City Commission Regular Meeting - Regular Meeting

train you for all of that but you never really anticipate all of that occurring all at the same time yeah a large part of patrol work comes down to observation and situational awareness we're looking for the stuff that doesn't fit we're not looking to our left or right anymore because we've just passed it right we're looking for the things that are way ahead of us okay beyond the pickup truck we're looking further up to see what it is that's happening that is Not normal behavior, the stuff that doesn't fit.

Okay. The focus is on keeping people safe and preventing problems before they escalate.

But for the average person, our desire is to make sure that you have the comfort and safety in knowing that the people around you are driving in the same manner or fashion as well. And we're just the guardians of that.

where you're doing your job.

Yeah, you know, just making sure that everybody plays nice together. We put on a bunch of miles, and we spent, what, an hour and a half, two hours together? Yeah, that's right. And in two hours of driving through the city, everyone was within the compliance of the speed. You know what?

I'll take that. That's a victory.

Right?

Yeah, I agree.

good perspective.

Thank you, North Port Police Department. I want to thank you for having me today. Kelly from Dispatch, she was awesome. Officer Andahar, he was great. What I learned today was that it takes about a year's worth of training in order for them to get ready to be on their own in Dispatch. It is a super hard job with a lot of super technical points to it. I will see you on the next job. Hi, Jerome Fletcher, City Manager, Millport, Florida. I'm here at the Southwest Water Treatment Plant. Today on the job, let's go. calm, simple. Getting it there, that's a different story.

The process starts far below the surface.

Every step pulls out something different, all to keep the water clean, safe, and consistent.

So we don't have to add anything extra. Then it goes out into the system and people use it.

Well, thank you for that information. And the fact that we don't add anything like full right into our water is important.

No, we do not. Everything that comes out of here is soft water. You don't need a water softener. Oh, yes. So that's the beauty of RO and it's just like drinking out of a bottle.

And making sure it stays that way, that's where testing comes in.

This is a representative sample of what we have in our clear wells. That way it's always, it's a fresh sample.

Good morning. Today is Tuesday, July 21st, 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, City Clerk Faust, Board Specialist Linder, and we have Deputy Chief Morales in the back. Um, I am requesting that all commissioners, public participants and staff maintain order and decorum throughout this meeting city commission policy 2021. 0, 3 states that attendees shall refrain from engaging in personal attacks in 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 Ms. Bost to lead us in the pledge this morning, please.

Thank you, ma'am.

I'm going to request a motion to approve the agenda. So moved.

Second.

We have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Stokes, seconded by Vice Mayor Langdon. If there's nothing to that, please vote. That passes 5-0. City Clerk, public comment?

My name is David Menching. I am a resident in Northport. I'm the Skyview area. This is my phone number is 803-280-7975. This is in regards to City Commission regular meeting 7-21, at 10 a.m. Item number 26-0911. Staff summary item 26-0985 in regards to data center moratorium. My comment is I do not support data centers in Northport at all. They are not good for the environment. They are not good for any homeowner and water or so.

Cheryl Cook. I would like to address ordinance number 2026-15 and the creation of the activity center six and 10 infrastructure district. My concern is that the city is being asked to establish a new governmental and financing structure before the public knows the full scope of the infrastructure needs, the total cost, the assessment methodology, or the long-term financial obligations. The agenda materials state that the City anticipates costs for infrastructure planning, consultant services, assessment studies, and ongoing district administration. While some of these costs may eventually be reimbursed through future assessments, those commitments are still being made before the public has a complete understanding of the financial impact. Creating a special district and authorizing a future assessment process should come after the necessary studies have been completed, not before. The infrastructure master plan and assessment methodology and benefit study should inform the decision. This commission has emphasized the importance of fiscal responsibility. Fiscal responsibility means knowing the cost, risk, and obligation before creating a mechanism that could impact future taxpayers and property owners. I respectfully request that the Commission slow this process down, complete the necessary due diligence, and provide the public with a full understanding of the financial commitments before moving forward. Christine Wilkins. Good morning, Commissioners. Currently, there are over 5,400 data centers nationwide. By now, you are aware of the harm it will cause our wildlife trees and humans with stripping the lands. draining our aquifers, we're in a drought, and substantially increasing our electricity. Has any considered that it would also make us a military target? The noise and water pollution have ramifications that would last for lifetimes, PFOS chemicals. The data centers receive tax breaks, but what do the citizens of Northport receive? Lowered home values? I have lived in North Port for eight years. In 2023, I was diagnosed with stage four cancer, so I take my health very seriously. I have read about tonal vibrations that extend for miles from the data centers. They cause nausea, dizziness, headaches, et cetera. It is something you are advocating for the citizens of North Port. How do those vibrations affect the wildlife and protect species? How about the many windows in my neighborhood? There are five... In my four block radius, do you think they can shoulder the insane monthly electricity bill increases? Some of them are barely getting by from their homeowner's taxes. I noticed that this planning was all done in secret with no transparency and with an NDA. How do you think this makes the citizens of Northport feel knowing that we're potentially being sold out in secret? I hope you're prepared to think about all of us, the people and wildlife in the city. We, the people, elected you to make the best decisions for us in our best interest. We are telling you no, we do not want a data center. I'm praying that you will all make the best decision. Thank you for your time. In person, I have Pam Tokars, followed by Tim Ritchie and Robin San Vicente. Good morning.

Good morning. I'm going to address the amount of jobs that data centers create because I know that's a big concern with a lot of people going out of town to work. The amount of jobs that data center creates based on the size of the data center. The bigger data centers don't really use a lot of employees because they use AI to help run those data centers. So anything from I believe 100 megawatts up to 1,000 megawatts. You have to take, and I went on the high side, 0.3 people times the megawatts. So if you're going to do a, I'm going to write in the middle, a 500 megawatt facility, which is the second one down, it's really going to only create 150 jobs. Or someplace like Northport, it might go down to 100 megawatt. That would be 30 jobs. And if you go down to a 20 megawatt one, the smaller ones use more people because they don't usually use AI to support their operations. So you're looking at about... six jobs per megawatt. Unfortunately, I did not multiply that out. But we need to look at the bigger picture. If you do decide to bring, I know this is just a moratorium discussion, but in the future, if we do move forward with AI, and also across the country, You need to think about the bigger picture with the ramifications that AI will bring to the country. AI is going to be good for everyone? I don't know. It might be, it might not. But as more and more people integrate AI into their operations, I know city manager Fletcher had mentioned that they were going to look at AI to help with some of the streamlining with city operations. You already have self-driving cars, you've gotten the bigger cities, little robots that deliver. So now if you've got self-driving cars, you're gonna start to eliminate jobs. As this AI comes around and develops, now we're looking at people like me, you, everyone here. What are we gonna do for work? We're not gonna do anything. So now you think you're bringing more jobs, all the people that have small businesses here, They're going to start to lose customers. Then they're going to disappear. You're going to start to have people not be able to support a household anymore. Now, your tax base is going to start to go down. So when we look, when we go forward, if you could decide to put a moratorium on and we study some of these issues, because I know there's some other people here that are subject matter experts and other items. I need to include the community going forward in your discussions with what you decide. And then you also need to know if you decide to put data centers in and you start giving the citizens. Water restrictions good luck with them following it because if there's a data center, and you're using water for that, I'm using water too. Thank you.

Well, good morning, everybody. How are you doing today? It's been a while since I've been up to the city of Northport. And I'm sure Miss Jill Luke is watching. So good morning, Miss Jill. Good morning, Alice and Debbie. You know, we have a real problem from Tampa Bay to Charlotte Harbor. We have Tampa Bay, Charlotte Harbor. We have the Allifire River, the Little Manatee, the Manatee, the Myakka and Peace River. Every day, those rivers have millions of gallons daily of blended, acidic, chemically-laden wastewater discharged into each one of those rivers from outfalls. And FDEP issues the NPDES permit that allows for this. Mosaic has one water permit, just an example. 70 million gallons. Maximum capacity, 87 million. This is Mosaic South Fort Meade. This is on the other side of the Peace River, where Shell Creek is. This here is Mosaic Ona. Now, I'm here telling you about Mosaic because I haven't been up here for a while. City of Northport did a great thing when you guys banned phosphate mining. You also banned fracking. That was when Jim Luke was on this board, Debbie McDowell. I have to share this with you. We are in a serious water crisis in the state of Florida. SWFMA just extended the phase three to October. It's not that we need a moratorium on these data centers. We need a permanent ban. City of Punta Gorda, Charlotte County, DeSoto County, Fort Meade, Polk, Hardy, Manatee, the entire area must have a complete ban on data centers. You know what they're really talking about to power these now? Do any of you want a nuclear reactor in your city? We have too many great unknowns just like with mosaic. They self governor, they self monitor. I'm looking forward to speaking again on the data center. Thank you very much. We need to protect our water.

Followed by Chuck English and Samuel.

Good morning all. First, I just want to thank you for having this discussion. It is definitely needed and it's overdue. I'm going to start reading from what I've prepared so I don't get distracted. So I would first want to look at the definition of a data center, which actually contains the IT infrastructure for storing, processing, distributing data, and the running and the shared distributed applications and services. They can be anything from a dedicated space with a building or within a building, dedicated building, or for the large-scale data centers, multi-building campuses. The current technological environment, along with the digital economy, Boone, we are in the need for processing all of this information, which means kind of we're going to fall subject to this particular type of industry. I've decided to take another approach on my general public comment, because there is factual scientific supporting data on the amount of natural resources it takes, the associated health risks, disruptions to our bodies, quality of life, and our right to quiet enjoyment issues. The fragmentation of our natural environment, the pollution and climate change elements, and the health disruptions to our wildlife. The situation we find ourselves in now reminds me of the explosion of the Industrial Revolution that took place when we allowed and we knew before what we were getting into and the harmful repercussions of a lot of those industries that were also blanket under a category in order to cloak and hide it. It is the same thing with the technology explosion. They too are masked and cloaked under several types of categories to circumvent public scrutiny. And to this day, we still do not have all the information necessary to properly regulate, safeguard ourselves, the environment and wildlife. Therefore, it is extremely important that we take the time to accurately assess all of the data required to implement proper citywide protocols, guidelines in the name of public health and safety. In the attachments to the forthcoming agenda item, you referenced Florida Senate Bill 180, and in reviewing this bill, it is imperative that we institute a moratorium now because the provisions become effective one year after a hurricane makes landfall. That is kind of leaving the door open for anything to walk into our development and planning and building department today or tomorrow. and we're in the middle of hurricane season. Another attachment is Florida Senate Bill 484, which has many provisions in it, some good, some bad, but especially the language used in the reclaimed water usage. That really needs to be changed. The bill does, however, specify that local governments maintain authority to exercise power and responsibility over comprehensive planning and land development regulations relating to large load customers. This must all be taken into consideration as well. I'm going to end it with my question. If we could do the timeline of instituting an ordinance because of that, I would respectfully ask the city attorney. Okay, it's coming back then. Thank you.

Good morning, and I hope you all have a blessed day. Tim and Robin pretty much summed up a lot of what I was going to say, but I think it's going to be something that's bothered me for a long time is the fact that city staff, who are outstanding by the way, are considered the only subject matter experts within our community. I believe today you'll find out there are many, many more that are concerned. And I keep hearing this vocal minority stuff, right? Yeah, those people are very concerned or they wouldn't be a vocal minority. They're concerned for the people who not pay attention, who do not. understand the impact of issues that come before you. And today, I think you pretty much will gain a significant amount of wisdom as it relates to the concerns about data centers. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Samuel Turpening, Mayor and Commissioner's Board. Since this is my first meeting to address this critical issue, I am standing here to ensure this Board establishes an ironclad foundation of factual reality right from day one. If you look across the United States, local communities are being severely strained by the data center industry. North Port does not need to sit back and react defensively. You have the structural power to solve this issue before it ever impacts our community. Our American electric grid carries a D plus rating. It is already under immense stress. Right now in the heat of the summer, regular citizens face rolling blackouts because the grid is pushed to its absolute limits. We simply do not have the surplus power to hand over to the high density server complexes. We also do not have the water. Look at the recent testimony right in our own backyard. Lifelong born and raised Florida residents are on the official record stating they have never seen the Peace River as catastrophically low as it is today. Our regional water table is facing unprecedented strain and allowing massive industrial consumers to withdraw millions of gallons more from our ground is a physical impossibility. This exact vulnerability is why our communities need true citizen engagement. not passive observation. We need a diligent public independent citizen standing collectively to expose facts, protect public resources, and demand structural accountability. When regular people unite to protect their local water supplies and infrastructure from corporate deception, the collective voice of the community becomes unassailable. Further, under Federal National Security Mandate Executive Order 13920, it is illegal to connect high-voltage grid equipment manufactured by foreign adversaries, specifically the People's Republic of China, to our bulk power system. The domestic American supply chain for these massive transformers is completely bottlenecked with lead time stretching past four years. There are currently zero compliant domestic manufacturers who can deliver these parts on the speculative timeline. Developers build this infrastructure without risking a violation of federal national security laws or relying on compromised foreign hardware. The state of Florida hands a regulatory hammer directly to this board. Senate Bill 484 explicitly preserves your supreme municipal land use authority over large load utility consumers. If you act firmly at this very first meeting to pass a permanent zoning exclusion banning these high intensity data centers before any form of permit applications are filed, you completely neutralize the Burt Harris Act. The developers will have zero vested rights, zero existing use, and absolutely zero footing to sue the city. I urge this commission on not to rely on a temporary moratorium loop that leaves our future uncertain and keeps the corporate backdoor cracked open. uses explicit legal tools the state has already granted you. Protect our grid, protect our water table, and pass a preemptive municipal zoning ban now. Thank you.

All right, announcements.

The current vacancies for the following boards and committees include the Art Advisory Board, Auditor Selection Committee, Charter Review Advisory Board, Citizen Tax Oversight Committee, Community Economic the Economic Development Advisory Board, Environmental Advisory Board, Historic and Cultural Advisory Board, Joint Management Advisory Board, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and the Planning and Zoning Advisory Board. If anyone would like more information, please see the city clerk's office. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to the consent agenda. The city manager, has any items been pulled? No, sir. All right. Do we have any public comment on the consent agenda?

There is none.

All right. I'm going to request a motion.

I'll make it, Mayor.

Go ahead.

I move to approve the items in the consent agenda as presented.

I have a motion on the floor made by Vice Mayor, seconded by Commissioner Duvall to approve the items in the consent agenda as presented. Please vote. That passes five to zero. Moving on to general business item A26-0985, discussion of possible action regarding data center moratorium. City Manager, this is your item.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to turn it over to the City Attorney, Mr. Foligno, to lead the discussion.

Thank you, Manager. Thank you, Mayor. This was a commission instituted agenda item that I drafted to kind of give you a legal framework. of where we are with data centers i'm not making any recommendations what i'll do at the end is i'll run you through your options and the attenuate legal risk for what they are the data centers are not defined under your unified plan development code what they would be allowable uses in those zoning districts that generally allow for things such as life industrial heavy industrial based on the type of development that is being proposed. So that's your local law. The state laws, we've heard a couple of them mentioned during our public comments that we should consider and they've been attached to your agenda item or SB 484, which is a new law that was just signed by the governor a few weeks ago. And amongst other things, what the law says is it allows the local governments to continue to regulate data centers, for lack of a better term, through comprehensive planning and land development regulations. It's basically a legislative response of what our home rule authority would be. SB 484 runs up against another law that you should be cognizant of that was passed during which was SB 180, which was a comprehensive bill that was passed after the hurricanes in 2024, 2025, that says a bunch of things, including that for one year after a hurricane makes landfall, you are essentially deregulated from instituting regulations within 50, if the hurricane makes a within it was within 100 miles of your path it also says for our purposes that for all counties that were affected that were on the federal disaster relief order from fema for hurricanes debbie milton and helene as well as all municipalities within those counties which includes north ports you were prohibited until october 1st of 2027 do three things you cannot issue a moratorium on the construction reconstruction or development of any property affected by those hurricanes you cannot institute more burdensome or string or stringent land development regulations or amendments to your comprehensive plan and you cannot impose any more burdensome or restrictive land development processes what have counties and cities around the state, including those that are within the SB 180 zone that I just talked about, Don, in response to data centers, well, they have instituted temporary moratoriums. So what's a moratorium? Well, a moratorium is a planning tool that is utilized to study a certain aspect, in this case, will be data centers. um they are passed by ordinance generally so we require two readings and in order to comply with those issues with sb 180 you would have to do a few things you'll have to make findings that it that the moratorium itself is not a more version or stringent land development regulation or process and you also have to carve out Uh, lands affected by the hurricanes that I mentioned. How do you make that finding that it is not a more vertical or restrictive regulation? Well, that goes back to the heart of what? The moratorium is what I just said. It's a land. It's a plan. It's not something that you do merely because you don't like data centers because the public doesn't like data centers or something like that. You use it as a means to study an issue to either come back to regulations or to not, because you have questions, concerns, or comments of that nature. So like I said, you don't do a moratorium just to do a moratorium. There's a reason behind it. And therefore, a couple of questions that you should ask yourselves before instituting a moratorium is, one, do you think you need time to study the issue itself? And then to a capital, whether it's consultant fees or staff time when you're willing to invest in that, and that will ensure that we're using it for the proper means as a planning tool. Another issue we want to consider with moratoriums is that they should be temporary in nature. If you do a permanent ban or an extended ban, what you'll be running up against are taking clause issues under both the United States Constitution themselves to potential statutory causes of action under the Burt-Haggis Act. The final issue you should generally consider when you do your discussion and your thinking is whether you should, when you do a moratorium ordinance, do you want to make the moratorium ordinance RETROACTIVE TO PENDING APPLICATIONS OR ONLY PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATA DEORDERANCE. AND BY THAT, WHAT I MEAN IS YOU PASS AN ORDINANCE ON SECOND READING AND YOU CAN OR CANNOT MAKE IT APPLICABLE TO ANY DATA CENTER APPLICATION, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED DURING THE PENDANCY OF YOUR DEBATE, OR YOU JUST MAKE IT you would just make it effective to those applications that would have been received after the effective date of the ordinance, meaning after you would have adopted on second or third reading. I've attached to your agenda items two ordinances which have been passed, one by Zephyr Hills, which is a municipality in Pasco County, and the other one is in Hernando County. So you kind of see the differences in that last issue that I just spoke about. Zephyr Hills made their moratorium, I think it was 12 months, good for all, retroactive in nature, meaning that it was for all, for any and all pending applications that may have been shown at the time of adoption and ordinance. On the other hand, Hernando County made it prospective in nature, meaning that they just did it for any applications which may have been received after the effective date of the at the ordinance. And that whole issue comes down to whether or not, how much you want to worry about a potential advocate's agreed party, what we want to call vested rights. And those vested rights are ultimately determined by court under what the court would consider to be the principles of equitable estoppel, which is just a way of saying, what, if anything, did the government say to the advocate? Did the advocate rely on those representations? and that the applicant changes position in relying to those representations. And if a court finds the answer to those questions to be yes, then they could do a wide variety of things, including voiding the potential, voiding the ordinance that you made with retroactive in nature, and awarding the applicant damages, attorney's fees, costs, and monetary damages. so those are the those are those are the legal issues around the moratoriums which is what one of the planning tools that local governments across the state have done what are the what are your options and continue with legal risk well the risk-free option is to do nothing and to allow your current law to stand that i talked about in the beginning If you do nothing, it's risk-free because no one has a claim. You don't have to worry about this being 180. You don't have to worry about taking the clauses. You don't have to worry about Burke-Harris, and you don't have to worry about anyone's best regards. If you do a moratorium, the riskiest way of doing a moratorium would be to do it retroactive in nature, meaning that you do it as to any pending applications that are in the system at the time of adoption. And the less riskier option would be to do it as to only to uh those applications which have been submitted after the effective date of the ordinance so that's where you are what i would suggest if we do an ordinary a moratorium is to carve out those lands which may have been affected by the hurricanes debbie helene and milton from the moratorium and um we would i would also say that you should include in the ordinance something similar to what you would see in the hernando county ordinance which would be a process by any party who may be aggrieved by the ordinance property owner developer and whatever the case may be can seek some relief from the ordinance either through a you know a quasi-traditional hearing before you all to see if you want to give them relief you don't have to decide all of those issues right now what i What the board should decide is, first and foremost, does it want to do a moratorium? No. If the answer is no, that ends the discussion and you want to go any further. If the answer is yes, then you should decide how long you want the moratorium to last for, keeping in mind that the purpose of the moratorium is to have a reasonable amount of time to study the issue, to answer whatever questions you may have. and then to decide whether or not you want the moratorium to be retroactive in nature or prospective in nature with that that is my overview i'll kick it back to the board for any questions

Thank you, sir. Commissioners, questions? Commissioner Stokes, you're in the queue. Great.

