City Commission Regular Meeting - Regular Meeting

which you can see in the background, and our fire admin will be moving into City Hall.

So it's being torn down completely and being built back up, right? Not being retrofitted?

That's correct. The project started out as a remodel, and our design was more to just add a little bit of square footage. The building's not that old. It was built in 98. But after the hurricanes, we had to bring the building up to current code. Different codes existed in 1998, so that process led to a cheaper option, which was to tear it down and rebuild.

Sure. So is there a general timeline for how long this project is going to take?

Yeah, so the teardown should start in December. So by the end of the year, it should be all flat ground. And then we're being told anywhere between 12 and 14 months before the new station is complete and ready for our crews to move back in.

Gotcha. Okay. So with a project like this, what does the cost look like and where are those funds coming from?

So the majority of the funding is through Surtax. The total project is around $17.5 million.

So since a brand new building is being built, what kind of improvements can be made by taking that route?

So one of the biggest is we are a critical infrastructure building. So our crews are expected to respond as soon as the storm clears. The new building will be rated up to a category five hurricane, and that meets the code for our wind load this far inland because we get a little bit less intense winds as we get away from the coast.

Sure, that makes sense. So we're coming up here on some beautiful trees. So tell me about the plan for these. Are some of them sticking around? What is your plan?

Yeah, absolutely. So one of the things we did very early in the project is we recognized that to the best that we could, we wanted to save as many trees as we could, but especially the mature oaks. Sure. They provide a lot of shade and they're beautiful and native to Florida. So we worked with the contractor to design the parking lot in a way that we could really maximize the ability to keep these trees. So a large amount of these more mature oaks that you see that were standing under the nice shade canopy, we were able to keep a lot of these trees. Some of the smaller oak trees and some of the older palm trees, we won't be able to keep, but we worked with the city arborist to ensure that, you know, we did the best we could with how that design can be and found out that honestly, some of the palm trees are at their end of life as is.

Got it. Okay. Well, that's great. I know a lot of the residents are going to really appreciate that as well. So to cap it off, service is staying the same. Everyone's getting the same level going forward.

Yeah, Madison, you're right. So the crews that normally operate out of this fire station are just going to be a little ways down the road in a temp station with a temporary apparatus bay. And all of our administrative staff from Fire Rescue are moving into City Hall, which is right down the street. And if you need anything from Fire Rescue, you can go in the front doors of City Hall. Marvin.

Yeah. Today is Tuesday, June 9th, 2026. It's 10 a.m. We're in the city chambers, and I call the City Commission regular meeting to order. Commissioners present are Commissioner Duvall, Commissioner Stokes, Mayor Emmerich, Vice Mayor Langdon, and Commissioner Petro. There is a quorum present for this meeting. Also present are City Manager Fletcher, City Attorney Fuino, Deputy Clerk Powell, Board Specialist Linder. We have Police Chief Garrison and Deputy Chief Herlihy in the back. I'm requesting that all commissioners, public participants, and staff maintain order and decorum throughout this meeting. City Commission Policy 2021-03 states that attendees shall refrain from engaging in personal attacks and boisterous, immaterial, inflammatory, obscene, profane, or disorderly conduct. Additionally, Meeting attendees must refrain from obscene, profane, or disorderly conduct, including hand clapping, yelling, and similar demonstrations, all of which disturbs the peace and good order of the meeting. Thank you. I'm going to call on Mr. Powell. Will you lead us in the pledge this morning, sir?

for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, sir. Can I request a motion to approve the agenda? So moved.

Second.

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

Yes, we do have some we'll start with the comments. Aiden Marshall, our city should legally adopt the flag hosting a public flag contest would yield good designs. Flags give citizens a way to represent their city and unite people. Next one is David Iannotti. Hello, I am ready to support the preservation of the natural connection between Little Salt Springs and the Myakkahatchee Greenway. Thank you. Next one is Juno Enoch. I support creating a wildlife corridor instead of extending Spring Haven Drive. Next one is John Parker. During the past four years that I've lived in Northport, I have witnessed that during city commission meetings, certain commissioners have been singled out and even cursed just because they have a different viewpoint. How do you think that the citizens of Northfield feel about such behavior from their elected and non-elected city officials? I can understand why during meetings you act very sober and serious, as it were a ticket to impartiality, but cursing and snarky behavior only demonstrates that behind the veil of being polite is a lot of animosity that is going to negatively affect your ability to serve the needs of the residents. So how to resolve the relationship issues. We all made mistakes and we need to give each other a break. Try smiling and bring joy into your meeting discourses. even when you disagree with each other and see what happens. One of the fundamental problems is that the city officials need to realize that the city exists to serve the needs of its residents and not the other way around. So when the recent referendums were defeated multiple times, how do you think the citizens feel when city officials are stating that they just plan to find a way to find and spend the money anyways, just because the city has needs. There must be a way to reach Northport residents and we the residents need to carefully consider what the city needs as well. But to just move forward and say you're going to find a way to spend the money anyways is not respecting North Port residents, after the 2019 master plan was presented concerning the warm middle springs, the city paid tens of thousands of dollars for a survey, but some of the commissioners completely dismissed the results rather than following the voice of the people. I do appreciate the city's effort to educate the residents on the issues, but I believe we need a fundamental shift by healing relationships and focusing our energies on a common vision of the city we all can embrace. Thank you. That's it for e-comments. In person, Robin San Vicente.

Good morning, all. I'm just going to do a little introduction on the Spring Haven because you'll hear more from me later. But I did want to recognize the amount of work and effort that the Natural Resources Department Building and Planning has put into the recommendations and the presentation that you're going to be hearing today. I wish that the agenda wasn't so long. I don't know why we have to have 12 pages of an agenda in one meeting. I thought we were gonna cut back on that. But anyway, to get back to Spring Haven, I know eminent domain is not a, pretty thing to go through. However, 15 years and longer is enough on this particular 30 parcels. So instead of continuing to kick the can down the road like we've been doing for all these years, it's time that we make some kind of a decision that we seriously, as a body, look at all the work and the effort and the negotiations that have been going into this with this particular developer. and secure this connector between Little Salt Spring and the Myakkahatchee, because of its significance, archeological, hydrologically, paleontologically, all of that, and we all know that. So I just wanted to really thank Natural Resources and Building Department for all the work and effort that they put into it, and you shall see me later. Thank you.

That is all, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. City Clerk, any announcements?

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 Cultural Advisory Board, Joint Management Advisory Board, Police Officers Pension Trust Fund Board of Trustees, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Planning and Zoning Advisory Board, one resident of Northport to serve on the Sarasota-Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization 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. All right, we're going to move on to the consent agenda. City Manager, have any items been pulled for discussion?

Yes, Mr. Mayor. Item A, 26-0265.

That's it? Yes, sir. Thank you. All right. Do we have any public comment, sir? No, Mr. Mayor, no public comment. All right, I'm going to request a motion.

I'll make it.

Go ahead.

I move to approve the... The consent agenda pulling item A, 26-0265 for discussion.

I have a motion on the floor made by Vice Mayor to approve the consent agenda pulling item A for discussion. Do I have a second?

Second.

Seconded by Commissioner Stokes. If there's nothing to that, please vote. That passes 5-0. City Manager, who pulled that item? Commissioner Stokes. Commissioner Stokes, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you very much. The reason I pulled this was, you know, I feel bad. We appreciate Ms. Cook's desire to serve on this board, but At present, until we know whether or not we have the ability to borrow, it seems a bit premature to actually approve somebody for this board and have the clock tick on their term. And there are other people considering at the time. I think it'd be great to get a pool of candidates. So we can look at credentials and see really who would best fit. So I would ask that we table this item. until such point in time as we know whether or not the city has the ability to borrow money in which time we then will have the need for, you know, this committee to be active.

Thank you. All right. Anybody else? Any comments?

I'll make a comment.

Go right ahead.

Thank you, Mayor. I would agree it does feel premature to me also, but I also did a quick review of the Debt Management Policy, Section 4-201 membership. And there are some pretty clear requirements in terms of background and experience. And so I want to make sure that we really adhere to this when it comes to approving folks for this very important advisory board. So I do support tabling this until a more appropriate time.

All right. Anything else? All right. Looking for a motion.

I guess I'll make a motion to table this particular item until such time as City knows whether or not it can borrow, at which time we can look to fill this Debt Management Committee.

Second. I have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Stokes. City Clerk, can you read that back for the record, please? Sure.

to continue item number 26-0265 until such time as the City is able to borrow money and is looking to add membership to the Debt Advisory Committee.

Thank you and that was seconded by Vice Mayor. If there's nothing to that, please vote. And that passes 5-0. Moving on to public hearings. Item CC-DMA-23-249. This is a quasi-judicial hearing. And city clerk, can you read the petition title?

Consideration of petition number DMA-23-249, PMCPA-23-0000249, Tuscola Commons Development Master Plan Amendment. Can everyone wishing to provide testimony please stand and 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 so help you God?

I do.

Thank you. And Mr. Mayor, we do not have any agreed parties.

All right. I'm gonna ask for disclosure of ex parte communications. Commissioner Duvall?

No.

Mr. Stokes? Other than conversations in my one-on-one briefing, none. I have none. Vice Mayor?

Just in my agenda briefing, a very brief conversation on this.

Commissioner Petro?

I have none.

All right. We're moving on to presentation by applicant.

She's just loading it up for me.

No worries.

Thank you. Hi, good morning. I'm Linda Stewart, certified planner with Pate Gossin, representing the applicant for Tuscola Self-Storage Project Site. This is an aerial view of the Tuscola Commons Commercial Subdivision with the project site located at the northeast corner of Tuscola Boulevard and Murillo Lane, north of US-41. The request is to amend the existing Tuscola Commons Development Master Plan, DMA 23249, for a change on this parcel's proposed use to a four-story self-storage facility with a 29,209-square-foot footprint. This vacant project site is located at 5632 Tuscola Boulevard and is a 1.29 acre parcel located within the overall 14 acre commercial subdivision. The project is currently zoned PCD. We are not asking for a rezoning of the parcel. The parcel is located within activity center number one, according to the City of North Port Codes. This slide indicates the existing uses within the commercial subdivision, within Hampton Inn to the east, Lowe's to the west, and various other commercial uses, retail uses to the south along US 41. The building elevation show a proposed building to be four stories with an FAR of 0.95 with the code limitations of 1.0 FAR, which shows that this building is within the allowable use for the FAR intensity for the project. Additional elevation show the front of the building, including the loading and unloading area under cover from the elements. The proposed color palette is within the code requirements for the pattern book for activity center number one. Traffic for the site is significantly reduced from the proposed previous use. This use is anticipated to generate nine trips in the AM and PM peak hour with an average daily total of 146 daily trips. The previously approved use was for a 6,000 square foot convenience store with 16 fueling stations, a high trip generator. This previously submitted traffic report noted over 2,600 daily traffic trips, a difference of over 2,400 daily trips that will be reduced on the city's road network with this change. Auto turn was run on the site, utilizing a garbage truck and large fire truck to make sure they would maneuver through the property efficiently. As noted, this was a positive outcome. Parking for the property is based on the office square footage, which is 1500 square feet with six spaces required for the overall development. And they are providing above that with nine spaces. A neighborhood workshop was held on February 5th, 2026 at 6 p.m. The meeting ended at 6.30 p.m. since there were no attendees to ask questions. The applicant, Tuscola Commons, LLC, has no objections to staff's conditions in the staff report. In my expert opinion, the required modifications are within compliance of the City of Northport Unified Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. AND WITH THAT, WE'RE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.

