City Commission Regular Meeting - Regular Meeting

And that's normal. If you've ever seen grass in our retention ditches, it may look like poor maintenance. But in many cases, it's exactly what we want. Vegetation helps filter out pollutants that wash off roads, driveways, and yards. It also slows the water down, giving the system time to move water safely without creating washouts where the retention ditches intersect with canals. Developers today are required to build retention ponds and engineered stormwater systems on their property. These systems hold water on-site and only release it slowly into the city's network. Commercial sites follow the same rules, meaning new development is designed to reduce, not increase, sudden runoff into our system. Behind the scenes, North Port's public works team is at it year round. Crews mow swales, clear culverts, and maintain retention ditches and canals so water can keep moving. Sometimes that means using specialized equipment like long stick excavators. These large machines reach deep into canals to clear debris and keep water flowing efficiently. And after storms, crews are on the ground inspecting, repairing, and responding quickly to changing conditions. It's a massive job and it never stops. But the system is only as strong as how we all treat it. Residents play a big part in keeping water moving. That means keeping swales and driveway culverts clear, never dumping grass clippings or debris into ditches, and reporting problems when you see them. Small actions add up, and they keep the entire system working the way it was designed to. Drainage in Northport is complex. It was designed decades ago, and while storms have grown more intense over the years, the system will continue to do its job when it's maintained and supported. Together, we can make Northport's drainage system continue to protect our homes, our community, and our future.

In Northport, families are finding more and more places built just for them.

Good morning. Today is Tuesday, September 8, 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, Police Chief Garrison, and Fire Chief Titus. I am requesting that all commissioners, public participants, and staff maintain order and decorum throughout this meeting. City Commission Policy 2021-03 states that attendees shall refrain from engaging in personal attacks and boisterous, immaterial, inflammatory, obscene, profane, or disorderly conduct. Additionally, meeting attendees must refrain from obscene, profane, or disorderly conduct, including hand clapping, yelling, and similar demonstrations all of which disturbs the peace and good order of the meeting. I'm going to call on Commissioner Duvall.

Would you lead us in the pledge today, sir?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible,

Thank you, sir. I'm going to ask for an approval of the agenda. Do I have a motion? I have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Stokes to approve the agenda. Do I have a second?

Second.

Seconded by Vice Mayor Langdon. If nothing to that, please vote. And that passes five to zero. City Clerk, public comment please, ma'am.

In person, I have Jenna DaCosta, followed by Robin San Vicente and Millie Hubbard.

Good morning, commissioners. My name is Jenna DeCosta. I live in Northport, and I support the data center moratorium. I have previously spoken about technical inconsistencies in the Deep Park applications. Today, I want to focus on the public paper trail for the moratorium exclusion. The public seller record for this data center application, PSDP-26-03382, shows a submittal and issue date of August 31st. It shows a record summary around 4 p.m., fees around 5 p.m., and workflow status, quote, application intake awaiting plans. But August 31st does not appear to be at the beginning of this application history. There are July data center documents, including digitally signed plans from the 20th. And the applicant's August 31st filing responds to City Commons from August 12th. That appears to indicate there was an earlier submission or intake associated with this application. But I have not found a public Acela project number for that July submission. The public Acela record I can find for the Deep Park Data Center site development plan is PSDP-26-033-2. showing August 31st is the submittal date. If the July submission was later converted into 3382, I would expect the public record to show that history or identify the original intake record. Right now, I can see the July documents and an August 31st to sell the submittal date, but not the official bridge between them. What official record connects the July submission, the August 12 City Commons, and the August 31st Acela record? That matters because this project is being treated differently under the moratorium. Even if submitted is the standard, the public should know which submission earned the exclusion and where it can be verified. My second concern is what that exclusion protects. The applicant's documents show major support infrastructure is not fully within this application. The plans label the electrical substation quote by others and the applicant's response says it will be developed later under separate cover. Before the September 22nd second reading, please identify the official submission that earned the fee exclusion, the record number and date tied to it, the ordinance language allowing PSDP-26-03382 to continue, and whether that exclusion protects only that as filed or also future separately permitted infrastructures. Thank you.

Good morning, all. Good morning. I'm going to take a totally different approach and kind of wing it here, so bear with me. I'm going to say first off that I stand before you representing thousands upon thousands of citizens, not just within our city, but the adjoining city also. Just like when we hear from the dais that you're representing the city as a whole, but yet they're not showing up and they're not voting. We have a very low voting record. I'm doing the same. So I'm up here before you to kind of plead the case of this data center and what it really means to our city. And do we really need it within our city? And what is the main purpose of having it within our city? And do we have enough safeguards, protocols, provisions within our city? All of that kind of is no, we do not. The movement is not just limited to our city, it's a nationwide movement and it is just growing stronger and stronger and stronger. We've had states that are actually putting in moratoriums, trying to put bans on it. The technological environment that we find ourselves in is moving so fast that by the time a data center or an AI center gets built, it's almost obsolete because the technology has advanced way after that. And then what are we left with? Possibility of having an empty data center and maybe a possible brownfield. So we really don't know. That is the purpose for this 18-month moratorium that we are asking not to shorten it, we need the full 18 months to really put everything that we need into our ULDC. And I've got Sam who's going to speak to one of the protections that really need to be instituted immediately. But I just want to say with our economic development strategy, We just can't be selling out our city in the name of economic development and a tax base at the risk of quality of life issues for our citizenry. Our quality of life issues are disintegrating at a rapid pace because of all the development that's going on, the affordable housing restrictions you guys are under. It's like, where else is there to build? What else can we build? Now here comes an AI center. And this particular facility is AI. It's not a data center. At this particular square footage, it's AI. And that should scare the crap out of almost everybody here. So, again, I'm just standing before you to really listen to what the citizens are saying, really consider, because we've got a lot of smart people out there that have excellent ideas. So really just please consider them all when you're having your discussions. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Good morning. Good morning. Millie Hubbard, Florida resident, 25 years, North Port 10. I received my trim notice this year and I actually took the time to try to understand it for once. So the one issue that I didn't quite understand and I looked at was on the last row, it's fund up, maint, and reconstruction. I assume that's capital projects. So I pulled up the map of my neighborhood because I was curious who's paying what. Then I found out from the finance department that it's based on $46 per lot. That's what we pay into that fund. I have four lots combined, so I pay $184. I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is the fact that I sampled 40 double, triple, quadruple lots in my small neighborhood, just 40, and 28, which is 70%, are wrong. They're $46, they should be 92, 138. There's one on here with five lots, clearly states there's five lots on the trim notice. He pays $92. Your trim notices are wrong. And if that line is wrong, what else is wrong is what my concern is. So I'm going to give this, if I may, to the county clerk and have her enter it into the record. I think this is a serious issue. I think somebody really needs to take a look at it. Thank you.

Sam Turpening, followed by Donnie Olander and Kathy Siborski.

If I may, I do have some handouts for everybody. There's a copy for you too, city clerk. Good morning, commissioners and fellow citizens. My name is Samuel Terpening. I'm standing here as an independent resident who lived a literal nightmare of resource collapse firsthand. I'm not here for the political theater on today's agenda. I'm here to hand you an exact legal blueprint to save our community and to draw a clear line in the sand. Let's be honest about the reality. A multi-billion dollar developer has already logged a permit into our system. Under Florida law, you cannot use Senate Bill 484 as a retrofitted time machine to kill an active application. The only way that specific bad permit dies is if its 180-day administrative insufficiency clock expires due to its own technical errors. The immediate danger to Northport and all communities in Florida is a corporate tag team. The exact second that the current permit fails, the gate is wide open for a daisy chain of new developers to slide applications to our zoning loopholes. We do not have 12 months to sit around in a slow-moving study task force while corporate utilities line up at our border. That is why I'm handing the clerk a model intent ordinance that deploys a highly secure two-phase legal defense path recognized by Florida courts so that we're not sued. Phase one, the pending ordinance doctrine. The moment this commission votes to avert your intent to modify our regulations to protect our water basins, the gate legally slams shut. This gives the city the immediate power to freeze and reject any new applications filed after today while the current file finishes its loop. If you act right now, you can stop today. Act right now, you will stop any other permits. Phase two, the permanent SB 484 lock. The day the current application officially falls for insufficiency, its grandfathered status evaporates. Again, you won't be sued. So then, after you do your ordinance now in order to stop any new permits, you hope and pray in 180 days, that that permit fails for insufficiency. Then they are able to use SB 484 as Governor DeSantis had given you all and that you should have used in the first place and we wouldn't have to be here. So I found one more way. with the help of each and every one of you teaching me what we can do to protect our water. If you do not protect our water today, I will not rest until every single one of you are voted out of office, and that goes for every community in Florida. I'll give you my time, and God bless you all.

Good morning. Good morning. I am I come here in peace. I am not the criminal. Or you slave. Don't treat me as both. I am instructing you to respect. Respective evidence. I am instructing to remove the cop and sit over here. Just 90 degree. This is 27 time I am instructing you. Florida Constitution can be changed five ways. Each way require people votes. You unlawfully amended Constitution of Florida 27 times. Do anybody care? Do you have attorney or attorner? Do you have a police, chief of police? Questions, why Stewart Gregory Thomas, not Fuino, is plaintiff attorney in pleadings? City of Norfolk versus State Florida. Stokes says, oh, we only gonna ask the judge. And now, Fuino either is incompetent to file these pleadings. He earned $2,500,000 annually. Who can write legislative regulation here? Manager or attorney? None of them. Legislative regulation only have a force and effective law, not the other regulations. Does government create the wealth or redistribute it? People's wealth to themselves. You cost us $413 a day. Thus retroactive means ex post facto law. Read the constitution. Can you investigate potential ethnic violation between Fletcher, Alaina Ray, data center, and maybe you? The slaves in 18 and 19 centuries in United States of America had rights to instruct slave owners. The slave owners had consent for slaves to own them. What is the price on my head in Norfolk? Is it 3,524? More or less. Do we have a country or city here, or the country and city here is called just business? Is silence golden or admission of guilt? Emerge. I am ashamed to be your citizen in just business. Vote no by each item on agenda. There is no authority given.