Well, let's start with the first question. I'll address, I guess, I don't know who in staff wants to answer it. Is there, as of this moment in time, a formal application for a data center? Has that been submitted to the City of Northport?

Good morning, Elena Ray, Director of Development Services. There has been a zoning verification letter request, and that was issued. There has also been a voluntary master concept plan application that was submitted. reviewed and comments returned to the applicant that indicated compliance with the ULDC and the comprehensive plan. There has not been a formal site development plan application submitted as of yesterday, but we would need to check the system to see if anything came through last night or this morning.

Next question I have is, you know, recognizing some of the legal You know, the legal perspectives miscellaneous, you'd stay around because most of these questions are directed at, you know, for you to answer as you are 1 of our subject matter experts on this subject. So, my question is. You know, presently, as I understand it, and correct me along the way, if I'm wrong, the comp plan and actually never mentioned data centers.

Correct, just as many other industrial uses are not mentioned specifically.

So with that said, you know, I'm going to skip over what could be literally conversation on for an item about, you know, the four areas of concern, water, power, air quality, and sound. There are a plethora of technologies, some of which exasperate those four areas, some of which may mitigate them to some level of people's satisfaction. That's to me not an issue before us since there has not been a formal application, there has not been a master development plan. We have no idea were someone to want to build one here, what technologies they would use to build it. My question is this, do we have the ability under Bill 180 and the Burt Harris Act and now offset by 484, do we have the ability to write ordinances, change our ULDC or comp plan such that we create guardrails and restrictions and actually identify levels of technology we would require in order for a data center to come here? Or would that be considered more burdensome and restrictive?

So there are two paths that we would need to take. One, our noise ordinance does not live in the ULDC. It lives in the city code. That is not a land development regulation. Therefore, we can adopt changes to that at any time. I do have criteria that is very successful for mitigation of potential data center noise that we could adopt into the city code at any time. So we are not limited by SB 180 to do that. The ULDC, we could make changes to it. However, we would need to stipulate that changes would be effective October 1st, 2027 or the repeal or amendment of SB 180. And until that time, we would voluntarily seek compliance from any potential applicant. And I can tell you, having worked with most of the data center companies out there, they will voluntarily comply with just about anything.

So I guess part of my concern has been along the way that, okay, let's take water, for instance. Closed-loop systems, which are really more in the forefront of data centers that are being built presently, those closed-loop systems use virtually no water at all. So the issue of water really goes away. But the question is, as an elected body, what legal right do we have to mandate that a, and remember, the developer here, if a developer owns a massive amount of land, they're not gonna build all the stuff themselves. They're gonna partner with companies that build data centers, that build tech businesses, that build whatever might, eventually be part of this activity center, so to speak. So my question is, what legal right do we have to mandate the technology that would be used? What if a company that wants to build a data center says, well, like we really can't afford this cutting edge technology. We're going to build something that's not going to use as much water as the old ones did, but it's going to use some water. Or we're going to soundproof everything But we're not going to do all the buffering and all the structural things that could mitigate sound to the point where you could stand on a roof or next door to it and not hear or feel any vibration. How do we legally mandate that? Do we have the legal right to do that? I'm not hearing that we do that. That's part of my concern. So, so there doesn't appear to be a whole lot we can do here. To control what might happen in the eventuality, an applicant came forward and decided to take us down that opportunity path.

So I think 484 still gives us the rights that we would normally have within our home rule function to regulate those types of issues, especially water usage and buffering and noise, those types of things. We could still put into our ULDC and mandate that they comply with that. The mandate would be effective, as I said, October 1, 2027. and or the repealer amendment of SB 180, whichever came first, but we would seek voluntary compliance until then. We can, within those regulations, require that technology be utilized that reduces or eliminates the need for water. So the closed loop systems, there are closed loop systems. I've been in a data center that was state of the art used for its cooling only used the amount of water that an average single-family home would use on a daily basis. That's new technology from five years ago. I know there have been a lot of changes. If a company doesn't want to do that, they don't have to build here. It's that simple. The city does not have to allow technology that we don't want within our city. If a company wants a waiver from something in our land development code, they have a method for doing that. They can come to the commission and ask, and the commission has the ability to approve it or deny it.

So we basically could do quite a number of things that wouldn't necessarily make them more burdensome or restrictive, but would certainly make them more responsible. Absolutely.

There are a number of things that we can do to, if the commission wanted to proceed down that road, that we could adopt to address those issues. Absolutely.

Absolutely. So now, more directed at city attorney. Okay, so... There is a doctrine, a pending ordinance doctrine. Okay, pending ordinance doctrine says that I'm paraphrasing correct me if I'm wrong that. You know, in a case like this to take it to the specific of a data center, since no formal application has been submitted to the extent. this governing body decides to, and I would assume this meeting would serve that purpose, a formal public notice that we might intend to enact a auditorium. That's one of the two pieces that helps create legal strength, okay? The second being the issuance of the first reading and approval of the first reading of an ordinance. Were those two steps to be taken, would you concur that there would be a greater legal chance that city would prevail were they challenged versus moving down an opportune path to talk about, explore further, discuss the pros and cons of a data center, get a multitude of questions and concerns answered and addressed, and six months to a year down the road were the governing body to decide this is really not a direction we want to go, would you then, in comparing those two, say that we would be on stronger legal footing were we to have acted, as I said initially, by issuing a moratorium rather than not. I mean, I'm not saying it exactly the way I would have liked to, but I think you get the message.

It would help the defense of the pending ordinance doctrine. That's where I think you're going with it. The pending ordinance doctrine says that when the government has something in works And even if the applicant doesn't know about it, but they intend to enact a law, the applicant itself will be stopped from a development order or a permit until new law goes into place. So it could help. I think it would help.

And the reason I bring it up is one should never totally shut their mind to anything. And yet at the same time, there are so many questions and unanswered questions. Nobody's tested SB 484 against Byrd Harris or 180. I'm not sure Northport should be that poster child. You know, I also feel that, you know, technology is ever changing and the opportunity to be able to mitigate concerns that people have may well exist for all we know. But that said, the ability to go from what is conceptual to here's the actual plan is a big leap. Without the ability to put some of the guardrails in place that Ms. Elena mentioned, it seems to me that in order to protect the city, and the health and welfare of our community in order to take those measures and those steps and protect ourselves from a potential applicant jumping in and establishing some legal ground, okay. To me, I see being more protective, still allowing a process of conversation to go on because if what Ms. Salinas says is true that build these things really want to be good neighbors. One would certainly think that this isn't their first rodeo, so they kind of figure there's lots of pushback, right? So if they are coming with good intentions, then I would think that they would be cognizant of our concerns, be willing to have the patience and work with us as a city and not be chased away by the fact that we might enact a temporary moratorium for the purpose of better understanding and getting a better picture of how it is they might actually make something like this happen within our community. It just seems to me that it's the prudent and more thoughtful issue because I do feel that we could talk about this for weeks on end. We're never going to satisfy ourselves as to whether or not we can mitigate all these issues and whether this would be just a great opportunity. I've said it, is this the golden goose or is this the Trojan horse? I don't want to go there yet because there's so much we don't know. With that, I'm happy to- you know, let my fellow commissioners weigh in. I'm anxious to hear what everybody has to say on this and, you know, I may or may not have some more to say when the day's done, but I probably will be making a motion, Mayor, when everybody's had their say. Okay.

Thank you, sir. Vice Mayor, you're in the queue.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Commissioner Stokes. You asked a lot of the same questions and made the same comments that I've been thinking about. One of the other areas that I've gotten lost in the weeds about is what is a data center? What is a co-location data center? What is a hyperscale data center? Most medium to larger companies and organizations that I'm familiar with have data centers. City Hall has a data center that supports its operations, knowledge base. Data centers are here. They're everywhere. But clearly, what we've been hearing about and talking about is this concept of a hyperscale data center. And particularly years ago, I mean, people are legitimately concerned because we're still hearing about issues that happened years ago in the early days of data centers that, as you and Commissioner Stokes and Ms. Ray have talked about, many of which have really been rectified to a great degree. And I just want to make the comment, Commissioner Duval, it occurred to me as I was sort of doing my studying and talking to people about these issues, that it reminds me of the early days of nuclear power plants. And I lived in Boston in the early 70s. And I think that's when the Pilgrim, is it the Pilgrim, in Seabrook was being built and all of the demonstrations and outcry about that. And yet here we are 50-ish years later. and done properly, properly regulated and properly monitored, nuclear power plants have proven to be a pretty safe way of generating power. I think this is sort of where we're at with data centers. And I think one of the things that might help, and Ms. Ray, I think you might be able to start this conversation. I think we'll need more conversation.

What are the different data centers?

And at what point, size or application, I'm not quite sure, based on my readings, does a data center kind of flop over into that hyper category that we know has large needs for water and power? Can you shed any light on that?

So there's no bright line that distinguishes a traditional data center from a hyperscale or data center, but typically what you have. The traditional collocation data centers are ones where A company will own the building. They will lease out space to hundreds, potentially thousands of companies, customers, organizations who have their servers and IT operations housed within that structure. Those servers are not all talking to each other throughout the building. Each company is isolated. That's the traditional co-location type data center. They are typically smaller. They average around 100,000 square feet. I've seen them up to, say, 400,000 square feet. The ones that are getting the most attention currently in the media are the hyperscale and the AI data centers. They are typically owned by one of your large alphabet companies. They're owned by Amazon Web Services or Google, Microsoft, Oracle, those types of companies. And all of the servers in there are owned by that company. And they are all working together to store, create, and disseminate data. And They do take much more power because of the nature of what those servers are doing. They're stronger servers, they're more powerful, and they do take considerably more electricity, water, natural gas, whatever they're using for their cooling methods. They also take more land area. I've worked with data centers that were multi-million square feet those are hyperscale data centers. They take a lot of resources. They take a lot of land. Typically, you won't get one of those types of data centers on 100 acres or 200 acres. I know some developments, they're looking at 800 to multi-thousands of acres. I've worked on campuses that were three, 400 acres. I've worked on smaller campuses that didn't have that much and were those traditional data centers. There are a lot of concerns that have arisen from those previous generation data centers. And I think some of the concerns have been mitigated through the industry, some through requirements of local governments that have put on the type of technology buffering, noise mitigation that they're requiring. But I think all of those things need to be addressed for anything that might be considered in the city.

Okay, thank you. I wouldn't run away too, too quickly. I think I have one more for you. One of the ways in reading the literature that I started thinking in terms of what might be a cut point beyond which we're really starting to get into that hyperscale situation is power utilization, megawatts. In your experience, what sort of that range of megawatts that might start making you curious or suspicious that we're moving into that hyper category?

I think when you get over 500 megawatts, you start thinking this is a hyperscale AI-driven data center. A co-located traditional data center is typically going to be less than the 500. Mm-hmm.

Most of the reading I've done, the very large scale hyper data centers are on 1,000 acres or more. How many parcels exist currently in the city that would comfortably enable that type of hyperscale development?

We really don't have anything that would enable the type of hyperscale that you're thinking about, right? The parcels that we have would only support a much smaller footprint. Now, how many servers they can put inside, that's a different issue, which you would have to regulate based on the power usage, the water usage, that type of thing. But the footprint itself, we don't have the land area to really support that type of thing.

Okay, that's great. Thank you. I think I'm done. I'm done with you at this point. I have a couple of questions for the city attorney, but I think Your conversation with Commissioner Stokes kind of answered those for me. Suffice it to say, the state giveth and the state taketh away is how I'm kind of looking at this. One bill gives us the ability to regulate locally, and I'll speak for myself, and I suspect I speak for all of us, if we were able to enact those regulations today, I think we would all breathe a sigh of relief. But I'm sort of hearing that that's not necessarily the case. And I think I heard the further a development project gets in its cycle, the riskier stopping it is for the city. I would say, however, for myself, and this might not be the most politic thing for me to say, but if at any point with any development we really started feeling that it was being done in such a way to jeopardize the health and quality of life of this community, I would feel very comfortable stopping it, and I would take my chances in court. So sorry, city attorney. I know you try to keep us out of jail. You know, there's a line. And irregardless of where a project was in its development, I'd call a halt to it personally. All up to me. But I don't know. You know, a lot of the language I'm seeing is just data center. I mean, even our agenda item is to discuss, you know, a moratorium. on data centers. Well, if we don't specify what kind of data center, we could preclude any company coming here that has its own data center to support its operations. a company with lots of jobs and good benefits packages and training, on-the-job training and other kinds of professional development, the kinds of companies that I think all of us at one point or another said we wanted to come here to the city because of the lift it would give people here in terms of job and career options. So whichever way we go, I'm really feeling a need, if we do go in the direction of some type of moratorium, that we do our best shot today at defining what we're talking about. But that would not be a I think that would be a conversation that would have to continue. I mean, we give it our best shot today based upon what we know, but we definitely have to look at that. To do anything that just says data center, I feel like we're trying to do, like we're trying to do eye surgery with a chainsaw. So I think whatever we do, Let's be specific and clear about what we're doing before we try to legislate anything. So I'll pass now for others to speak.

Commissioner Patrick.

Thank you, Mayor. The data centers are the fastest emerging and impactful industries in the world and no wonder there's some interest in the city of Northport because we are the third largest city by land mass in the state of Florida and only 45% build out. Having said that, I want to make a disclaimer. I will be not talking because based on my emotions or The poll that I did, which was an official poll, I did on the Facebook. which I could predict fairly accurately the results. Over a thousand people voted and that was in opposition of being any data center to be built on a large scale in our city. Having said that, I was more interested in the comments what people say because A lot of times we rely on subject matter experts, but a lot of those subject matter experts live in our community and they bring a lot of value to us as a commission, even because I've been contacted by many people giving me advices and not just local, not just vocal minority, but other people that never spoke on the issue or on any issue in our city. So I just want to talk a little bit about the difference or defining a large-scale or hyperscale data centers and what that means. And I don't want to be very nitty-gritty as far, but I know from reading SB 484, The legal threshold in the law is 50 megawatts and not 500 megawatts as was stated just recently and there is a bright line of distinction between average or small or medium size or smaller size of the data center versus a large scale and The difference is of a hyperscale or larger data centers is that they use extraordinary consumption of electricity, land, and water required to operate that facility. So just for perspective, a 50 megawatts data center would use the same amount of power of at least 35,000 homes, and that's on the low demand, which can go up to 50,000 homes. That's more than the entire city in terms of structures, not the land use or footprint. This is just extraordinary. And our available land is there because it can only be what was that, 100,000 square feet? We have a lot of parcels of land where potential vendors can come and build those structures. Now we all know about closed loops and all the other systems, but at any rate, On average, so first we distinguished 50 megawatts, which is actually defined, not defined, but specified in SB 484, 50 megawatts. And that perspective is it's about up to 50,000 homes. That's how much energy that location can consume. that it can put a lot of strain on the grid. Now, in terms of water, they still use water because water evaporates and they have to... And speaking about closed-loop systems, they still have to be discharged and we have not looked into this, and that discharge has to be treated. There are over, if I'm not mistaken, close to 15 to 20 chemical additives that are added into that water. Now, do we have as a city to a capacity to treat that water, that's going to be millions of dollars as an impact, financially speaking. But we're getting it, you know. And you know, I've been following data centers for about a year, and I was caught off guard. I did not think there would be any interest in the City of North Dakota. Boy, I was wrong, because as soon as I learned about Sodor County, I was surprised. Now, taking into account our geographical location of Florida State, it's very narrow, and our fragile ecosystem and you know, the scarcity of drinking water. I did not think that it would come to Florida that fast. But nevertheless, they are popping up everywhere. But what I'm trying to say is they can use up to 52,000 gallons of water per day. And that's very concerning. This alone can be easily a legal defense on our part as a board to issue a moratorium. And I understand this is, you know, there are so many legalities of it, but SB 484 specifically gives us authority or capacity to regulate those data centers. and we should be very responsible to do that. Having said that, I looked at our ULDC and I would like to note that I have not studied in detail our ULDC as it relates to data centers, but it's important to notice that our code ordinances does not currently define our scale data centers. That alone is concerning. Therefore, how do we even regulate or proceed to navigate this topic? So, and you probably know what I'm leading to. How can we even move forward to even consider contemplating taking any pre-applications? Our UOVC does not contain definitions or specific regulations for data centers. hyperscale data centers. We need to refine what is allowed and what's the expectations of what's not allowed. And I appreciate our economic development team of bringing jobs and development into our community. However, we have to be balanced and be the voice of reason. And I say this because changing ULDC, which would take Which would not take effect until correct me if I'm wrong. Until October 2027. So, a 12 months. Moratorium would not do us much good. So, I'm proposing not 24 months. But somewhere in between, I'm proposing an 18 months moratorium. in regards that will give us time to study the issue, to refine or redo or correctify our codes, our ULDC, and You know, Sarasota County has, and we are part of Sarasota County, we have almost, I want to say, 35% of preservation of protected land. A dramatic effect of a hyperscale data center would be enormous. And I know there have been some changes in in the late technology that uses less water, less energy. But boy, we don't know any impacts of even current hyperscale data centers. The studies that I've got a hand on, on which was provided to me by one of our state representatives, the state representatives looked into those studies, and Those were done five year, 10 year, looking backwards. We don't have anything to back up as far as impact of the new hyperscale data center invention, if you will. But I'm just very reluctant, and I'm not speaking out of my emotions, not of the poll that I did. I was entertaining, to say the least. But I would strongly advocate, and I'll be very clear, to do 18 months going retroactively because it takes two readings and we'll be gone in the month of August on the recess. So the earliest we could do is September. And I do... petition my fellow commissioners to do more discussion on it or agree on 18 months, not carving out any land that was affected because SB 484 gives us much broader authority. And to that scale, a potential evangelist is gonna come and say, I need this and this much, so it would be not structurally, because we don't have that many buildings in our city that I know of, of 100,000 square feet. But if, you know, I'm talking specifically about vacant land. So I'm not comfortable carving out any vacant land, even though there is a risk, there is a risk of that, we have risk of falling, getting out of a car. So do we stay in the car? So I would not be carving out any any partial or part of any parcel affected by hurricane and that would be, by the way, I thought, correct me if I'm wrong, I thought it's one year after SB 180 that it relates to affected structures. Is it one, 12 months or is it?

The one year provision I think you're referring to is a separate statute that says you cannot institute a moratorium or more burdensome or restrictive covenant for one year after a hurricane makes landfall if you are within 100 miles of hurricanes back.

Okay, so yeah, I'll be curious to see if we can achieve some consensus and vote on the motion that would allow the city to put a moratorium on any applications, acceptance, review, or approval of any data center for a period of 18 months. going retro because the vote will be implemented after the second reading. We all understand that. I'm not sure the public understands that, but whatever we vote today is not going to be effective until we do the actual reading and it has to be two readings to that effect. So I think I'm done. I don't want to go in circles, but I just to conclude in a drought prone for growing areas as the City of Northport Data Center directly competes with drinking water. Just last week, we were on a conservation of water and rotating schedule of watering our lawns. Just last week, it was specifically on our website. What are we doing if we allow this to go on? So I think we are doing ourselves a disservice if we don't take any action today. Thank you, Mayor.

Commissioner Duvall.

Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I have to address what? The Vice Mayor mentioned my name in her comments. And she was correct. What she was talking about was how nuclear power, the safety of nuclear power when nuclear power first began versus today. and using that analogy to compare data centers when they first started to today's technology. And she is correct in that part. The nuclear power industry came from the development of the atomic bomb. After the war, the usage of that power that nuclear fission can create is transferred over to the commercial sector. The first nuclear power plant that produced energy was run by the Army. And in a nuclear power plant, there is a term when a plant automatically shuts down for safety reasons. And there are literally thousands of instruments in nuclear plants that their sole purpose is to shut down the plant safely like that. And I do mean like that. Thousands of valves shut. Power is cut in milliseconds. That's called a scram. SCRAM comes from a term back from that first nuclear power plant. The fuel bundles were sitting basically in a cavity in the floor, and the nuclear fission takes place. Neutrons, atom breaks, neutron goes from one, hits another one, breaks that apart. Nuclear reaction, chain reaction. The way he stopped that was control rods filled with lead, whatever, gets between the fuel bundles and interrupts the neutrons moving. In that first plant, the way they controlled those control rods down in between was they had a rope with a pulley, and they had a man with an axe, and if they had a problem, he caught the rope. He was the safety control rod axe man, and that's where the term scram comes from.