Good morning, Commissioners. Adriana Silva, Planner 2, Planning and Zoning Division, and I have been sworn. For your consideration today, we have the Tuscola Commons Self-Stored Development Master Plan Amendment through petition number DMA-23-249, also PMCPA-23-0000249. The applicant on this is Matthew J. Morris, through formerly Morris Engineering, now Pape Dawson, represented by Ms. Linda Stewart today. The property owner is Daniel S. Oberski. He is the registered agent for Tuscola Commons. This request is to amend the Tuscola Commons development master plan to modify the site layout to accommodate the construction of a 29,209 square foot self-storage facility. The address is 5632 Tuscola Boulevard, and it is located at the intersection of Murillo Lane and Tuscola Boulevard, with the total development master site consisting of 14 acres and the proposed amendment on approximately one acre. The following conditions were recommended by staff and will be enforced at the time of site development and infrastructure plan amendment application. The review of this request did undergo a pre-application meeting on August 16th of 2023, followed by a formal submittal on September 26th of 2023. Staff has reviewed the request for consistency with the city's comprehensive plan and the city's unified land development code. This is the subject site. It is the final remaining vacant parcel in the entirety of the development master plan. And this is the proposed development master plan amendment for the self-storage facility. The request was reviewed for compliance with the 2017 City of North Port Comprehensive Plan as this was the comprehensive plan in effect at the time of submittal. Goal one of the future land use element does state that the city is to ensure that the character and location of land uses maximizes the potential for economic benefit and the enjoyment of natural and manmade resources by citizens while minimizing the threat to health, safety, and welfare posed by hazards, nuisances, incompatible land uses, and environmental degradation. This site has a future land use of activity centers, and these lands are designated to provide an area for coordinated development of industrial, commercial, professional office, residential, public, and recreational uses. The staff does find that petition number DMA-23-249, Tuscola Commons Self-Storage Development Master Plan Amendment is consistent with the future land use goal one of the city's comprehensive plan. Goal two states that the city shall promote an intensive mixture of employment, goods and services, and residential uses in the activity centers to provide a wide range of residential and employment alternatives to achieve the highest standards of quality in the urban environment and to provide a balanced and healthy tax base. Policy 2.1.1 speaks to Activity Center 1 on US 41, and this activity center shall be established to provide for retail, office, commercial, and limited light industrial uses. This is a long-established commercial area providing services to the surrounding neighborhoods and to the people using the US 41 corridor. Staff does find the petition number DMA-23-249, Tuscola Common Self-Storage Development Master Plan Amendment consistent with the Future Land Use GOP Policy 2.1.1 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Policy 2.1.2 does speak to the access road and cross-access easements to be established to promote internal traffic movement and limited reentry directly onto US 41. The Tuscola Commons development master plan amendment is consistent with future land use goals and policies 2.1.2 of the city's comprehensive plan. Objective three speaks to the economic base being increased and diversified through planning and development activities that attract new businesses and industries while also encouraging the expansion of existing businesses and industries as indicated in the economic development element. Policy 3.3 is to promote the overall sustainability and tax-based diversification. stating that the city shall pursue a goal of at least 18% non-residential development, and staff does find that the petition, DMA-23-249, is consistent with the Future Land Use Policy 3.3 of the city's comprehensive plan. The transportation element, roadway level of service does state that the city must have a determination as to whether the existing roadway can adequately serve the existing and future demands. And it is predicated on the ability to estimate the maximum amount of traffic a roadway can safely accommodate. This development master site was originally approved for a more traffic intensive use. So staff finds that petition number DMA-23-249 TUSCOLA COMMONS SELF-STORAGE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT ROADWAY LEVELS OF SERVICE IN THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. CHAPTER 11 IS THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND POLICIES 1.1.5 AND 1.1.6. speak to recognizing the value of establishing land use regulations that allow industrial and commercial uses in appropriate locations that have limited options for locating in other areas of the county or region, and that they employ best management practices that reduce negative on- and off-site impacts and are appropriately buffered from other potentially incompatible land uses. And 1.1.6 speaks to diversifying its tax base through the implementation of programs to attract additional commercial, industrial, and mixed-use developments and encourage the development or redevelopment of vacant and underutilized parcels, as this is the final remaining vacant parcel on the development master plan site. Staff finds that the DMA-239-249 Tuscola Commons Self-Storage Development Master Plan Amendment is consistent with Economic Development GOP's Goal 1, Objective 1 Policies 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. In the same manner, this application was reviewed for consistency with the 2010 Unified Land Development Code, as this was in effect at the time of submittal. Chapters 53, sections 103 through 114 apply to this application. The subject property is zoned planned community development, which provides an area for coordinated development of industrial, commercial, service, residential, and government uses within a park-like setting. The DMA, as presented, complies with the applicable 2010 Unified Land Development Code requirements. And compliance with the Chapter 53, Sections 53-103 through 114 of the ULDC for height, buffering, landscape, and screening requirements must be demonstrated and will be required to be further detailed at the time of site development and infrastructure plan applications. Notice of public hearing and neighborhood meetings were held. Notice of public hearings by postcards were mailed to the owners and property owners within 1,320 foot radius of the subject property on May 19th, 2026. The petition was also advertised in a newspaper of general circulation within the city of Northport on May 19th, 2026. PURSUANT TO SECTION 53-5.E OF THE UNIFIED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE APPLICANT DID HOLD A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON FEBRUARY 26th AT 6 PM VIRTUALLY VIA ZOOM AND NO RESIDENTS WERE IN ATTENDANCE. THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WAS PROPERLY NOTICED BY ULDC REQUIREMENTS. THE PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION RECOMMENDS, PRIOR TO RECOMMENDATION, I DO WANT TO VERBALLY ADVISE THE BOARD THAT THE PLANNING ZONING ADVISORY BOARD DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION. HOWEVER, DUE TO THE AGENDA TIMELINES, THE AGENDA WAS POSTED PRIOR TO THE PLANNING ZONING ADVISORY BOARD MEETING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD A TIMELY hearing process for the applicant. The Planning and Zoning Division does recommend approval of petition number DMA-23-249, PMCPA-23-0000249, Tuscola Commons Development Master Plan Amendment. Thank you.

All right. Switching back to applicant for rebuttal.

Yes, Linda Stewart again. I just wanted to clarify that the footprint of the building is 29,000 square feet, and then there's four stories to that, so it's over 100,000 square feet in total square footage for the overall building site.

Thank you. Staff, rebuttal?

No rebuttal.

Thank you. City Clerk, public comment? No public comment, Mr. Mayor. All right. Commission questions, discussion? Anybody? Vice Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor. I have a question for Ms. Stewart. What type of market analysis do you perform in order to assess the demand for another storage facility in the City of Northport?

We personally do not perform those. The applicant performs those as part of their due diligence to decide whether or not that this is something that's feasible for them to do. But that's not something that I perform.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

That's it.

Commissioner Petro.

Thank you, ma'am. Just a question on how many jobs will this project bring, as opposed to how many jobs were projected in the previous design when?

I did not work on the previous design. This one, we have people who will work in the office, and then they have maintenance people, lawn care, electricians, things like that that will work on the facility. But the full-time people will work eight to five in the office on-site.

How many employees? Probably two.

Just for the on-site people besides, like I said, all the other people that will be employed, you know, for other contractors and things like that that are needed in order to make it operational.

The thing is, the self-storage facilities are not typically allowed in the activity center one, and this board consistently is promoting jobs for the local economy. This project is not job-focused, in my opinion.

But it's somewhat consistent with a convenience store. I mean, all of us go into them on a daily basis, and you'll have one or two employees at a time working in a convenience store. And that's the same that you'll have with a self-storage facility. This is the applicant.

Sorry, my name's Dan Olberski, for the record. Just to clarify some elements of economic benefit and job creation, that site would have anticipated a build cost for its prior use somewhere in the range of two and a half to four and a half million dollars. Our baseline cost for this is over $10 million. So from an economic benefit and job creation, I think it's arguable that we have employment in place as well as a value creation to the city of Northport that exceeds the prior use.

And this question was raised by Vice Mayor Linton about the analysis of market analysis as far as the demand for the storage facilities project. Can you answer that?

We analyze based on occupancy and rental income as well as future growth. And so understanding what is in place, what the potential future development It is difficult to develop storage in the Village of, or in the City of Northport. And so we believe it's a long-term, strong, stable opportunity for both the opportunity that sits in place, as well as once the bridge is connected over to the residents to the North from a convenience and service perspective.

Yes, I'm just not too convinced about the project, besides that bridge is still in a discussion or negotiation stage, and there's no foreseeable confidence of that bridge being built. But it's just, you know, we, and I'll speak on behalf of myself, because I represent the constituents and, you know, it's another storage facility and you are tone deaf and not listen, you don't listen to us. What about some more economic driver as opposed to storage facility? So I'm not too convinced about the project or changing the use of that project. And this is just my view of it. But I do appreciate your petition.

Commissioner Petroff, just as a reference, the property has been on the market for the past 10 years. And so if other economic interested parties had an interest in it, we absolutely would have contemplated that. In that 10 year period, we do not have an active pursuer of an alternative use for that parcel. So it's creating more benefit and jobs than sitting there as vacant land is the best answer I have, although it not being your preferred mechanism.

And I understand that, and to reply to that response, that is like a major hub of commercial attraction in our city, and if it was on the market for 10 years, maybe there was no demand because of the pricing, but I'm not here to judge the price or marketing strategies of that parcel to be sold. I'm just saying what we constantly hear from the citizens and constituents that bring us somewhere we can enjoy life, bring us more jobs, Economic development as opposed to storage facilities and almost every major I would say every major road or roadway in our city is

Commissioner Petro, if I may provide clarification on the use. Per ULDC section 55-15, the personal storage is a permitted use by right in the activity center one district. And I did want to speak to THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT. AND AS THE APPLICANT HAD MENTIONED, THIS PARCEL HAS BEEN REMAINING VACANT FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. IT IS THE FINAL VACANT PARCEL ON THE SITE. SO AS THIS IS A PERMITTED USE BY RIGHT, AND THEY WOULD BE PROVIDING AN APPROPRIATE COMMERCIAL USE TO PROVIDE SERVICE FOR THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA, THAT IS the analysis that staff finds that this is a very compatible use and a good economic development for commercial use in the property.

So can I ask a question about clarification of the intended use? You said it's allowed?

Yes.

To what extent it's allowed and

It is allowed by right. The reason this needs to go before commission hearing is because it is a development master plan site. So it had a previous use designated, which was also a commercial use. And since we are changing the site layout to allow self-storage, The use was already allowed by right on that parcel. It's just the amendment to the development master plan that forced it to come before commission, the nature of the development site. However, the unified land development code, in effect at the time of submittal, does establish personal storage use as a permitted use within activity center one.

Does it specify the storage?

Yes, personal storages.

I'm sorry, the number of stores?

Of units, yes. So they will be within the maximum building height for the activity center one district and the previously approved development master plan.

Nevertheless, the board has authority to deny the petition of a changing of the master plan.

Yes, the board has the approval to deny approval, provide approval or denial based off of.

Okay, thank you. Of course.

Commissioner Stokes. Yeah, I'll be sure. I truly appreciate that this complies with the comp plan in the ULDC, and I appreciate that it's been sitting vacant for all these years, and I appreciate that probably it's a better use than a gas station. But again, it's a disappointment that such a prime piece on Route 41 couldn't couldn't find its way to something that was a bit more appealing for our residents in the way of amenity, as well as job creation, as Commissioner Petro said. So, you know, disappointed once again being handcuffed by the law and what we're required to approve. So, you know, I just want to go on record as saying just another disappointment. Thank you. Commissioner Duvall.

