property owner of Northport with three parcels affected by the proposed fiscal year 2026-27 solid waste, fire rescue, and road and drainage assessments. Account number is 0971133119, lot 19, block 1331, vacant lot. Two, account number 114-125-7207, 1863 Callahan Avenue, approved. Three, account number 097-1133-118, 4239 Braham Street, Homestead, Permite. Trim notices combined, non-ad valorem charges rise above about $594 total, about $211. 40% on the vacant lot, about $187, 19% on the Callahan Avenue, about $196, 19% on Braham Street. One vacant lot, no structure, no solid waste generated. Please clarify what current benefit it received from the proposed transfer station and why this special assessment is tied to future development rather than a different mechanism for such cost. No alleging impropriety requesting clarification. Two, road and drainage identical $380.74 charge on all three parcels regardless of value of improvement status. Please explain why this methodology flat fee. Three, fire rescue. Tier one rate reportedly rose from $187.28 to $206.01, about 10% per public reporting on the commission vote. Please confirm this and the structure based tier on my improved parcels match the adopted methodology study. Four, solid waste. As reported by local media, the one time transfer station fuel was approved three to two with public concerns raised at the meeting. Please confirm the rate is fully supported by the adopted methodology study before final adoption. Five, please defer final adoption of the solid waste and rota drainage rates until the methodology studies are made available to property owners and provide a written response before the final budget hearing. I am unable to attend in person today due to work. I respectfully request this be entered into the official record. Thank you for your time and consideration. Yulius Dastanasheva, 4239 Braham Street, Northport, Florida, 34291. And then I think we got another one for this item.

Yes, it is.

Michael Magzelia. And if you want to speak at both, you'll have to submit another public comment for the other item. You'll have to submit another piece of paper for the other item you want to speak to.

This one's road and drainage.

Yeah, 2026 R51.

So my property is on the corner of Chieftain and on Mary Court. And right now I'm a half a mile away from any utilities that are here. My tax bill is pretty high as it is right now. And trying to get anything there and paying increases for something I don't have any access to is kind of crazy because there's not even any drainage over there. So I have no water and drain, I have no sewer, I have none of that that's there, as well as the other necessary utilities to even develop the property. So I'm concerned about my taxes being increased, especially the way they're breaking it out over a period of time, that it's going to affect me for what I'm doing down there. It's a pretty substantial increase. I mean, so I don't know if there's plans to put in any of the utilities into that area to make it so that it can be expanded and done, but to pay extra taxes on something I don't have any use or any accessibility to, I think that's just not fair. And then I need to do another ticket for the other one. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. We have another one.

Do you have another one?

Do you want to do another four? This one is for...

This one already passed. Do you want to speak now? Yes. Okay. Paul the Oleander.

Good afternoon, or it's already evening. I'm supposed to speak on the first year... right after the beginning of the meeting, but I think I fill up my card wrongly. I am Wally Hollander, plantation called Just Business. I come here in peace and I am not a criminal or a slave. I do have dignity. Emirates, I'm instructing you to respect it and remove guard of my bag. Move him away. Are we all adults here or children? Your attorney told you once that policies are not laws. He's sitting over there pretending like we are idiots. This is 28th time you disregard Florida Constitution. Remember, there is five ways to amend it. Don't you like Florida Constitution? in city call, just business? That anyone cares? Bounty on my head for 2027 is $3,477. Cost for his commissioner now is 411 a day, down from 413. I'm sorry, no, 413, yes. You lower it by $2. MIL and MTM? This unassigned letter, what I receive here, inform me bounty on my slave head rise by $150.49 and about 10% without notifying me further. Garbage pickups will be same as worse all the time, once a week. And no more benefits. Slave must be guarded all the time. Metal detector door is not enough. Obedience become based upon fear rather than consent. Question, are fraudulent transaction are hidden by NDA? They need lawyers' language, government contracts. Read Article 1, Section 15, Florida Open Law Constitution. Government cannot permanently assume more than society produce. Since Fletcher arrived, budgets are 85% up, while population only 23.

Thank you. That is all, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. I'm going to close this public hearing and request a motion. I move to adopt resolution number 2026-R-51 with the following changes. Changing it from a 5% increase to a 0% increase. Please. It's hard for us to hear up here. That's why. I'll second it.