After that long analogy,

Do you think there's a rope and pulley in a nuclear power plant controlling rods today? No. The control rods are controlled by over 1,500 pounds per square inch of hydraulic pressure that slams them in. When you talk about closed loop cooling in nuclear power plants, there are closed-loop cooling systems. Those closed-loop cooling systems, the radioactive water that goes into a nuclear reactor gets boiled, makes steam, goes through the pipes, turns turbines and then gets condensed back into hot water and then reheated and fed back in at 520 degrees, 1320 pounds per square inch of pressure into a reactor. That never gets sent out into the atmosphere and it is a true closed loop cooling system. Now, the point of, The reason I can spot all this is I retired 21 years ago from Constellation Energy. I worked as a technician, then a supervisor and trainer in the nuclear instrumentation and control department in nuclear power plants on Lake Ontario. Now, there's all these issues. And I'll try to be short here, but all these issues that have been mentioned so far, water usage, power usage, noise, pollution, what we're going to do today is to decide about a moratorium, not whether we should have a data center or not. And as has already been mentioned, We do have data centers right here in this building. Data centers are no more than basically a lot of computer chips, and electricity going through those computer chips, all their functions that do everything, they just generate heat. Anytime you use electricity, there is resistance, and that resistance comes out as heat. That's why you have to have the cooling. Now, there's just a lot of issues here. You know, one of the issues that hasn't been mentioned is something that one of our former commissioners wrote in an email that I read earlier, and it was about the commission years ago putting in a moratorium on taxing data centers. And that's an issue that we have to look at. I mean, if we get a data center, you know, we want to get some revenue from it. So that's one issue to look at. City attorney was mentioning Burt Harris Act, SB 484, SB 180. These are all things that I am not as intimately familiar with as I am with the inside of a nuclear reactor.

And I have been inside a nuclear reactor.

Believe it or not, nuclear reactors, places where they have them, Their taxes are a lot lower than other places that make so much money for the companies that they can afford to pay taxes. What I'm looking at here is I want the time to look at SB 180, SB 484, the Burt Harris Act, taxation. I want to be able to familiarize myself with how much water plants are using. Something else that hasn't been mentioned, with the electricity. Commissioner Petro mentioned 100 megawatts, 50 megawatts. Where I worked, there were three nuclear power plants. One of them was one of the if not the first, I think it was the first commercial nuclear power plant, nine mile point one. It's still in operation and they are applying for a license to get it to go for another or up to 80 years. And The company is now applying to build a fourth nuclear reactor, and people are not against it. It's in the proper place. It's in a rural place where it's all agriculture, and it does bring in a lot of money for taxes. What I want to see us look at is all of the factors I don't know how much money they use, but when it comes to electricity, if they're using 50 megawatts, there has to be 50 megawatts of generation to power that. When FPL builds anything, somebody has to pay for that. I just want to ensure that it's not our citizens The companies that make the money from these data centers, they should be paying for that. So long story short, what I think we should have here is a moratorium for staff to put together for us workshops so that we can decide how all these different issues will affect things so we can make a final decision on whether or not we should have data centers, where they should be, how big they should be. I think I've said enough. Thank you. Thank you.

Vice Mayor?

Thank you, Mayor. There's a lot I can agree with in what both of you gentlemen had to say. I'm open to a moratorium, but I don't think we need 18 months. In preparation for this meeting, I kind of came up with a list of things that I would like to see and I'd like to quickly go through them. One of them is to definitely have a commission workshop on this topic so that we have a much better handle of the legal implications and how far we can push the technologies that can mitigate some of these issues. kinds of controls we might want to put into place, lots of topics that we could work on. So yes, absolutely, Commissioner Duval, I'm on board with you on that. I also think we need to do some community engagement on these exact same topics. Basing our decisions on fear, assumptions, old data, If we do that, we really run the risk of not doing some other things that could really benefit this community in totality. So commission workshop and community engagement event or events on those same topics are on my list. I'd like to really hammer out what is a hyperscale data center and what are some of these other data center types so we make sure that however we legislate this, we end up putting the protections in we need to have. and that we don't inadvertently prevent things from coming to our city that can do amazingly wonderful things for people who live here. So definition of hyperscale. I would like to see an ordinance on what kinds of changes we would make to our ULDC specific to data centers with a definition. sooner rather than later. I think it just would be very helpful for all of us to get our arms around what type of building designs, what type of technologies, what type of supportive structures like power plants and water treatment plants do we want to see and have that conversation so that we all feel more comfortable And whether we can legally implement those on a voluntary basis with someone who wants to come in and develop, or whether we take the leap and say we're going to mandate it now, a la Senate Bill 484, we can figure that out later. But I would like to see an ordinance with the kinds of controls we'd all feel comfortable with, data centers, particularly of this hyperscale level to be defined. I think I had a couple more. Yeah, I was very interested in what Director Wray had to say about our noise ordinances. We can look at that right away and make some changes right away, and at least one of those four concerns we can take care of. So I would like to see an ordinance come forward, maybe even in September, addressing noise in these sort of hyperscale data centers. And then I think we can get all of this work done by the first of January, 2027. So I'd like to also see an agenda topic perhaps for our first or second meeting in January with what we learned from all of these activities, what the recommendations are. And at that point we can decide whether or not we extend a moratorium. But I'd rather see a shorter timeline. Let's put some pressure on ourselves to get these things done. We need to have these answers. And maybe we won't have all the answers, but we'll have some major components of a solid policy and path forward sooner rather than later. I just don't think, folks, we can dilly dally on this one. I think the issues are too pressing. They're too immediate. The conversations are going on. There is a lot of not current information being tossed about. And we need to rectify that sooner rather than later. So those would be my recommendations. And I'm done.

Commissioner Petro.

Thank you, Mayor. I would like to address three points, and two of them Vice Mayor LinkedIn addressed, and one of them was definition of what is hyperscale. If we refer to 484 Senate bill, it clearly says that the threshold is 50 megawatts, so that's solved. We know that 50 or more megawatts, which is...

Politician's definition, I believe.

Well, it is a large-scale data center, if you will. It's because just the amount of electricity they use, it's equivalent to 50,000 homes. So that is the definition of a large-scale or hyperscale data center, 50 megawatts. So it's not just politician. I do believe it's in many literature that are referenced that. The second of all is 12 months. I'm not comfortable with that. And simply because if we do any changes to our ULDC, it doesn't take effect until October 2027. And that is more than 12 months. So we're doing ourselves a disservice. And it's very fairly, in my opinion, is a very literally defensible component to do 18 months. There's nothing that prevents us from doing 18 months. Yes, we will do the workshops per steps direction, but 12 months is not justifiable. If we do make any changes, those changes do not take effect. those changes do not take effect until October 2027. So saying that, you know, let's do 12, it really defeats the purpose of us doing any changes in our local law, if you will, ULDC and code. So I just don't buy that argument. I can't go 12 months because whatever we change or whatever we codify, whatever we refine is not going to be taken into effect. So we leave that door wide open. And the next thing I want to address, which would be my third one, is the taxation. And reading our section 3-3, chapter 3, article 1, you know, there are so many things that are favor data centers up to 10 years, 20 years, no tax. Basically, data centers are so much financially advantageous to vendors or to developers because they bring a lot of money. they bring a lot of money and that's proven because they're in business making money. So if we give them breaks, that's another thing of 12 months, we have to change those things that will not be taken into effect. And I'm not sure if we can go retroactively on you know, whatever is submitted. But as far as tax, but as far as going retro, because of the implementation of vote is not gonna be until September, October, I would go retroactively just like Zephyr Hills. And I'm proposing a motion of 18 months. And if we are done, I'll be glad to make that motion.

No, we still have more people to speak.

Sure. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

City attorney, you're in the queue, sir.

Thank you, Mayor. Just to point out, if the board is going to take the position that we can retroactively apply the moratorium ordinance to pending applications based on pending word of doctrine that we discussed and things of that nature, the same logic would apply if, as referred to, About the vice mayor suggested making the. THE MORATORIUM ONLY FOR THE END OF THE YEAR AND AS WELL AS THE IDEA THAT WE BRING POTENTIAL UELC CHANGES INTO CODE SO RIGHT WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS DON'T FEEL THAT YOU HAVE TO EXTEND IT THROUGH OCTOBER 1ST 2027 OR BEYOND THAT JUST BECAUSE OF S.B. 180'S application of a more verticillin-restricted nature. You're going to say that the pending ordinance doctrine applies in one case, meaning that pending applications, then it would apply to another case where you're directing the staff to bring the UDLC code up for changes to data centers. In addition to that, there's nothing that says you can't .

Thank you, sir. Commissioner Duvall?

Thank you, Mayor. When it comes to hyperscale, that's a name. Basically, with a data center, the way they figure whether it's hyperscale or not, it's how much electricity it's using, okay? The more computer banks, the more multiplexers, the more computer chips they're using, the more electricity they're using. the more, possibly the more water they're using for cooling. If not water, well, then there's got to be fans, you know, cooling banks. It's just a name. It's how many megawatts of power do you want to be able to use if you put something like this in your community? you want to limit it to 50 megawatts which is as commissioner petro said enough power to power 50 000 homes that means you're going to have a certain amount of noise from those cooling fans you're going to be using a certain amount of power which has to be generated and somebody's got to pay for that generation or you want to use one that you have one that's 500 megawatts or larger but it's just a name it's just you know you're going to put a quantity probably a mid-size if it's 500 megawatts on a hyper if it's a thousand megawatts you know they're just names but keep in mind that it all breaks down to the physical size and these amount of energy and water that you're using and the results from that. Are you heating up the air? Are you adding any pollution? And I really don't see much pollution from something like these as far as the air quality. There are backup generators, but those backup generators are only used for testing in emergency times. But for now, I just think these workshops on each of these different topics we've talked about, that's what we need. We need the time to do that. That's all.

Thank you. That's everybody has spoken. The one thing that I've listened up here to everybody speaking, a lot of answers that we need to get to go forward and look at this. Legalities, questions about environment. Commissioner Petro wants moratorium for 18 months. Vice Mayor, six months-ish. Well, with that being said, at any given time if you're within a moratorium you can either a extend it be rescinded whichever way you want to go so county went with a year i feel that a year is bare minimum to where we can get all of the information have all of the town halls get the citizens input get everybody engaged and educated from staff If you're worried about getting this ordinance passed quicker, we can always have, we're off in August, but staff willing, city manager willing, attorney willing, commission willing, we can have special meetings in August to get that passed in August. I'm just saying if it's time feasible. Not saying it is, but there's possibilities that it can happen. With that, I'm going to turn it over to public comment.

Stacy mentioning why we should say no to data centers in Northport. Northport's groundwater aquifers are already under pressure from population growth, drought, and increasing demand. Additional industrial water withdrawals for data centers could further strain water supplies, lower groundwater levels, impact wetlands and connected surface waters, and raise long-term concerns about water sustainability and quality for residents. Construction and operation of data centers can increase stormwater runoff, sedimentation, and pollution while replacing natural land with impervious surfaces. These changes affect drainage patterns, wetlands, and waterways that ultimately feed the Peace River and Charlotte Harbor watershed. Data centers operate 24-7 Cooling equipment, chillers, ventilation systems, and backup generators create persistent low-frequency noise. Chronic noise exposure has been linked to sleep disruption, stress, reduced quality of life, impaired concentration, and increased cardiovascular risks. Nearby homeowners also face uncertainty about property values and marketability. Introducing industrial-scale infrastructure near residential neighborhoods may negatively affect what is often a family's largest investment. Data centers require massive amounts of electricity, often necessitating new transmission lines, substations, and other infrastructure. While utilities recover these costs through regulated rate structures, residents could ultimately bear higher costs over time. Clearing land for data centers fragments wildlife habitat, reduces tree canopy, increases runoff, and diminishes native vegetation. Artificial lighting can disrupt nocturnal wildlife migratory birds and pollinators while backup generators add emissions during testing and emergencies continued industrial development also contributes to the loss of the open space that defines northport support the data center moratorium and deny approval of future data center development in northport michael springle good morning honorable mayor and members of the northport commission having grown up here and seeing this town develop over For almost 30 years, my comment today is to strongly urge the city to adopt a moratorium on building any data centers in the city of Northport. After reviewing the information provided, a simple Google search can show that in many instances, cities are told these centers will be traditional in scale before growing into a hyperscale data center. in spite of what was initially approved. Traditional sounds okay, getting a foot in the door, but that's all you need. The proverb, it's better to beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission, that rings very true when you look at other data centers constructed across the country. The effects on our environment go beyond excessive water and power usage and pollution. It will also affect the quality of life for nearby residents and our Florida wildlife. These centers are not quiet, they are not discreet, they are known for being loud and disruptive without large long-term economic development in the form of sustained jobs beyond the initial construction period. Young people don't see this as a place to live but to leave. This town is becoming like its neighbors only without the beaches. North Port is not Venice or Port Charlotte. I don't believe we should have our town continue going in a direction that chases away its future young residents who spent their formative years here. Having even one data center will only cement that for our younger residents. It's not a partisan issue to not want these centers. The negative impacts are easily researchable. With limited characters for commenting, I can only strongly recommend not having even one here. The city can work towards something that will give younger people real optimism about living here. Public broadband, More investment in public transit or infrastructure, anything but a data center. We can do better than that. Thank you for your time. HH, I think all Northport and surrounding residents would agree that we do not have the water sustainability to accommodate a data center on top of all the flippant commercial construction. Please do not do this to your tax paying residents. We do not want this. This does not benefit the people who pay your salaries. Travis Howitt, we the people are opposed to data centers in Sarasota County. They have too large of an impact on wildlife and other natural resources. They have no business being anywhere near residential neighborhoods. Liz Reap. Moratorium should become a ban. One, water drought issues. Two, electricity equals regional price increase. We'll have to pay. Three, affects our remaining wildlife. Four, noise, light air pollutions. Five, no positive features to build. Six, North Port overbuilt already. Richard Howitt. We are adamantly opposed to a data center in the city of Northport. Crystal Howitt. I am strongly opposed to any data center anywhere near our home and residences, businesses, et cetera. There are too many environmental impacts, concerns, and issues for what these data centers will demand. The amount of damage to our local water tables and recent droughts should be a clear sign that we should not be entertaining this thought. Please be wise in your decisions as this will affect the future of Northport as we know it. Steven Lasher. I am born and raised in Sarasota County. I run my family's business here in Venice, and I moved my wife and two children to Northport because as a child, I loved visiting my grandparents in the States and always said that's where I would be going to raise my family. With that being said, I am against all this overbuilding happening in our county, and I am even more opposed to the thought of an energy-sucking loud data center anywhere in this area. No one knows the environmental impact These things may cause, plus we are already in a massive drought and people are being fined in areas of Sarasota County for washing their cars on the wrong days. Yet we want to allow a data center to use millions of gallons of water from our precious aquifer. Please think with your hearts and not your wallets or greed when making any choice about data centers in this area. We simply do not need them in Northport. Thank you. Alex Howitt, highly against this idea. It costs massive amounts of power to supply run this data center. Our aquifers will be hit massively as well as our ecosystem and wildlife. Potential power outages are something to consider as again, this infrastructure will take massive amounts of power to run it. This is an incredible waste of our land. The small benefits are nothing compared to the damages this will cause for generations. This has proven effects at aiding cancer in growing and developing. I will not support this idea and I'm completely against it. Jasher Howitt, the resources needed to maintain this development far exceeds the current supply that Northport and neighboring areas can currently handle essential with the water issues, not to mention the power costs going up and other power issues, not to mention the size of the project is way larger and has proven to harm both human lives and the wildlife at the current technological advancements. There is no logical point in adding this to the ongoing projects that are currently holding many roads from operating at the capacity they need to such as I-75 at several points and with both the Sumter exit and Tropicare, the amount of projects currently active should be a priority before something as large and hazardous should be thought of and only worked on once technology can provide adequate shielding and less environmental usage. Debbie McDowell, I need a lot more information outlining the pros and cons data centers would have or have on our amazing city, including the environmental impacts. Therefore, I hope you'll create a moratorium prohibiting any development activities for at least a year so everyone can learn more about the subject. My public comment is really about the tax incentives relating specifically to data centers. It's eye-opening. In November 2020, the voters approved a referendum, almost two to one, allowing ad valorem property tax exemptions for economic development. In February 2021, the commission approved Ordinance 2021-04, amending Chapter 3 of the City Code. The section of the City Code outlines the process for a business to apply for ad valorem tax exception and the Commission's approval denial process. City Code Chapter 3-3 specifically allows the Commission to exempt a business from paying property taxes for up to 10 years. However, only data centers are specifically mentioned and granted a property tax exemption for up to 20 years, two decades of not paying property taxes. Fast forward to August 2024 when the commission approved ordinance 2024-13 to rezone the city with the sole purpose to increase the tax base. What a sticky wicket those two ordinances have created. Increase the tax base versus granting tax exemptions. Since this is an important component of the data centers, discussion, please consider giving an additional direction to bring back an amendment to chapter three of the city code by removing data centers from receiving any tax exemptions or at the very least reduce the 20 year timeframe. Megan Goral. I'm opposed to the data center even being a possibility in Northport and surrounding areas. The damage caused to the environment for miles around where a data center goes is not something the voters of Northport are okay with. Other data centers have promised not to need local sources like water but have within two years needed to connect to multiple resources. Colorado has a data center that in their building plan stated no water needed and now wants to connect directly to the Colorado River. We need to conserve all of our resources for our wonderful North port citizens, not data. In person, I have Tim Richie followed by Victoria. I will story and Kelly moment.

Well, good afternoon. I would like to thank you commissioner Petro for your excellent comments this morning. Actually, they were exceptional, not just excellent. I was fortunate enough to have a management consultant as a father, but not just any management consultant. My father ran probably the second largest management consulting firm in the United States of America. I used to enjoy when he'd have phone conversations with our neighbor. We lived about nine houses down the street. He ran a little company called Oxy Petroleum, Arm and Hammer. But I'll tell you, Mosaic is really slick. I love these industries where they put out this slick stuff, like nuclear energy. I was beat really bad when I was about six years old. I came home, there was a flyer for nuclear power plants. Yeah, I got beat because I was against that. Let me tell you, you ever hear of Three Mile Island? I was in tears when I saw the farms and the animals. It was amazing to see my father apologize to me. Humility. I want to tell you right now, it's not just a name. And this just isn't a city. And our government governs air, land, and water. And I want to tell you, city attorney or county attorney here, I've really enjoyed your comments too. This is so much more serious than just a six-month moratorium and rushing this. As Glenn Gibellina from Manatee County, who's running for commissioner up there, what's the hurry? Facts are stubborn. Fukushima. When my friends catch fish in Malibu, guess what they have in it? Isotope radioactivity from Fukushima. How about Chernobyl, Russia? You ever have any friends from Ukraine? I did. She told me about the black rain. Now our watershed manager Fletcher is in deep trouble, sir. Deep trouble. And we don't have any more times to hold hands with our legislative delegations up in Tallahassee licking and sucking boots. This is what it takes for one email. One email. 850 gallons of water. Getting drunk on water.

I'm not going to read what I had prepared because it just reiterates all the usage of water and electricity that we don't have an abundance of anymore. The potential negative impacts of data center expansion on carbon emissions, water use, and electricity are well documented, but their potential PFAs pollution, both direct and indirect, is less well known. Data centers use PFAs to cool their services, suppress fires. PFAs pollution from data centers is difficult to ascertain and likely limited because cooling systems generally run as closed loops. But manufacturing companies that produce the PFAs materials used in data centers have historically amended them, which harms communities and ecosystems near the facilities. Chemars is one of the largest global producers and one of the biggest suppliers of PFAA's materials for data centers. Coolants and semiconductor production are used to make the microchips deployed in the data centers in vast quantities. The company aims to expand its materials in particular resident for semiconductor manufacturing, to accommodate the growth of data centers across the country. This will likely have repercussions on the environment. In North Carolina, airborne PFAA's emissions from Chemours operations have contaminated more than 7,000 drinking water wells, according to researchers. Nobody has asked a question or even talked about our hurricanes that we have. What if a hurricane hits a data center? and blows all the construction and the materials in it around the state of Florida and in our water systems. Nobody addresses that. So what is that gonna do to the environment, our water, the human life, everything? That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Kelly Baumann and I'm from Englewood, Florida. And we all rely upon the same water That's why more and more people are showing up and voicing their concerns. We don't have enough, right? And as Vicki mentioned about the hurricanes, I was going to mention that because what happens if this data center that ever comes here is impacted and they demand their power, what happens to the people who get service first, right? I've been fighting a road for a year, and I'm still peeling back the onion. I can guarantee you it'll take you more than a year to peel back this onion. You do not have the information. You do not have the technology. If it's a large-scale data center, you're talking about medium voltage. You're talking about those aren't jobs for the locals. Hardly anyone works on medium voltage. And you will have to discharge the water from the closed loop system. It purges, it scales, and it takes an enormous amount of product to descale that water. Where does it go? I don't know, Mr. Duvall, perhaps your backyard. I mean, to think that we are going to impact our environment that is so precious near the coast here, the amount of The agriculture, like, yeah, just fill up the agricultural land. That's a good place for it. Are you kidding? What are we preserving? Who is protecting the people? You guys, they're here for you, for you to listen to them, to respect their concerns, their safety. You do not know the impacts of the safety, the water, the air quality. All of it will be affected. And don't make a decision unless you know that you are absolutely sure about your decision. This business of approving projects and not having all the information. Could you ever in your prior life go up and present a product and not have all the information? No. You, and if you pass it, do you think you're not liable for your decision? Do you think you're not accountable? Do you think your children, your grandchildren, whomever will be spared from the effects because you sit behind this board? No. I urge you, six months, I'm not sure what six months will do for anything, but for God's sakes, you guys have the decision to make. Figure it out. Figure out the legal loopholes that the developers figure out. It's there don't do a moratorium do whatever is necessary. The language changes, whatever to stop it.