Thank you, Mayor. I too wish that a development, you know, in a space would have something that, you know, provides more jobs, you know, something, you know, like a light manufacturing. But I'm very familiar with that area where this location is. As Commissioner Stokes mentioned, you know, a gas station, Tuscola Boulevard is already crowded, you know, with the traffic coming from some of the businesses that kind of front 41. Lowe's is right across the street. And this use is not going to generate very much traffic on any given time. Secondly, with the size of the property, the number of parking spaces, if we were to put office space there that service customers, there's just not that much room there for parking. And added to that, this is another storage facility. But I don't see any of them going out of business. So it must be people who are using them. I do have one little question for staff. Do we have any kind of estimation of what revenue the city will get from this? You know, real estate taxes, business taxes?

Yes, one moment. The staff report did. to Okay, so in the staff report and our analysis of consistency with the comprehensive plan objective three for the economic tax base and policy 3.3 to promote overall sustainability and tax base diversification, that the city shall pursue a goal of at least 18% non-residential development. Based on the construction cost of the project, the city estimates an ad valorem of $62,658.20 over the first five years post-construction. This does not include non-ad valorem assessments aligning with the city's objective to increase and diversify its economic tax base through non-residential development.

Thank you. You know, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride, they say. You know, and I do wish, you know, that we, for economic development, you know, in this city, we had, you know, some white industries, but it is what it is. And I just don't see how this building goes to the detriment of the city. Thank you.

All right. Yeah, I just want to remind the board that we are in the middle of a quasi-judicial hearing, and we must follow the law, and we must follow the competent substantial evidence in this case. So when we render our decision, that's what we must follow. Moving back to closing arguments. Stop.

I did want to clarify one final point. The personal storage use is a permitted use by right in the previous code and in the current code for Activity Center 1, and staff does recommend approval of the petition, DMA-23-249. Thank you. Applicant? Yes, sir. Thank you.

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

I'll give it a shot. I move to approve petition number PMCPA-23-0000245, 249, thank you, sir, incorporating the four requirements identified in the staff report and find that based on the competent substantial evidence, the development master plan complies with the unified land development code.

Second.

I have a motion on the floor made by Vice Mayor, seconded by Commissioner Duvall. City Clerk, can you read that back for the record, please?

To approve petition number PMCPA-23-0000249, incorporating the four conditions in the staff report, and find that based on the competent substantial evidence, the Develop Master Plan complies with the Unified Land Development Code.

Thank you. If there's nothing to that, please vote. And that passes five to zero. Thank you all very much. Moving on to ordinances first reading, ordinance number 2026-09. I request a motion to direct the City Clerk to read by title only.

Second.

I have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Stokes, seconded by Vice Mayor, to have the City Clerk read by title only. Please vote. And that passes five to zero. City Clerk.

An ordinance of the City of Northport Florida, providing that failure to appear at a code enforcement hearing constitutes an admission and waiver and authorizes an imposition of penalties and costs, amending the code of the City of Northport, Florida, section 2-508, providing for findings, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, providing for codification, and providing an effective date.

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

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Proposed ordinance number 2026-09 is intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the city's code enforcement hearing process by addressing situations in which an alleged violator fails to appear at a proper notice hearing. The change is intended to create a more consistent and predictable process while supporting timely enforcement and enhancing the city's ability to protect the public's health, safety, and welfare through effective code enforcement. We recommend that you choose option one, which is approved ordinance 2026-09 as presented and continue with your second reading on June 23rd, 2026. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Commission, any questions, discussion? Vice Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor. My only question during my agenda briefing was whether or not existing properties would be impacted by this change, and I was assured that none would. I can imagine for either residential or a business, having their address changed could be problematic. So I was assured that no existing structures. I'm getting a no from the city manager.

That's the next item, Madam Vice Mayor, regarding the street naming change. This is the one regarding the code enforcement for the violators. Oh, I am so sorry.

Yes, okay. I am so sorry. The violators, how will the violators be notified of their hearings?

Good morning, Elena Ray, Director of Development Services. The violators do get notice from the Code Enforcement Division regarding the results of the hearing. Prior to the hearing, they get notices of the hearing date and time. There is sufficient time for them to request a postponement. If there's some reason that they can't make it, we do accommodate their schedules regularly. So we frequently postpone cases in order for them to be able to attend.

And how is the notice delivered? Is it certified mail or U.S. mail?

It is posted on the property and it is delivered by U.S. mail. We do require return receipts.

Okay, great, thank you.

And Madam Vice Mayor?

Yes.

Those are the current practices that are in place. Those aren't new practices.

Right, there's no change to any of that. Correct. Okay, thank you. That's all I wanted to explore.

And while we're on that subject about, you know, requests and postponements and this, that, and the other, what if there was an emergency situation that they were unaware of and they couldn't make it?

We will re-hear the case. If they make us aware that... And we've had that happen. We've had people who have had a death in the family and couldn't make it to the hearing. As long as they... notify us even after the hearing, we will reschedule and have a rehearing for them.

And that's what I had thought. I just wanted that put in the record. So, while we were on that subject, thank you very much.

We do try to be very accommodating.

Yeah, I know you are. So, Commissioner Duvall, did you have something? I saw you up there. They erased it.

Yes, thank you, Mayor. I've heard a saying in the past that If you don't enforce a law, you shouldn't have that law. Same goes with raising a child. You know, if you tell a child not to do something, there's no consequences if he does it, then you're wasting your time. So to that end, I think this is a good proposition. Thank you.

City Clerk, public comment? No public comment, Mr. Mayor. All right, I'm going to close this public hearing and request a motion. Anyone? Go ahead.

I move to continue ordinance number 2026-09 to a second reading on June 23rd, 2026. Second.

I have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Petro to continue ordinance number 2026-09 to a second reading on June 23rd, 2026. That was seconded by Commissioner Stokes. If there's nothing to that, please vote. That passes five to zero. Moving on to Ordinance 2026-17. I request a motion to have the Clerk read it. So moved.

Second.

I have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Stokes, seconded by Vice Mayor to direct the City Clerk or Deputy City Clerk to read by title only. Please vote. That passes five to zero. City Clerk?

An ordinance of the City of Northport, Florida regarding street naming and property numbering amending the code of the City of Northport, Florida section 70-55 through 70-58 providing for findings, excuse me, providing for findings, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, providing for codification and providing an effective date.

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

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The City of Northport street naming and property numbering regulations are codified within the code of the City of Northport section 7055 through 7058. These regulations do not align with current practices and interagency emergency response systems and contain outdated provisions that are no longer applicable to the addressing system. The proposed amendments would achieve the following of aligning the current practices that have advanced due to technology, address government facilities within multiple buildings, provide for limited administrative authority to depart from certain provisions when such departures are in alignment with the emergency response system requirements and provide for due process for those agreed by addressing decisions. We recommend that you approve option one, which is approval ordinance number 26-17 and continue second reading. on June 23rd, 2026. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, sir. Commission, questions? Vice Mayor?

Now my big moment. My concern was any existing properties being disadvantaged by a numbering change, and I was assured that there were no existing buildings that would be changing as a result of this ordinance. So I'm okay with that.

I remember hearing that somewhere. Yeah.

Oh, okay.

echo nobody else city clerk any public comment no public comment mr mayor all right i'm going to close this hearing and request a motion i'll make it go ahead make sure i have the right one i move to continue ordinance number 2026-17 to second reading on june 23rd 2026. I have a motion on the floor made by Vice Mayor to continue Ordinance Number 2026-17 to second reading on June 23rd, 2026, seconded by Commissioner Duval. If there's nothing to that, please vote. And that passes five to zero. Moving on to ordinance number 2026-18, I request a motion to direct the city clerk to read by title only. So moved. I have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Stokes, seconded by Vice Mayor, to direct the deputy city clerk to read by title only. If there's nothing to that, please vote. That passes five to zero. City Clerk?

In ordinance of the City of Northport, Florida, amending the non-district budget for fiscal year 2025 through 2026 for use of state of Florida contraband forfeiture funds in the amount of $55,000, providing for findings, providing for posting, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing an effective date.

Thank you. City Manager, this is your item.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Pursuant to the act, expenditures above $15,000 involve a critical obligation and a minimum of 25% of the funds must support or operate programs related to drug treatment, drug abuse education, drug prevention, crime prevention, safe neighborhoods, or school resource officer programs. The local law enforcement agency has the discretion to determine which programs will receive the designated proceeds, which have been outlined in the event summary. We recommend that you choose option one today, which is approve the ordinance number 2026-18 as presented and move to second reading on June 23rd, 2026. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you. Commission questions, discussions? Commissioner Duvall.

Thank you, Mayor. I understand this is forfeiture funds and there's certain ways they can be used. As I was looking through some of the back-down material, I noticed that National laid out $26,000 for T-shirts. That's 2,600 shirts at $10 a shirt. That's $1,300 at $20 a shirt. giving away shirts to the citizens you know that attend you know maybe that's not such a bad thing but gee I wish there were some little more beneficial uses to those funds that's all just $26,000 seems like an awful lot for t-shirts thank you

City Clerk, public comment? No public comment, Mr. Mayor. And I'm going to close this public hearing and request a motion.

I guess I'll make it. Go ahead. I also make sure I'm on the right one. I move to continue ordinance number 2026-18, the second reading on June 23rd, 2026.

Thank you. I have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Stokes to continue ordinance number 2026-18 to second reading on June 23rd, 2026. Do I have a second? I'll second. Seconded by Commissioner Devone. I have nothing to that. Please vote. That passes five to zero. Moving on to second readings. ORDINANCE NUMBER 2026-13. CITY CLERK, CAN YOU READ BY TITLE ONLY, PLEASE?

IN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NORTHPORT, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF NORTHPORT, FLORIDA, APPENDIX A, CITY FEE SCHEDULE, AMENDING PARKS AND RECREATION, GENERAL FEES AND FACILITY RENTAL FEES, PROVIDING FOR FINDINGS, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THANK YOU, MR. CITY MANAGER. THIS IS YOUR ITEM.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. During the City Commission regular meeting held on May 19th, 2026, there was a motion made to continue Ordinance Number 2026-13 to the second reading on today, June 9th, 2026, which passed on a 5-0 vote. Ordinance Number 2026-13 was provided to the City Clerk's Office on June 4th for signature subject to City Commission approval. We recommend on second reading today for you to choose option one, which is to approve Ordinance Number 2026-13 on today, June 9th, 2026, as presented. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, sir. Commission questions, discussion? City Clerk, public comment?

No public comment, Mr. Mayor.

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

I'll make. Go ahead. Move to adopt ordinance 2026-13 as presented. Second.

I have a motion on the floor to adopt ordinance number 2026-13 as presented, made by Commissioner Stokes, seconded by Commissioner Duvall. If there's nothing to do that, please vote. That passes five to zero. Moving on to ordinance number 2026-16. City Clerk, can you read by title only, please?

The ordinance of the City of Northport, Florida related to city solid waste services amending chapter 66 of the code of the City of Northport, Florida, providing for findings, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, providing for codification, and providing an effective date.

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

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. During the City Commission regular meeting held on May 19th, 2026, the City Commission approved a motion, 4-1, to approve the ordinance on first reading and continue to second reading on June 9th, 2026. Today we ask that you take the recommended action of option one, which is approving ordinance number 2026-16 on today, June 9th, 2026, as presented. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Commission questions, discussions? Not seeing any. City Clerk, public comment? No public comment, Mr. Mayor. All right. I'm going to close this hearing and request a motion.

I'll make it.

Go ahead.

I move to adopt ordinance number 2026-16 as presented.