We have a motion on the floor to adopt resolution number 2026-R-51. 51 with the following amendment, reducing the assessment from 5% to 0%. That motion was made by Mayor Emmerich and was seconded by Commissioner Stokes. If there's nothing more to that, let's vote. Thank you, Mayor. Yes, and that motion passes four to zero with myself dissenting. Four to one. Sorry, four to one. And my reason for dissenting is I'm very concerned making that kind of change without understanding what the impact of services will be. Thank you.

and just for clarification the reason I made the motion that way was because we went through the process we found out the legalities this that and the other and I didn't feel it was right just because we can that we should so it's tough times right now for everybody so we'll just have to make do with what we have moving forward so I am going to move on to resolution number 2026-R-58. City Clerk, can you read by title only?

A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Northport, Florida, as the governing body of the Northport Road and Drainage District, adopting the tentative Northport Road and Drainage District budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2026, and ending September 30, 2027, prescribing the terms, conditions, and provisions with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment, providing for supplemental appropriations and reappropriations, providing for bindings, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing an effective date.

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

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The tentative budget for fiscal year 26-27 for the Road and Drainage District is $38,260,232. This represents a 24% increase from the fiscal year 25-26 adopted budget. We ask that you approve the adopted resolution of 2026-R58 as presented. We're happy to answer any questions you may have.

Okay, and the last vote that we just took, does that have anything to do with this budget here? Because we just reduced it by five percent.

Yes, sir.

So we cannot really adopt that number. It has to be adjusted and calculated. That is true. Okay, so anybody else have any other questions? And I know we're not going to have that number now, so we will have that number at the next meeting that we discuss this or?

Yes, you'll have to have it before you do your final adoption on, I believe that's scheduled for September 20th.

No, I think, is it the 27th-ish, 22nd, 27th? No, that's 24th.

24th?

Yeah, that was right. Do you want to make a motion or All right, I don't know if this is going to be proper, but I move to move the final resolution to the future meeting with the numbers calculated and changed to coordinate with the prior adoption of the first resolution. Yes, sir. All right.

We have a motion on the floor made by Mayor Emmerich to move the resolution for the final adoption of the road and drainage district budget to the meeting on, I believe that was the 20th. 24th. 24th. Do I have a second? Seconded by Commissioner Stokes. If there's nothing more to that, let's vote. And that motion passes 5 to 0.

Thank you, ma'am. All right, city clerk any final public comment.

Do you want to set a meeting date now? For adoption of the resolution before the 24th.

For this one, we can, I mean, if you want, but if we're, if we're already going to recalculate, we can't.

I mean, it's just a math problem. I think you're right. 5%, you could probably do. Right now, my one with the finance director on the spot, but. You know, how do we want to do it? We really should put something on the books if you're going to do a separate meeting.

We can do it on the 22nd. Don't we have a meeting on the 22nd to do the final number? That's where you want to go. And then we could do that on the 22nd, then do the finalization on the 24th.

All right. Well, you'll have to have a special district meeting before the commission meeting on the 22nd. Is that what you're suggesting?

Fine. I got no issues with that as long as that works. I'm gonna make a motion.

Make a motion that we set a special.

District meeting.

Special district meeting for road drainage on September 22nd. What? The 22nd. Yeah, that's what he's gonna do.

We have district meetings on the 22nd. You have them on the 22nd? We do have district meetings on the 22nd already.

Then just place it on the agenda for the 22nd. Yeah.

Perfect.

All right. Good with that, City Clerk? We're good with that. Okay. All right. So, you guys good down at the end there? Yes, sir. All right. Public comment, final public comment for this one, sir? Greg Hewling.

We have one e-comment. D. Conrad. I oppose the proposed data center. North Port deserves progress that respects its land, water, wildlife, and its people and future children. That is all. All right.

I'm just checking. It's 5.58 and I adjourn this meeting. Moving on. We are on to this vote. That passes five to zero. Okay, we're gonna go to resolution number 2026-R-58. And I do believe we have the numbers for that one?

Yes, we do.

Okay.

The reduction in assessment would be $1,097,711. So the motion would need to be to amend the budget for final adoption to reduce road rehab project by $1,097,711. Okay, I'll entertain the motion. I'll make it.

Can I just double check that with you? Yes. Okay. Amending the budget for final adoption to reduce road rehab project by $1,970,711. No. $1,097,711. Okay. $1,097,711. Yes. Thank you. Yes.

Thank you. I have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Stokes, seconded by who seconded it? Commissioner Petro. If there's nothing to that, please vote. And that passes five to zero. Okay. It's 8.04, and I'm going to adjourn that meeting. Let's take 10 minutes and come back.