Thank you.

Followed by Robin.

Good morning, Mayor, Commissioners, Jimmy Lutowski, resident in Englewood. I asked the commission to proceed with extreme caution before encouraging or approving these types of developments in North Port. Hyperscale data centers are unlike traditional commercial buildings that can occupy hundreds of acres, require enormous electrical capacity, consume a significant amount of water for cooling and some designs and often require substantial upgrade to public infrastructure. As North Park continues to grow, our priority should be ensuring that our existing residents and businesses have reliable electricity, water, transportation, emergency services. We should not put additional strain on those systems without fully understanding the long-term effects. Another concern is land use efficiency. These facilities can consume large amounts of industrial or employed land while creating relatively few permanent jobs compared with other economic development projects. We should ask whether this is the highest and best use of limited land in the North Port area. Noise is another issue that deserves careful attention. Backup generators, cooling equipment, mechanical systems can operate around the clock. Even when they meet technical standards, they may affect nearby neighborhoods and reduce residents' quality of life. We should also consider resilience as Florida experiences stronger storms, increasing demands on the electrical grid, adding facilities with exceptionally high power requirements, raises important questions about energy reliability and emergency planning. Most importantly, I urge the Commission not to make policy based solely on promises of economic development. Instead, establish clear standards before any applications are submitted. Those standards should address appropriate locations, setbacks, buffering, noise limits, water use, energy demands, emergency power systems, environmental protection, and public transparency. If North Port decides that hyperscale data centers may be appropriate, they should only be located where necessary infrastructure already exists, where surrounding land uses are compatible with where nearby residents and natural resources are protected. I respectively ask Commission to put residents first, protect our infrastructure, preserve our quality of life, and adapt a cautious, deliberate approach before opening the door to hyperscale data centers developed in North Port. Sarasota County, I would take their lead and at least the one year moratorium. You're gonna need at least that amount of time, if not a year and a half, 18 months, to gather all the information that you need to make a good decision. For the residents.

Again, thank you. I'm just going to touch on one of the things. When, City Attorney, you mentioned the Burt Harris Act and you mentioned the word burdensome. There are precedences that have been set on the percentage of burdensome that actually a developer of a data center challenges and they state it falls under the Burt Harris Act. Well, that's actually not true. You can explore the different terms of burden. and the percentages of how we are actually burdening that particular developer on that particular parcel or acreage. So that's one thing to take into consideration. The other thing is also redefining the types of data centers. The only area that a hyperscale data center can go in our city is an activity center six or 10. That's the amount of acreage. It's totally, nothing is out there. We have nothing out there except the interchange that's forthcoming. We don't need a hyperscale data center of any kind in our city. There's too much unknowns with it. There is scientific data that backs up all of the repercussions of a hyperscale data center. Even mid-scale data centers can take up anywhere from 50 to 100 acres. you're still gonna suffer the repercussions of these data centers to our natural resources, specifically to our right to quiet enjoyment. And under legal ramifications of our rights to quiet enjoyment, there's lawsuits pending now all over the country because of the loss of our right to quiet enjoyment. That's a whole nother issue to take into consideration. Our quality of life issues, our public health and safety issues, the amount of services that it's gonna be taking just from our city services in order to properly take care of these facilities and be on demand if an emergency happens. I love your comments, Commissioner Duvall, about nuclear power plants, but as Tim Ritchie had said, there's a whole bunch of accidents that have taken place. Nothing is safe. Human error comes into place all the time. all the time. And then when we look at our economic development strategy, one of the targeted industries is web-enabled technologies, and everything is cloaked and masked under that particular category. So, again, we need to make data centers clearly defined within all of our documents. What I was going to ask the city attorney, if he could maybe answer a question, due to the timeline of instituting an ordinance, is it possible that you could do a resolution in the meantime as an emergency meeting next week in order to express the intent and the policy direction on what the data centers is going to be while you do the ordinance.

Thank you.

Good morning. First point, I've been up here several times, and it bothers me that when people are speaking, citizens are speaking to you, a lot of times you're not looking them in the face. And I think that's rude, to be honest. I live out on the dead end of Toledo Blade, across the street from the 320 Project. I'm sure you're familiar with that. The front part of that, and I'm not sure how many acres, but it's a couple hundred, I believe, is now zoned industrial, which you did, even though the citizens on that section of Toledo Blade are all residential on the other side of the street. My fear is that you could put a data center in across the street from me. My property has already lost value because you have approved zoning for an industrial park across the street from me, and it's in the middle of preserves and ranch lands that you can put this industrial center. You rezoned the City of Northport's property without telling these people that it was going to be rezoned. and told us when I brought it up in a meeting, I was told it's too expensive for us to notify these people to let them know that we're gonna rezone their property. The next meeting after this was rezoned, you guys said, well, let's send out a postcard and let them know after the fact. I think that's pretty sneaky. I don't believe that they should have any kind of tax exemption. I think they should pay the full amount of taxes right from the get go. There are many videos, and I don't know, I'm sure some of you have seen them, of cities and counties that are voting against these data centers. It's very prevalent on Facebook and et cetera. They are removing city commissioners, county commissioners. They are voting them out, communities, because they're not following the wishes of the citizens of that community. There's no way you can tell me that my electrical increases are not going to happen. It's documented in numerous of these videos that I've watched that these people's electrical costs have increased 50 to 100 percent. Question number one, why is Hurricane Ian not listed as being included in this whole study? That was a 100-year hurricane. I had water running down Toledo Blade. If they build a data center across the street, what happens? Number one, is my well gonna be polluted? Am I going to have noise pollution? Am I going to have vibration? There's just so many questions, so many other comments. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name's Colin Andrew. I grew up in Northport, moved from Sarasota, I think when I was in like second grade. And Tulip Blade had a little rope light on it. And so we moved here because there were, you know, lots were cheap for one. But there was just woods everywhere. And it was great. We had, you know, just animals running everywhere. It was wonderful. And I'm back in Sarasota now. It's about 10, 15 years I think I lived here. Family has a business here. And every time I've been coming back to Northport recently, and it seems like you guys just are trying to, and forgive me, I don't know too much on it, so I might be incorrect on it. It's just trying to get more industrial use in Northport and ruining the beauty of it. I remember when they were trying to put like a target right near homes, and that was like a big issue in the city. So it seems like the city really just doesn't know what it's doing most of the time, to be quite fair. But it seems like the citizens are really informed. And so... I think, and I've been all throughout Florida, and just so you know, I think Mr. Duvall, almost everybody in America is fighting this, but... The nuclear scientist is saying that we're all wrong. I mean, it doesn't take a nuclear scientist or rocket scientist to figure out that people don't want it. And I think the bottom line comes down to is you can hear the stats all day. You can argue how much water and closed loop and all this other stuff. If citizens don't want it, it's not your job to think that you know better, unless you have information behind NDAs that we don't. I think Mr. Petro is correct. I think he should be mayor, and the rest of you guys just go home. I did want to bring up, though, is that the more I see people being informed, the more it seems like intimidation. Like I know in Fort Meade, that's what happened with the group I'm working with that's recalling. all their people. The guy that's leading the recall actually had people from the city driving by his home, taking video of his house, trying to intimidate. They opened up all the petition boxes when they weren't supposed to. And so there's a bunch of stuff going on there. Mayor's got a bunch of crap going on. He owns property. And so when the construction short-term jobs come in, he's going to make money off that. And so one of the big things is while you guys are all at work, I'll get that in there. You guys are here making decisions on rezoning and all these things. And People don't have a clue until, like you said, afterwards, it's already happened. And these issues affect people where they live. They affect their health. I've heard people who come up and say they have cancer, they don't want this. Having to do with the electricity costs, do you want to, dude, I keep knocking all these out. I'll pick them all up, I swear. This is like the worst placement. Maybe we can pay for a better one than a $200,000 a year city manager. But on the intimidation thing, I wanted to say, just bring this up briefly, Debbie McDowell, great lady, held a meeting to try to teach people the government and you. And it was really weird that half of the city administration showed up and was sitting there and didn't even engage with people. It almost felt like intimidation. It was a little weird. The chief of police was there. None of them interacted with any of the people. Thank you. So I thought that was kind of odd.

Hi guys, my name is Sam Turpening and after Mr. Ritchie and after Mr. Colin Andrew, who can follow up with that. But let's stand here today for Thomas Paine. I did write a speech, but I don't really think that I need to. Thomas Paine is the one that wrote the speech for Common Sense. Mr. Petro, the light that shines through you for your integrity. We really appreciate that today, sir. God bless you. That won't be forgotten. Sir, talking about nuclear power, that is some kind of futuristic fantasy that you're talking about, sir. I don't know where you're coming up with the things that you're talking about just because that's the world that you used to live in. But in this world, it says that it takes 15 years in order to build nuclear power plants. So my question is, sir, are these nuclear power plants already planned in Northport City? I would like to know, sir, where are they coming from? It tells me that it's going to take 15 years to build one. Nuclear power, you've been on and on, nuclear power. Where's the plant, sir? The federal government and Donald Trump, you know, the president, sir, he says that no parts for these facilities can come from the Republic of China, sir. That means that they don't have American corporations that are building these parts in order to facilitate building them. They are so behind schedule, sir. Therefore, they cannot be booked. Furthermore, and lastly, I mentioned Thomas Paine in common sense, because if it was not for him, we would all not be here today. You work for us. Remember that. As they said about being elected, you can be elected out. This is America, and this is the Constitution, and the people are speaking, and the people that know the truth. Give us much more credit than you think that we do. We know much more than you think that we do. And we're here to defend that, just like Thomas Paine did back in the 1774, 75. 250 years of our Constitution, we stand before you and say there's no water. That's the common sense. There is no water. Each of you will not have any water to drink. Each and every one of you on there, when you go to flush the toilet, there will be no flush in the toilet because the wells are dry. Common sense. All the other stuff doesn't matter if you don't have a drink of water. Without water, we all die. Each and every one of you. We all die. Please remember that. One drink of water. That's what we're talking about here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Moving on to, I'm going to request a motion.

I'll make it.

Go ahead, sir. I move to direct the city.

No.

Commissioner Stokes.

Oh, I didn't hear that.

Hopefully, it incorporates your thoughts. Thank you. I'd like to make a motion to direct city manager to immediately issue an official public notice and schedule as soon as legally allowable an agenda item to enact an ordinance to impose an 18 month moratorium retroactively on accepting and approving any applications for data centers within the city limits of Northport, excluding those properties under SB 180, which were affected by storms Debbie, Helene, or Milton. I'll second for discussion.

Can you repeat it one more time, please? A little slower, sorry.

A motion to direct city manager to immediately issue an official public notice and schedule as soon as legally allowable an agenda item to enact an ordinance to impose an 18 month moratorium retroactively on accepting and approving any applications for data centers within the city limits of Northport, excluding those properties, under SB 180 that were affected by storms Debbie, Helene, or Milton.

Did you get that, City Clerk? Yeah. Okay, I have a motion on the floor. Do I have a second?

I'll second for discussion purposes.

Okay, let's discuss.

Carving out the properties, meaning structures or vacant land or what do we...

I'm having a hard time hearing you and I'm sitting two people away from you, so please.

I'm sorry. carving out the parcels or structures, or what are we talking about, that have been affected by the hurricanes?

The reason I brought that up in specific, you used the word properties, is because SB 180 is very specific about that issue, and I wanted to be able to put as much legal meat more strength into this moratorium by excluding those properties. They're developed properties. So, you know, I mean, what did a hurricane do to activity center six or 10? It affected properties that were developed and built. So I thought that that language based on what I heard from city attorney gave me cause to add that little piece just to give our moratorium ordinance that much more legal strength if it were to be challenged. by thinking anyway.

I agree. Thanks. I agree.

Are you good, sir? Yes. All right, Vice Mayor, you're next.

Yeah, I would feel a lot more comfortable if we added to this moratorium some specific tasks or things that we want to achieve in that timeframe. I mean, I've personally said I think a year is too long. But again, at any time, a development can ask for relief. We can choose to discontinue at any time. So I'm not going to challenge that. But I think there are so many important things we need to do during this moratorium period that I would like it to be part of the motion. If the motion maker isn't amenable to that, I'll make a second motion.

requiring it so i'll ask you know you might want to make it a separate motion only from the standpoint commissioner that there is such a plethora or an abundance of issues to discuss investigate study learn more about i don't know how we could possibly include all those things in a motion to establish and enact the moratorium but if you wanted to take a swipe at a motion that included all those separately, I'd be certainly open-minded to hear them, because the more the merrier, so to speak.

I mean, my major rationale, and I would ask the city attorney to weigh in on this, it was my understanding in my conversations that if a municipality enacts a moratorium of any type or length, it is legally more secure if that moratorium includes some of the specific issues or activities that the city wants to see happen in that timeframe. So it's in the spirit of I think it's important for these things to happen. I would ask city attorney to weigh in on whether there's value in having it incorporated in this specific motion, or if I can make a second one, your call, sir.

Let me add just a little bit to that since you're going to answer it anyways. What she wanted to do, would it be better if we had a separate agenda item on a future meeting to discuss this, the parameters of that with a little bit of time? I mean, setting the moratorium in place now, adjusting the parameters at a future date till we make sure that we cover everything. That's all I was going to add to it.

I think we're all saying the same thing. You will have a future agenda item because we'll have to bring ordinance back. Correct. So the more direct, and I will draft the ordinance for you all if that's the way you want to go. The more direction you give me now, the better ordinance I can bring forward to you at a future date. So if there's some specific things that you want in there and then you can all agree, then we'll put them in and then you can debate that ordinance at a future date and you can take things out, put things in if you need to in between first and second reading. If that is where you want, if that answers your question. And I think, Vice Mayor, your question was, would a moratorium ordinance that directs staff in terms of that includes planning tool issues would be a strong or would withstand a legal challenge. And the answer to that is yes. But we don't have the ordinance before you yet. So if you want to give more direction now, great. If not, we can always debate it at the future agenda item meeting.

Well, I have one more thing to City Clerk. Would it be best to have an amendment to the motion or a separate motion?

Either one would work for me.

Pardon me?

Either one works for me.

Okay.

I'd like to make an amendment based on city attorneys.

I'm sorry, that was long before. two people. So I don't want to interfere or interject my view. The less is better. And if you look at other jurisdictions and the motions they made, it's very short and concise, the more we encapsulate, the more legal challenges we might have. So, and obviously we, I agree with the mayor saying, let's make another agenda item and talk about the specificity of what we want to accomplish. And remember what the city attorney said at the beginning, it's a planning tool. So all it gives us, ability is to plan. And that motion or the moratorium would have to be very specific of what we want to accomplish. What we're saying is we're doing the actual moratorium of this many months. I concur with Commissioner Spokes and with Mayor. And I don't think it's a good idea to amend this motion because it exposes us as a board and as a city to more legal challenges. And I'm not the one.

I heard just the office of the city attorney.

Well, he said at the beginning, this is a planning tool, and at the end he said the same thing. So if we put more and more stuff in our motion, there's more legal challenges to be picked on, if you will. So that's my two cents on it. I just think the motion is perfect as it is, made by Commissioner Stokes.

OK, city manager, I see you're in the queue. Oh, thank you, Mr. Mayor.

You guys cleared up one thing, which was that the city attorney is the one who actually drafts the moratorium and ordinance that you're looking for, not the city manager. But also to let you know, there was a question, I think it was Commissioner Stokes who asked it, was there an application received at this time? And the answer is yes, we have received an application at this time.

Well, I would like to suggest an amendment.

She has the right to make an amendment.

And again, it's based on what I heard city attorneys say, that including things that we want to have happen during the moratorium period will make for a stronger legal position if we are challenged. So I will go through my list of the things that I would suggest we work on. This is a planning tool, so these are the things I would like to have happen. One, that we schedule a commission workshop on hyperscale data centers and data centers in general and related sustainable technologies as a learning and potential planning tool. That we conduct a community engagement event or series of such, sharing that same information. That staff come back to the commission with suggested definitions of hyperscale and the sources of those definitions. That we quickly update the city's noise ordinance to include frequencies typical of hyperscale data centers. That at a time to be determined, that we, and I'd like to see it in January of 2027, that we see a presentation from staff on the results of all of these activities, including recommendations to our ULDC restrictions and requirements that we would like to see in our ULDC that would restrict and put in place guardrails for data centers. and a review and possible revision of the city's current tax treatment and any potential tax or other exemptions relative to data centers and hyperscale data centers. That's my list.

City Clerk, did you get all that?

I did not, but I'm gonna read it right now and you just fill in the words, okay? Schedule workshop on hyperscale data centers and

RELATED TECHNOLOGIES.

OKAY. CONDUCT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EVENT OR SERIES SHARING INFORMATION.

THAT SAME INFORMATION.

FOR STAFF TO COME BACK WITH SUGGESTED DEFINITIONS OF HYPERSCALE AND SOURCES OF...

POTENTIAL DEFINITIONS OF HYPERSCALE DATA CENTERS AND THE SOURCES OF THOSE DEFINITIONS. UPDATE NOISE ORDINANCE TO... UPDATE THE CITY'S NOISE ORDINANCES TO INCLUDE FREQUENCIES TYPICAL OF HYPERSCALE DATA CENTERS. AND I KIND OF MUNGED THE NEXT ONE WITH THAT. LET ME PULL IT OUT.

AT A TIME TO BE DETERMINED, SEE A PRESENTATION FROM STAFF ON recommendations to the ULDC?

Yeah, let me pull out that ULDC just to make it clearer. It will be a separate item. So, update the city's noise ordinances and include frequencies typical of hyperscale data centers, period. Then complete an ordinance, complete an update to the city's ULDC TO INCLUDE REQUIREMENTS FOR HYPERSCALE DATA CENTERS TO INCORPORATE SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGIES IN THEIR DESIGNS.

I'M SORRY. TO INCLUDE REQUIREMENTS FOR HYPERSCALE DATA CENTERS.

YES, TO INCORPORATE SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGIES IN THEIR DESIGNS.

TECHNOLOGIES IN THEIR DESIGNS?

YEP. OKAY. REVIEW AND POSSIBLY REVISE THE CITY'S CURRENT TAX TREATMENT AND ANY POTENTIAL TAX OR OTHER INCENTIVES OR EXEMPTIONS RELATIVE TO HYPERSCALE DATA CENTERS. and then deliver a presentation on the results and recommendations at a future commission meeting.

To schedule a workshop on hyperscale data centers and related technologies, conduct community engagement event or series sharing same information, staff to come back with suggested definitions of hyperscale data centers and sources of definitions, update noise ordinance to include frequencies typical of hyperscale data centers, complete an update to city's ULDC to include requirements for hyperscale data centers and incorporate technologies and their designs, review and possibly revise the current tax treatment and any potential tax or other exemptions or provisions relative related to data centers and to deliver a presentation on results and recommendations at a future meeting. Well done.

I have a motion on the floor that we've heard about three times now. Do I have a second?

I'll second for the purpose of discussion.

All right, go ahead and discuss.

And I understand, in my understanding, this is an amendment to the original motion. Correct. All these points of discussion are part of the agenda item that we're not discussing. It almost seems like a separate discussion or agenda item. I have not assessed any of those and it's not a bit unfair because we're bottling them into original motion of moratorium. And from the city's attorney's introduction, and again, I bring that point of Commissioner Duval as well, that we are talking about moratorium. These are just, you know, ideas of implementation of the planning tool that we are majorly voting on moratorium. So I don't know if it's colloidal.

The way that I look at it, I understand what you're saying. We have the original motion for the moratorium. This is an addition to moratorium A. Part B is staff's responsibility coming back to the commission. So it's in one motion to get both completed. That's the way I look at it.

So if there's nothing else, I just popped it up because of what I heard my fellow commissioners say. I also concur with Commissioner Petro on this matter. The reality is that there is A plethora I'll use that word again. There is a ton. Of questions concerns. 1st, and foremost is. um we can sit and hypothesize about all these issues that have been highlighted in the amendment when the bottom line really comes down to now that there actually is an applicant what the heck are they really thinking they're going to build here what are the specifics what technologies are they going to use to mitigate all these areas none of this is discussed and none of this can really be included in the motion So, you know, I don't support the amendment. I just say motion as is and like let's get this thing on its way as it is now. We have an uphill battle and I say we better pull our resources together because this is a hill, in my opinion, to die on. Thank you. Vice Mayor?