I have a motion on the floor to adopt ordinance number 2026-16 as presented, made by Commissioner Duvall. Do I have a second? Second. Seconded by Commissioner Stokes. Nothing to that. Please vote. And that passes five to zero. Moving down to third reading, ordinance number 2026-10. City Clerk, can you read by tongue alone, please?

An ordinance of the City of North Port, Florida relating to impact fee collection and the impact fee deferral program amending and renumbering chapter 58 of the code of the City of North Port, Florida providing for impact fees, purpose and authority, definitions, payment of fees, impact fee schedules, exemptions, appeals, reporting and reviewing of fees, refunds, developer reimbursement and credits, amending the deferral program, providing for eligible development, timing of application, application contents, agreement and payment schedule, providing for findings, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, providing for codification, and providing an effective date.

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

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. During the City Commission regular meeting on April 21st of 2026, the City Commission voted 5-0 to adopt Ordinance Number 2026-10 as amended to eliminate Article 2 in its entirety. Due to this substantive change, the City Attorney's Office determined it was required to re-advertise the ordinance and bring it back to Commission for consideration at a third reading. But the third reading requires staff also remove language in Chapter 58 that was associated with the option to defer impact fees and definitions that only apply to Article 1 to reflect the Commission direction to remove the deferral program in its entirety. Today, we recommend that you choose Option 1, which is approving Ordinance Number 26-10 as presented. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, sir. Commission, questions, discussions? City Clerk, any public comment? No public comment, Mr. Mayor. All right. I'm going to close this public hearing and request a motion.

I'll make it.

Go ahead.

Which one of us?

I don't care. Somebody please, Mr. Mayor.

I move to adopt ordinance number 2026-10 as presented.

Second. I have a motion on the floor made by Vice Mayor to adopt ordinance number 2026-10 as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Stokes. If there's nothing to that, please vote. And that passes five to zero. Moving on to resolution number 2026-R-32. Deputy City Clerk, can you read by title only?

A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Northport, Florida, accepting the transfer of water and wastewater infrastructure and improvements and associated warranties in Manasota Beach Ranch Lands Plat Number 1, providing for incorporation of recitals, providing for filing of documents, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing an effective date.

Thank you, City Manager. This is your item.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Section 78-31 of the COVID-19 City of Northport requires developers to provide or pay for the capital costs, including land costs of the required capital improvements for utility infrastructure associated with the new developments. Section 5.3 of the amended and restated utilities agreement with West Villages Improvement District dated February 27th to 28th 2007 outlines the requirements for design, review, construction, inspection, and conveyance of water and wastewater facilities for this development. The agreement also outlines the city's responsibility to accept ownership of the infrastructure once improvements are completed in accordance with approved plans. For Manasota Beach Ranch Lands, plaque number one, the developer has constructed the required water and wastewater infrastructure, dedicated the necessary easements, and provided warranties to the city. The improvements have been inspected and approved by the utilities department. Under the executed developer agreement, the city is required to accept ownership of the completed infrastructure. We ask that today you take the recommended action of option one, which is approved resolution number 2026-R32 as presented. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, sir. Commission, questions, discussion, anything? City Clerk, public comment? No public comment, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to close this hearing and request a motion. I'll make it. Go ahead. I move to adopt resolution 2026-R-32 as presented. Second. I have a motion on the floor to adopt resolution number 2026-R-32 as presented, made by Commissioner Stokes, seconded by Vice Mayor. Nothing to that. Please vote. There we go. And that passes 5-0. Moving on to resolution number 2026-R-38. City Clerk, can you read by title only?

A resolution of the city commission of the city of Northport, Florida, initiating the process for negotiating an interlocal service boundary agreement with Sarasota County, Florida, pursuant to part 2 of chapter 171, Florida statutes, providing for findings, providing for subjects of negotiations, identifying municipal service area, providing for transmittal, providing for conflicts, providing for severability and providing an effective date.

Thank you, sir city manager. This is your item.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So an inter-local service boundary agreement, which is called an ISBA, is a joint agreement between two or more local government bodies for the purpose of ensuring proper coordination regarding land use, provisional services, funding, and other impacts related to annexation of public property. The Florida statute encourages local government participation in an ISBA to jointly determine how to designate future land use. to provide services to residents and property in the most efficient and effective manner, while balancing the needs and desires of the community, to promote sensible boundaries that reduce the cost of local government, to avoid duplicating local services, to increase political transparency and accountability, and to prevent inefficient service delivery and an insufficient tax base to support the delivery of those services. North Port does not currently have an ISBA with Sarasota County, and therefore, annexation of property and determination of service delivery is often fraught with uncertainty and inefficiency. The city's comprehensive plan also recognizes the importance of pursuing such an agreement. City staff has been working with county administrative staff for several months in order to work and partner to make sure that this ISVA is created in a way that will benefit the city and the county collectively. We believe that we've outlined the information in the ISVA that will allow you to take the recommended action, which is approved resolution number 2026-R38 today. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, sir.

Comments, questions, discussion?

Commissioner Stokes. Yeah, just so people understand a little of this. You know, for a very long time, a lot of these areas that sit presently in unincorporated Sarasota County are areas that, especially in the area of first responders, we are first on the spot to. We have, as I understand it, pretty much just a general agreement that whosoever there first jumps in, provides their services and helps. City of Northport and its taxpayers get no benefit whatsoever, financial benefit, whatsoever from the services we we we offer up and and perform in these areas so this eventually will lead to our ability to actually get compensated properly for the kinds of services we provide so you know i i am supportive of this is the beginning of a process thank you thank you vice mayor uh thank you may yes to pile on um a little bit on that i i think in

A lot of different instances, the county, and this is not any comment on the ability of the county to service these areas. They're fully capable, but the distance they need to travel to perform these services really make it difficult for them to provide timely services down here. This is nothing new. We've had areas targeted in our comprehensive plan for annexation for years, if not decades. And this is simply a mechanism that will make it easier and more efficient for us to do that when the time is appropriate. So I'm very supportive of approving this item.

Thank you. I see no one else. City Clerk, public comment? No public comment, Mr. Mayor.

All right, I'm going to close this hearing and request a motion. I'll be happy to make it. You go right ahead, sir. I move to adopt resolution 2026-R-38 as presented.

I have a motion on the floor to adopt resolution number 2026-R-38 as presented, made by Commissioner Stokes.

Second.

Seconded by Vice Mayor. If there's nothing to that, please vote. And that passes five to zero. Moving on to resolution number 2026-R-41. Deputy City Clerk, can you read by title only please?

A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Northport, Florida initiating the process for negotiating an interlocal service boundary agreement with Sarasota County, Florida pursuant to Part 2 of Chapter 171, Florida Statutes, providing for findings, providing for subjects of negotiations, identifying municipal service area, providing for transmittal, 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 City has received an annexation request from Winchester, Florida, Ranch LLP, the owner of approximately 2,146 acres of property, also known as Winchester Ranch, currently located in unincorporated Sarasota County. Portions of this property lay outside the Sarasota County Urban Service Area, as it was shown on the Future Land Use Map of Sarasota County, dated November of 2006. As such, according to the Sarasota County Charter, the City of Northport does not have the authority to assign future land use designations to such portions of this property. However, a Sarasota County Charter allows the City of Northport and Sarasota County to enter into an ISBA that would designate and control the land use for the property and establish delivery of service provisions following annexation. We ask that you take the recommended action of option one, which is approving that pathway and approve resolution number 2026 S.R. 41. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir.

Commissioners, any question or discussion? Commissioner Pedro.

Thank you, Mayor. I've noticed on this resolution there's no mentioning of how the infrastructure will be built, and I'm not sure if it's a legal requirement, but I did find on page three that the delivery and funding of the following central municipal services for the Winchester property, public safety, fire, emergency rescue, medical, water, and wastewater, road ownership, construction, maintenance, conservation, parks and recreation, storm water management, and such other municipal services as determined by the City of Northport. My only concern is, you know, this is a first public discussion as opposed, we did have a presentation by the developer at the workshop not too long ago. but we have not a public discussion as a board or the presentation from the staff how the infrastructure will be built. And that's the concern our residents continue to voice and who will pay and what, who will maintain and what not. So I'm not sure is it, and this would be my probably question referring to legal, is it required to to convey the methods of providing the infrastructure itself before opening a door for annexation of an area that is not developed, that is not developed at all. And to what it would be the cost and financial cost burdens on the cities and any methodology, traffic. My only concern is this, and I'll try to be short, is infrastructure of the roads and providing the essential services to that area. And we all know that that is an evacuation route and South River Road, they've been talking about widening that road for I don't know how many years, decades and longer, and it has not been addressed practically. So in my opinion, for the residents sake and for the city, staff to kind of make a presentation and instead of doing this resolution, and I know this is the first step to do that, but how do we do that as a city? Will city incur additional expense, will city be bound by such unrealistic financial burdens and whatnot, all this stuff, so this is my concern, and I'm just conveying my concerns publicly. I wish we had the presentation by the staff prior doing this, and I'm in full support of the first is, but this one, You know, we are very vague in our message how we're going to support that area, especially Winchester Ranch, because it's primarily residential as opposed to commercial. So these are just my two cents on this agenda item.

Go ahead, Mayor.

Good morning, Elena Ray, Director of Development Services. First, this resolution does not bind the city to anything. This simply starts a discussion with Sarasota County regarding what the county's responsibilities and the city's responsibilities would be regarding services in this area should this area be annexed by the city, which is ultimately the annexation is a legislative decision that the commission would make down the road. As far as who pays for what, whether the developer pays or the city pays for infrastructure, that is something that can be discussed and determined at time of comprehensive plan and rezoning and site development plans. However, this property is intended to be developed in the same manner that Welland Park has developed, which is that WVID funds and maintains and constructs all infrastructure within the development. So the city would not and has no intention of spending anything for infrastructure. within the Winchester development should that property ultimately be annexed into the city. Those are discussions and presentations that staff will provide in depth at those times upon annexation discussions, comprehensive plan, land use discussions should it get that far down the road.

Thank you. I appreciate it. All right.

I see no one else. Vice Mayor, let's be a little quicker next time.

Sorry, Mayor. Just for the record, this is not the first time we've discussed this. We discussed this in detail at a workshop, which is a public meeting and the community is invited to it and it's broadcast and recorded and all of that. So there should be no surprises about what might be coming. But again, as Director Wray said, This just allows us to have conversations with the county on who does what to whom and when. So I'm in support of this. It makes perfect sense in my mind based on all of the information we discussed at the workshop. So I'm a yay for this.

Thank you. City Clerk, public comment? No public comment, Mr. Mayor. All right, I'm going to close this hearing and request a motion.

I'll make it. Go ahead. I move to adopt Resolution 2026-R-41 as presented.

Second.

I have a motion on the floor to adopt Resolution Number 2026-R-41 as presented, made by Commissioner Stokes, seconded by Commissioner McDowell. Please vote, or excuse me. And that passes 5-0. I don't even know where that one came from. PTSD maybe, I don't know. Resolution number 2026-R-40. City Clerk, can you read by title only?

Resolution of the City Commission of the City of North Port, Florida granting a non-exclusive permanent easement located on a portion of the parcel lying in Section 30, Township 39 South, Range 21 East, Sarasota County, Florida. Property appraiser parcel identification number 0996-00-1004. providing for incorporation of recitals, providing for filing of documents, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing an effective date.