Kathy Samburski, followed by Rain.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Okay, I'm a new Northport resident. I'm very, very upset about this data center. And, okay, I just have a few comments. Okay, our current unified development code is completely unequipped to handle the unique industrial demands of these facilities. A hyperscale data center is not a standard office park. It is a heavy industrial utility. These complexes run continuous low-frequency cooling fans and backup generators that create massive noise pollution, destroying the peace and prosperity values of nearby neighborhoods. That would be very upsetting to me if I lived close to that data center. I don't live that close, but I'm still very upset about it. Furthermore, more... Furthermore, our region cannot handle the resource strain. We cannot sacrifice our drinking water supply and grid stability, our power grid stability, for an industry that provides virtually no long-term local jobs. And the devil has taken over. Thank you very much. Thank you, ma'am.

I'm here to address everybody. My Fourth Amendment violations go back to shortly after her came in. When the evil empire was in charge, you're the last of the three of the evil empire. First, I was cited twice for having a backhoe, personal property, my property. You tried to tell me I couldn't have it. After that, they came up with some other things. I was cited, I think, four times for violations of, code violations. and none of them were sticking because I didn't do something wrong. But yet, I had to go through all of the bullshit that you guys put forth. And then, flock cameras show up. Who'd you ask? Anybody? Did you say you wanted flock cameras? No, there's no violation of the Fourth Amendment. And the fifth and final one that I can think of is, I believe it was last week or the week before I filed the Freedom of Information Act. on the kiosk out here at the building. I have 600 people that had to give up their phone numbers in order to be serviced by the building department. I think that's wrong. You're all bad people, especially you three, the three. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Sandy Portopassi. My phone number is 203-994-2341. Today is September 8th, 2026.

I'm calling in regards to agenda item 26, 1051, which is the discussion in action regarding the ULDC for data centers. I would like to see every possible regulation put into the ULDC for data centers with a

ultimately once this current application moves through or is denied an ultimate no data centers in the unified land development code in regards to agenda item 26 1023 discussion and possible action regarding process for commission notification of all non-disclosures i think this is a no-brainer i think the commission should be aware of all ndas not city staff in regards to agenda item 26, 1022, discussion and possible action regarding reversal of administrative approval process. I agree with that wholeheartedly when it comes to residential houses with individual builders, that's one thing. But when you're talking anything from multifamily apartment buildings, commercial, business, industrial, all of that should go in front of the commission. Not necessarily for their approval, but most certainly for their knowledge and their approval. I also want to quickly go back to the first item on the agenda and say that I am extremely disappointed with Elena Ray. being she comes from Luton County, Virginia, where they're having massive problems with data centers. She brought that knowledge with her. She directed the rewrite of the ULDC in 2024. She knew the adverse effects of data centers and never thought to put something like that in the ULDC rewrite in 2024. If that was done back then, we would have guardrails and safeguards in

2026. I'm Debbie Blackwell, North Port resident and a voter. This is general public comment. Slow down. You move too fast. Put the brakes on the city manager's authorization of financial decisions and non-disclosure agreements. Put the brakes on new vehicle purchases. We're having hard financial times. Put the brakes on the Willam Park development until the infrastructure matches population. And last but certainly not least, put the brakes on the data center in the city of Northport.

Hello, my name is Valerie Larson, phone number 941-321-2696, leaving a comment for today's commissioner meeting at 10 a.m. concerning the NDA, the non-disclosure agreement discussion that potentially is going to be occurring today. I understand that the NDA that was signed is legal, but it's not, in my opinion, how we do things in Northport. It is not transparent. It is behind the scenes it is holding back obviously information that is important to others and that is how we got into the situation we are currently in with this proposed hyperscale data center so i hope that the commissioners see that and they take back some of the control in terms of making decisions within the city Any kind of NDA should be run past each and every commissioner together, and they should not be just Elena Ray and Jerome Fletcher making the decisions on the NDA. So let's take back some control over the decisions that are made and put that back into our elected officials' hands. I will be watching. I can't be there live today because I'm at work, but I'll be watching the YouTube video version of the meeting on my way home today. Thank you so much. Have a good day. Bye.

This is Kelly White to 10-998-9149. I'm commenting on item 26, 1051, September 26th. I don't expect a temporary delay, but I expect you to enact a permanent ban on these investment facilities, starting with the mass hyperscale AI facility you currently entertain. An 18-month pause is inadequate. Simply delaying the inevitable does not protect our city from the detrimental impacts an AI data center will thrust upon us. I expect you, my representative, to use your full local authority to permanently protect Northport by taking these actions. One, aggressively use SB 484 authority under which the state explicitly preserves your power of resuming planning and land development. SB 484 asserts that local authority over massive grid consumers remains in your control. Use this authority to legally reject these massive infrastructure projects outright and to explicitly ban them from operating anywhere near residential wetlands and ecological sensitive areas. We need to enforce an unyielding stance for wealth, wealth protection. We need to do well. We need to do well. We need to do well. We need to do well. We need to do well. You're being assured by the Congress to deliver a faithful message. We, North Corp residents, expect your full defense not to compromise. Delay is not an option. You must deny and use your final words for your sentence.

Vermin, come to the end.

The North Corp will fix 300 LLCs and applications rather than letting their families operate during the pause. You must vote to protect

Good morning, commissioners. This is Pam Tokars. I'm calling regarding the commission meeting for Tuesday, September the 8th.

This is a general public comment.

My comment is, please, I am for you, commissioners, to listen to the ideas that Sam Turpington is sharing with you regarding SB 484 and how we can interpret it into our ULDC to protect us from the data center. And I really hope you listen to his ideas and take