The original motion includes 18 months retroactively. I'm at a loss at what concerns Commissioner Stokes and perhaps some of my other commissioners to be really clear on what work we expect to have happen between now and during the moratorium. I'm baffled. as to why there would be any reluctance to communicate to the community precisely what work we have to do. All of these things are to help us answer the questions and to build information and to make sure that whatever legislation we do is based on facts, as much information as possible, that we mitigate immediately where we can the noise ordinance. Why wouldn't you want to do that and make it specific and have it be required as part of this motion? I am at a loss. Don't we owe it to the community for them to see what kind of work we want to do while we Sure. Make it a separate motion.

Just like I'm going to make a separate motion that we hold two meetings ASAP in the month of August to install and enact an ordinance for a moratorium. Make it as a separate motion. Then I can support it.

Enough.

We have a motion and an amendment. I'm going to call This is on the amendment, correct? This is on the amendment, sir. And that passes three to two. Now I am moving on to the original motion. Please vote. And that passes five to zero. Now I will entertain motions. Separately.

Thank you. I'd like to make a motion to direct staff to set a meeting as soon as possible to enact the first reading of an ordinance for our moratorium for our previous motion.

I have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Stokes. Did you catch that, City Clerk?

The direct staff to schedule a meeting as soon as possible to act on the ordinance for the moratorium.

I have a motion. Do I have a second? I'll second. I have a second by Commissioner Duvall. There's nothing to that.

One point I would make, that as soon as possible means August, not September, just so everybody understands. There's no reason to wait.

Would you like me to reword your- Sure, add it right in.

Please, thank you. Do I still have a second to the motion? All right, if there's nothing to that, please vote. That passes 4-1 and I didn't see who descended, Vice Mayor descended it. Do you have anything to that?

Yes. The moratorium is already retroactive. I don't see any value in rushing staff or city attorney to draft this moratorium language. Let's have it our first meeting in September is my feeling. That's fine. Let's do it right. The protection is already there. The moratorium is retroactive.

All right, that's it. OK, we're going to be moving on to lunch. Come back to at 1.15, it's 12.35, do like a 40-minute lunch. Is that okay with staff, city manager? Yes. No, don't vote on that. I'm going to decide. We'll be back at 1.15. Thank you, sir. We're back from lunch. Moving on to item B, 26-0911. Ms. Voss, this is your item.

Regarding the memorandum that was sent from the charter review advisory board, where they recommended commission discuss 2 items. 1 of them was the residency requirements for charter officers, and they recommended that the commission do a referendum with language that states replacing the current city only resident requirement with a regional. Residency requirement that allows the charter officers to reside within Sarasota County or a continuous County specifically Manatee County, DeSoto County or Charlotte County while also allowing the Commission to impose stricter residency requirements availability or response requirements through employment contracts and the other item for discussion would be to recommend a referendum question that includes verbiage that except for purposes of inquiry or information, the city commission and its members shall deal with city officers and employees who are subject to the direction and supervision of the city manager solely through the city manager. So we did provide some options if you choose to make a recommendation for a referendum or if you would like me to reply back to the board and let them know that you're not gonna take direction at this time.

All right. Commissioners, I'm going to start this one. I am very staunch on this. I am happy with the status quo on what we have right now. I do believe that the charter officers should live within the city limits. They are A separate item I know the commissioners have to live in their district, but also within the city limits city manager. Everybody I believe is within the city limits at this time and. Future ones should be within the city limits as to part 2 of that. I think we've discussed this in great length quite a few times. And again, I feel that the policy and the procedures that we have in place by going through. The city manager to talk with staff staff is available to talk with the commissioners at any given time. This would not create a scheduling type issue with staff because. Once you open up that door, I believe that anybody at any time could call and ask questions and disrupt staff time without going through the city manager and by having the city manager at least aware of what those conversations are going to be. He is within the loop as he is. the ultimate individual in charge of the day to day and by going straight to staff, not necessarily directing them, but they could possibly insinuate on what they may like or what they may feel should be prudent to whatever they're working on their cause. And I just think that that is It's not needed at all and and I wish that they would work on other things with the charter review board because like I said, we've discussed this one at great length and yet again we're discussing it again. So that's where I stand on this and I open it up to anybody else. Commissioner Petro.

Thank you, Mayor. There are two items and we have to look at them because it was presented to us by the Charter Review Board. I completely concur on the first one because we've talked about this and moreover, we put it on the referendum and the voters spoke And voted down, meaning that the city charter officers have to live within the city limits. So. In my mind, it's settled unless we agree as a board to present the same question. To our orders again, and if we, if we decide to do it. By the majority will do it on the second item It's interesting to see that it came up and it was not initiator of this at all I was not aware of this that they had this discussion although they mentioned a couple times I think the chair of the board did. But I wanna speak a little bit of this item or this topic. And what we failed to publicly acknowledge that our city charter does not prevent, prohibit individual commissioners to communicate with the staff. Nor does it imply that. We keep referring that we had a third party A legal opinion, but it was totally related to the policy of the city managers. Policy of the city manager's office. And the employees under his jurisdiction. Just all the other ones spelled is now region in the form of a city manager, commissioner format. They have this clause that it's called non-interference clause that specifically prohibits individual council members or commissioners give orders to the staff, meaning tell someone to do something or direct someone to do something for individual commissioner. And all across the board, that form of government prohibit that giving orders. Yet all municipalities that I looked at, and there were more than 20, neighboring Venice, Punta Gorda, Sarasota County, all neighboring and beyond, I think I've looked at at least 20, all of those municipalities that I looked, do not prohibit individual commissioners to ask questions or communicate with the staff for informational purposes only, with the exception of our city, because our charter does not have that specificity. But because our charter, and we chose to interpret our charter differently, You know, we are, as individual commissioners, we are prevented from talking to the city staff without first going to the city manager. And I brought it up before. Puna border, and I can read those again. It's just two sentences. I will not take too much of your time. Nothing, and the first clause is, you know, they shall not give orders. or ask any city staff to do something for them. And right below in Punta Gorda charter it says, nothing in the foregone is to be construed to prohibit individual members of the council, in our language commission, from closely commissioners, closely scrutinizing by personal observation and questions to city officers and employees, all aspects of city government operations. so as to obtain an independent information to assist the members in the formulation of sound policies to be considered by the Commission. To me, it's a no-brainer. We are not here to burden the staff. It's only, to us at Washington, I don't see any burden. putting on the staff if you ask a question or explanation to that policy or whatever. Although I have to refer to the section 5.028. It says, Commissioner shall deal with administrative services through the city manager. And I completely agree with that. And administrative services are human resources, hiring, firing, finance and accounting, purchase information, public records, risk management, insurance, fleet, and facility management. That does not imply that we cannot talk to the city employees by just asking them questions. I'm open to put this up for the voters to clearly specify that we are able to ask questions and let the voters decide. But currently, I don't think, you know, it's interesting to see, for me at least, that all the other charters and all the other jurisdictions have the same form of government, and yet they permit individual council members or commissioners to talk to their employees. And we are the only one out of, I look at over 20, Somehow we are different, and we cannot even talk to any city employees on our own. And I think it is a problem unless there is something that, you know, the staff or, I don't know, I don't want to go to that length, but unless there's something that they want to hide. So, but that's extreme. But what I'm saying is, in short, is let's put it out to the voters and let them decide. of a specificity of, because like I said, and I'll repeat myself, our charter does not prohibit us from communicating, conversing with the city employees, nor does it imply. It just doesn't specify that we can. And I'll be very curious to see what my fellow commissioners will have to say on that.

Commissioner Langdon. Vice Mayor to you.

No, that's okay. The voters have spoken on the residency requirement. Next. Earlier the same fiscal year, we discussed the reporting situation in depth and we voted. So I concur with the mayor. Let's move on to more important things that that we need to deal with today. Both of these issues have been dealt with, voted on, let's move on. I'm done.

Commissioner Duvall.

Thank you, Mayor. As far as charter officers living in or outside the city, the voters have spoken and I just, I don't think they're, totally correct in their vote, but it is what it is, and I don't think they'll change it. Now as to the second part, I went to a town hall a couple months back prepared by the city manager's staff. There's a slide in that town hall that says that city commission sets policy. And yet we have a policy, the city managers in charge of, telling us that we can't converse with staff. And we have discussed it before. I think the wrong question was asked when we went to an outside council. The determination was made that our charter does not conflict with the policy. The question should have been asked was, does that policy state that commissioners cannot converse, ask questions of staff? That's the question that should have been asked. I disagree with it, but Nothing has changed here on this commission. So, you know, we can take a vote on it, but I already know what the vote's going to end up being. So that's all I've got.

Vice Mayor?

Just quick, quick. I know this talking to staff thing has been a contentious issue. Personally, I'd be open to talking with staff about making directors available, but I've not had those conversations. So what I'd like to suggest as a way of maybe bridging current beliefs and attitudes, let's make sure that this policy is on the agenda for our next strategic session. Let's talk about it again. In the meantime, I would commit to doing my due diligence and talking with staff about how they feel about it. I mean, we seem to be assuming that staff wants to talk to us randomly on the street. And if I were employed by the city, and I'm out doing my job, whatever it is, and a commissioner comes at me asking me questions, I would probably wet my pants. I'm making light of it. But you get the point. You get the point. So I wouldn't assume that. employees on a random basis want to talk to any one of us. But I'm open to picking it up at our next strategic session. And in the meantime, I'll chat. Going through the city manager, I'll chat with him and with our directors and see what their feeling is, if there might be some way to kind of bridge this a little. But right now, let's just move on.

City Manager, you're up next. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just as a reminder, since this topic is back in front of us yet again, and Commissioner Petro's comments about talking to staff, you are allowed to talk to staff. You are encouraged to have good relationships with staff. The fact that you can't ask them questions about your business or your business concerns or your interests, that's where the line is that you are trying to cross. And while you don't respect the attorney's opinion, the prior attorney's opinion, and the third party attorney's opinions, they are legal opinions that have given direction on how we are using our charter. We keep going over this same thing, even though you know that you've gotten legal guidance. And we have also encouraged you to have a good relationship with staff, as if we're trying to hide them from you. And the fact that you're insinuating that something is trying to be hidden is very offensive. And so I'd appreciate it if you would quit saying that publicly. Mr. Duval, we came. We had a third party mediator for a meeting with you specifically in January. to talk about this one item. And I came to that meeting with papers and a process of relaxed rules so that we could all move on past this. And you sat there and said you were not going to participate in the meeting at all. And therefore, the board decided, well, why would we meet you halfway when you weren't even willing to have the conversation with us after you're the one who brought it up and complained about it? This is a very redundant conversation. for you all to have. We try to meet you both in positions to give you what you wanted, and neither one of you seemed to have wanted when we were offering it. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Petro.

Thank you, Mayor. The fact of the matter is that communication is for the city business only and I have not hinted nor I implied that I want to ask any questions about my business dealings. I don't do actually anything on the side besides remodeling. But looking at other jurisdictions that really allow in that same forum that we are in, city managers, commission forum, all the other jurisdictions can freely talk to the city employees. And I understand we can too, but we have to get the permission from you. And I don't think this is correct or I don't think this is right. And I know it's emotional for somebody and Maybe it's a redundant conversation. The fact that it was brought by the Charter Review Board, it's an independent body of, a governing body, whatever that, the Charter Review Board, they brought it up to us without any outside influence. I have not talked to them regarding this, to put this on the agenda. The fact that some other people saw it, and not just some people, the Charter Review Board members saw it to be a necessary tool to be as a transparency and independent obtaining of information, that's what concerns me. And I'm not implying anything. I'm just laying out. And again, going back to third party opinion, The question was never asked if the charter forbids or prohibits individual commissions from conversing. The completely different question was asked of a third party opinion, which was if your policy confirms to your policy. We cannot get into your policy. That's your policy. but yet we have to get the permission from you. It's almost, you know, we as a board stand below the city manager's office. If you look at this component of our charter being interpreted as you see it, which I completely disagree with. And if we're talking about this, I'll refer to the city attorney who explicitly said on this issue that if you ask 10 different lawyers, you're going to get 10 different opinions. So that's why I'm very adamant and proponent of putting this issue to the voters. Let the voters decide if we as individual commissioners can freely talk to the staff. And the analogy You know, I get approached by everybody in every way. And I'm OK with that on all fronts, whether it's a constituent or someone who works somewhere else, because I represent the people. And this form of government, we are the government. Let it be very transparent. I don't see anything. of an issue of why we cannot even talk about this, let alone put a charter on the ballot for the voters to decide this. Because this specificity is missing in our charter, like all the other 30, 20 charters that I looked at, that allow specifically. Our charter does not prohibit, it does not even imply that we cannot talk to the city employees. Having said all that, I think it's very simple. We can just vote, put it up to the voters and let them vote in 2028. If our charter can be amended specifically, relating to communication with the city employees. As far as burdening the staff with our questions, well, you know, we need more answers from subject matter experts as city manager always refers to them. I would like to hear independent opinion just coming up and hey what do you think about this and uh where where can i get that and um to me it's a problem i i a lot of times it's discouraging me uh from from because every person had to go to the city manager and ask him can i ask the other employee of that question or i just seem it's a redundant Or redundant process, if you will, but I see this issue is very, very simple. And if I can go on just a little bit, let's vote. If we can put this up to the voters or not. Thank you, man.

I really wish we weren't having this discussion today, but since we are. City manager meeting that we had here, or we all sat down there. Everyone was on one side of the table, I was on the other. City manager spent over $6,000 bringing in that consultant. That's taxpayer money. In my estimation, it was not a workshop. It wasn't a retreat. It was a lesson that was supposed to be taught to me to follow his rules. That consultant was brought in. They mentioned a number of different cities that have an explicit prohibition from commissioners, councilors, aldermen speaking with staff. Ours does not. And that councilor never mentioned even one city or village that does it the opposite way, where commissioners are able to speak with staff and yet a member of our charter review board came up and spoke here at a meeting and listed a number of cities in here and villages and municipalities in Florida that do allow and have in their charters specifically that commissioners are allowed to talk to and ask questions of staff, not directing staff, So obviously, I disagree with this. But there are five of us here. And I haven't changed my opinion. I don't think they've changed their opinion. So I think for today, I don't think a vote is going to do anything. But there's the future. Thank you.

Yeah. You talk about that we're the only ones that can't do that. Well, within our charter, this is not the only subject that we're unique on within our charter. We can't borrow when everybody else can. And rather than worrying about semantics on this board, we should be worrying about can we be in the competitive race of being able to put in our infrastructure. This is where I'm disappointed in the charter review board on bringing this back again after we've already discussed it. Why aren't they working on, and I don't know if they are or they're not, but they should be working on ways that we can possibly word different borrowing aspects for emergencies, this, that, and the other, but that's totally up to them.

I believe you provided them direction to meet with Christine Robinson to be able to discuss that, and she provided, I want to say, about five dates that she could meet with the board, but they were unable to make a quorum. Since then, we've tried to reach back out to her to see if she was available for their next meetings, and I think she may be discouraged at that point since she provided all the dates and they were not able to meet a quorum to meet with her.

Well, then I would consider that still a work in progress. Maybe they can hook up and be able to do that. Again, it goes back to what is available and how do we work on this. Again, it's like you say you get frustrated, you can't talk to staff, but every single week we have a one-on-one with the city manager. Every single week is scheduled unless we're up through the holidays or something, then it changes. You just pick up the phone or send an email and say, city manager, I need to talk with Miss Ray about a few things. Can she be at my one-on-one? This way, it's scheduled. It's not really taken away from her time on a whim for whenever she gets a phone call. She could be busy. And again, when you're going for information, let's say today, we talked about data centers. Everybody on this board wanted more information. If we tied that lady up for two days on phone calls because I called and then you called and then she called and then he called and then he called, we might not have gotten the information for the meeting today. It has to be proportioned and scheduled. The process that we have right now by going through the city manager, you still have that access.

He does not have to be present.

I would like to talk to Elena about X. If he knows what you want to talk about, yeah, go ahead. Give her a shout. Or let me set up a time for you to talk to her, if that be the case, because they're busy, or she's on vacation, or whatever the case may be. It is available. So it's very difficult to say it's not available, because it is. So that's where I'm leaving that. Commissioner Petro, you're up.

COMMISSIONER PETROVICH PETROVICH PETROVICH PETROVICH PETROVICH Thank you, Mayor. And I agree to a lot of points you brought up. My question is, and I think that's what we are talking about here, is to present the question to the public for the referendum. Let them decide. And if the board is willing, let's vote.

Well, let's vote. I know, I'm just saying. You got public comment? I was just saying. No, I was just saying I'm ready for public comment.

Cheryl Cook. While today's discussion concerns recommendations from the Charter Review Advisory Board, I would like to raise an issue that was brought before the City years ago by a citizen but has never been considered. In 2018, a citizen made public comments at multiple North Port meetings requesting that the Charter Review Advisory Board consider recommending a charter amendment establishing a spending limit within the City Charter and forwarding that recommendation to the city commission for placement on a referendum ballot so the voters could decide the issue. That request was never considered by the board. I am asking the city commission to allow the voters to decide this question. Please place a proposed charter amendment establishing a spending limit on future referendum ballots so the citizens of Northport can determine whether the safeguard belongs in our city charter. And that is all.

All right. Thank you. I will... Take a motion. You want two motions, two separate motions?

Two.

One for the?

If it's gonna be the same one for, if somebody's interested in making the same motion for both of them, then we can just do the one. If that will be to decline further action, if that's what the motion is gonna be, then we only need one, and you can just say on both items.

Okay, anybody interested in making a motion?

I'll make it. I'll give it a shot. I move to direct the City Attorney to draft the following Referendum Question utilizing the following language to add to the City Charter a verbiage for the purpose of inquiry or information. The City Commission and its members shall deal with the City Officers and Employees who are subject to the direction and supervision of the City Manager solely through the City Manager. Basically, I took what they recommended as a city charter review board recommendation. We might polish the question, I mean the proposal, but that would be done by the city attorney.

So you're using the suggested motion that was provided? Yeah.

Simple enough. and when it comes back, if it passes, we can polish it in a more presentable way to put it on the ballot for 2028.

Good with that, City Clerk?

Yes.

Can you repeat it for Vice Mayor?

to direct the city attorney to draft a referendum question utilizing the recommended language to amend section 5.2 of the city charter to include verbiage except for the purposes of inquiry or information the city commission and its members shall deal with the city officers and employees who are subject to the direction and supervision of the city manager solely through the city manager.

A motion on the floor and I have a second from Commissioner Duvall. If there's nothing to that, please vote. and that fails three to two. Next motion.

I'll make it.

This is for residency of the charter officers. I move to decline further action at this time and direct the City Clerk to notify the Charter Review Advisory Board.

Second. Can I second?

You can second, but you got to say you have a motion and a second.

I have a motion on the floor to deny further action on the Charter Review Board's recommendation that Help me with the language, city clerk, that we revisit the residency requirements or change the language regarding the residency requirements. And that was made by the mayor and seconded by myself.

So we need to vote now.

Let's vote. We need to clear the decks? No, no, no.

We've all voted except for you, Vice President.

Oh, I was so busy with the motions.

I know you were.

Okay. Okay. And that motion passes 4-1 with Commissioner Duval voting no. Care to comment?

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

I need my stuff back.

Moving on to item C, 26- Did you want me to send something back to the Charter Review regarding the first question, or the second question as well? Please.

Well, the second question, I put that in the motion. You just probably didn't.

No, you just said for the Charter Officer Residency.

Yes, for that one, but it says, and direct the City Clerk to notify the City Clerk of the Charter Review Advisory Board.

I didn't put it on mine. No, I was asking if you wanted to provide direction regarding the vote that failed due to... Absolutely. Yeah, did you want me to notify the Charter Review that...

If they don't already know by now, yes ma'am. Can I move on now?

Yes.

All right. See, you know who's really in charge. All right, item C26-0969.

City Manager, this is your item. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This item is discussion and possible action regarding Sarasota County Tax Collector Mike Moran's letter of interest to purchase a city-owned parcel located at the southeastern quadrant of the intersection of City Hall Boulevard and North Main Street. At the November 4th, 2025 City Commission regular meeting, the Commission directed the City Manager to work with Mr. Moran and his team to bring back a plan for a new Sarasota County tax collector building on the City Hall campus, including the City Attorney in those conversations. On July 1st, 2026, the City of Northport received a formal letter of interest from Sarasota County tax collector, Mike Moran, requesting a discussion regarding the potential purchase of City-owned property located at the southeast corner of City Hall Boulevard and Green Street. Today, we ask that you direct city manager to proceed with discussions and negotiations with the tax collector regarding his proposal to purchase the city-owned property. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Stokes. Yeah, I mean, you know, in some respects, I'm kind of open minded to this, you know, the tax collector needs more space and, you know, it's nice to have that service available right here in city hall area, you know, but that's some sweet prime piece of real estate and it sits in. you know, unique proximity between the Mullen Center and City Hall. I don't have a clue how this would face, what would be involved, but, you know, we are busting at the seams for space ourselves. So, you know, in terms of, One, I guess to cut to Chase, yeah, I don't have a problem having further discussions, but I would want for me to get comfortable with this. I want to see a three-story building and I want to see the city rent two or three floors from them. I want to see that if the tax assessor's office ever moves out, that that property or that building reverts to the city. Um, so, you know, there's a lot of devil in the details that I'd be concerned about on the surface, you know, and how it's situated how roads would have to be reconfigured. Would we have adequate parking for everything that goes on? I mean, there's a multitude of. Discussions to yet have, but I certainly think it. Probably always worthwhile to have some discussions and negotiations and see where this may lead. But that would be some of the things that I would be looking for. And I would certainly want to know that it's this commission that has final approval on anything that's done that nothing could be approved without the city commission approving a final deal.