Thank you. City Manager, this is your item.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The city of North Florida owned a parcel of land acquired for the development of the utilities admin and warehouse facility. The existing primary power service provided by Florida Power and Light currently runs along a portion of Children's Way and it terminates at the end of a current dead end in a roadway. Because the building site is located further within the parcel, it's necessary to extend the overhead power line along Children's Way to a point adjacent to the project site From that location, the underground power conduit has already been installed by the contractor through directional boring and is prepared for the next phase of electrical service installation. Upon approval of the required easements and the execution of the agreement with FDL, the utility provider will complete the final installation and connection of electrical service to the utility building site. We ask that you choose recommended option number one, which is approved resolution number 2026-R40 today. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, sir. Discussion? Anybody? City Clerk, public comment? No public comment, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to close this hearing and request a motion. I'll make it. Go ahead. Move to adopt resolution 2026-R-40 as presented. Second. I have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Stokes to adopt resolution number 2026-R-40 as presented. Seconded by Vice Mayor. Please vote. And that passes five to zero. Moving on to resolution number 2026-R-42. City Clerk, can you read my title only?

A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Northport, Florida, approving the City's acceptance of the conveyance of fire station number 87 and associated vehicles, equipment, and improvements effective upon the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy, accepting associated warranties and intangible property, entering an indemnity agreement for future final payments to contractor, providing for filing of documents, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing an effective date.

Thank you. City Manager, this is your item.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Fire Station 87 is located at 17890 Crater Boulevard and will permit public safety emergency response units from North Port Fire Rescue to provide a high level of service to the city of North Port residents, keeping pace with the growing needs of the area. We recommend that you choose option one, which is to approve resolution number 2026-R42, proven the acceptance of the conveyance of fire station number 87 and associated vehicles, equipment, and improvements effective upon the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy presented.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Commission, questions, discussions? City Clerk, public comment? No public comment, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to close this hearing and request a motion.

I'll make it.

Go ahead.

I move to adopt resolution number 2026-R-42 as presented.

Second. I have a motion on the floor made by Vice Mayor to adopt resolution number 2026-R-42 as presented, seconded by Commissioner Stokes. There's nothing to that. Please vote. And that passes five to zero. Moving on to general business, item 26-0767. City Clerk, this is your item.

The city clerk's office received one application from Richard Vance on May 1st, 2026, and one application from Ann Lane on May 14th, 2026. For appointment to the Environmental Advisory Board, we have submitted these applications for review and consideration to appoint one applicant as a regular member and one applicant as an alternate member of the board.

Thank you. All righty. The only question I have is, I believe Mr. Vance put in his application first?

Correct. So Mr. Vance submitted his on May 1st, and Ms. Lane submitted hers on May 14th. Right.

And normally, we usually go with whoever puts in first as would be the member, and the second one would be the alternate. So Vice Mayor? You have deplored?

Yes, Mayor. And I do agree with the Mayor. That has been our practice when we judge both applicants as equally capable. And although Mr. Vance got his application in first, And I do believe that most hunters have a deep respect for the environment and for the critters that exist on that environment. Ms. Lane has both the... education and practical experience in environmental matters. She's been teaching environmental subjects at Northport High School for years. So in my mind, I think that tips a jump ball in my book. And so for those reasons, I would suggest that we make Ms. Lane the regular member of the Environmental Advisory Board and Mr. Vance the alternate.

There's no one else. Public comment? No public comment, Mr. Mayor. All right. I'm going to close this and request a motion.

I'll make a motion.

Go ahead.

I move to approve the appointment of Ms. Lane to serve as the regular member of the Environmental Advisory Board and Mr. Vance as the alternate member, both to serve a first term on the Environmental Advisory Board from June 9th, 2026 to June 9th, 2029.

I have a motion on the floor to approve the appointment of Ms. Lane to serve as a regular member and Mr. Vance to serve as an alternate member to serve a first term on the Environmental Advisory Board from June 9th, 2026 through June 9th, 2029. Do I have a second? You do. I have a seconded by Commissioner Stokes. There's nothing to that. Please vote. And that passes five to zero. Welcome aboard board members. Moving on to 26-0642. City Manager, this is your item.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This item is discussion of possible action regarding initiating imminent domain of 30 parcels located within the natural corridor between the Little Salt Spring and the Maya-Aquahatchee Creek Spring Haven Drive area. We do have a staff presentation by Mr. Stephon Caleb, who is our natural resource manager, and I will turn it over to him and his team. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Good afternoon commissioners or good morning, excuse me, Stefan Califf, Natural Resources Manager with the City of Northport. So today I will speak about the eminent domain consideration for 30 parcels located within the natural corridor for Spring Haven Drive area. Some backgrounds. Back in 2014, September, the extension of the Spring Haven Drive project was approved for fiscal year 2014-2015 budget. Then February 12, 2015, a memo was provided outlining project details and prior analysis for this project. Now in May 24th, 2016, an agreement 2016-02 was executed, which are engineering and surveying for design and permitting. August 25th, 2016, first public meetings were held at the Morgan Family Community Center. Supplemental agreement number one was approved to modify the existing environmental resource permit back in October 25th, 2016. A complete hydraulic analysis was also done as of then. Now on May 4th, 2017, Friends of Little Salt Spring presented their concerns to Commission about wildlife impacts to this area. On March 6th, 2018, City Commission considered terminating roadway projects and relocating funding to land acquisition. April 24th, 2018, Commission directed City Manager to stop all clearing in the Myakkahatchee Creek Greenway. May 3rd, 2018, Commission terminated roadway project and directed City Manager to pursue acquisition options. Back in 2018, on July 24th, Commission approved 1.5 million surtax funding for parcel acquisition. June 17th, 2019, Commission discussed land acquisition and impacts of roadway cancellation. Later on September 12th, the same year, City purchased five parcels from Q Smith Homes LLC for the value of $55,000 combined for all five parcels. April 14, 2020, City nominated 30 privately-owned parcels through Sarasota County's Environmental Sensitive Lands Protection Program. Later, April 23, 2024, Commission discussed corridor funding and environmental issues, withdrew $5.945 million from the resilient SRQ request, and directed this item under a future agenda return. On April 1st, Natural Resources staff conducted a survey a meeting, an informal meeting with the Sarasota County's Environmental Sensitive Lands Protection Program. And upon that meeting, news were delivered from county staff that funds cannot be used by them due to the owner's price requested far exceeding the appraised value for these properties. Apologies for the long background. There were a few other events from my understanding as well, but I just wanted to get everyone up to speed as much as possible. Now, what is the Northport Natural Corridor area? It's a continuous ecological and cultural greenway. It's extending from Little Salt Spring to Myakkahatchee Creek, also known as Big Slough, of course. The corridor supports wildlife movement, protects existing archeological resources, and preserves one of North Port's most significant natural landscapes. It's certainly a unique property, and I will explain why further in this presentation. So this aerial illustrates the area of discussion for today's meeting. It's highlighted in red and, as you all know, is currently privately owned. To the northwest, we have the University of Miami's currently owned Little Salt Spring parcel. Then we have the middle school directly to the north, and then an area owned by the Sarasota County School Board. Just wanted to point out that that area that you see highlighted to the north West of the red highlighted area is approximately 150 acres combined. Then to the south and southeast of that property, we have the Myakkahatchee Creek Greenway. Why this corridor matters? It provides habitat for diverse wildlife species that have been recorded. in this area. It provides a natural floodplain function and flowway connectivity. It supports community identity and environmental stewardship. It prevents fragmentation of sensitive habitat. And it is identified as a significant wildlife corridor based on documented citizen research. Quick overview of the Spring Haven site. It's 9.3 acres in size and it's consisting of 30 vacant lots. It's located around the west side of Myakkahatchee Creek. It's also adjacent to Butler Park, Morgan Family Community Center, Heron Creek Middle School, and Northport High School. It's surrounded by existing residential neighborhoods to the south and west as well. Here we have a close up depicting the parcels Uh, the thirty privately owned properties by investment properties are highlighted in. Uh, bright pink or purple and, uh, the city on properties are highlighted in light green. This aerial intends to illustrate how this site of interest functions as a bottleneck. It's connecting two larger natural areas. I'm sure that most of you are aware, but I believe that we want to illustrate how significant these properties are. Although not that large, their connectivity is really a key to bring these two habitats together, so to speak. A quick ecological description of this site. Currently, it's a fairly overgrown scrubby flatwood habitat dominated by pine and scrub species. It's bordered by the Myakkahatchee Creek to the east. Stormwater ponds are directly to the north and west. The habitat supports foraging for the gopher tortoise and other animals. It's potential habitat for Florida scrub jays. And as mentioned earlier, it's a significant wildlife corridor. I would say a unique property for North Port. The conservation importance, I briefly touched on that, but the scrubby flatwoods, they are increasingly rare within our city. There has been Florida scrub jay presence documented less than a mile away, at least in 2000, 2004, and 2006 documented surveys. It protects habitat for state and federally listed and threatened species. And additional importance, last but not least, it expands native habitat along the Myakkahatchee Creek, which is one of the remaining uninterrupted wildlife corridors within our city. For potential future considerations, There are different uses and management considerations, but the key here would pertain to habitat preservation, perhaps some type of hiking opportunities for our residents. It's a beautiful area that certainly has a lot to provide. There's opportunities for birding, wildlife viewing, and as mentioned earlier, the Greenway is directly connected by these parcels. So potential future management needs may involve public access planning in coordination with residential areas that are adjacent to this project. cultural and archeological significance. We have the Little Salt Springs, Little Salt Springs site that contains evidence of human activity dating back a long time ago. I even recognize some experts here in the room who may have additional details there. Middle Archaic Period, that's There are some significant archeological artifacts dating from at least that period as well, which is 5500 to 8000 years ago. So the Little Salt Spring area is recognized as a nationally significant archaeological sites site, excuse me, and protecting the corridor preserves potentially irreplaceable cultural heritage of this area. Wildlife has been documented in many cases. There has been documented sightings of bobcat, wild-tailed deer, wild turkey, raccoon, armadillo, and various other wildlifes. Scrub jay was also mentioned earlier, golfer tortoises, of course. So many of these species rely on uninterrupted habitat connectivity. Generally, the larger the species, the more territory they need, which ideally could be uninterrupted. We're all aware that our city's experiencing habitat fragmentation. We see, unfortunately, all the road kills along our roadways. That's simply because our native species don't have enough connected habitat and they have to go through some of these precarious conditions. So possible development threats to the corridor, as I mentioned earlier, habitat fragmentation, increased potential for future wildlife and vehicle collisions, loss of ecological connectivity, noise and light pollution, inability to place conservation easements on privately owned land without the consent of the owner, multiple property owners, complicated efforts to achieve a unified conservation outcome. So quick status updates, as mentioned earlier, Sarasota County staff determined that the Environmental Sensitive Lands Protection Program funds cannot be utilized And the reason for that is that the property owner requested above appraisal value for these properties. There's limited or no other public acquisition mechanism other than a voluntary. voluntary sale or the one that were currently discussed. So eminent domain may be the only practical path to ensure future corridor protection. So we have two options for Commission's consideration today. Option one would be to provide direction to City staff to pursue eminent domain And here's some of the pros that we have for you. This option ensures long-term protection of a critical ecological and cultural corridor. It eliminates uncertainty created by stalled negotiations and fragmented ownership, prevents future incompatible development that could sever connectivity, provides a clear enforceable path to secure land needed for public benefit, strengthens the city's ability to implement adopted plans and conservation goals. It creates a consistent management framework across all parcels in this corridor. It's subject to the availability of funds and project priorities the acquisition initiative could be funded by the Environmental Protection Fund. Of course, this option comes with some downsides as well. Pursuing option one may generate public concerns or opposition from affected property owners. It will require significant staff time for legal coordination and case preparation. Legal challenges to eminent domain could extend the timeline acquisition or result in a determination that the project lacks legitimate public use or other outcome preventing acquisition. This option may also set a precedent that could influence expectations for future land acquisition projects. Option two to consider would be to decline the provides decline to provide staff direction to pursue eminent domain. Pros here, prevents escalation of tensions with owners who oppose public acquisition, reduces short-term workload for staff by not initiating a complex legal process. Also, maintains flexibility if city priorities or commission direction shifts later. The negatives of option two potentially could be continued uncertainty around long-term protection of the corridor. If the commission chooses to initiate eminent domain in the future, acquisition costs will likely increase. Risk of irreversible impacts if owners alter, clear, or develop the land. Also, this option would weaken regional ecological connectivity, again, if these parcels get altered, cleared, or developed. I'll go over the summary of benefits versus drawbacks real quick if I may. Again, the benefits of the eminent domain direction to staff include ensuring long-term protection of a critical ecological and cultural corridor, eliminating uncertainty from stalled negotiations and fragmented ownership, preventing incompatible development that could sever wildlife connectivity, providing a clear enforceable pathway for acquisition after years of stalled negotiations, strengthening the city's ability to implement adopted conservation goals. Drawbacks, potential for public concern or opposition from affected property owners, require significant staff time for legal coordination and case preparation. Legal challenges could extend the timeline or prevent acquisition, may influence expectations for future acquisitions. Staff's recommendation, The commission is asked to provide direction to staff on whether to pursue eminent domain under option one or decline to provide such direction option two. The Spring Haven corridor remains a critical ecological and cultural resource, which requires long-term protection. There's voluntary acquisition efforts that have been unsuccessful, unfortunately. No alternative public funding or acquisition mechanism is currently available. Eminent domain is the remaining mechanism available should the Commission direct staff to pursue it. and funding is potentially available in the Environmental Protection Fund if the Commission chooses to proceed. With that being said, I wanted to thank you for your time and I would love to answer any questions that you may have. Commissioner Stokes.