Ann Cisnicki. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Ann Cisnicki, and I am calling in today with a direct mandate for the STIAS. We demand the immediate draft and an enactment of permanent well field protection ordinances written directly into our local land development regulations under Florida Senate Bill 484. We are done with administrative delays, 12-month study task force, or legally risky moratoriums that trigger multimillion-dollar developer lawsuits. Under the judicial pending ordinance doctrine, you have the legal authority right now to officially announce you are drafting these water protections, instantly freezing any new hyperscale data center applications from sneaking into our borders. The political line in the sand is drawn today, and the community is tracking exactly where each of you stands. Commissioner Stokes, if you want to earn your reelection, you will step up today, stop the administrative word salad, and make the official motion to review and implement these well-field protections. Mayor Emmerich, if you want your wife's campaign to have any drop of credibility with the voters, you will sign onto this ordinance immediately and stop using committee delays to protect family interests. Commissioner Petro, if you want to keep the outstanding following and community trust you have built, you will continue to lead the charge and fully support this ironclad legal framework on the floor. Commissioner Duval, I believe you are a sincere person who wants to do right by this town. If you want to fall in the correct side of history, you must sign on to these well field protections to protect our drinking water. Our aquifer is facing an industrial extinction event. Stop playing defense. Protect our well fields. Use SB 484 and protect Florida's water right now. Caitlin Snow. Well, I cannot believe the officials in our city are acting this way. Get off your phone, get off your high horse, get off your wallet. If you're elected in, you'd be gone by now. Do the right thing by the people before we show up on your doorstep. Sherry Dunnan. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Sherry Dunnan, and I am writing today with a direct mandate for this dais. We demand the immediate drafting and enactment of permanent well field protection ordinances written directly into our local land development regulations under Florida Senate Bill 484. We are done with administrative delays, 12-month study task force, or legally risky moratoriums that trigger multimillion-dollar developer lawsuits. Under the judicial pending ordinance doctrine, you have the legal authority right now to officially announce you are drafting these water protections. Instantly freezing any new hyperscale data center applications from sneaking into our borders. A data center will not bring economic development to the city. A data center will not bring revenue to the city. A data center will pollute our water and our air. It will destroy habitat for wildlife. It will cause damage beyond the data center. Please stop this from happening. Use all methods possible. I'll be watching and I will be voting in November. David Iannotti, regarding the City Commission regular meeting on August 31st, 2026, and specifically the motion to impose a moratorium on data centers as put forth by Commissioner Petro. This moratorium motion was what the meeting was about and what the hundreds of citizens that took time out of their life said they wanted. The amended motion by Commissioner Stokes, the second by Commissioner Duval, and the votes and the votes for by Emmerich and Langdon were a master class in absolute cowardice. Just how many hundreds of citizens showing up will it take for you to grow a spine and do your job? Donna McNulty. I am writing in today with a direct mandate for the status. We demand the immediate drafting and enactment of permanent well field protection ordinances written directly into our local land development regulations under Florida Senate Bill 484. We are done with administrative delays. Anonymous, this meeting is a sham. You do not represent the people of Northport, Stokes. Your constant flip-flopping and cursing at Petro, amateur cussing at citizens, or your blatant disgust towards citizens while you silence the public is disgraceful. You take away the people's right to speech, banning clapping even for children, yet you freely gross, cough, and curse and berate the residents who pay your salary is atrocious. This is not leadership. This is hypocrisy and abuse of power. You are drunk on power and maybe also drunk. You too need to be random breathalyzer tested before you come into the city hall. We have forgotten who works for whom. Fire City Manager Fletcher immediately for the NDA secrecy and backdoor deals involving Elena Ray and Development Services and these closed-door arrangements that hide important information from the public. The padded meeting was a disgrace. It was a great sponsorship for the data centers. It was disgusting like a sleazy used car salesman, Mr. Siddiqui himself. This was abhorrent. Did any of our tax dollars went toward this disgusting one-sided data center dog and pony show. Your theft and misappropriation of our tax dollars and erosion of trust are all examples of failure that will be your legacy and all of this is repugnant to our Constitution and the city's charter. Do it now or be prepared for the full force of an angry public that will no longer tolerate this. The people of Northport are watching. We will remember. Fire them now. November will be memorable for your careers in public service sector. will be forever marked in shame. You are disgraced failures and you will be forever remembered for it. Elizabeth Lansall. Hello, my name is Libby Lansall and I would like to address item 26-1051. We need to tighten the ULDC code to protect our environment and our beautiful city. I think it's been made clear that the residents are not in favor of a data center. I live in the Yorkshire area and there are a lot of scrub jay habitats in both AC6 and AC10. Has anyone verified that the proposed data center isn't in a scrub jay area? I'm sure there are lots of gopher tortoises in that area also along with multiple other wildlife. The constant hum of the data center and the running of multiple generators is definitely noise pollution. Has there been any long-term studies of the noise and light effects in the Virginia and Ohio data centers already up and running? What about water and air pollution studies? We are located in a hurricane area. What happens if a major storm hits one of these centers? Can we specify no data centers because of the fragile limestone's propensity for unstable ground and sinkholes? What about the possible contamination of our groundwater? Most of us in the area have wells. We need clean drinking water to survive. There needs to be tighter regulations to prohibit the multiple problems that are inherent to a data center. I am sure FPL wants to push for data centers so they can reap the benefits of an entity sucking down tons of electricity and lining their pockets. There needs to be protections for all of us, not just for big energy and developers. Please do your homework and reach out to the cities that have successfully blocked data centers so you can follow suit. Our city and its residents depends on you. Greg Faulkner. Mayor and Commissioners, later on today's agenda, I will address three specific issues, the disastrous ULDC rewrite, the administrative approval process that stripped away meaningful oversight and city staff entering into non-disclosure agreements without the knowledge or consent of this Commission. I'll address each of those issues when they come before you, but they are not isolated problems. Together, they reveal a pattern diminishing transparency, Removing oversight and avoiding accountability. And accountability starts at the top. The fingerprints of the city manager and director of development services are on each of these issues. whether through their direct decisions, delegated authority, or staff acting under their direction. They have helped put the city and its residents in the position we are now trying to correct. At some point, accountability has to mean something. We cannot keep reversing bad decisions, rewriting policies, and fixing broken processes while ignoring the leadership responsible for them. I have lost confidence in both the city manager and the director of development services. I am asking this commission to terminate both immediately for cause to the extent supported by the established facts, city policy, and their contracts. This isn't personal. It's leadership accountability. Later today, we can debate each tree. Right now, I'm asking you to look at the forest. There are not three separate failures. These are symptoms of the same leadership problem. Fixing the policies without addressing the leadership that created them is not accountability. It's cleanup. Jamie... DIAS Assist. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Jamie and I'm calling in today with a direct mandate for the DIAS. We demand the immediate drafting and enactment of permanent wellfield protection ordinances written directly into our local land development regulations on our Florida Senate Bill 484. We are done with administrative delays, 12-month study task force, or legally risky moratoriums that trigger multi-million dollar developer lawsuits. Under the additional pending doctrine, ordinance doctrine, you have the legal authority right now to officially announce you are drafting these water protections. instantly freezing any new hyperscale data center applications from sneaking into our borders. The political line in the sand is drawn today, and the community is tracking exactly where each of you stands. Commissioner Stokes, if you want to earn your reelection, you will step up today, stop the administrative board salad, and make the official motion to review and implement these well-filled protections. Mayor Emmerich, if you want your wife's campaign to have any drop of credibility with the voters, you will sign onto this ordinance immediately and stop using committee delays to perfect family interests. Commissioner Petro, if you want to keep the outstanding following and community trust you have built, you will continue to lead the charge and fully support this ironclad legal framework on the floor. Commissioner Duval, I believe you are a sincere person who wants to do the right thing by this town. If you want to fall on the correct side of history, you must sign onto these well field protections to protect our drinking water. Our aquifer is facing an industrial extinction event. Stop playing defense, protect our well fields, use SB484 and protect Florida's water right now. Jay Wilson, no data center. Listen to the citizens again. No data center in Northport. Jeanette Sanchez, I'm speaking today to state my strong opposition to bringing data centers into our community. These facilities operate 24 7 with massive industrial cooling systems and diesel backup generators that create constant high decibel noise and pollute our air. They consume millions of gallons of water every day. Water. our local ecosystem and residents desperately need, and they wipe out local forests and open land, destroying the beautiful wildlife that makes our town special. We should be protecting our community's quiet neighborhoods, clean environment, and natural resources, not handing them over to industrial data centers. I strongly urge the council to vote no on this proposal. Juneau Enoch. The commissioner's barring Mr. Petro, should be ashamed of the way they refused to vote on Mr. Petro's proposal on 831 to include the current data center proposal in the data center moratorium. Only voting on its after already approving an amendment to not include the current proposal makes no sense and completely negated Mr. Petro's proposal before it could even be voted on. The commissioners barring Mr. Petro seem to be letting city staff who have not been elected make all the decisions for them. A statement was even made to the elect... To the effect of listening to the guy who makes the big bucks referring to the city attorney. This sums up so perfectly in your own words how you worship money above all else. I have no faith in city staff and implore you as elected officials to think for yourselves, not just listen to money. Thank you. Kim Montgomery. Data centers use too much water. They are too noisy and take away animals' natural habitat. Too many negatives that outweigh any AI or camera advantages. Linda Warrick. At one point, I was opposed to data centers. However, Jovan Hutton Pulitzer is a futuristic and visionary in technology known for pioneering the scan commerce, scan to connect and scan to link, QRQ codes that scan with your mobile phone's platform. Pulitzer has patients in all patents in all 190 countries and specializes in computer vision, machine learning, and artificial intelligent platforms, along with energy production, innovative building technologies, and data analytics and forensic sciences. Past winners of the Smithsonian Laureate Medal for Most Likely to Change Society. His recent book explains the importance of why we must move forward with data centers. His book, The Three-Toed Dragon, Communist China's Secret War to End American AI and Data Centers, China's relentless drive for AI dominance is no longer a distance threat. Through massive state-backed infrastructure, ferocious energy consumption, and strategic control of global supply chains, the CCP is building an unstoppable technological empire while America debates policy China executes. executes. This is not another tech trend. It is the decisive battlefield of the 21st century where data centers, power generation, cooling systems, and sovereign energy infrastructure will determine who controls intelligence, economic supremacy, and national security. This book is not a statement of opinion. It's a book of facts as to why we must move forward with data centers. I agree with the majority of the people that they should never be placed in areas where people live, work, or go to school. This misinformation about data centers, EMFs, water consumption, and electricity are all fear-based propagandized statements to instill fear in people who are lacking true knowledge. If the City Commission is interested, I would be willing to connect you with Mr. Pulitzer to present this topic in a live video format. Thank you. This repeat, dear commissioners, please enact permanent well, field protection with our and the endorsed well, well, had protection humans can live without data centers, but no one can live without water. You need water to please freeze any new hyper space data centers applications and all data centers in Northport protect North course residents. regarding 26-1051, 26-1023, and 26-1022. As compared to areas across the state, our area is designated running low, not enough drinking water for projected 2030 population. The Yorkshire property is environmentally harmful without the data center. It is in close proximity to both the Snover and Cocoa Plum waterways. The Snover is the source of North Port's drinking water aquifer transmissivity. The rate at which groundwater flows horizontally is the second lowest rate. Less than 5,000 to 10,000 feet squared per day. Having topographic and geologic surveys been done to this part of the Peace River watershed, while listening to the FDISA and the PRMRWSA representatives, I heard we have not, my assumption, and many I don't knows. I now understand why FPL didn't show, no need. FDISA represents FPL, TECO, Duke, and Hut 8. The FDISA was conveniently launched on July 27, 2026. No wonder he didn't have many definitive answers to the Commissioner's questions. The FDISA participates in local government workshops to discuss the benefits and technological needs of large digital facilities. According to FDISA, communities should evaluate data centers the way they evaluate any major economic development proposal, weighing benefits, impacts, and with the community's long-term vision. Every project should meet rigorous standard for water use, traffic, noise, land use, and public safety. Global data centers, Canada 337, China 449, UK 523, Germany 529, USA 5,427, Northport is no place for a data center. Lori Lynch. I am Lori Lynch, a resident of Northport for over 25 years. I spoke at the last meeting and my opinion has not changed. I oppose data centers. I drove out to the proposed site, which is too close to my home and saw two deer. Volusia County did, one, let the clock run out in the time limit and deny the permit based on insufficiency. This does not count as a burdensome act and we cannot be sued. Launch the pending ordinance doctrine now to enact permanent zoning modifications. Write well field protections via SB484. This ensures local communities retain full authority over comprehensive planning and zoning for large, low cost customers. The moment the current ban permit expires, The commission must immediately write strict permanent wellfield protection ordinances directly into their land development regulation, LDRS. Any future hyperscale projects will then be forced to legally prove its massive water consumption will not harm local infrastructure or water resources. We do not need risky sweeping moratoriums or messy bans that invite multi-million dollar developer lawsuits under SB 180. By letting the administrative clock naturally kill the current ban permit using Volusia County's playbook of the pending ordinance doctrine to freeze new corporate tag teamers today and writing targeted infrastructures and well-field protections under SB 484 tomorrow, our local government in Florida can protect its aquifer and secure real results. One, unified land development code, ban hyperscale data centers. Two, nondisclosure agreements don't allow. Three, don't approve this data center application, reverse the administrative approval process. within the Unified Land Development Code to change this AC-6 to non-commercial and or industrial land use. Basically, an ordinance creating a permanent ban for all North Port zoning districts. We are concerned about the water use, electricity demand, quality of life, and preserving our communities. Make the right choice. Lynette Siodoria. Please stop approving more and more development without first addressing the problems created by the growth we already have. North Port does not need to keep adding housing and expanding development while traffic, roads, infrastructure, schools, and public services are still trying to catch up. Residents who already live here should be the priority. I do not support expanding Roland Park by another 81 acres until the city can show that the surrounding infrastructure can truly handle additional growth. Patricia Gilshan. I oppose the very idea of letting a data center be built in Northport. At the Commission meeting last week, numerous residents were very vocal about their thinking of data centers in Northport was a terrible idea. We also expressed unhappiness with the fact that someone at City Hall apparently approved this and signed an NDA so the residents were kept in the dark for a year or more. This is no way to govern a city. The data center will, without a doubt, be back for Northport residents and further contaminated out our water, destroying natural habitats, cause air and noise pollution, and lead to lowering our property value. You all need to say no and block this stupid idea. Thank you. Peter Montgomery. I am not necessarily opposed to a data center, but I strongly believe that the proposed site is wrong. If we must have one, then build it in the middle of nowhere, somewhere between here and Richula. Rachel Luther. The citizens of Northport did not agree to the implementation of the ULDC. Sam DiMartino. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Sam. I am commenting today with a direct mandate for this dais. We demand the immediate drafting and enactment of permanent wellfield protection ordinances written directly into our local land development regulations under Florida Senate Bill 484. We are done with administrative delays, 12-month study task force, or legally risky moratoriums that trigger multimillion-dollar developer lawsuits. Under the judicial Pending ordinance doctrine, you have the legal authority right now to officially announce you are drafting these water protections, instantly freezing any new hyperscale data center applications from sneaking into our borders. The political line in the sand is drawn today, and the community is tracking exactly where each of you stands. Our aquifer is facing an industrial extinction event. Stop playing defense, protect our well fields, use SB484, and protect Florida's water right now. William Lanshaw. My name is William Lanshaw. I would like to thank Commissioner Stokes for adding items 261051, 261023, and 261022. 261051, please consider protecting our fragile ground and well water, noise and air pollution, and protected wildlife habitats. Even though the data center have a well polished PR scheme to lure you in, as we found out at last week's meeting, there are several flaws. A reminder of one of the presenters stated that there could be 200 to 500 six-figure jobs as a result of building. But when asked to provide facts by Commissioner DeValle, he could not provide any statistics that were factual. 261023, NDAs should not be allowed under the Sunshine Law that allows full access to information to protect open government from the deceptive practices and procedures. 261022, administrative approval needs to revert back to the hands of the commissioners as they were elected by the residents. of the City that they now have sworn and owed to represent. Staff and other appointed individuals should work with the Commissioners as they represent the will of the residents and not any agenda. Staff may be brilliant individuals, but they have no loyalty to the residents. Thank you for your time and consideration." And that's all, Mayor.