Thank you mayor city manager. Is that the case? to just continue the discussions and then it'll be brought back.

We don't have any more details. I don't think that he wanted to go further unless you all blessed the actual action. And Commissioner Stokes' comments and questions will be answered when we bring something back.

And that's what I had thought. And it might open up some space for Deputy Chief Morales and some of his patrol officers over there, too, in the future. Commissioner Petro.

Thank you, Mayor. I met with Mr. Moran, our tax collector, county tax collector, and he presented the idea. It seems very appealing, and at the beginning I was very optimistic, but then I started to think, you know, this is one of the last parcels that the city owns. And we're only 45% built out. The city's growing. It's a prime real estate. Even though we might share the building, just the parking along, that we're gonna be rotating parking between between his office employees and Mullen Center and any activity we have on the green. It's just too much of a activity going on. I would hate to let it go thinking they don't make it anymore, that land we only have in this proximity. From my understanding, the city used to own a lot of parcels around that got sold. one by one, and actually, we cannot turn the history back, but at least we can, you know, plan ahead, and I would not be willing to give out that parcel. Nothing personal, nothing emotional, it's just practicality of a you know, approach that we are a young city as far as the population, as far as the land mass. I know he needs office in South County, but I've seen cities, municipalities and jurisdictions renting any place they want. I mean, if we don't give him this green light with this parcel, he's not limited to go on and find a perfect or a better option, but as a city representative, I do believe it's my duty to think what's the best course of a city's direction and I think we should hold on to that parcel and develop to our needs and necessities the way we need, the way we want. So I'm not on board on this and if we can vote, I would be happy to do it. I just don't see any value of going on and hold him in this position that he's waiting on our answer. But I think I made myself clear that I'm not in favor of this. So I will not be voting for sale of this property. Plus, we don't get any tax on it anyways. That's irrelevant as far as it's a government property, but it's better for us to use it. Thank you, Mayor.

Commissioner Duvall.

Thank you, Mayor.

The idea of giving away Northport citizens' property goes against the grain, but the tax collector's office is a government entity. They do have offices in this building, which are tiny, and they do service the citizens of Northport. As Commissioner Stokes said, that is prime property. And I really wish that we could find another piece of property that would do the job. I also like Commissioner Stokes' idea of, hey, maybe we can get two or three, well, I don't know, maybe if someone else said it, who said two or three floors? Was that you? Okay. I want the citizens of Northport to get something out of this. Having the tech collector here does service. The citizens of Northport and Sarasota County. In the past has not serviced the city of Northport the way it should. There's a lot of things we're missing here. You know, I can't tell you the number of times I've heard Northport's the redheaded stepchild. A lot of county services just haven't been available to us. What this motion does is to direct the city manager to negotiate. And I'm for that because it's a negotiation. And that negotiation, I want us to get something out of that.

I think I've said enough. Thank you. Vice Mayor?

Just a question, City Manager. Is there another parcel? On our campus that's available, for example, the parcel that the old fire station is on that's in the process of being torn down, would that be available for a project of this type?

I don't think that parcel would, but if you go across the street where the temporary fire station is now where they're housed while they're being built, That is another option that we discussed that he might be interested in.

Yeah, so I think my fellow commissioners have kind of raised some things that they would like to see. I'm open-minded about it, as others are. I think Mr. Moran wants to improve the services that he's able to deliver to the residents of Northport. Clearly, the space there right now, it's the best the city could do, but it is totally inadequate. Again, I'm supportive. I'd be open to considering other parcels beside that one in particular. I don't want to shock anyone, but I do sort of appreciate the green space that we have near City Hall. might think I don't think about those things or appreciate those things, but I truly do. And I don't think a day goes by when I'm here that I don't see one or two people walking their dogs or having lunch at a picnic table. So I guess I always want to kill two birds with one stone. If we can keep that open space and still accommodate Mr. Moran's needs, then I would be all for that. So yes, let's keep negotiating.

Commissioner Petro.

Thank you, Mayor. As a form of a question, Every idea was presented to him and it was not a viable option for him. He just wanted something totally for himself. Was that not the case?

No. Originally we talked about putting the EOC on the upper floor and that was not viable because it wouldn't give us the space to have everything that we needed to be safe during emergency situations. I still think he's open to using extra floors for reasons we might need space. we just need to talk that through with him. Because not only was he interested in it, he said that they don't have it on weekends, so that we could use the building on weekends, as well as the parking as well. So he was very flexible in how we could use the building.

And the parking issue with Mullen Center, with the activities that they, would that interfere with his parking? Because boy, those DMV numbers of people that visit Venice, for example, it's constant moving and it's overloaded there too. So we'll have, if that goes, it will be a parking issue as far as with the Mullen Center's activities.

So the footprint that he provided in the attachment is deeper into the parking than we had discussed? So we would have to talk about how he could put his footprint on the site if it stays where he put it versus where we have yet to talk to him about another location. But it would be a concern of ours if as currently the block that he outlined was done because it would affect parking. It would be a challenge.

And I first saw that, but that's another component that we have to think. I just don't want to rush anything at this point. Thank you.

Commissioner Duvall.

I just wanted to add, I forgot that I totally concur with Commissioner Stokes on the idea that if the tax collector ever moves out of such a building, it reverts to the ownership of the City of Northport. Thank you.

City Clerk, public comment?

Cheryl Cook? The ordinance before you was adopted in 2023. This is 2026 and you are a newly elected commission with the opportunity and responsibility to establish a fiscally responsible approach to managing both the city's budget and public assets. The sale of public property should never be viewed as short-term solution to financial challenges or as a means to generate revenue for additional spending. Once public land is sold, it's gone forever. Every decision involving the people's property should be made with exceptional care, recognizing that these assets belong to the citizens of Northport. I'm opposed to this proposed transaction and respectfully request that the Commission amend the ordinance to establish a much higher threshold for the sale of city-owned real property. The disposition of public land should be the exception, not the rule, and only after careful deliberation and a clear demonstration that selling this property is the long-term best interest of the community. In this instance, I do not believe The level of consideration has been demonstrated, and I ask that you not move forward with this law. And that's all, Mayor.

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

I move to direct City Manager to proceed with discussions and negotiations with the tax collector regarding his proposal to purchase city-owned property.

Second. I have a motion on the floor made by Vice Mayor to direct the City Manager to proceed with discussions and negotiations with the tax collector regarding the proposal to purchase City-owned property. That was seconded by Commissioner Duvall. If there's nothing to that, please vote. And that passes four to one. I assume for reasons stated, Commissioner?

Yes.

All right. Moving on to item D26-0972. Mr. Fletcher, this is your item.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is a discussion and possible action regarding items for joint meeting with Sarasota County Board of Commissioners scheduled for October 27th, 2026. At the City Commission regular meeting on July 7th, 2026, the City Commission approved resolution number 2026-R30, authorizing the City Commission to participate in a joint meeting to receive, discuss, and act upon matters of mutual interest. In preparation for the joint meeting, there are several proposed items for discussion for potential inclusion on the agenda, such as transportation provided in the city of Northport, including re-service, interlocal service boundary agreement, ISBA, for the Winchester Ranch, interlocal service boundary agreement, ISBA, for property along US 41, and services provided to Northport City residents by Sarasota County. We ask that you provide direction to staff on topics for the joint meeting with the Sarasota County Board. The County Commission is scheduled for October 27th, 2026. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Commission, questions? Comments?

I guess the idea is to start assembling the list of things to discuss. I think we all look forward to an opportunity to sit down with that commission. The first observation is this is potentially a October 27th meeting, which would fall like what, a week before the election, how many county seats are up? Two or one? Two. Two. The complexion of that board could change, that's first. So could ours. So could ours. You got social services are certainly a subject matter that needs to be discussed. I'd love to know how much our citizens, as I know staff ask us, we've made repeated requests with no response. how much our citizens are paying here in Northport for social services for which we receive absolutely probably pretty much close to nothing. You know, breeze services for sure. I sit on the tourism council, so I've heard a lot of these conversations and you know, they run by the numbers, but at the same time people pay for breeze service. So, you know, it would seem as if the largest city with the biggest population in the county would have a little better transportation down our way. Certainly ISBAs one and two gotta be discussed, so I'm good with that. I'm trying to think of what other subjects you all might have, but I'll cut off there and let everybody else speak, see if you guys wanna add to the list, but those three certainly are the obvious ones that city manager mentioned, so.

I certainly agree about the ISBAs and stuff like that definitely need to be discussed but as Commissioner Stokes just brought up and you know just an observation wouldn't it be prudent to possibly postpone the meeting until the new boards are in place or do we want to have them prior to the new boards being in place because you know the 27th of October like he said you're talking a week between elections and Halloween you know the holidays either move it forward or after the elections with the new board. I'm just saying, it just seems like it I'm not trying to get out of doing something, but it makes sense to let the new board decide. Because if the old board decides something, the new board comes out and they say, screw those guys. We're going to do it our way. I'm serious.

Thank you, sir. Go ahead. I'm only laughing because it was last December that they actually agreed to meet. They asked us if we want to meet, and we said yes. And October was the very first time that all of your schedules sort of aligned after they got through what was the winter and then the spring. And then we wanted it done before you all went on recess this summer. And that didn't happen. And then it ended up being October. And me and the administrator did not want it to be this late in the year. But that was the only place that it could fall that made sense. So having to move it makes a lot of sense. And we would do the exact same way. But hopefully, if we move it, we can have it sort of either in November, which is tough because there's the holiday. And then you have to do it early in December. before you had that holiday, and then I'm right back in the same cycle again. Or the following October, there's no election following. I can go back to the administrator and see if we can. There's nothing. time sensitive, I will say, that based on the topics that we have, other than the fact that we would like some clarity and information to make sure that we're all on the same page sooner rather than later, so.

No, I understand that, but I just, it just makes sense to not make a decision and then have it changed just in case if there are different mindsets. Commissioner Stokes, go ahead.

Again, nobody asked me about any available dates from the time this got started to get discussed a year ago till now. My take is that the Sarasota County Commission really isn't all that interested in what we have to say. especially since, let's face it, I don't hold it against any of them personally, but they're a single district commission, which means that in our case, three and a half, almost four commissioners really don't give a hoot about what happens in Northward. Four for sure when it comes to legacy, three and a half, if you count a little bite at Welland Park that one of them controls or is a representative for. So the reality is, you know, any conversations we have are like, You know, conversations, I don't really think like that. You know, anything's going to go anywhere because they have no vested interest in caring about what happens down here. They really don't. And that's, you know, after almost 4 years of sitting in this position, getting to know all of them up there. Um, you know, other than commissioner, who's term it out within 2 years. You know, there really isn't any focus when if any of the others ever come here. So, you know, only when they need something only when they want something from us. So, you know, I would say we can talk whenever we want to talk, you know, to me. You know, whatever I say is going to be to send a loud message that, you know, for all the. Probably millions of dollars that our citizens in this city pay to the county for all kinds of services. I don't see a whole heck of a lot of return on our investment. Thanks, Mayor. That's all I got to say.

Um, before I go to you, City Manager, you might want to look for their cancellation letter coming up very soon. Go ahead, City Manager.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, you know, and I hate that Commissioner Stokes feels that way, so, and I'm definitely not going to question that, but I will say My experience with them, they've always been very welcoming and open to me. And I know we're not in the same roles and we don't have the same viewpoints or relationships with them. But I would encourage us, if that's the feeling of Commissioner Stokes and maybe some others, that we take this opportunity to rebuild that relationship and start over and try to make it so that he doesn't feel that way and we eliminate the past feelings and sort of move forward because we are moving forward as a city, and we are doing great things, but I do believe we need the county as a strong partner in our corner, and us having this meeting should be a good first step if we use the forum correctly to start something better than what we had in the past. All right, thank you.

Vice Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor. The county is an important partner, to the city in facing lots of things. And while I'm sure each of us has things they wish were better or more or less of, be that as it may, but in addition to the fact that elections are happening in November and the complexions of both commissions could change, We will also have definitive answer on the referendum regarding property taxes, and that could very much change the priority and content of our conversations. So I would be supportive of moving this meeting past November for the reasons already stated and also because of the referendum on property taxes.

That's a very good point. And one thing as well, too, I just lost my train of thought. But go ahead, Commissioner Petra. I'll get it back.

COMMISSIONER PETRAEUSXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX I really like what the city manager said. We have to work with the regional partners and I reached out to four of them and I had conversation and meetings with four, either conversation or a meeting with all four of them. They are very important players in the county and we are part of the county. I think we should be more receptive and More willing to to work together. I know they have not. Paid attention too much, maybe to our side of city to South County. But I think it's very important that we. foster those relationships to a better level. And concurring with Vice Mayor Lincoln about tax reform, which is a good point, I forgot about that because that changes the whole dynamics of, could change the dynamic of a conversation completely. if we can postpone it maybe two weeks, whatever, whatever the availability is on there, because they have much more busier schedule than us, I think, as far as county officials. So those two points I want to relate that, you know, we're fostering the relationship. And when I talk to them, they're very receptive, they were very, open to our dialogue on the official level. It's just I've never, at my almost two years, we've never had that meeting as a joint meeting. So I'm very open for that and I think it's very beneficial on both sides. Thank you.

Yeah, and what I was going to say was you had brought up about a fresh start between the two commissions. There's definitely going to be at least one new individual on the board on this board come November. We don't know what's going to happen up in the county. Let's say that they get one new person. You know, I don't know. I think they're both running for re-election at the time. I don't think anybody's turned out, but anyways, that would be a fresh start but with the new people on the board and that's just another reason with the tax reform to go ahead and postpone it and that's that's just my thinking. That's all I got. Anybody got any public comment? All right I'll entertain a motion.

I'll make it.

Go ahead.

I move that we reschedule our meeting with the Sarasota County Commission for some time after the November elections.

Okay. I have a motion on the floor made by Vice Mayor to reschedule the meeting with the Sarasota County Commissioners to some time after the November elections. Do I have a second?

Sure, I'll second it.

And that's seconded by Commissioner Stokes. If there's nothing to that, please vote. And that passes five to zero. Where are we at on time? Okay, moving on to public hearings resolution number 2026-R-39. This is a quasi-judicial hearing and calls on the City Clerk to read by title.

Resolution number 2026-R-39, a resolution of the City Commission of the City of Northport, Florida, vacating a portion of utility and drainage easement for lot one, block 2393, 49th addition to the Port Charlotte subdivision, providing for findings, providing for recording, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing an effective date. We have not received any agreed party requests, and can everyone wishing to provide testimony please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?

I do.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Commissioners.

Do we have any ex parte communications?

Only by agenda briefing.

Commissioner Stokes? Nothing from me. I have nothing.

Nothing from me, Mr. Mayor.

Commissioner Petro?

Nothing from me, Mayor.

Okay, presentation by applicant.

Again, good afternoon. My name is Kyle Hoffman, zoning coordinator. I have been sworn. This is in reference to the property at 1104 Napoleon Road with petition number PVAC-26-004683. This was submitted to us by Tiana Trinidad on behalf of owners Rodrigo and Mika DaCosta. They're requesting to vacate a portion of the platted rear 20-foot easement, I'm sorry, the rear 20-foot utility and drainage easement, which is approximately 206.73 square feet. located on the rear line of lot one, block 2393 of the 49th edition of Port Charlotte subdivision. It's located at parcel 1117-23-9301. Just a little background for you on here. They're requesting to add a addition to their pool deck into that rear easement. Originally, they had proposed that pool shell to be right there kind of at that 20 foot easement. They asked to have that extended three feet so they can have a little bit of room for cleaning and maintenance purposes. Again, the property area is approximately 13,616 square feet. And again, the total amount that will be vacated is 206.73 square feet, give or take. Again, during the pool installation process, they decided they needed a little extra room on the backside of that pool deck for maintenance as well as for aesthetic purposes so it was not just right there on the pool shell itself. This extension would just be limited to the pool deck and the enclosure that would be located in that vacated portion of the easement. The following utility agencies have reviewed the request to vacate the portion of the rear utility and drainage easements per ULDC section 2.2.17.C and through written response have granted approval or through no response are uncontested. Staff has reviewed and approved the proposed vacation of easement finding that the petition PVAC-26-00468 does conform with Florida statute chapter 177, as well as in complies with the ULDC chapter two during the development review section of 2.2.17. The Planning and Zoning Division recommends approval of Petition PVAC-26-00468 via Resolution 2026-R-39. The City Attorney has reviewed the accompanying Resolution 26-R-39 as to its form and correctness. Again, the Planning and Zoning Division does recommend for approval of this vacation. Thank you. Thank you.

I'm assuming you're not going to rebut yourself, sir?

No, sir.

All right. We got any public comment?

Sorry.

I was going to say, because I'll just swear I meant over the phone. Commission, questions, discussions, anything? All right. Closing argument, sir?

No, sir.

All right. I'm going to close this public hearing and request a motion. I'll make it. Go ahead, sir.

I move to adopt resolution number 2026-R-39 as presented. Second.

I have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Duvall to move to adopt resolution number 2026-R-39 as presented, seconded by the Vice Mayor. If there's nothing to that, please vote. That passes five to zero. Moving on to, thank you, sir. Thank you. Moving on to ordinance's second reading, ordinance number 2026-15. City Clerk, can you read by title only, please?

Ordinance number 2026-15, an ordinance of the City of Northport, Florida, creating the dependent special district known as the Activity Center 6 and 10 Infrastructure District, providing legislative findings and intent, establishing the district as a non-avalanche special assessment district within Chapter 66 of the Code of the City of Northport, Florida, defining the district's status as a dependent special district and identifying its purpose, powers, functions, duties, boundaries, authority, governance, financing methods, and comprehensive plan consistency, as required by Section 189.02 Florida Statutes, providing for the planning, design, land acquisition, construction, expansion, maintenance, operation, and all other associated costs of certain public infrastructure and related facilities, including but not limited to roads, stormwater, portable water, wastewater, reclaimed water, electric, gas, fiber, communications, utilities, public safety facilities, solid waste facilities, multimodal facilities, and parks and recreation facilities. and all other associated costs, providing for the levy and collection of non-evaluable special assessments to fund the costs of the dependent special district, providing for use of the uniform method of collection pursuant to section 197.3632 Florida statutes by separate resolution, providing for liens and revenue shortfalls, providing for governance by the city commission, providing for a district director appointed by the city manager or the city manager's designee, providing for finances, claims, consistency with the comprehensive plan, meetings, attorney to the board, right-of-way use permits, prohibition of hazardous activities, fees, fines, and penalties, amending the code of the City of Northport, Florida, section 66-98 through 66-117, providing for findings, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, providing for codification, and providing an effective date.

Thank you. You want to do that again?

Yeah, we didn't hear it the first time.

All right, commissioners. Commissioner Petro.

I have a question for legal. Is it possible to carve out the existing residential structures before this is going to be put in place? I've been contacted by many. People who have and they who live there, and they are really Concerned about I and I know this is a legal framework of just the beginning process And we will wait for the methodologies to be presented to us But is it something that we can do it and do a third reading on this I?

Don't think we could cut out no no we can't cut out just from the assessment, that's when you'll have the assessment methodologies that come forward. Otherwise, you'd be changing the boundaries of the district every time.

Because they're still within the district. The district. The assessment comes with the methodology. So yes, they can be not assessed at that point, absolutely.

That makes sense. It's just they want to have some guarantee that they're not going to be assessed, even though there's no immediate or future benefit for them because a lot of them are independent. They have their own will, septic. They really don't need the special district.

Well, it depends on what amenities are out there in the future, too. We don't know the long-range plans. Commissioner Stokes, you're up.

Yeah, no, I pretty much was going to say what you guys said. You know, we, the commission, will have the authority to assess so we can make sure that those residents during that special district so yeah I agree I mean I think we talked about that on first reading and we all sort of concurred that that you know that would need to be done but you can't carve them out for the reason city attorney said so you know we just want to protect those people and make sure that their property rights are appreciated and respected and protected so you know and and that

that authority rests with commission. Right, and it is part of the process. This is process one, and then we'll move on to process two. They just need to stay tuned, and I've already responded to a few people out there that were concerned about this, and I absolutely agree, you know, to carve them out from the assessment part of it. So, I mean, we're all on the same page. It's just going to take a little bit time to get it written in stone for them to Anything else? City Clerk, public comment?