I want to thank you very much for that very complete presentation. Appreciate it. You know, speaking personally, I consider this an extremely environmentally sensitive area. I was dead set against any roads being built or any development taking place and I still feel that way. But I don't agree with the two options that are out there. I think there's a third option. I'm not comfortable with eminent demand at this point because I just think the idea of taking property is just something that goes against my Nature, it just is, in my opinion, a wrong thing to do, but this area needs to be protected. And certainly, you know, I actually read an email that came to all these commissions from Jonah Miller, which I thought was spot on. And I thought that it might behoove us to think about a resolution that. Signals the importance of this connection points out how environmentally sensitive it is. So the city is on the record. Additionally, I would be curious as to whether or not we could rezone this property in any way shape or form that would prevent development there. but certainly it can't be developed without commission. I would say, at least from this commission standpoint, if my fellow commissioners agree, I would like to make a strong record as saying, you know, this is not acceptable. I just, I have a real problem taking somebody's land and it's going to, Blow up into a lawsuit, which is going to cost us taxpayers a lot of money and a lot of time and a lot of bad publicity for which I don't think we need it. I just want to stop any opportunity for anybody to mess with that land. And in time, I believe if the county gets its financial house in order, there may well be funds available down the road to help do something with regard to this property. Plus, if we send a really strong signal to this property owner that owns these 30 parcels that this city, at least this commission, has no intention of allowing any development there, that may impact his or her, or whoever they are, perspective on what they consider to be the appropriate valuation for this property. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Petro.

Thank you, Mayor. Not to repeat what Commissioner Stokes said, I almost agree in its entirety what he said, but my question, well, first, great presentation and I really appreciate the homework you guys did as far as timeline, very informative. My question is, you mentioned that there are multiple owners of those 30 lots.

No, sir. Currently, there's one owner of all 30 lots.

But some somewhere in the presentation verbally said that the drawbacks or whatnot, that there are multiple owners, which I checked, there's only one. But my question is, to what extent and effort the city staff did go into acquire the proper fair market value, those lots, to what extent? Was it negotiations, or was it one effort, or multiple efforts, and the timing between the efforts, if there were multiple efforts?

Good morning, Elena Ray, Director of Development Services. The city has not entered directly into negotiations with this owner because we have not been authorized by commission to do so. So that is something that we seek, we would have to seek authorization from the commission. Sarasota County has negotiated multiple times with this owner and the amount of compensation that the owner, demanded was far above appraised values and was not willing to sell for less than what they wanted. The county could not pay that much because the government's barred by law as to how much we can pay for a property. I do need to clarify that The city cannot down zone this property, so we couldn't zone it to conservation or anything else. We are barred by Florida statute from doing that. You can up zone without property owner approval. You cannot down zone. Additionally, this property, these lots are pre-platted. The streets are platted as right-of-way, even though the streets aren't there. And the lots are pre-platted. So if the developer wanted to come in, put the street in, and not Spring Haven, but they can access from the south. If they wanted to build the street and get building permits, the city would have to allow them to do that. It wouldn't come to the commission. The building permits would be the same as any other person would apply for a building permit on a pre-platted lot. So we are limited in what we can currently do to prevent any development on that property. The city can decide not to build Spring Haven, which obviously the city commission has made that decision. But there is legal access, right-of-way access from the south through another neighborhood. to these platted lots and the city would have no choice but to issue those building permits if they were applied for.

So to answer or to address what you said, I appreciate the information you provided. Would it be possible to, and I don't like option one or two, because for the same reasons Commissioner Stokes said it, it's not, I don't think we can do this. I mean, we can, but I don't think it's a viable option at this time. to go and forcefully take the land from the legal owner of those lots. But have you thought about teaming up with Sarasota County and maybe do a joint venture, if you will, and maybe approach as a team to resume the negotiation in acquiring those critically environmentally sensitive lands in my opinion, lots.

We have met with Sarasota County on these properties. They, at this time, are not interested in continuing negotiations or pursuit because of the previous unwillingness of the seller in even speaking with them on it. So there are a couple of options. I'd like to... make everybody aware, public included, that when a jurisdiction does declare that they are going to condemn a property and pursue eminent domain, the very first step is a negotiation with the property owner. It is something where the jurisdiction goes out, gets survey and appraisals for the property, presents that formally to the property owner to attempt to negotiate a willing sale. If those condemnation proceedings have started and the owner doesn't agree to that negotiation and there's no way to come to an agreement, then it proceeds through the more formal condemnation and eminent domain process in which the city can pursue forced acquisition. But the very first step is always a negotiation and a willing sale. That is the first step of any condemnation proceeding. If the commission would like for staff to reach out to this property owner to in an attempt to see if we could get a willing sale outside of the eminent domain process, we could certainly do that. We don't have any surveys or appraisals, current appraisals, for the property at this time, so it would be difficult for us to make an offer to the seller without those appraisals. We would need to invest something in order to get that, and we would need commission authorization to do so.

Thank you for that information. I wasn't aware that this would be a strategic step to kind of corner the owner into the stage of negotiation. Now, I guess I have a question for the legal. Can you tell us the process of eminent domain and what this entails?

I think Director Rae essentially laid it out. The first step will be a resolution by the Commission to decide that there's a public purpose and a public necessity involved in whatever the taking will have to be. After the resolution is passed, we will enter into what Director Rae described in the law calls, good faith negotiations with the property owner. If those negotiations do not result in a sale, then if you want to move forward, you do file a lawsuit like you would against anyone else. There's two processes through which you can achieve title to the condemned land. One's known as a quick take. One's known as a slow take. The quick take process means that if you elect to do it that way, you go before a judge in order of taking, judge will find that there is a public necessity and a public purpose, and you will get title to it, in which case you will have to deposit a good faith estimate of whatever the judgment amount would be into the registry at that time. If you do a quick take, you cannot voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit at any time. You have to go all the way through with it. The slow take is You don't have that step. You just go right to a trial. It allows you to dismiss at any time. The trial is amongst a jury of your peers. Unlike most civil and criminal cases, it requires a 12-person jury. And the only other type of case that I know of that has that are capital cases in criminal cases where death penalty is involved. So you have a 12-person jury. You select a jury. You go through a trial. And the... And Jerry decides essentially what the value of the judgment will be. If the value of the property will be that interesting, that verdict is entered into a judgment. Along the way, you will be required in the top of whatever the judgment amount is to pay the petitioner or the property owner's attorney's fees. and cost. The attorneys fees are in a couple different routes. The statute says that if there's a difference between your pre suit offer and the judgment amount, then the attorneys fee award for the first $250,000 difference is 33% of that amount. Then it goes to 25% between 250 and 500. And it goes off sorry between 250 and a million and then it goes from 20% from a million up. So if it's $2 million, you're looking at something like $180,000 in attorney's fees on top of whatever you pay. And even if the amount that the jury awards the property owner is the same as what we offer at the pre-suit amount, you will still probably be required to pay attorney's fees under another subsection of the intimate domain statute, because what the Florida Constitution requires is full compensation to the property owner, which is essentially defined as whatever it would be if there was a free entailment of the property exchange. And the law doesn't presuppose that we can just come in and take it with a piece of property that someone doesn't want to sell. So what that means is that on top of the attorney's fees that could be awarded under that mathematical formula that I just described, there could be additional fees or fees that would be applied based on an hourly rate. You pay all that, you'll pay your petitioner, the property owner, same petitioner, the property owner as well as our which will include extra fees or appraisals and stuff like that, and then you'll probably end up having a five-day cherry trial on that. I apologize for the long explanation, but yes, it's a bit of an open-ended question, so I hope that explains the main process to you.

Thank you for that. A follow-up question to that, and then I'll have another one for you. Well, you said that there's a 12-person jury, so it's not really guaranteed outcome of...

There's never any guaranteed outcome, whether it's a 12-person jury or it's a bench trial.

So, yes. And my question to Elena Ray, will this... will you see this as a viable option to approach the owner and say, listen, we are considering something as eminent domain, would you be willing to enter a negotiation? And if we do that, does this bound us to actually do the process of eminent domain?

So we would, if the commission chose to direct staff to contact the property owner to see if, again, we could negotiate something, staff likely would not position that. Short of a resolution of condemnation from the commission, staff likely would not say the commission might condemn your property. We likely would say that there was a presentation to the commission regarding this property and discussions were held as to how the city might acquire the property and we were directed to reach out to you to see if we could negotiate a sale. We would, as I said previously, we would need the appraisals and survey for the property in order to come to a number that the city would be able to pay. But you'll note in your presentation there's a reason why the staff did not make a recommendation for eminent domain. It is the nuclear option and it is the option of last resort for any jurisdiction to acquire property. I've only seen one eminent domain case go to trial and it wasn't pretty and it was very extended. In all of the other cases that I've worked on, and I've worked on quite a few for land acquisition for infrastructure projects, it has been a voluntary sale. But you always have, sometimes you'll have someone who is a holdout, and it is a question of How far does the commission want to go in order to secure the property if that is something the commission wants to do? We are happy to make every effort to reach out to the property owner to have an initial discussion. And then if he seems amenable, we could come back for authorization to do the survey and the appraisals and enter into negotiations. formal negotiations, but we're happy to have that, and we're happy to reach out and have that initial discussion. The owner is local, so it should be fairly easy to reach them, but we are more than happy to do that as an initial step.

Thank you, and I'll conclude with this. You know, in my opinion, everything has a price, and maybe we should start with a peaceful negotiation, whatever the terminology, legal terminology is, because I'm not in a very, I'm not in approval. these two options, although we do need, I think we'd like to get that land to be protected. But also I was going to mention this, that there are some foundations that are willing to you know, chip in, if you will, and make, you know, whatever the format is, a grant, or maybe we should approach some of those foundations and Also, I would not discount the county, because county has more weight to maybe just even as a partner. If they're not willing to contribute, that's okay, but as long as they're our partner, because they are, you know, represent, we are part of the county, I would strongly recommend the participation of the county and involvement of any foundation that are willing to contribute to the to the asking price or whatever, but everything has a price. And maybe this is the right time because it's not really, we don't all know what the market is. So maybe this is perfect timing. Thank you.