Thank you. All right. Back at you for announcements, City Clerk.

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

Thank you. Okay, we're going to move on to the consent agenda. City Manager, have any items been pulled?

Yes, yes, Mr. Mayor, one item, U26-0062.

All right. Do we have a public comment, City Clerk? No. All right, I'm going to request a motion.

I'll make it, Mr. Mayor.

Go ahead.

I move to approve the consent agenda, polling item U, which is 26-1062 for discussion.

Thank you. I have a motion on the floor made by Vice Mayor. Do I have a second? I have a second by Commissioner Stokes, polling item U for discussion. If there's nothing to that, please vote. And that passes five to zero. City Manager, who pulled item U? Commissioner Petro. Commissioner Petro, the floor is yours for discussion.

Thank you, Mayor. I just want to discuss this item to find out more details about this specific request. And my questions are, from what I recall from the budget discussions The cycle of twenty five twenty six fiscal year. There was a request for high water vehicle, and this is just by memory. We did approve that amount and when I saw this. I just want to find out what happened to that item. We discussed and was it funded and was it purchased or was it something else? So, just more of a clarification if you will. So, if you can. If the staff can address this on that.

Good morning Scott is actually for the fire rescue district. I'm going to let she probably talk through the details, but yes, that was funded. This is a separate vehicle. So we've been working with grants on so that we will have to.

Nick Hurley, Deputy Fire Chief. The high water vehicle that's in this year's budget was ordered. It's not due until the latter end of 2027. That's when it will arrive. We also sought out for a second high water vehicle, which we sought a grant, which was partially funding the high water vehicle through CBDG. We work with financing grants on that. That's what's in FY27's budget. this agenda item is for authorization to use the piggyback to purchase said vehicle.

But if we don't use this grant money, we will lose it? That's what you're saying? I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. If we don't use this amount that has been fund, that was approved by a grant, we will lose those money, or what happens if we don't?

Yeah, the specifics I can turn over to grants, but we have a signed agreement that came to commission earlier in the year for the approval for this grant. So we're moving forward with that process and would be seeking approval, I'm sorry, a PO in the next fiscal year. But if we do not approve this pathway for the purchase of that vehicle, then yes, there would be a loss of grant funding.

A quick question, how many high water vehicles do we have in the city?

So we've been dual purposing our brush trucks for also for high water vehicles. These would be the first two of this kind. So we're replacing one that we've been borrowing that vehicle through Florida Forest Service, but we had a lot of mechanical issues with it. The other one that we are purchasing is new. So we would essentially be, we would end up with three at the end.

From what I understand, the police department has its own, or no? And Public Works, do they have a similar?

I can't speak to what the police department has for a high water vehicle, but when an event happens, the fire department takes over operational control of all high water rescue vehicle operations, whether it be for evacuations or rescues. But I can speak to the vehicles that we have.

So in the city, we do not know how many high water vehicles we have?

I know the fire department has three. I believe the police department has sought out, they have their Bearcat, and I can let Deputy Chief Morales speak to the assets that they use for access to flooded areas for law enforcement protection, but for fire rescue, we'd be looking to have three.

Scott Titus from Fire District. I want to make an important clarification. As Chief Hurley said, in the past we've used the brush trucks that we get from forestry, we've used them to access high water areas. They are not designed or built for that. So we've done that because it was a necessity, but I can tell you it causes a tremendous amount of damage, water intrusion into the axles, into lots and lots of problems. Oftentimes we've had breakdowns partway through an event. and pretty significant repairs afterwards on vehicles that are very difficult to get parts for. The vehicles that we're getting, the one we purchased last year, and the one that we put in grant for, they're specifically designed and purposed to be high water vehicles. So the axles are sealed, they have water fjording kits on them, they're designed for this purpose. Fire Rescue's purpose and mission is for rescue that's what we do police department has high water vehicles for certain things but that is to get access out to areas that are flooded so that they can do what their job which their primary purpose is is not rescue same with any other department that has a high water vehicle is is particularly purposed for them to access those areas to perform their duties if those vehicles are available during a storm or an event and we can borrow them and put them under our mission as part of our rescue then we do that but but different departments have them because utilities still needs to access areas that are flooded to get to areas. The police department still needs to access areas so they can go out and make sure that people aren't breaking into houses in flooded areas or taking care of issues like that. I hope that helps clarify.

We're in commission, Deputy Chief Morales. To answer your question, sir, currently right now the police department only has one which is the Bearcat, which that has its limitations. It can only traverse through about four feet of water with the snorkeling feature, so it has its limitations, but we did have in this budget coming in here, we did have a high water rescue vehicle that we're seeking for through law enforcement impact fees.

Does Public Works have?

Chuck Speed, Public Works Director. We have one high water vehicle that we use for recovery of light vehicles. that are either deployed and get stranded or get stranded for some other reason.

That's all. I just want to make a comment at the end that, you know, we as a city hall, this entire organization, we have to be more of a shareholder. you know, embrace that concept of sharing the resources within the city. So I'm not against this purchase specifically because it was funded through grants and thank you. I want to thank that department or the division and I'm all set. Thank you.

Thank you. If there's nobody else, I look for a motion.

I'll make it.

Go ahead.

I move to approve the utilization of source web contract number 032824-CER with certified stainless service Inc. DBA Westmark for the one-time purchase of a high water rescue vehicle in fiscal year 2027 utilizing Sarasota County Community Development Block Grant funding in an amount not to exceed $478,823. 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 public hearings. This is a quasi-judicial hearing and I request a motion to direct the City Clerk to read by title. So moved.

Second.

I have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Stokes, seconded by Vice Mayor. If there's nothing to that, please vote. And that passes five to zero. City Clerk?

Ordinance number 2026-22, an ordinance of the City of North Port Florida approving petition number PMCPA-25-03560 to amend the Village D Village District Pattern Plan, West Villages, AKA Welland Park, to update non-residential wall sign regulations and establish consistent definitions for public institutional uses and civic spaces, amending section 3.4.1 of the Unified Land Development Code, ULDC, to incorporate the amended pattern plan by reference, amending section 5.3.2 of the ULDC to require Village D wall signs to comply with ULDC chapter five standards and to provide deemed compliance and legal non-conforming status for certain existing signs, providing for findings, providing for adoption, providing for conflict, severability, codification, and an effective date. There have been no agreed party status requests received for this one, and can everyone wishing to provide testimony please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is true and accurate to the best of your knowledge to help you God? I do. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Looking for ex parte communications, Commissioner Duvall.

Holding my conversations with staff during my pre-job brief.

Nothing for me. I have nothing, Vice-Mayor.

Nothing for me.

Commissioner Petro.

Just start my agenda briefing going over the agenda items.

Thank you. Presentation by applicant, please.

General Lazinski, Senior Vice President with Welland Park, and I have been sworn. The nexus of this request actually came out of the VDPP amendment that will be the next agenda item, Village E. At that point, a couple of years ago, you may remember that SMH requested that they be included in our village EVDPP because their 28 acre site was not big enough to qualify for a VDPP. What we realized working through those nuances with SMH, since SMH is technically a governmental agency, they would basically be exempt from certain sign regulations. So the nexus of this change is actually HCA has already built an emergency room in Welland Park and have bought 30 acres to build a hospital. So there's a potential down the road for two hospitals to be a mile apart with two different signage standards. So we started the process and it was agreed upon at that point to update the VDPP so both hospitals would operate under the same guidelines. Through that, there was other things that staff brought up, just clean up of the original VDPP. So with that, I'm gonna turn the presentation over to Hannah Swinski, our planner from Stantec, who actually did the block and tackling and prepared the VDPP amendment. But it really started with just wanting to clean up the book that we have, that we work with in downtown today. Thank you.

I DO HAVE A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION. IF I TAKE IT, PLEASE PULL IT OUT. THANK YOU. HOW DO I MAKE IT LOOK GOOD? SO THE WHOLE THING SHOWS.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM.

LET ME GET OUT OF HERE. Is this format okay for everybody?