Cheryl Cook, an ordinance of the city, sorry, wrong side. I would also like to address the connection between this proposed infrastructure district and the proposed Interstate 75 interchange at Yorkshire Street and Raintree Boulevard. My understanding is that this interchange is still only a proposal being considered and has not been approved by the state. I am concerned that the city may be creating a long-term financing structure and committing resources based on an infrastructure project that is not yet guaranteed to move forward. I understand that the state will evaluate whether a proposed interchange provides sufficient benefit and whether the surrounding infrastructure and development supports such an investment. If Northport is expected to make significant infrastructure commitments to demonstrate the value of this interchange, then the public deserves to understand the risks and obligations being assumed. I also recall a joint meeting with Charlotte County in 2022 where the importance of additional interstate 75 interchanges was discussed from Charlotte County's perspective. If this interchange provides regional benefits, what commitment is Charlotte County prepared to make toward the planning, infrastructure, and costs associated with this project? Before North Port taxpayers assume responsibility for creating the framework and funding mechanisms for this district, I believe the Commission should seek clear answers regarding regional participation and cost sharing. Debbie McDowell. Before you agree to create a new special district, which will ultimately lead to a new assessment, additional staff, equipment, and a slew of other expenses, why not complete the AC6 and AC10 master plan first? Where is the feasibility study showing this is even feasible? How about the city attorney's legal analysis that a special assessment can be implemented, especially when there will be no benefit today to the taxpayers in Activity Center 6 and 10? How about a timeline to show those taxpayers when they can expect to get a ROI on the taxes they'll be paying. Has anyone seen any documents showcasing any other Florida municipality that created a special district for this type of purpose? Maybe it will save you time and money to review that first before reinventing the wheel. If nobody else has done something like this, that should be a red flag in itself. For what it's worth, did you know the activity center six master plan was first discussed in 2020? It's been in the city's strategic plan for more than five years. It was also fully funded, but AC6 and AC10 are outside the urban service boundary, so there wasn't a rush, and the funding was repurposed for AC3 master plan with the promise it would be completed the following year. Then came the citywide rezone. Now there is a mad rush to get something going, ultimately at taxpayers' expense. This is not a risk the city should be undertaking. Talk to Charlotte County about Murdoch Village. That was a 20-year... mess for them and Northport is headed down the same path. You owe it to yourselves and the taxpayers to get your ducks in a row and then create the special district. William Lansall. As a resident in AC-10 and in support of all current residents of AC-10 and AC-6, I am asking that all commissioners and board members remember to protect current residents from additional tax burdens of the special district. As was stated, all current residents should be on the same tax base no matter where they live within the city. Thank you. And that is all, Mar.

Thank you. I'm going to close this public hearing and request a motion. I'll make it. Go ahead.

Move to adopt ordinance number 2026-15 as presented.

Second. Go ahead, Commissioner.

Second.

I have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Stokes to adopt ordinance number 2026-15 as presented. And that was seconded by Commissioner Duvall. If there's nothing to that, please vote. That passes five to zero. Moving on to ordinance number 2026-20. City Clerk, can you read by title only?

Ordinance number 2026-20, an ordinance of the City of Northport, Florida, regarding manufactured homes, amending the Unified Land Development Code to provide for compliance with section 553.385 Florida statutes by amending sections 3.1.2... 4.1 and Appendix A, Article 1, providing for findings, providing for conflicts, providing for separability, providing for codification, and providing an effective date.

All right, commissioners, I see Commissioner Duvall, you're in the queue.

Thank you, Mayor. This is the second reading. We went through this the first time. I just sent it the first time and I'm going to dissent this time. And it's not based on the fact that I don't believe we should have regulations. It's based on the fact that we have a mandate from the state that says we now have to allow manufactured housing in places where it never was allowed before. And the problem is that it's not for all residents of Northport. It's for those in legacy Northport, those that do not live in gated communities or HOAs. That divides the city. I believe that rules first of all they should be local rules not mandated by the state secondly they should be every for everybody what's good for a goose is good for a gander okay no one based on where they live in our city should have one regulation that applies to them and doesn't apply to someone else Thank you.

Mr. Stokes. Yeah, and I hear, you know, it's not even so much an issue of, like, well, in part versus legacy. There's 78 ways. Within the city limits of North Port, Florida. That's a lot of HOAs. They all got their own laws and rules that are state mandated. So you were kind of trapped there. I would have preferred, there was no manufactured housing allowed like where single family homes exist unless they meet the standards of the building codes in every respect. But here we are once again, having to live with the law of the land. And ultimately, as lowly officials at the municipal level, we have to obey the law. And so we are stuck. I agree, it does provide for a them and we kind of mentality. But that's the law. I don't know how you get around the law. We're stuck with the law. And we didn't make these laws. They were made for us and imposed upon us. So that's all I have to say. Thanks, Mayor. Vice Mayor.

I hate it when Commissioner Stokes steals my thunder. All right.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

But I would also add, I would ask all of my fellow commissioners to remember the day when we were sworn in and we gave an oath to uphold the laws of the United States of America, the state of Florida, and here we are. So it's wonderful to vote our conscience. It's wonderful to demonstrate to the residents of this city that we don't like it. We don't like it. It's the law, and we took an oath to uphold it. That's it.

Thank you. City Manager, I have to apologize on the last two items. You were supposed to introduce them. Would you like to introduce them now? No, sir. I was trying to move on quickly without you noticing, but I'm just saying.

You were establishing a trend.

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

Public comment?

Oh, public comment, of course.

Cheryl Cook? I understand that ordinance number 2026-20 is being brought forward because the state has changed the law regarding qualifying manufactured homes and has limited local government authority in this area. While the city must comply with state law, I believe this is also an important reminder of the consequences when local governments allow their planning authority and regional coordination responsibilities to be diminished. In 2017, Northport moved away from participation in the broader regional growth management framework associated with the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. At that time, many argued that local control was being protected. However, local control is only meaningful when local governments actively use it and work together to address issues that cross jurisdictional boundaries. Today, we are seeing another example of the state limiting local discretion in land use decisions. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with this particular legislation, it demonstrates why preserving thoughtful, coordinated local and regional planning is important. The state law may require qualifying manufactured homes to be allowed in zoning districts where site-built single-family homes are permitted, but it does not eliminate the city's responsibility to maintain appropriate standards The city still has authority over drainage, floodplain requirements, setbacks, landscaping, foundations, and site design. Those standards matter. They help protect property values, maintain neighborhood character, and ensure that all residential development, regardless of construction method, is held to appropriate expectations. I ask the commission to use every remaining tool available under the law and ensure that this ordinance preserves the strongest protections possible for residents and property owners. State preemption may limit what the city can regulate, but it does not remove the city's responsibility to regulate wisely within the authority it still has. And that's all, Mayor.

Thank you. And I close this public hearing and request a motion.

I'll make it.

Go ahead.

I move to adopt ordinance number 2026-20 as presented and under duress.

Second.

I have a motion on the floor made by Vice Mayor, seconded by Commissioner Duvall. If there's nothing to that, please vote.

I do not second that.

Commissioner Petro. Commissioner Petro, I'm sorry.

Senior moment, we get it.

Phil's rubbing off on me. Passes four to one with Commissioner Duvall dissenting. I'm guessing for reasons stated prior.

You're correct.

All right. Moving on to ordinance number 2026-21. City Clerk, can you read my title only, please?

Ordinance number 2026-21, an ordinance of the City of Northcourt, Florida, amending the code of the City of Northcourt, Florida, Appendix A, City Fee Structure, amending development services, development review, planning and zoning, and natural resources fees, fire rescue district fees, parks and recreation general fees, parks and recreation facility rental fees, solid waste district fees, utility fees, road and drainage district fees, providing for findings, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, providing for codification, and providing an effective date.

Thank you. City Manager, would you like to introduce the decider?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. All right. Ordinance number 2026-21 was to continue the second reading at the July 7, 2026 regular City Commission regular meeting on a 5-0 vote. So today we ask that you take the action of adopting Ordinance number 2026-21 as presented. Thank you, sir.

Commissioners, public comment? City Clerk?

There is none.

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

I'll make it.

Go ahead.

Move to adopt ordinance 2026-21 as presented. Second.

I have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Stokes, seconded by Commissioner Duval this time, and nothing to that. Please vote. That passes five to zero. I want to get through this next one because these ladies have been waiting. So we'll do one more and then we'll take a health break if that's okay with everybody. And then we'll come back and finish up. All right, moving on to General Business 26-0887. Discussion and possible action regarding removal of lien for 6841 Roman Avenue, North Port, Florida 34291. This was requested by Commissioner Petro, but I'm going to allow City Manager to introduce this item and send it over to Commissioner Petro.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This item was requested by Commissioner Petro, and I will let him lead the discussion.

Because I left yellow before. I just wanted you to feel special this time, sir. Commissioner Petro, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mayor. One of the... residents specifically at address 6841 Roman Avenue was she contacted me regarding a lien that was assessed to her and actually to be clear it was her neighbor who contacted me on her behalf because the owner is over 80-year-old lady that is a widowed now. And there's some issues that she just found out that she has been served with a lien 16 years later after she bought the house. And I have all the supporting documents. And so to make a sequence of events, this owner, Gail Ford, who is present here, with her neighbor graciously helping her. She bought this house with her late husband on September 10th, 2010. Then the lien search was conducted before the purchase with the result of no liens shown. Up on the walkthrough prior, heading to the closing, there was no garbage in front of the future house. And 16 years later, she gets serviced at her address that there was a lien on her house. Panicking and not knowing what to do, she grabbed her neighbor and both of them went to the public works, which was graciously provided all the paperwork and with the exception that there was some missing information in between and two issues with this house that she was not properly served with the payment demand that is the billing. It was sent to the site's address instead of the ownership address. At that time, the garbage was picked up by Public Works, which was not even hers, and it was picked up right before the closing. She did not even know that there was garbage because it was picked up. When she viewed the house, there was no garbage on the outside. And when she went to do a follow-up walkthrough, there's nothing out there that she was concerned about. So, I would like to appeal to this board to waive this lien per Public Works answer because they said that it's out of their jurisdiction or authority to do so. And she's here with her neighbor. And if you have any questions, I have all the paperwork provided to me by her. There's a whole package. She came prepared. So I would like to... ask for the removal of this lien, because once the charge becomes a lien, it only can be removed by the commission authority.

Commissioner Duvall.

Thank you, Mayor. The city has to have rules. We do have rules. You know, they're meant to be followed. Every now and then, something like this happens where someone through not their own fault gets put in a position. And city staff, you know, they have to do their jobs, you know. But as city commission, sometimes under good governance, it's just up to us to right a wrong. I believe in this case we have the ability to do that. Thank you.

Commissioner Stokes. I echo Commissioner Duvall's sentiments 100%. Nicely said, sir.

Is that it? You pushed the button for that?

Yep.

Thought it warranted acknowledgement. City Clerk, do we have any public comment?

Yes. Gail Ford, followed by Patty Connors.

I'm all down, ladies. Right over here, ma'am. Right over at that podium.

Go ahead, you can start talking.

Oh. I just, I had no knowledge of this. for all those years. I mean, maybe if I had had knowledge about it, I would have paid it way back in the days when I had money. But I don't now because of my financial situation, because it got real ugly. But it wasn't my garbage. I didn't call you to tell you to pick it up. I didn't do anything. And when I got to the house after the closing, there was nothing there before that. So I don't understand how you can bill me for somebody else's garbage. That's what I don't understand.

Did you want to comment as well? Yes.

I'm Patty Connors, I'm her neighbor and friend and her husband recently passed and I kind of started helping her with her finances and decided to look into the way her home was deeded and came across this lien. Commissioner Petro kind of made a mistake. She wasn't served anything recently. I just found it. And I asked, are you aware that there's a lien on your home? And she was not. And that's how it came to be known. And so when I reached out to Public Works and Code Enforcement, I said, can you tell us about this lien? She knows nothing. And they provide us with some emails and pictures documenting that this garbage was there prior to her taking ownership. And that's why we're here today to... as Mr. Duvall said, right or wrong. I feel this is wrong. It's not her garbage. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is that it, City Clerk? Yes. I'm going to close this hearing and request a motion.

I'll make it.

Go ahead, sir.

I move to direct the City Manager to take the appropriate steps to remove the removal of the lien for 6841 Roman Avenue, Northern Port of Florida, 34291. I'll second. The wording in there, remove the removal, I think it should just say to remove.

The lien.

The lien.

The lien.

I'll second it. I remember that came from the clerk's office. I have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Duvall, seconded by Commissioner Stokes. If there's nothing to that, let's vote. That passes five to zero. and ladies thank you very much for bringing this to our attention and I hope that down the road we don't have to face this again but we are aware that mistakes are made and we appreciate your due diligence and thank you for waiting throughout this whole day to get this minor problem solved. So good luck to you. You're welcome. All right we're going to take a 10-minute break and then we'll come back and finish up.

This silt fence is actually put up, not for erosion, but for... General business item E26-0887.

Discussion and possible action regarded. We did that one already, never mind. We're at 26-0889. I just liked it. I wanted to revisit it. I mean, we did good. Discussion and possible action regarding a transfer in the amount of $1,000 from commission contingency to the community assistance special event assistant program to support fee assistant requests through fiscal year 2026. City Manager, you got anything to add to that? No, sir. All right. We're moving on to commission questions and discussions.

Wasn't this supposed to be from city managers?

I asked if he had anything to add, sir. He said no.

Yeah, but the transfer was supposed to be from his department. Oh, OK.

If you wanted to, sir. Got any public comments since we have no intelligent commission comments over here? All right, I'm gonna request a motion.

I'll make it.

Go ahead.

I move to approve a transfer in the amount of $1,000 from the Commission Contingency to Community Assistance Special Event Assistance Program to support fee assistance requests through the rest of fiscal year 2026. I'll second it.

I have a motion on the floor made by Vice Mayor with what she said seconded by Commissioner Stokes. If there's nothing to that, please vote. That passes five to zero. Moving on to 26-0948, discussion and possible action regarding the environmental land acquisition program and addition of two properties to the land acquisition property list. Parcel identification number 09-4407-1307 located on Garrison Avenue and 113123-3580 located on Langless Drive. City Manager?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We do have a brief presentation from Stephon Califf, our North Port Resource Division Manager. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioner Stephon Califf, North Port Natural Resources. All right. JUST A MOMENT TO ADJUST THE SLIDE. NOT SURE WHY THE SLIDESHOW DOES NOT START. LET'S TRY THIS AGAIN. This should be better.

It wasn't the full screen. It vanished.

Let's try this.

All right, much better, I'm so sorry about that. Stefan Califf, Natural Resources Manager, Development Services. The goal of this presentation would be to go over the land acquisition program and to update our commission with some of the most recent changes and updates. So today we'll also summarize recent activities, report on the parcels previously approved by Commission, as well as present information and request possible direction regarding two additional parcels with potential willing sellers. So the purpose of the program, as you're well aware, to proactively identify, evaluate, and acquire environmentally sensitive lands, as well as preserve the natural resources while supporting the ULDC and the comprehensive plan, enhance ecological integrity, public health, and community resiliency, promote biodiversity, and protect existing ecosystems. Other program purposes include improving the quality of life of our residents and providing economic benefits through property value tourism and future reduction of floodplain management costs. Quick summary of the process of land acquisition, nomination, evaluation, appraisal and due diligence, approval, and finally funding. The background of this program includes the program criteria, that starts with ecological evaluation for natural resources such as heritage trees, listed species habitat, and hydrologically connected systems. Commission direction prioritize floodplain protection, focusing on wetlands, flood-prone parcels, and other sensitive natural areas. Staff has initiated outreach to confirm willing sellers for some of the top-ranked parcels previously approved by Commission. And the program is transitioning into potential procurement for these parcels. As the program is out there in the informational space, North Port residents are reaching out to us actively, acquiring about the program and bringing up their properties to our attention for potential acquisition. So a key point and goal of this program is maintaining public trust through public information and transparency. Our new webpage was created several months ago, an informational video published, interactive mapping tool added to our webpage, social media posts released, tailored outreach efforts, and the opportunity for our residents to conduct in-person meetings with our staff for additional information. Few words about the website. So the webpage, excuse me, it was launched with clear goals towards conservation priorities and participation guidance. There's an informational video that's available on the website that goes over the benefits of this program. It serves as a central source for updates to our residents and it includes simple, easy to understand information. As mentioned earlier on the webpage, we have our mapping tool. And that's an interactive tool where residents can easily find out about some of the existing parcels within our city limits that are under protection or some form of preservation. And we're planning to add our future acquired properties on that mapping tool to continue enhancing the transparency of the program and for allowing the owners to understand easily which parts of our city are under current or future protection. So under the program, we have sent 10 letters of interest. to property owners within the first year of priority parcels. Two owners have responded directly following the initial outreach. Then follow-up letters have been sent as well to the non-responsive owners within that first tier of 10 top parcels. And then following that, the second tier outreach has already begun actually about two weeks ago. And we are also identifying additional parcels through the property owners reaching out to us and sharing their interests of learning more about the program and potentially selling their parcels to the city. So we have the Nona Springs parcel, which is one of our top parcels of interest. And a letter of interest was sent to the owner of that property. One of the key criteria for the property are of course the exceptional ecological value. It contains a natural spring, wetlands, as well as some other archeological significance values of exceptional contribution to what we may acquire. The owner actually followed up with us and they expressed interest either in a potential trade or sale. and they are now willing to meet. They did reach back to us, in matter of fact, yesterday. So we are working on scheduling a meeting with that owner and their selling agent to find out more about their requirements and what they do see in order for making this potentially important acquisition deal a success. So we are also in touch with our friends with Sarasota County, their environmentally sensitive lands programs manager. And we are seeking guidance from them as they have been doing this for a very long time. And I would say that we're coordinating on quite high level as of now. A second parcel of interest. It's to the Northern part of our city. And this parcel contains some wetlands. The owner expressed interest as the property is currently for sale. And the property is also mapped within the floodplain of the city. So it supports floodplain protection and long-term conservation goals. So another owner contacted us following the launch of our land acquisition webpage with a property approximately three acres of size. Almost 90% of that parcel contains wetlands. And it's a high quality undisturbed system that we will definitely be interested in. It's hydrologically connected to the Myakkahatchee Creek corridor. And as I mentioned earlier, there's strong ecological conditions to make this a strong candidate for future acquisition, in my opinion. And one more parcel. The owner contacted us. Fairly recently, the site's almost entirely wetlands, nearly 100%. That's more to the east of the city. And it's hydrologically connected to existing system of ditches and canals. And it currently functions as part of the city's water conveyance system. indirectly so it has um it would be a potentially challenging parcel to develop due to the wetland coverage and the sensitive habitat on that parcel so few of our next steps that we would like to take we want to continue with the owner outreach continuing to follow up with our residents coordinate with our real estate team to advance acquisition of parcels with active seller interest, seek commission direction on two of the additional parcels that I mentioned earlier with the two willing sellers, Burke and McDonald, and continuing to evaluate newly identified willing seller parcels Last but not least, provide updates to you, our commission, summarizing significant progress or any program changes. For this item, I have two options for commission to consider. Option one would be the approval of the addition of the two properties to the land acquisition property list. Some of the pros are that we would be responding favorably to willing sellers who are proactively contacting the city with ecologically valuable properties. This option also captures newly identified ecological values such as high quality wetlands and hydrologically connected systems. This option strengthens regional connectivity, builds program momentum as well. Some of the cons or one con that came to mind is that it potentially shifts some of the staff time focusing away from the previously approved properties of interest. Option two, do not approve the addition of the two properties to the land acquisition list. Pros, advances acquisition for parcels previously approved by commission, maintains focus and staff time on second tier initially approved properties of interest. and supporting more predictable process. Collins may delay or miss opportunities with willing sellers who are actively seeking to work with the city, and this option could also limit flexibility to acquire high-value parcels not originally identified. As a summary, there are benefits and drawbacks with each option. Option one reflects newly emerging acquisition opportunities identified through recent public engagement. Option two, it continues the established acquisition track based on the previously approved parcel list. Both options, advanced conservation, stormwater resilience, and ecological protection. The question is, how would we like to prioritize our resources? And there's the trade-offs that relate to that, but in a way so far, my opinion is that we're very thankful to see some exciting properties that we might be able to acquire as part of this program. Thank you so much for your time, and I would love to answer any questions. Commissioner Stokes.