Vice Mayor.

Oh, so many thoughts and questions. So a couple of statements first. I also don't like, in theory, eminent domain. We are a very strong property rights state, and it does fly in the face of that. But it is the job of this board to balance out what is I can't say legal, but what is a more theoretical concern versus what is in the public good? And in my experience on the board, we've been in that position a number of times. The most recent time has been the rezoning of this city. We rezoned current property owners' property in ways that they weren't thrilled about But at least in my mind, the balance of the current and future public good of this city warranted that. And I look at this as a very similar situation. I mean, everyone knows I'm not a bleeding environmentalist. I think that would, I'm looking at my friends, I think most, I see some heads nodding. But in this particular instance, this property is so integral to Little Salt Springs and the Myakkahatchee Creek, I am willing to go on a limb. And I would not take eminent domain out of the question because of that. And again, I think the public good, the environmental importance of this property warrants that we seriously consider it. Having said that, I do have some questions. And Ms. Ray, I know you addressed some of these. So right now we really don't have, well, let me back up. It's my understanding that an eminent domain at a minimum, we're required to pay fair market value for the property. Am I correct on that? So not assessed value, but at sort of a starting point, fair market value, correct?

Chapter 73 of the Florida statutes does require that the first step is that we obtain appraisals and present those appraisals to the owner.

And we've not done that yet?

We have not.

So we really don't know.

Correct. We likely, because of the size of the property, we likely would spend $50,000 or more in getting the documentation needed to make an offer to the owner.

We do have a real estate specialist on staff, do we not?

We have a real estate coordinator who would help us arrange that process, but as far as the surveying and the appraisals, those would be outside certified professionals.

So today we really don't know if we have enough money in the environmental fund without jeopardizing our tree planting programs and all of that. We really don't know. that we have sufficient funds or revenue dollars in that fund to be able to purchase this property.

Based on recent sales, just looking at recent sales of similar lots in the area, and aggregating those sales, we do believe there is more than sufficient money in the fund to do that, including attorney's fees and surveying and everything. But until appraisals are done and a negotiation is held, there's simply no way to predict what the amount would end up being.

I also heard that by state statute, the city cannot pay more than market, or could you explain that? Are we allowed to pay a certain percentage above market?

As far as what statutes allow, I'll defer to the city attorneys. The city policy that the commission has adopted states that the city will not pay above appraised value. I'm not certain.

Because we have done that. I mean, we've had parcels come before us and we have paid. We voted to pay a premium for them.

That I would defer as far as what the state statutes may allow. But simply the city policy and, of course, the commission makes that policy. city policy is that the city does not pay more than a price value.

Unless the commission...

It is your policy.

Yes, ma'am. Okay, okay. So, to date, no one in the city has had a conversation with this property owner around the acquisition the county has over the years, correct?

Not recently. I don't know what my predecessors may have done or what our predecessors may have done as far as city communications, but myself and my current staff have not had those conversations.

We do have some institutional knowledge here, if our deputy city manager might recall any early conversations with this property owner. I don't want to put you on the spot, Julie, but... OK, so let's just say we haven't had any conversations with the property owner. The quick take and the slow take, city attorney, is there any difference in legal outcome of those? I mean, would you have any recommendation on which approach?

It's not really. It just matters. You generally do a quick date when you want to get started on a project. So then you can get a title immediately, and then you don't have to worry about going to a fall. trial, and you're getting on trial docket, et cetera, et cetera. You do a slow take if you don't really care about those things, and if at any time you want to dismiss the lawsuit.

Okay, thank you. I think I got most of, we've had some really good questions up here, and I think I have most of my questions answered. I'll just make a couple of other statements. I'VE GONE ON RECORD, AND I STILL DO NOT SUPPORT THE USE OF TAX REVENUES TO ACQUIRE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LAND. SO REALLY, THE ONLY REASON I'M ON BOARD WITH THIS IS THAT THE FUNDING WOULD COME OUT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FUND, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S APPROPRIATE. I THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY WISE, AND I THINK Commissioner Petro mentioned this. I would still approach the county. I think the more bullets in the gun we can have when we approach this property owner. We have some strong environmental advocates here in the city. We have strong environmental support from the Gulf Coast Foundation. I think we muster a consortium of people who can approach this property owner. I do like a soft approach to begin with. Since we've not had a current conversation with this property owner, I think for me that is a logical first step. But I have no problem with this property owner knowing we are actively considering a take of the property. that we're open, we haven't decided, but we're open to considering that course. Not that we want to do it. We really don't want to do it. So I guess I'm settling on I'm very supportive of property for environmental use. I think it would be just incredibly damaging to not do that. I'm open to whatever means we have at our disposal to do that, but I think having a friendly conversation with this business, with this property owner, with some compatriots arm in arm with some other influential folks would be my recommendation for a first approach and perhaps table the eminent domain for the immediate future. Again, I wouldn't rule it out, but maybe not go that far in our first step i'd be interested in what my colleagues have to say commissioner duvall thank you mayor we started with commissioner stokes and he mentioned john o'miller

John O'Miller is known for his environmental views around here. I've been reading one of his emails. He mentioned 43 years. And one of his statements is, eminent domain, glass. The short story for me on this is I'm looking at both options and saying, no. No women's domain now. No just giving up on this idea. I heard in the presentation a number of times the word fragmentation. And I did look up and see who owned these lots. And they all 30 are owned by one entity. But if you look at the map, we have an added problem. This is definitely an environmentally valuable area. You're looking at the Greenway, the Bay Slough. This section of land, University of Miami's land on Little Salt Springs, in between those with the word fragmentation comes to me that there's a piece of property there called that belongs to Sarasota County School Board. Have we done any investigation or do we have any guarantees that after we went through this that Sarasota County School Board wouldn't decide to cut down all the trees on their property and build a a soccer field or any kind of a school. To keep all these properties from being fragmented, I believe we have to work on that question also. I've heard the words. The first one was eminent domain. The second one was negotiation. And the third one that our vice mayor was mentioning is conversation. I believe we should be starting these conversations with the property owner, including Sarasota County School Board, some conversations there to see if we can get some guarantees that They don't just cut things apart for us in the future. That's why I believe that an eminent domain at this point in time is the wrong way to go. And I also strongly believe in property rights. Just imagine how I would feel if the city came along and said, we're taking your spare lot. I wouldn't be happy about that. One thing that's been mentioned is that the original asking price, whatever that was, was way above. Do we have any current idea of what that price is? Right now, the appraised value of individual lots in that area are about 22.5. You take one lot that's worth $22,500, you put a second lot next to it at $22,500, now they're both worth $30,000. And I have one of my neighbors bought two lots, paid $30,000 for each of them. So getting that, I believe getting that conversation going about, you know, what is fair, what we can do, comes first. And in the meantime, I have my wild ideas, like, just to make sure that nothing happens in the meantime, is there a possibility we could lease this land from the owner for a number of period of years until we could get things situated? And as I said, that's just a wild idea of mine. But I... As I started, I do not support either of these options, but I would like to see us, you know, I definitely want to see this protected. For us to start the conversation, I think, is the thing to do. That's all I've got.

Thank you. Commissioner Petro.

Thank you, Mayor. Question about the pricing that... whatever that was above. How much, do we know how much they came back to the county?

Yes, sir. The county advised us that, and this was sometime in the year around 2020, the property owner wanted $200,000 per lot.

And just to put things into perspective, if I may, the city acquired those five properties within that same area combined for $55,000, all five properties. Now, they vary in size. Some of these parcels may be larger, but this information came up from conversations between city staff and county staff.

And also I have a question about, well, appraised value, you know, looking at Current Layout there are no roads, so I do believe that the appraised value would reflect You know to develop that property it would cost much more and that should be taken into consideration and no Noted to the owner, but I think we should do a third option and And I guess we all kind of coming to this conclusion. I did see Sarasota County School Board as a, and I noted that, but I didn't think about them being, you know, whatever they're gonna do. So that brings me to this, you know, emphasis again, that we should do this as a joint effort. County, Sarasota County School Board and the city and you know everything has a price and maybe we can involve more people and involve more foundation and utilize our environmental fund I forget the exact name environmental fund which is formerly known as a tree fund and we do have means to pay for that. It depends how much we're willing to pay. But we should start the process right away, in my opinion, and the sooner the better, because the longer we wait, some factors might come into play, which I'm not going to say publicly, but, you know, and could adversely affect us as a city to acquire that land, because we don't want to have any, you know, wildlife to be diminished in that area. And I see a big need for that. And I think we should act now. Question is how? And I'm done. Thank you.

Commissioner Stokes.

Yeah, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, to begin discussions with this party, whether they're gentle, warm, fuzzy over a cup of coffee and a meal, or whether it's with lawyers sitting at a table, we would have to go out and commission a appraisal of this property, which will cost us in the area $50,000, add on all the other stuff. We're looking at $50,000 to $100,000 of expense incurred before we could even sit down with these people. If we were to wait until the property owner made any overtures towards the city to try to develop those 30 lots, could we at that point in time then commence an action for eminent domain?

So if the property owner walked into the building division today or went online to Acela and submitted a building permit, we would have to issue it within a certain number of days. And typically those permits are issued in five days or less. And any application submitted prior to an action by the city would require us to issue the permit.

Okay, so that's not an option. We did rezone this city. We did a major ULDC rewrite. Why can't we simply find some legal way to make it virtually impossible for this property owner to develop this land?

So under the Burt Harris Jr. Act, which is the Private Property Rights Act of Florida Statutes, the city can, any local jurisdiction, can upzone a property to add more uses, to change it to a more intensive use. That is not considered a taking. That is actually considered availing a property owner of more property rights than what they had previously. But when you take away all possible uses of the property for the benefit of the owner, that becomes a Burt Harris Act. And then we are back into just compensation plus attorney's fees and everything else for the property.

Which is what we would have to pay anyway if we moved forward via eminent domain.

Yes, however, under the Burt Harris Act, the property owner can sue us and the damages that we pay could be substantially higher. And I'll let the attorney speak to the...

Legal ramifications of that, but I guess my struggle with this is, you know, one, I know conversations went on with the county. $200,000 of parcel versus what's probably. In reality. I mean. 10% of that number is probably more realistic when it comes to it, correct? To expand 50 to $100,000 of taxpayer dollars to. go out and secure appraisals to sit down and talk with somebody who clearly has no interest whatsoever in negotiating in good faith, I think is a waste of taxpayer dollars and I couldn't support it. I also, at this point, don't support eminent domain, but, you know, I... I really got a hard time authorizing any action other than this City Commission issuing a resolution that clearly goes on record pointing out how environmentally sensitive this corridor is. And then perhaps pursuing, as one of my fellow commissioners said, talking to some of the organizations out there that that advocate for environmental properties, environmentally sensitive properties, and perhaps there are some third parties out there that may see this as important as we do and may have the resources to come in and add a whole new variable. I think talking with the county at this point, I've matured, so I will say not useless, but I think that they have other priorities. I believe that they've taken their negotiations as far as they can. I don't think it'd be a prudent use of our time and efforts to do, but there are organizations out there. I mean, if we go on record with a resolution and then we publicly advocate for interest on the part of parties who might want to come in and take a look at this and see if they might not want to pay over market to some degree. I mean, so an awful lot of pressure that can come to bear on this property owner before we reach a point where we want to pursue eminent domain. I'm just hung up on that. It is horrible precedent to set. As you said, it's almost never used. And, you know, so I would avail ourselves to every other possible option here. But I do think trying to negotiate with this man at this time is not going to prove fruitful. It's going to cost us a lot of taxpayer dollars at a time when everybody's saying, watch how much money you're spending. Of our tax dollars, there's no way I can support this. Thank you, Mayor. That's all I got to say.