Okay, great. Good morning, everyone. My name is Hannah Sawinski. I'm a planner with Stantec, and I have been sworn. I am here to present an amendment to the Village D Village District Pattern Plan. And I'm here today with the applicant, John Leszczynski. This is a two-part application consisting of a Village District Pattern Plan amendment and a ULDC text amendment. Village D is located within Welland Park within the southwest quadrant of US 41 and West Villages Parkway, and it's approximately 595 acres. A little bit of background, the original VDPP was originally adopted in September of 2017. Since that adoption, it's been amended twice, first in May of 2021 to add regulations for mobile food dispensing vehicles and commercial floating docks and modifying landscape buffer widths. The second amendment was in April of 2023 to revise minimum parking standards to include a provision to modify parking standards on a case-by-case basis and to provide for parking standards not otherwise specified. A component of this amendment is updating language within section 3.13.4.1 of the pattern plan. The existing language related to sign standards and review criteria is being changed to sign standards and review. As shown on this slide, the updated language reads that all signs must comply with standards established in the ULDC and be approved by the West Villages Review Committee prior to city review. As it relates to building wall signs, the text has been updated that all building wall signs shall comply with Chapter 5 of the ULDC and in the event of any conflicts between the pattern plan and the ULDC, the ULDC standards shall prevail. Another amendment to Section 3.13.4.1 relates to signage design and installation standards. As shown on this slide, this section is proposed to be removed from the pattern plan and instead refers to maintaining compliance with Section 13 of the Village District Pattern Book. The existing language and the pattern plan is similar to the standards within the pattern book. This amendment would reduce redundancy and offer a more consistent review process for staff. And it looks like my computer's been commandeered a little bit. Yeah, I think IT took control of it. Yeah, I'm gonna take it back.

Help is on the way. No, it's okay.

I can just keep going. It's okay. All right. I'm just going to keep going. Lastly, we're also adding the definition for public institutional uses and civic spaces into this pattern plan to provide consistency across all VDPPs. As John previously stated, this definition is already included in prior pattern plans, so we're adding it into this one as well. The second part of the amendment is the ULDC text amendment and the purpose is to ensure consistency between the pattern plan and the ULDC. As shown on this slide, section 5.3.2 of the code is being amended to match the language within the pattern plan. This amendment is necessary to make consistency between the pattern plan for Village D and the ULDC. There are numerous benefits to this amendment, including simplifying staff review of signs for Village D. It serves the public interest and supports access to essential services such as medical facilities, provides consistency between the pattern plan and the ULDC, it poses no harm to adjacent properties, road networks, or emergency access, and it maintains architectural compatibility through the West Villages Review Committee review. With that, we kindly ask for your approval. Thank you.

Thank you. Staff.

Please, IT, don't take control.

I don't know why it's not working.

But good morning, commissioners. Good morning for the record. Sherry Willett-Grondon, Planner 3, Planning and Zoning Division. And I have been sworn. So as presented, can I put the PowerPoint? Thank you. So this is, we're discussing the Village District Pattern Plan Amendment. It is petition number PMCPA 25-03. 3560 via ordinance 202622. OKAY, SOME HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS. SO THE APPLICANT IS KATIE LABARRE, AICP OF STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES. THE OWNER IS MAIN STREET RANCH LANDS, LLP. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WEST OF SOUTHWEST VILLAGES PARKWAY AND SOUTH OF US 41. THE APPROXIMATE PROPERTY SIZE IS 595.2191 TOTAL ACRES. SO WITH THE VILLAGE D, it comprises of the downtown area if you're familiar with the area it's the home it's uh with the downtown and the fire station is where the big lake is just so that there is some context so the purpose of this application as stated by the applicant is to standardize the sign regulations by adopting the 2024 unified land development code chapter 5 And then we also have to amend section 5.3.2 of the UODC. This is concerning all non-residential wall signage. We're also amending the Village DVDPP to clarify very specifically that the Unified Land Development Code will take precedence over the Village District Pattern Plan. And the applicant has required the WVRC approval. So the WVRC is the West Village's review committee. It is outside of the city. It is their review committee for their design standards. What they have, excuse me, and also they have to have the approval for all signage before it goes to building permit for city approval. In addition to that, the definitions have been updated to included public institutional uses and civic spaces in the village DVD PP. This is consistent with the village district pattern plan. Also to establish legal non-conforming status for all signage legally permitted or installed before the ordinance's effective date. And what does that mean? So once the ordinance becomes effective, any new signage will have to comply with the Chapter 5 of the Unified Land Development Code for signage. excuse me, a provision has been placed in there for signs that have been legally permitted, legally installed, that they can continue without creating any issues for any of the owners to come into compliance. Also, in evaluating that, we wanted to have that provision for just in case any of the signs. Now, our Chapter 5 in the Unified Land Development Code is more flexible than the provisions that they currently have in the Village DVDPP. They're very restrictive in what they do. And also, this would bring a consistency for all signage. In addition, we will have to amend Section 3.4.1 of the ULDC to reference the Village D Village District Pattern Plan. So our current ULDC has a listing of all of the villages, the history, and all of the ordinances. So when and if this is approved by the City Commission, then that will automatically update the Unified Land Development Code. So as previously stated, there is a long approval history regarding this particular village. So in 2017, September 26, the original village's town center, Village D, was approved in May. 2021 there were the provisions to add for food trucks to regulate mobile food vehicles commercial docks and landscape buffers we did not have any provisions in the code at that time to allow for those mobile food vendors or for a commercial dock April 25, 2023, another amendment was brought to commission to adjust parking standards on a case by case basis. So I'd like to explain that a little bit. Our current unified land development code, if there is a use for parking, that's not explicitly stated how many parking spaces. They can bring administrative approval by a transportation expert showing that if there needs to be a reduction or an increase in parking, that it has to be justified. There has to be data that supports that. So this is very similar to that. This is not changing. We're not changing that in this pattern plan. It'll continue on. So the application details, the timeline, this application was submitted August 25th, 2025. And again, to amend the Village D VDPP concerning what I just explained. So some site information, the future land use map is Village Aviv, which is the village designation as well as the zoning. The existing land uses is recreation, cultural events, and mixed use comprising of commercial multi-family development. There's also a hotel on the site here. This has undergone multi-department review within every area of discipline with the development review committee. So a lot of the staff review, because this is not related to changing of any land use or construction element, it's simply adopting and incorporating our signage So there were no issues for Parks and Rec, and then there were no responses. So if there's no responses, it meant that the reviewer had no comments or concerns, especially for stormwater, they had no response. There was no changes to stormwater with this amendment or anything like, as I had previously stated, regarding development of the site. So in order to evaluate this, we have to make sure this complies with consistency with our city comprehensive plan, also the unified land development code. So the proposed amendment does align with the comprehensive plan, the future land use goal, by creating consistent, unified sign standards that will minimize visual blight, safety hazards, and regulatory conflict. Furthermore, the amendment adheres to policy 5.1 subsection F by updating Village D sign regulations to meet citywide standards while protecting existing businesses through a deemed compliance mechanism for permitted non-residential wall signage. And I do want to emphasize that this amendment is only applicable to wall signage. Legal review in the business impact statement ordinance 2026 dash 22, which is accompanied in your packet with all the exhibits has been reviewed and approved by the city attorney's office and is legally correct as to form pursuant to Florida statute sections 166.0414 C. A business impact statement was not required because this ordinance is enacted to implement the comprehensive plan amendment and the land development regulations initiated by an applicant by a private party other than the municipality. Statutory compliance and concurrence ULDC amendments. So the current ULDC, if you're doing a master concept plan, It is, there's a little bit of a difference in how that is processed. That's processed by resolution. It also comes before the commission. However, we did not have an administrative mechanism for this because it was the pattern plan adopted by ordinance. So we're amending it as a master concept plan amendment. However, ordinances, resolutions cannot amend an ordinance. So the original approval and subsequent approvals were by ordinance. That's why this is presented to commission by an ordinance. In addition to the ordinance, it's a dual purpose vehicle. Not only does it amend the pattern plan, it also amends the unified land development code section to incorporate by reference ANY AMENDMENTS TO THIS PATTERN PLAN. NOTICING PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS WERE MET AND THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE FLORIDA STATUTE SECTION 166.0413 AND SECTION 7.01C OF THE NORTHPORT CITY CHARTER. SO MEANING THE ORDINANCE IS ADVERTISED 10 days prior to adoption and also notices word mail to the owner and the property owners within the 1320 feet buffer radius as required. This item was presented before the Planning and Zoning Advisory Board July 16, 2026. The board voted 5-0 unanimously to approve these amendments. So staff, based on the information provided, is asking the commission to consider approval and moving the item to second reading. Thank you.

Thank you. Rebuttal? Applicant? There is no rebuttal. Staff?

Thank you. Staff has no rebuttal. Thank you.

Thank you. City Clerk, public comment? There is none. Commission questions, discussions? Commissioner Duvall?

Thank you, Mayor. In simple layman's terms, this is just to align things so that our signage matches up in Welland Park with the rest of our signage in our city. I did have two questions, comments. On slide nine, one of the last ones that you presented, ma'am, it said that ULDC lacks a mechanism to amend. Are we addressing that?

So how that was stated, and perhaps I didn't explain it. So our old unified land development code, when the pattern plans were adopted, had a specific outline for the pattern plan. We do not have new pattern plans in our unified land development code. Any new village district is created by a master concept plan. It's the same premises. But the tricky part that we had with this is because it's adopted by ordinance, We have to follow the ordinance and at least the noticing requirements. Does that answer your question? I hope.

Well, what I'm getting at is, so that we don't run into this in the future, do we have plans to amend our ULDC?

It wouldn't be necessary to do so, sir. So what I mean that the Unified Land Development Code does not have the mechanism, it doesn't have the old mechanism that the old ULDC had to amend pattern plans. So what we are doing is we're calling it a master concept plan. It's the same. and the approval is following the same as it was. So in the future, when you get a new village, you would not have the pattern plan. So you would not be creating a pattern plan like you had to with the old code. It would be a master concept plan, and it would be called village. And it would follow that process by resolution.