Thank you for the presentation. My only question, I mean, I've been a big advocate of this. I pushed hard to get $2.5 million into last year's budget, and I hope there's about a million at least in this year's budget. What I'm wondering is, we've identified Properties, or we're in the process of identifying those that, you know, that address conservation, stormwater, ecological issues. But do we have a strategic plan here? Do we have a real plan? Do we have a mission? Do we have a set of priorities? Because we're going to reach a point where. Properties are going to be identified for purchase because there's willing sellers. They're going to come before us and. People are gonna ask, including us, why this property? Does it lend itself to not just ecological and environmental concerns, but also address stormwater management issues? We're gonna have limited resources with which to devote to this project. And so to me, I see the need to have more of a focused strategic plan. So when properties come before us, we're not just saying, oh yeah, this looks like a good one, let's do it. It's the same criticism people gave us on our CIP projects. Like, it seems like every other week you guys got a new project that's like all of a sudden a priority. I think we need to have a strategy. We need to have a methodology like we have with our capital improvement projects. It's very systematic, strategic, it's thoughtful, and now we're following that process. I think we need to do it here because, you know, I figure in fairly short order we're going to start seeing some properties and we're going to be like, why this one and not that one? Why that one and not this one? And so, you know, I don't know if you want to comment on it or if anybody wants to comment on it, but it's certainly an observation I've seen as we talk about these things from time to time.

If I may, sir, thank you. Thank you for bringing this up commissioner. Absolutely. We do have a grand plan here. We do have a strategic objective, and it would essentially be. To utilize our resources to the best of our ability to acquire parcels that are. absolutely top tier of ecological value for our city and our community. This is why each of these parcels presented to you, they have went through a rigorous review process where each of these have been evaluated for a variety of functions from the listed species to floodplain wetlands, which could be quite important in, God forbid, an event of excessive rainfall or storm. So we also pay attention of where these parcels are. We are considering from wildlife corridors to close to adjacent to other areas to where wildlife species can expand their range. And because of all these factors, we grade these parcels accordingly, which ultimately leads to the list that were presented to commission.

Did you wish to add Ms. Barnes?

Good afternoon, commissioners, Lori Barnes. I just wanted to clarify that yes, the list was brought before commission with the ranking and the commission approved the list and provided us direction. So the purpose of the meeting today was to give you an update on where we are with communicating with the owners and how successful we've been in identifying willing sellers. And again, during that process, the two property owners who were not on the list reached out to us regarding acquisition. I think you'll see by the presentation that we have successfully identified several property owners on the first tier list of 10 properties who are willing. Others have been non-responsive and may not be willing. So these two additional property owners, because of the ecological value, we believe are worth pursuing, but ultimately it's to the commission if you would like to continue on with the approved list and Pause on these two additional properties until we've gone through the process with all of the property owners on the original Commission approved list Why didn't these two show up on your list?

If I may sir Simply, we have many numerous parcels that are currently undeveloped and although we have dedicated significant time. We had to do a curbside inspection for each 1 of these where we would evaluate the conditions from the roadside and. simply we still had limited resources. So to the best of our ability, we were able to come up with a strong number of 35, more or less. And simply it would be, An excessive challenge to go over every vacant parcel in our city, but we definitely prioritize some of the largest parcels and some of the ones that are the most significantly ecologically important.

Why would you now recommend that we include these 2 when you didn't. Identify them to begin with and now what led you to believe that these 2 parcels are parcels that we should consider while redirecting resources away from those that are already on the approved list. Other than the fact that 2 property owners decided they want to get rid of properties.

We do have willing potentially willing sellers, which. turned out to be more of a challenge than we've anticipated earlier. As Deputy Director Barnes mentioned, only two owners have followed up with us from the first 20 parcels as of right now, more or less. So that is telling us that finding willing sellers is not always an easy task. And upon close review of these parcels and a curbside inspection, we determined that these certainly meet our criteria. And also, I wanted to explain to commission that several other homeowners have reached out to us with properties in mind. However, they simply did not make the cut. They were not ecologically what we were looking for. So those are not even part of this presentation.

Thank you. Real quick, all you're doing is trying to expand the list. You're not, you're just putting these two properties on the list for consideration. You're not taking anything off the list and replacing these. Correct, Mr. Mayor. Okay. Vice Mayor.

And I'm assuming we might see these properties come back at which point we want to buy them, correct? We would have to approve the purchase? Yes, that's what I understand, just so that we all know. What's the current zoning of these two parcels?

For the two parcels, I need to verify that. I am not certain.

Ms. Lurie, do you know?

Yes, ma'am. Based on the location, the geographic location in the city, they are highly likely to be agricultural estates. They are in the northeast quadrant of the city. Northwest.

When you come back with a potential purchase and sale, I'd like to have the zoning confirmed. Yes, ma'am. Both of these look like beautiful parcels. They're large. What's our balance in the budget for property acquisition? Will these properties sort of suck up all those available dollars, which is a different way of sort of coming at what Commissioner Stokes was saying? Are we sort of precluding? And let me just say, we have 10 properties. Only two wanted to sell. The others are really not interested. I have no problem in adding to the list on those conditions. But I just want to make sure we keep enough elasticity in our budget that if one of those eight property owners in tier one comes back, that we're able to respond to that. So any rough idea of what's the balance in the fund?

Well, as of right now, we have $2.5 million budgeted in fiscal year 26. There is a budget proposal for an additional million in 2027. We have not expended any of those funds as of yet. We will be, when we move forward with the willing sellers that we have, expending funds for appraisals. Now, when it comes down to how much funding will be available for future acquisitions, we'll give you a balance sheet every time we bring a property to you for appraisals. approval to move forward with contract for purchase.

So we have a sense of where we're at? Yes, ma'am. Yeah. Okay, good. I'm having your problem there. I had one other thing in it.

Well, good. I can move on then.

I guess. Okay.

Commissioner Petro, see, don't give me two chances.

Thank you, Mayor. I pledge your incentive to plan to acquire environmentally sensitive land. And as it relates to the funding of acquisition of those lands, I do remember that the tree fund, when we reclassified that, it did include or does include the portion of money that we collect to acquire environmentally sensitive land. And so to address Vice Mayor concern, we do have those money, right? But my question was, or is appraisal value, those are large parcels, but when you do appraisal, do they take into account that it's flood zone or wetland that significantly reduced the appraised fair market value. Do we take that into account? And that's what probably prompted these owners to reply to you because they're not really buildable. Or if they are, it would cost them so much money to mitigate.

So from my understanding, the appraisers still take to some extent the fact that there are wetlands on that parcel, which makes them a whole lot more challenging to develop. But I also understand that appraisers, they don't necessarily focus on the ecological aspects of these properties. I am not 100% certain about that part of the process, to be honest with you. and it's something that we'll evaluate as we get there.

Commissioner, yes. We will hire an independent appraiser to evaluate these properties. They take into consideration a myriad of factors, including zoning, development potential, flood zones, wetlands, comparable property sales in the area. So they won't discount the fact that there's a wetland on the property. However, they're not likely to drill down into what would it cost for mitigation to build a house on those properties. Could a house be built on those properties if there was no mitigation? Is there land area available for that particular construction? But I think that you'll find that they will, especially for those properties up in the northwestern quadrant of the city, they will find comparable properties that also have wetlands that they evaluate the recent sale of as part of their appraisal.

That's good to know, thank you. That's all.

Vice Mayor.

Yeah, I remembered quick, quick. The two willing property owners in tier one, how large are those properties?

They're approximately, so I have the size of the second one, which is approximately 6.7 acres. No, I'm sorry, not these.

The two willing sellers we have in the Tier 1 list.

So the two willing sellers, potential willing sellers in the tier one list, one would be eight, approximately eight acres of size, and the other one would be approximately 6.7 acres. So these are the two of tier one. Yes, ma'am.

Thank you, I'm all set.

Commissioner Stokes. Just quickly, it would be worth noting that obviously the county has a environmentally sensitive land fund as well, so to the extent there are parcels that come before us that we see strategic value in acquiring, if our allocated or budgeted funds for these particular acquisitions are limited, we may be able to reach out to the county. an area we've collaborated on before and and you know they're they're pretty you know when it comes to being concerned about environmentally sensitive lands they they do have a good head on their shoulders when it comes to that and they've they've shown it by by pumping money into those properties so that they can be a good partner.

Thanks Mayor. City Clerk? Public comment? All righty I'll take a motion.

I'll do it. Go ahead. I move to approve the addition of parcel identification numbers PID0944071307 located on Garrison Ave and 1131-233-580 located on Langley Drive to the land acquisition property list. Second.

I have a motion on the floor made by Vice Mayor, seconded by Commissioner Stokes. If there's nothing to that, please vote. And that passes five to zero. Moving on to item H26-0970, discussion and possible action regarding dissolving or suspending the Historic and Cultural Advisory Board. Ms. Faust, this is your item.

So if you all remember, we did suspend this board back in November 2022 for about a year before we brought it back. We had a meeting with some residents who felt that they could be on the board and get things going again, but they have since dwindled down to just one more member again. Commission did provide them direction to create a – I believe they – yeah. Yeah. Commission provided direction for them to create a policy on the process and criteria for historic designations, and Development Services did go to their very last meeting that they had to explain to them the things that they are able to do and cannot do regarding that policy, and then after that is when it dwindled down to just the one member. So... I don't know what the commission would like to do with this board at this point.

Don't we have it in the books on we have to have a certain amount of members to have an active board?

No.

No? So we can have a Lone Ranger board?

They can't meet with one member.

Oh, well, okay. So you have to have at least two.

Yes.

All right. Anybody have questions? Any public comment?

We have one. Cheryl Cook. I would like to comment on the future of the historic and cultural advisory board. I understand the board has struggled with vacancies and achieving a quorum. However, I do not believe that by itself justifies dissolving a citizen advisory board that serves an important purpose. The agenda notes that the board submitted three memorandums regarding historic site designations and was directed to develop a policy and criteria for future designations. Rather than asking only whether the board fulfilled that assignment, I believe we should also ask whether it was given the support, guidance, and membership needed to succeed. Citizen advisory boards are an important part of good governance. They provide residents with an opportunity to share their knowledge and experience while strengthening the connection between the community and its government. As Northport continues to grow, it is important that we preserve not only infrastructure and economic opportunity, but also the history, character, and identity of our community. Responsible growth should include preserving what makes Northport unique. I respectfully ask the Commission to consider reforming and revitalizing the historic and cultural advisory board rather than dissolving it. If we value citizen engagement and good governance, this is an opportunity to demonstrate that comment, that commitment. That's all for public comment, but I did want to add one thing that we can always create a task force for any projects that the Commission feels that this board you know, could do to help benefit the city at any point that we want to if there's a specific project and that might be an opportunity as well.

Well, once you have some members, yeah. Yeah, I've got a motion in mind. So, I mean, I'm ready for a motion.

I'll make it.

Mayor, take this.

You're giving me work today, Mayor.

Absolutely. This is what I'm thinking. I would move to direct the City Clerk to draft a resolution to temporarily suspend the Historic and Cultural Advisory Board for consideration at a future meeting and direct the City Clerk to continue recruiting qualified applicants to fill existing vacancies and support the Board's continued operations in accordance with the City Code.

We can suspend the board and then also continue operations at the same time.

Well, I mean, you, okay, so take off the continued operations, but I want you to continue recruiting members for the board.

But if we suspend it.

Right. And then once you have board members, we can reactivate it. Because isn't that what we pretty much did with the Debt Management Board? We don't have enough members to enact it at this time.

Debt Management, we decided not to accept applications at this time until we had... Until we had something.

This is pretty close to the same thing, in my opinion. We don't have the membership. We have the actions, but we don't have the membership. So until we have membership, suspended until we have... you know, three, four members to where they're ready to rock and roll. That's what I'm looking at. I mean, it saves us from dissolving it to say no, but we're still working on trying to put the pieces together to have a historic board. That's what I'm trying to do. Good with that?

It's up to the commission, sir.

Not me. With my verbiage is what I'm saying.

Yes, if you could repeat it just one more time since you had it.

And then we have Commissioner Stokes on the board also to comment.

I said I move to direct the City Clerk to draft a resolution to temporarily suspend the Historic and Cultural Advisory Board for consideration at a future meeting and to direct the City Clerk to continue recruiting qualified applicants to fill existing vacancies. That's it.

Commissioner Stokes, do you want a second for discussion?

I don't want to second it, but if someone seconds it, I have something to say. Okay.

I'm going to second it for discussion. You don't have to vote in favor of it.

Well, all right, then I'll second it. For discussion. For discussion. I mean, twice we've gone round with this. Again, it goes to, I think, a larger question. We don't really do anything to recruit advisory board members in this city. Like, all we do is advertise them. We don't recruit them. We don't work at it. Nobody that I know of is assigned the responsibility of going out there and try to stir it up. I've actually got three members who want to go on the Debt Management Board when the time is right. I recruited them. I went out. research too, I thought had the credentials and then the objectivity to serve and the willingness to serve. If we're going to do something like that, I'm all for that across the board on our advisory boards, but to keep this advisory board alive or to dissolve it and then say, we're going to go try to get more people, I think is Like, I don't even know how that happens since there isn't anything we do to try to recruit. So what we're going to do is keep it up on the board. So you read it every time it comes up at a meeting. I don't see that that makes any sense. This got killed twice. The handful of people who came here and talked about how important this potential board would be did nothing. Nobody stepped up. Nobody did anything. So I just, I don't see the value here. Let's just move on already. You know, if we want to have a discussion about advisory boards and how to fill them, I'm all for that because we don't do a very good job at it presently. I mean, we don't do anything to advocate to get out there and recruit. If we want to do that, we should do that.

Mayor, if I may? Well, if

Vice Mayor, if I may? Go ahead. So we do other things besides me reading it in here. We do put them on social media. We do give you the pamphlets to take to Newcomer's Day, those type of things. But the aspect of how you're saying to actually physically go contact people, we don't do that. I will say with this board, the people that we had come out for the meeting with the commission before we decided to unsuspend it, those were our key historic members. people in the city. It was Joan Morgan, Chris Sterner, those people who are very passionate about this. But I think that their interest with the things that they were trying to do, and I don't know all the details because I don't understand it, but when development services came out, there were so many things that they wanted to do with these historical sites and updating, changing ULDC. that they legally could not do. So I think that kind of eliminated that aspect of it, which Chris Sterner was the last one who did withdraw from the board. So I will say that. We are going to have a workshop, and I'm hoping for September, to where we do discuss advisory boards. Because even with this board, their roles and responsibilities do not really, we don't have a lot of historic stuff here. So it's not something that keeps them occupied as a full-time board type of thing. I think unless commission is going to give them tasks to do, there's not that strong of a purpose for this board. We did give them the timeline before that fell to the wayside. We did give them this one. The things that they have been talking about since they were brought back are the same things that they have been talking about for the seven years that I have been here. And that's the turpentine docks, just those same designated sites. So unless they're going to get another purpose, and get some commission direction on what we want from them, then it's just a board with members that are going to sit there. And even if we get enough members, by the time we get them to meet again, those members will probably fall off. So it's hard with all these boards to get these members if they're not passionate about it.

Since I'm holding the gavel, I will discuss. I'm thinking that if we were going to do anything to continue this board, city clerk, I'd like whoever said make it task-oriented, give them a task, because my general sense is the things that the really passionate people want to work at really aren't substantive for the city in a historical sense. So we do have a motion on the floor made by the mayor, and it's seconded. by Commissioner Stokes for discussion, and I guess we're discussing. So go ahead, Mayor.

And this was my secondary reason on why I wanted to keep this board semi-alive, because I do have a task in mind that we could possibly give to them about historic capabilities. We have just approved... rebuilding watermelon springs we're going back to go ahead and restructure all of those buildings within a historic manner we have the uh cyclorama out there there could be like a timeline of hey this is the way it was the board can work through the reconstruction of the Springs. And this is how it's going to look this, that, and the other. And it is a working example about the history of North Port and the resiliency of North Port. And that's why I didn't want to kill it completely because Warm Hill Springs is history. It's been here forever, but it's been like, capitalized since the early 50s. So that's a lot of years of history just in Watermill Springs and then it could branch out to other things. That's why I didn't want to kill it completely because there could be some ideas coming forward on, oh wow, look at what this project is doing right now. That's my reasoning.

The way we did the Veterans Park, we got so much interest in board members for Veterans Park. And that was for a specific task for them to do in a specific time frame to where it sunset once that was completed. You may get more people by having a task force that is specific to one thing. Because if you have these boards where you have members that are just passionate about just one thing, it drives other members away. because they're only talking about the same thing over and over again and I've seen it with some of these boards that the other members they just...

So then what would you would suggest then? Dissolving the historic board and creating like let's say a Wormell Springs historic task force, something like that?

Like that, yes sir.

Okay, that'd be fine with me. I got no problems with that. I just I don't want to lose sight of the history of Northport Completely, you know, there's so much out there.

So, do you want to withdraw your motion if it's okay with your seconder and rephrase the motion?

Yeah, I can do that.

Are you okay with that?

Absolutely. I agree with it.

Okay, give it another hit, Mayor.

All right, I move to direct the City Clerk to draft an ordinance dissolving the Historic and Cultural Advisory Board for consideration at a future meeting. That'll be motion one. Do I have a second?

I'll second that.

Okay. You're in charge.

Now I've got to do that. Yeah, we have a motion on the floor made by the mayor. Would you repeat that, city clerk? Do you want to repeat that, sir?

Yeah, it's written down.

Okay, seconded by myself. So if there's nothing more to that, let's vote. And that motion passes five to zero.

All right, now I'll make the second motion since I'm here. I make a motion to direct the City Clerk to bring a agenda item to discuss possible action to creating a War Mill Springs Historic Task Force at a future meeting. Is that good enough for you City Clerk?

Okay, we have a motion on the floor to bring back, for city clerk to bring back an agenda item to discuss creating a warm mineral springs historic task force made by Mayor Emmerich, seconded by, who seconded that?

I'll second that for discussion.

Okay, we have Commissioner Stokes seconding for discussion. Go ahead, sir.

My inclination is to allow Parks and Recs to initiate this process. They're the ones tasked with renovating this property and the buildings on it. They are the focal point for this. I think it's wonderful to have community input. I think it's wonderful to have historical and cultural input to this process. But I think it's their project. So I'm not sure that, like, we need to or should do that. I would rather just like, I think they already heard if we all agree, I think that's something that they've probably given some thought to as well, because after all, they're the ones that are going to be putting this whole thing together. So why are we like, oh, we're going to form some task force that's going to now have third party input, let them do it. Hopefully, they're going to get a lot of input from a lot of different parties. They probably already are with regard to this project. I just don't see why we're doing it.

Well, again, I think the motion is to bring back an agenda item to discuss it. I would certainly invite Parks and Rec to work with City Clerk and come back with some recommendations. Yeah, that would be okay with you, Director? Just say yes, Sandy.

You cannot direct staff, Vice Mayor.

Through the City Manager, of course. I sometimes get ahead of myself.

But when we did, and this is for City Clerk, when we did the Circle of Honor, didn't that go through your office or did that go through Parks and Rec?

It was both. And it was also, it came from if they were underneath the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. But at that time, commission had a specific project they wanted them to do. So we can bring this back when I bring it up.

And then we can have a longer discussion and see who holds the keys to it. That's fine. That's what I wanted to do. Just have a discussion.

Okay. Motion maker, the mayor, seconder, Commissioner Stokes. If we've beaten that to death, let's vote.

And that passes. And that motion. Go ahead. I'm sorry. I'm just used to it.

That motion passes 5 to 0.

All righty. Thank you, ma'am. All right. Any final public comment?

Cheryl Cook? I would like to further address ordinance number 2026-15, creation of the activity center six and 10 infrastructure district. I would like to comment on the designation of this item under the strategic plan pillar of economic development and growth management. I question whether this truly represents growth management. Growth management requires more than facilitating additional development. It requires careful planning, infrastructure coordination, responsible timing, and cooperation among all affected governments. Northcote made significant changes to its approach to growth management in 2017. If the city is now identifying this as growth management, then I believe the conversation should include the surrounding jurisdictions that will be affected by this growth in infrastructure. That includes regional partners such as Sarasota County and perhaps DeSoto County. Because transportation networks, water resources, environmental impacts, workforce needs, and economic development do not stop at city boundaries, true growth management should involve regional coordination and shared responsibility. If this project is important enough to create a new infrastructure district, establish new assessment mechanisms, and potentially shape future development partners, then it should also involve a broader regional discussion. I encourage the Commission to ensure that this is not Simply growth promotion, but responsible growth management that protects the long-term interest of North Port residents. And that's all, Mayor.

Thank you. We go on to Commission Communications. Commissioner Petro, you're first. I have none. Good. Vice Mayor?

I have nothing, Mayor.

Wow. Two for two. I have nothing. Three for three. Commissioner Stokes? Four. Commissioner Duval? Four.

I recently attended the Chamber of Commerce candidate forum at the VFW. I also attended, along with Commissioner or Vice Mayor Langdon, the El Primo Pizza Tip a Cop program for Special Olympics. That's it.

Thank you, sir. City manager. Thank you. City attorney. City clerk. All right. It is 351 and we are done.

Coming into the site.

So there's no other impacts.