City Clerk, public comment? We do have a few. I will start with e-comments. Sally Rehm, please leave this wildlife corridor alone. Way too much of Northport's natural habitat has already been destroyed. It is ruining the quality of life in Northport and is contributing to disastrous climate change. Next one is from Maria Leslie, eminent domain is best, most ecologically conscious decision in this case. The presentation for this agenda item is short, sweet, and detailed. The rampant overdevelopment in Northport has very negatively affected our sensitive wildlife populations. With these parcels being of so much importance to the flora and fauna of this area and the availability of funding, please pursue this option. Ecological impact is far more important than the opinions of the landowners who will be fairly compensated for their parcels. Next one is from William Kirst. It is imperative that wildlife be allowed access that's unfettered between Myakkahatchee Creek and Little Salt Springs. This inability to easily access the springs will have a huge impact on Florida native species, especially endangered ones. Keep the last corridors open to our even more diminished native animals. The city should look into even more green belts and raised greenways between major vehicle arteries for animal migration. River Road is a death trap for native animals, and as our population increases and roads widen and cars run at all hours, it will become more hazardous for both people and wildlife. Don't paint paradise, coexist with it. General development had huge parks in every neighborhood, sometimes three or four platted multi-acre parks. The areas have been all turned into residential lots. How is it that general development was far more forward-thinking in the 50s and 60s than we are now? as we shoehorn and hamstring houses into an ever-growing urban island heat domes. Plants and animals are imperative for our future. Are we not Tree City USA? Next one is from David Iannotti. Hello, I am writing to support the connection between Little Salt Springs and the Myakatchee Creek Greenway. I think it'd be most effective to first amend the ULDC to prohibit any extension to Spring Haven Drive. Thank you. Next one is from Gino Enoch. I support creating a wildlife corridor instead of extending Spring Haven Drive. All right, and last one, Jill Luke. This natural corridor is vitally important to the survival of our natural environment into the future. I supported this project before going into office and, of course, while in office. I knew all the details to this project then, but after being out of office, I don't know what has occurred after the seller wanted too much money for the property. I do know that the city currently has enough money to purchase the property with the tree fund money. I stated this fact to staff not too long ago. The use of those funds needs to be made possible. What I don't know is what has been in the works since I left office and when it was last done. I'm aware Juno John O. Miller's emailed to you, and he has some very wise and detailed facts in this email. Depending on what has been occurring with this project, you might be at the last step of eminent domain. I don't know. If the other steps have been done and there is no other resolve in sight, then in my opinion, it has to be done. It is time to be able to close this project and get that area protected. We have the resources currently to create the corridor that was envisioned in the past by staff, friends of Little Salt Springs, and the Shark Brothers and other environmental advocates. You as a commission have the ability to be the ones to put the final stamp on the process. Thank you for seeing the future with preservation. Now for in-person comments, Robin San Vicente.

Thank you for all your comments. I know everybody is concerned about this area. This is a critical area of concern and it can be designated as such. through resolution. We definitely need to start the ball rolling because we can't keep kicking it down the road. It's been way too long. It's getting very dangerous. He could come in, like they said, to the building department tomorrow. And then what? We've waited too long already. We need to act now. So we need to provide staff with the direction to begin the negotiations. Although I know I know the owners and they're almost like Nona Springs. They're not gonna budge. They want what they want. So now what do we do? If it's designated as a critical area of concern, we can take the next step and go through a slow take. I mean, a quick take is normally for like FDOT and stuff like that to do it quickly. But the money is there in the environmental fund We can't keep waiting. We have to act now. It's too dangerous to let it keep going. Like I said, we need to act now. So let's give the direction to staff to proceed with maybe designated as a critical area of concern through a resolution, get it in that way, and then start the ball rolling with negotiations. The county has done all they can do. The guy's not budging. They want what they want. So here we are in the dilemma. So it's up to you to act now in the environmental stewardship that is needed on this particular area. It is a critical area of concern. So please give the staff direction in order to proceed. And if nothing else is gonna happen, then eminent domain. This is definitely where eminent domain needs to be done if all else fails. Thank you.

Steve Cosby.

Good afternoon, Commissioners, City Manager, Attorney, Clerk, Assistant Clerk. It's difficult for me to explain the multiplicity of significance of Little Salt Spring in this Greenway corridor and my Cahatchee Greenway corridor in three minutes, if I have that. It's a complex, multifaceted situation. And I also read Jonah Miller comments who were very concise and acute. I'd like to thank North Port staff for putting together such a well done presentation on this. It was exceptional. And I understand the concerns about eminent domain and I don't have any answers regarding that. However, You know, in my 35 years of involvement at Little Salt Spring with the University of Miami and, well, Mineral Springs with Florida State University, I can certainly attest to the significance of this site and the corridor and the fragmentation, the word of the day, of this oasis. surrounding Little Salt Spring in the burgeoning city of Northport as a Holocene, a Pleistocene-Holocene continuum of over 18,000 years since the sinkhole was formed and its ecosystem which has basically been this continuum of plants and animals that have been arrived. So it's really great. But this is way beyond that, in my opinion. There are three major components of this. The environmental and public benefit of creating a natural passive component, which protects the land of Butting Butler Park, which if you look at the map, While Butler Park is great, it has no environmental access. Expanding the Myakkahatchee Greenway Corridor, which aligns with North Port's Comprehensive Plan and Myakkahatchee Creek Greenway Master Plan, and creating a extended linear greenway corridor along Spring Haven Boulevard to Pan American as a passive, and both as a passive resource for the citizens of North Port. No lights. Uh, trails, uh, educational experiences. So this is really a trifecta of significance for the city of Northport and the people of Northport to extension of Butler park and Greenway passive corridor. This will allow generations who appreciate the beauty of the area to enjoy this extension in this area. And if lost, there's no going back. There's no going back. We can't put Humpty Dumpty together once it's fallen off the wall. So this is part of your legacy now, the North Port Commission's legacy to move this forward. Thank you.

Chuck English. Good day. Hope you're having a blessed one. I'm going to be simplified. MN domain is a nuclear option. I believe that you should consider tabling it until such times you do enter into some form of mediation or negotiation with the property owner. So it's still available to you. You have heard how critical and important this piece of property is to the Mackhatchee Creek Greenway Master Plant. The only other thing I want to put forth is you keep hearing the word fragmentation of the environment. Well, that fragmentation of the environment is putting the wildlife and directing them to kill zones is what you're developing. Consider that. But mediation, negotiation is an option, but table, the eminent domain, so it's still in the toolbox. Thank you.

That is all, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. I'm looking for a motion.

I'll go.

Go ahead.

I actually have three. So first, I move to direct City Manager to pursue negotiations for the acquisition of 30 privately owned parcels located within the natural corridor between Little South Spring and Myakkahatchee Creek, subject to applicable legal requirements and the availability of funding.

I have a motion on the floor made by Vice Mayor. City Clerk, can you read it back, please?

I might have to request if you could read that back again, please. Sure.

I move to direct the city manager to pursue negotiations for the acquisition of 30 privately owned parcels located within the natural corridor between Little Salt Spring and Myakkahatchee Creek, subject to applicable legal requirements and the availability of funding.

I have the motion. Do I have a second?

I'll second. Go ahead.

I have a second by Commissioner Duvall. Nothing to that. Please vote. And that passes four to one with Commissioner Stokes descending. Commissioner Stokes.

Not willing to spend taxpayer dollars on this.

Go ahead. Motion number two.

I move to instruct City Manager through staff to approach the County School Board regarding their options and or plans for their property in this area.

I have a motion on the floor made by Vice Mayor. City Clerk, did you get that one?

I did get that one. To approach the County School Board regarding their options and or plans for their property in this area.

And that was seconded by Commissioner Duvall. Nothing to that, please vote. That passes five to zero.

Okay, and lastly, to instruct city manager to work with staff to build a coalition of interested parties who commit to actively supporting the conservation of this property.

A motion made by Vice Mayor. City Clerk.

To direct senior managers to work with staff to build a coalition of interested parties who commit to actively supporting the conservation of this property. I second that.

I have a second from Commissioner Stokes. Nothing to that. Please vote. Passes five to zero.

I have a motion also, Mayor, I'd like to make. Go right ahead. As I was listening to everybody speak, there was one thing that I hadn't thought of and so I'd like to make a motion that we instruct staff or city manager to reach out to state and federal parties to see whether or not this property might be designated something that would prohibit. While we can't rezone it, perhaps the state or the federal government might see this as an invaluable piece of property that has such environmental significance that they may be able to change the law or override whatever you know, local laws prohibit us from rezoning it. It's almost in keeping with your third motion, but it's more specific because your motion was very regional in nature. This is, let's see what the state and federal representatives have to say about this property. So.

I have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Stokes, City Clerk.

I kind of wordsmithed that a little bit. So let me know if this is okay. To direct the city manager to reach out to state and federal parties to see whether or not this property may be designated in a way that would deem it environmentally significant.

That works for me. At the motion, do I have a second?

Second.

I have a second by Vice Mayor. Nothing to that. Please vote. And that passes five to zero. Any other motions? City Manager, are you good? Yes, sir. With direction and where we're going and where we're not going? Yes, sir. All right. Moving on. Final public comment?

Good afternoon, Commission. The people of Northport, we have a lot of responsibility. I know the Commission's been working to try and get some industrial into our area so the tax burden isn't on us so much. the presentation for this storage unit. And Commissioner Petro says it's gonna create two jobs. This is not the kind of industrials or companies that are coming into our city that are gonna make any kind of, are gonna benefit us at all. We have so many storage units. I just took my stuff out of a storage unit along 41. 90% of that storage unit is empty. Where you people are saying there's so many people moving here, what I'm seeing is for sale signs, foreclosures are starting, people can't pay rent, those apartments down by Walmart aren't even full. And I have a couple questions about this. storage unit. I don't know if you've done a traffic study on how to get out of Lowe's, but it's awful. There's only one way to turn left on 41, and that's at that light. The other ways you can only go right, so you'd have to go and make a U-ey. On a Saturday afternoon, if you pull out of Lowe's, that parking lot and that strip to turn left, you're on the other side of the street because there's nowhere else to put your car to get in the left lane. So something has to be done just about that little annex right there just to get on 41. Another thing... Welland Park has kind of taken over and the rest of us in the city of Northport have taken a backseat for that whole development. With the Benderson building company that's going to come in there and build this small UTC mall on the corner of 41 and River Road. Why can't that builder seem to come and fix that eyesore on the corner of 41 and Sumter? That's what I'd like to know. That's been there. I've lived here for 14 years, and that building's been empty and seating like that for that long. And that's a disgrace to this city. You know, I just, I don't know, I'm tired of looking at it. Thank you.

Thank you. That is all, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Commission Communications, Commissioner Petro?

I have none.

Vice Mayor?

I have none.

I have none. Commissioner Stokes?

I have none.

Commissioner Duvall?

Not at this time.

City Manager.

Nothing, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you. City Attorney. Nothing, Mayor. Thank you. City Clerk. Nothing, Mayor. Thank you. Thank you. 1243, I adjourn this meeting.

You're left where Economic Development just moved into, and you'll see a friendly face from Fire Rescue ready to help you out.

That's great. Continuing to provide that exceptional customer service. So, I really appreciate all the information, Chief. Thanks for joining us today.

Thanks for having me.