Okay. Thank you for that. You're very welcome. The other thing, on slide two, I saw a statement that said... This establishes non-compliance status for signage that was there before the ordinance went into effect. Does that mean once they're in noncompliance, those signs will be changed to meet the code?

So the provision that we put in to have that standards for deemed compliant, if they did have a permit application in-house at time when this was adopted, it would still be deemed compliant. So the provision would be if... And also for the legal non-conforming status, we wanted to incorporate also, so any signs that are not legally compliant, not conforming after the date, then they would have to follow the provisions of the Unified Land Development Code for non-conformance. But we wanted to put that in there because we did not want to have signs that are already, through the process, be deemed non-compliant, then they would have to, as you said, bring it into conformance. And that's what that provision is, and that would be included.

Thank you very much.

You're very welcome, sir.

Thank you, sir. Vice Mayor?

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I have a quick question for Ms. Ouellette. So that I understand this, Sarasota Memorial Hospital at Wallen Park will operate under the same sign code as Sarasota Memorial Hospital on Sumter. And that will be as specified in our ULDC, is that correct?

So the Sarasota Memorial Hospital piece is not related to Village D. It's actually, we could discuss it with the Village E. That's when we incorporated the Sarasota Memorial Hospital piece. So those regulations in there for their signs for institutional are in there. So the Sarasota Memorial Hospital on Sumter, they went through the development master plan process here with the commission. And part of that, the commission approved waivers for their signage because it is an institutional use. We did not have anything in our ULDC at that time. So that will be their governing document.

Okay. And then what's the implication for HCA when they build their hospital?

So with this, if HCA builds it here with the signage following the ULDC, we have the standards for that. It would be included. There are more signage allowed also if it's defined as an institutional use or government, I'm not sure what that designation would be, that they're exempt from the signage. So I can't evaluate at that time, but I know that following what their ULDC, the new current, does have more amount of signage allowed than what the pattern plan. Okay, thank you for that. You're very welcome.

Yes, it is.

Thank you.

All right. Uh, commissioner stokes very briefly. Basically, the idea was to create a compatibility so that if less if and HCA. Built their hospitals in this village date signage needs to be consistent. That's the whole idea. Pretty much.

The answer is yes, but as Sherry just explained, that does not preclude either SMH and Village H or Village E or HCA and Village D of ever coming and asking for waivers. Exactly. But right now, we have now set the ground and the baseline the same for both. Thanks.

All right. Okay, go ahead.

Thank you. Mr. Lisinski, I remember when we discussed this issue quite a while ago, there was a disagreement between VDPP and Sarasota Memorial at Welland Park regarding their signs. And the direction of the commission at that point in time was to request that WDPP and Sarasota Memorial, with the help of staff, reconcile their differences regarding signage. Am I understanding correctly that these changes address that dispute? Or is there more work to be done there?

NO, THERE'S NO MORE WORK TO BE DONE. THAT WAS ALL HANDLED AT THAT TIME. AND IT WAS MORE THAN SIGNAGE. IF YOU REMEMBER, SMH WANTED TO BE PART OF THE VILLAGE EVDPP, BUT THEY DID NOT WANT TO commit to any architecture standards or approve anything. And Welland Park said, no, we're not going to do that. What we did is we agreed and memorialized with SMH a series of design guidelines BECAUSE THEY, YOU KNOW, WE BASICALLY SAID IF YOU BUILD US THE VENICE HOSPITAL, WE WOULD APPROVE IT.

RIGHT.

BUT THEY'RE LIKE, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES ARE GOING TO OCCUR THAT MAY AFFECT THE LOOK OF THE BUILDING.

RIGHT.

SO WE BUILT SOME DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT WE BOTH CAN LIVE WITH. OKAY. AS YOU KNOW, WE TAKE THE LOOK AND THE LANDSCAPING VERY SERIOUSLY.

RIGHT.

BUT WE WORKED THAT OUT PRIOR TO SMA SECURING APPROVAL FOR THAT, WELL, ROUGHLY TWO YEARS AGO.

Okay, thank you for that. I appreciate it.

I yield. All right. Closing arguments. Staff?

Again, staff is requesting that the Commission approve the ordinance as written for second reading based on the information and the facts provided before you. Thank you.

Thank you. Applicant?

We request approval because this basically cleans up a lot of things and makes it a consistent set of rules for everybody to follow. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to close this public hearing and request- I'll shake it.

Go ahead. Move to continue ordinance 2026-22, the second reading on September 22nd, 2026.

Second. I have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Stokes to continue ordinance number 2026-22 to second reading on September 22nd, 2026 and that was seconded by Commissioner Duvall. If there's nothing to that, please vote. That passes five to zero. Moving on to Ordinance 2026-23. This is also a quasi-judicial hearing and I request a motion to direct the City Clerk. I have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Stokes. Do I have a second? Seconded by Commissioner Petro. If there's nothing to that, please vote. That passes five to zero. City Clerk, can you read by title only, please?

Ordinance number 2026-23, an ordinance of the City of North Carolina approving petition number PMCPA-24-00000083, formerly BPA-24-083, to amend the Village E Village District Pattern Plan, West Villages, aka Welland Park, to expand the district boundary by incorporating approximately 81 acres of land modifying development entitlements, and update signage and parking regulations, amending Section 3.4.1 of the Unified Land Development Code, ULDC, to incorporate the amended pattern plan by reference, amending Section 5.3.2 of the ULDC to require Village E signage to comply with the ULDC Chapter 5 standards and to provide deemed compliance and legal non-conforming status for certain existing signs, providing for findings, adoption, conflicts, severability, codification, and an effective date. There have been no agreed party requests received, 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, so help you God? Thank you.

Ex parte communications, Commissioner Duvall.

None except for the staff.

Commissioner Petro.

None except the agenda briefing when we discussed the agenda item.

Vice Mayor.

And none for me, sir.

And none for me. Presentation. Applicant, sir.

John Leszczynski, Senior Vice President Wellinghart, and I have been sworn. The Village VVPB amendment is to add, basically, the nexus of this was to add in 60 acres across Playmore from the Cool Today Park. You may recall Back in, I think it was 2017, the Sarasota School District purchased this property from us for a K through eight facility. Shortly thereafter, the Atlanta Braves decided to locate and put a stadium across the street. 2019, when I got here, working with the school district, they had determined probably not the best location for a K through eight school across from the stadium. That's what led to the school district's acquisition of 130 acres from our entities for what's the new high school. And they have room on that 130 acre parcel for a future K through eight. As part of that transaction, we repurchase at the market rate, the 60 acres from the school district. The intent was always to, put it back into one of our VDPPs, and it seemed to make the most sense to include it with Village E, which was contiguous with that parcel. We actually started this process actually before SMH came in. So this has kind of gone through a life cycle of its own, adjusting and adapting to the market conditions and what's occurred. So as of today, there's only two properties in Village E that are not developed. It is the SMH parcel, and we have a nine-acre parcel along River Road that's north of Playmore when Playmore gets extended here in the next six to nine months, and that piece we already have sold for commercial use. Once we amend this, we'll add the 60 acres into the Village E. So with that, again, I'm gonna turn it over to Hannah Swinski with Stantec, who did the carrying of the water pail uphill to prepare this document, to update it, to meet with you all these standards that have come into existence since we started the process, and I'll let her explain it to you.

Did you have any expert take on that? No, sir, I didn't. Thank you. Go ahead, ma'am.

Good morning again. For the record, Hannah Sawinski. I'm a planner with Stantec and I have been sworn. I'm here to present the amendment to the Village E Village District Pattern Plan. This is a one-part application consisting of the pattern plan amendment. Village E is located within Welland Park in the southeast quadrant of Tamiami Trail and West Villages Parkway. Village E was originally adopted in July of 2019 and has been amended one time since that adoption. It was amended in August of 2024 to incorporate the 28-acre Sarasota Memorial Hospital parcel into the Village E boundary and establish site development regulations for the hospital site. The purpose of this VDPP amendment is to add approximately 60 acres of land to Village E, amend land uses, update language to reflect existing conditions, and update all figures and dimensional criteria accordingly. This slide shows the existing and proposed boundaries of Village E, Village E, we're proposing to expand from 334 acres to 415 acres. And that 60 acres is located right here with the red circle. And also due to the realignment of Claymore Road, we're adding approximately 21 acres to Village E as well for a grand total of 415 acres. We're also amending land uses. We are decreasing the overall residential units from 1,000 units to 900, and we're increasing non-residential square feet from 400,000 square feet to 550,000 square feet. And this is for Village E as a whole. The 60-acre parcel is planned for a mixed-use development with multifamily and non-residential uses. We are proposing a revision to Section 3.9.4, non-residential signage, to be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 5 of the ULDC, very similar to the previous amendment. And for non-residential parking requirements, they must comply with the ULDC Article 10, unless otherwise specified in the pattern plan or the pattern book. Some additional minor amendments that we've included include the 60 acre former school parcel, adding 21 acres from the realignment of Playmore Road and updating outdated language throughout the pattern plan based on current conditions. There are benefits to this amendment, including simplifying staff review for signs and parking standards, provides additional non-residential uses to Welland Park, and updates outdated language within the pattern plan that is no longer applicable as many of the conditions have changed. With that, we kindly ask for your approval. Thank you.

Thank you. Staff?

IF HE COULD PUT THIS ON THE SCREEN, PLEASE. GOOD MORNING, AGAIN, COMMISSIONERS. FOR THE RECORD, SHERRY WILEK-GRONDON, PLANNER 3, PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION, AND I HAVE BEEN SWORN. THIS ITEM HERE IS THE VILLAGE E, VILLAGE DISTRICT PATTERN PLAN AMENDMENT, PENTITION NUMBER PMCPA 2400000083, FORMERLY BPA-24-083, via Ordinance 2623. And why the difference in the numbers is this was submitted under our old NavAlign system, under the old Unified Land Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan. So this was a transition record, and this is the new record number in our Acela system. Just to provide clarification. So the owner is the Manasota Beach Ranch Lands, LLLP. It is located at the northeast corner of Playmore Road and West Villages Parkway. The property size is approximately 415 acres for total village E. It includes the 60 acre expansion area and the 21 acre Playmore Road alignment. The boundary expansion is to integrate those 60 acres that were formerly owned by the school property into the site and the 21 acre roadway was the Playmore realignment. That was approved by an infrastructure plan amendment for the alignment. It's just putting it in here that way that it's showing on here where that alignment is. So we had to account for that additional acreage. Also, there's some entitlement adjustments. It's going to modify land use entitlements and amends the ULDC to reference the updated pattern plan. In addition, as you heard at the previous item, that we are going to have the established standards for the deemed compliance and the legal non-conforming status prior to the effective date of the ordinance. Since its annexation in 2000, 26 years ago, this pattern plan has undergone the following regulations. So in 2019, via ordinance 2019-25, it established the original village district pattern plan for E. As you can see on the side of the screen, here is the area. Up in the blue at the top, it's the Sarasota Memorial Hospital piece that was brought before this commission to add into the boundary. in 2024. The piece down below, MU5, stands for Mixed Use Area 5. This is where the old school property was located. So that is incorporated into that. So in essence, it's not really adding in an additional 81 acres from somewhere. It's really just shifting everything that was the school property here. So I just wanted to make sure that that was clear. This was submitted May 10th, 2024. So this amendment is governed by the ULDC and the 2020-17 comprehensive plan. NOW, I JUST WANTED TO STATE HERE THAT THERE'S VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE, THE APPLICANT FOR THE 2024 UNIFIED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATES, WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO THE SIGNAGE AND THE PARKING REGULATIONS. SO, UNDER THE OLD CODE, AS COMMISSIONER DUVALL HAS SAID WITH THE NEW ONE, THERE WAS THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS IN THE OLD ULDC TO AMEND THIS. SO, WE ARE FOLLOWING THOSE STANDARDS. IN ADDITION, The net increase of 150,000 non-residential space is balanced by 100-unit residential reduction. What does this mean? The original Village District Pattern Plan E had entitlements for up to 400,000 square feet of non-residential and 1,000 dwelling units. This will reduce the dwelling units to 900 and increase the non-residential component by 150,000 square feet. It's a small increments to that because the goal was to go to that 18% non-residential for the city. And I remember that one of the commissioners had asked from a previous item. So we're at currently about 16% in meeting that 18% goal. IN ADDITION, WE INCLUDED THAT GRANDFATHER PROVISION, IF YOU WILL, JUST FOR SIMPLE NOMINCLATURE FOR THE DEEMED COMPLIANCE THAT WILL LEGALLY PROTECT ALL CURRENT PERMITTING OR PENDING SIGNAGE. AND SOME DOCUMENT CLEANUP IS TO DO THE UPDATES TO THE VILLAGE PATTERN PLAN TO SHOW THIS NEW PARCEL AND THE NEW CONFIGURATIONS WITH ALL OF THE COMPONENTS, THE TRANSPORTATION, ET CETERA, IN THE PATTERN PLAN THAT GOES INTO MORE DETAIL. So the adopted, the future land use map designation is village. The adopted zoning map designation is village. So all of the surrounding areas, there's some vacant commercial, the Playmore District where the Cool Today Park is, the River Road Corridor to the east, and then the State College of Florida, just to give you a point of reference. In addition, this was a multi-department review of the Village A pattern plan. So there was no objection or no response. Now, the only condition that they had, it's not applicable to this point. It will be applicable at the time of the actual site and development plans. And it was by our former stormwater engineer, Elizabeth Wong, when she was employed with the city at the time. She was very specific and she said this amendment is acceptable as long as the amount of revised impervious areas does not exceed the maximum allowable amount in the previously approved stormwater analysis. So compliance with these conditions is required at the time of site development and infrastructure. So at that time of site and development and infrastructure, I just wanted to make it clear for the commission and also for the public to kind of understand, that will have to be reviewed, any changes to that stormwater to ensure that any impacts are directed at that time. The scope of this amendment does not include any impacts to stormwater. Consistency with the comprehensive plan. So future land use goal one, the character and location of land uses and as well as the economic benefit. That's very important. That is something that staff reviews at the time that the application as is when it's brought in. Growth and community access. So the tax roll integration. So it's maximizing this potential of the 60 acre parcel acquired. from the school board in 2021. When the school board own this property, it's exempt from any revenue generating. They are exempt from that. So incorporating this as a non-residential mixed use that will generate additional revenue. ALSO EXPAND COMMUNITY ACCESS TO LOCAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THERE WILL BE SOME RETAIL, MEDICAL INCORPORATED WITHIN THIS COMPONENT. I DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFICS AT THIS POINT. IT SHOULD HELP AN ENVIRONMENT TO TRACK THOSE INDUSTRIES WITHIN THIS LITTLE POD AND IN THIS AREA. AND INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIMIZATION, I DO WANT TO MAKE THIS AS A KEY COMPONENT BECAUSE STAFF ALWAYS EVALUATES WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE IMPACT TO OUR INFRASTRUCTURE, WATER, WASTEWATER, ET CETERA. SO IT'S UTILIZING THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY. IT IS NOT REQUIRING CITY FINANCING FOR UTILITY ROAD OR ANY DRAINAGE EXPANSIONS. Future land use goal one, the character of uses as I'm touching upon the projected fiscal and economic impact. So the revenue is going to increase from what the current property tax revenue is based on this. I'm looking at the county tax was about approximately $26,366. to potentially $62,150, up 135.7% yield. I also included my sources and I cite my sources where I've gotten this information. So the job creation, based on the numbers that I have, it should generate a sustainable workforce capacity estimated at one job per 300 to 500 square feet. Now it's going to be based on what that specific use is. AND I DON'T KNOW THOSE SPECIFIC USES AT THIS TIME. THIS IS VERY CONSERVATIVE IN NATURE. I WANTED TO GO WITH THE LOWER LEVEL JUST SO WE KNOW WITH THE COMPARISON OF WHERE WE WOULD BE. SO IT SHOULD AT ABOUT 16 POINT $5 million in non-residential value to fund public safety and infrastructure with no added tax burden on residents. Entitlement rebalancing reduces residential entitlements from 1,000 to 900 units to minimize long-term demand on municipal residential services. So the sources are also in very great detail. I included tables within the staff report where the sources are. So I had looked at the job projections calculated on standard employment density benchmarks recognized by the Urban Land Institute and the U.S. Energy Information Administration to estimate the capacity based on anticipated uses. So if we had a professional office, it'd be approximately one job per 300 square feet. Medical institution is about one per 350 square feet, and retail is approximately one person per 500 square feet, just to give you an idea. PER THE SARASOTA COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S METHODOLOGY, THE 2026 ESTIMATED SQUARE FOOTAGE EVALUATION FOR 150,000 SQUARE FOOT NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDOUT WAS DETERMINED BY A COMPARABLE BUILDING VALUE OF $16,500,000, RESULTING IN AN EFFECTIVE COST OF $110,000 PER SQUARE FEET. So where did that come from? It was the estimated of 110 per square feet, multiply it by the 150,000, and it comes up with that 6,500,000. So here's the table with the land use status. It's currently vacant, and this is roughly, this is based on our adopted millage rate, and this is the approximate taxable annual revenue. Proposed mixed use, again, at the $16,500,000, the tax rate, it would be that amount. So the net fiscal gain is you're showing that it is, now this is the taxable value, the $9,500,000. It's not saying we're getting $900,000. 9,500,000 in revenue, it's the taxable value. It's very important to distinguish between the two, which would have a plus of 35,784. So there is an economic benefit to this amendment, which is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. economic diversification, and it aligns with the city's mandate to actively increase, diversify, and expand municipal economic tax base. And our progress, as I stated previously, it's towards the 18% that is required for that non-residential component. That was in the comprehensive plan. And so the commercial baseline, it secures that 50-acre expansion under the mixed use. So it's a new mixed use five. MU5. And again, this was the projections and the revenues as I previously stated. So with this amendment, they're also asking for to comply or adopt our signage standards for all signage. Village D was just for wall signage. This is all signage that will have compliance. They will defer to Chapter 5 of the Unified Land Development Code. It applies that content-neutral measurable time, space, and manner limits to mitigate visual clutter. It also grants the deemed compliance, as I stated previously. This is to prevent any unexpected business costs to any of those owners for signage. Policy 5.1G, parking and traffic flow. This refers to the Unified Land Development Code, Chapter 4. Article 10, to guarantee safe, convenient onsite traffic flow, parking capacity, because it will meet our parking standards. Uses the parking standard metrics and also to minimize large asphalt footprints because our standards are a little more stringent also. And it'll free up this parcel space for higher intensity development in public open spaces. So I also want to touch upon the transportation element, the roadways level of service. One component of the comprehensive plan is those level of services. They did do a traffic impact statement. Part of that is included with the commission packet. It was done September 2025. It was evaluated that it would not, it would fit within the existing network capacity, maintaining those adopted level services. Even though that our daily trips are projected to increase by 4,329 trips, it does fall within their acceptable levels to 2030 based on that traffic impact statement, which has been reviewed and evaluated, I'd like to add, by our public works, our transportation engineer as well for validity. So there is going to be zero offsite improvements. And also to note that any maintenance of the roadways falls under Welland Park. The city does not maintain those roadways at all. That falls under Welland Park. It is their responsibility. A LEGAL REVIEW AND BUSINESS IMPACT ESTIMATE. SO ORDINANCE 2023 HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND IS LEGALLY CORRECT AS TO FORM. IN ADDITION, PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE SECTION 166.0414C, A BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT WAS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE THIS ORDINANCE ISN'T ACTED TO IMPLEMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS INITIATED BY AN APPLICANT AN APPLICATION BY A PRIVATE PARTY OTHER THAN THE MUNICIPALITY. SO THIS WAS PRIVATELY NOT, CITY DID NOT, THE CITY DID NOT DRAFT THIS ORDINANCE TO DO IT. SO JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU A NOTICE OF WHAT HAPPENED, THEY DID HOLD A PUBLIC WORKSHOP. THOSE WORKSHOP MATERIALS, THE OUTCOME, THE QUESTIONS THAT IS IN YOUR PACKAGE IN GREAT DETAIL. IT DISCUSSED THE EXPANSION AND THE ATTITLEMENT ADJUSTMENTS. June 30th, 2026, those notices were mailed to the owner and property owners within 1,320 feet and newspaper advertisements were published. The Planning and Zoning Advisory Board on July 16th, 2026 held a meeting. They voted five to zero unanimous to approve the changes to the amendments. The next step is where we're here today for commission for first reading with a proposed adoption hearing for September 22nd. Staff is asking that the commission would approve this ordinance and accompany amendments to the Village E, Village District Pattern Plan for the upcoming city commission meeting for second reading. And staff is here to answer any questions. And I thank you for your time.

Thank you. Rebuttal? Applicant?

I'm actually going to offer rebuttal. and really just points of clarification. Sherry gave a very detailed presentation, but questions that may arise in your minds. She made the comment about city investment. I just want to remind everyone, the city has not invested one penny in any improvement in Welland Park. That's all privately funded, or in some cases we do run things through the West Village Improvement District. Water plant, built by Wallen Park. Wastewater plant, built by Wallen Park. Wastewater plant expansion, which we're starting to design on, built by Wallen Park. All the roadways, built by Wallen Park and WVID. So I just wanted to clarify that because I know it's in vogue just to say, you know, the city's invested funds, they haven't. Two, level of service for the roadway. Yes, there's increased trips with this plan over the prior plan. However, what we could not do in that updated traffic impact statement was to show the significant reduction in densities in the two adjoining villages, villages F and G. Collectively, the reductions are in excess of 1,000 homes in those two. So really, there's a net reduction in traffic, and the level of service actually goes up. But because we were only talking about Village A, we could only show what was happening in Village E, not collectively. What we do at the West Village Improvement District, we literally update our traffic models for full build out till at full build out. So we have a good feeling twice a year where we're heading, what improvements be needed, because we've gotta look long-term which roads need to be widened. We know West Village and Parkway, which has some frontage on this parcel, up 241. Someday we'll be four lane. Probably the trigger will be SMH when they come in, because they will inject significantly more traffic in that area. Again, something we monitor, but just wanted to clarify, overall, traffic is heading down, not up. And last but not least, we show a reduction in residential density down from 1,000 to 900. Part of that 900 number allocated up to 150 units for track H, E, which was planted along River Road. We have entered in a contract for commercial use on that parcel. That purchase, during their due diligence, and that purchase actually is tied to us completing Playmore Road across GCI's property, which I think is Activity Center 8. Yes, activity center eight. So that'll be happening here in the next six to nine months. So what we did is we may have some reduction residential, but we built in the extra 150,000 square feet of commercial for that chance of putting that there. So things are changing from when we started this back a couple years ago, but now we know we're gonna be able to have a commercial use out there at Playmore and River Road. So just more in deep detail to what Sherry brought up, all right? Thank you. Thank you, sir. Staff?

Yes, sir, I do have a rebuttal to the rebuttal. Okay, so I just want to make it very clear. When I evaluate this petition, it's based on what is existing at the time. And the statement that I made is based on that transportation impact statement. So at this point in time, based on that information and for this approval, There are no impacts to the infrastructure. There's no requirement for lift stations, et cetera. So at this point in time, there are no impacts. I just wanted to make that clear on the record. And that is the rebuttal to my rebuttal. Thank you.

Thank you for your rebuttal.

I will not rebuttal her request.

You don't get a chance, sir. Certainly hope not. Public comment? All right. Commission questions? Vice Mayor?

Thank you, Mayor. First, thank you, Mr. Lusinski, for your rebuttal. For the record, I was going to ask you to clarify exactly how infrastructure expansions are funded in Welland Park. And yes, there's been misunderstanding across the City of Northport, our taxpayers, on how that's done. So thank you very much for that. I'll also comment that I'm frankly delighted with the adjustments in this plan. It's long been recognized by this city that we need to bring more jobs to the city of Northport and that we need to expand our commercial footprint in order to relieve some of the tax burden on our homeowner taxpayers. So for those two reasons, I'm heartily grateful supportive of these changes to Village E. Thanks.

Commissioner Duvall.

Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I heard the name Elizabeth Wong. She's no longer here and her footprint is still being seen. That shows the quality of employee that she was for this city, and she has missed. Anyone who's been around the city for a while, you know, I've been here for 18 years, and I had dealings with Ms. Wong, and I know how valuable she was. Secondly, when Mr. Lazinski first started speaking, he mentioned about... The ballpark and the high school, you know, and now we see where, and it's a beautiful facility, that high school that is now there and it's in the right. Well, you know, depending on who you are, if I was a high school kid, I'd still want it back across from the ballpark. But for everybody else, that was a great change. And as Mr. Lazinski stated, Well, in part bought that property back from the school district. And it's been repurposed. Now I'm one of these people that. If everything was up to me. Well, in part would still be. Trees and animals. But that's not reality. You know, people are moving to Florida, people are coming to Florida, and just from my experience with any dealings with the developers of Welland Park, they get it done right. And I think this is an example of making the proper adjustments. Thanks for that.

Commissioner Petro?

Yes, I have a couple of things. So this ordinance entails the change in entitlements and reducing residential and increasing commercial from whatever the number was, but increasing the commercial by 150 square feet. And on slide eight, what is it in the total area of a score footage or acreage as far as we reducing by exact or we still have some leftovers from both designations?

Okay, so the 60 acre parcel that we're adding in from the school board property in here, they're proposing to increase the non-residential by 150,000 square feet in that area. SO UNDER THE CURRENT VILLAGE DISTRICT PATTERN PLAN, THEIR ALLOCATION FOR SQUARE FEET IS 400,000. SO THIS WILL INCREASE THE TOTAL TO 550,000 SQUARE FEET. AND IN ADDITION TO REDUCING THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT FROM 1,000 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THAT'D BE ALL ACROSS VILLAGE E TO THE 900.

Does it have to be rezoned or this ordinance covers that, or this new master plan concept, whatever you call it, as opposed to pattern plan?

do we have to do rezoning from shifting from residential no sir no rezoning no it's it's all been zoned the village that's no rezoning no change and just to understand it's not it's it's incorporating the 60 acres into village e but those 60 acres were part of the well in park we're just putting it in here for the village e to add that non-residential square feet

And I have another question for Mr. Lozinski and this question for your rebuttal. So how does the infrastructure expansion is funded? And you said it clearly that it's funded by the developer. but the city reimburses the developer through the impact fees. And how much is it on a dollar per, if you do a ratio that's 50 cents per dollar on a dollar? And I'm specifically referring to stuff like lift station, wastewater, whatever, all those infrastructure components. You do get reimbursed. And my question is how much?

Okay. I can't give the exact dollar values, but I can get you darn close. On traffic, as you know, the impact fees must be spent in that area. So by Nexus, they need to come back into the Welland Park area. Those dollars, we have spent, as of April this year, $160 million on roads. Just the collector roads, not any subdivision roads. I believe as of June 1st of this year, the city has reimbursed us through impact fees, $16 million. So basically we have received about 10 cents on every dollar we've spent. Great deal.

But it's pending, right?

It is spent, all receipts, all lien waivers have been reviewed by, we've been provided to the city and been reviewed. Lift stations reimbursement, zero. We do get back ERC payments, which are cap-on fees for the repayment of building the wastewater treatment plant, and the same goes for a water plant. The phase one wastewater treatment plant was repaid in full. That money's now coming and sitting in escrow for the planned expansion between expanding the wastewater plant from two million gallons a day to 4 million gallons a day, plus the contemplated project to bring additional reclaim from the Pan America wastewater plant to Welland Park to address the city's $18 million issue of INI Those two combined are anticipated to be about $40 million and will be ultimately repaid by hopefully the ERCs. Hopefully we'll have enough ERCs to repay that. All right, so that again, fully paid. And remember, when I say we're paid, we not only advance the money, we don't charge the city a penny of interest. It's a zero interest loan. just like we did with the fire station, police substation, the public safety building. They're all, you know, so that's a pretty good deal. Federal government don't even give a deal that good. All right. Was there another part diagnosed? Did I hit all the questions on your?

Yeah, yeah. Well, the one that I was asking for more clarification as far as the, you said you've been reimbursed partially, but there is a pending reimbursement as well, so is it?

Pending for what?

When you said, I think you said the lift stations, I forget which one.

Lift station, there has never been any reimbursements on any lift station. There's pending, annually the city reimburses for road, for impact fees collected in the prior 12 months. So generally I will submit a bill. It basically shows what we spent here today. I send it to the city generally around April 1st, generally by June 1st, we get a reimbursement. So if the city collects $5 million, there's a cost share. I think right now we're at 80%. The city, if they had five million in their coffers to reimburse us that year, they would submit, send us back four million dollars, keep a million dollars for use of roadways elsewhere in the city. That follows the roadway reimbursement agreement we entered into March of 2020.

So it was 160 million for the roads that you- 160 million, which was,

That's the approximate number was invested as of April 1 of this year. We believe that full build out will be close to 200 million. That does not include our investments we've made on River Road. Just to remind everybody, to date, we are the only entity, public or private, that have invested any money in South River Road. We advanced the county $7.3 million for the engineering design and permitting of that road.

Once it's fully built out for, you said, 200 million, how much is projected in your estimation to be collected from the city through the impact?

We will be lucky if we get 40 cents on the dollar. 40 cents. I mean, we're roughly 11,000 homes in and we've received $16 million. Now granted, you know, on the Thomas 167, the Bendison commercial, the couple hospitals coming, those are high payers of traffic impact fees. Hopefully, you know, we're gonna see a big jump in that number, but I don't think we ever get more than 30 or 40% back.

Okay, that's all. Thank you.

Closing arguments, staff?

Thank you, Commissioners. As previously stated, staff is asking that the Commission would approve the ordinance to continue to second reading based on the information and the facts presented before you. Thank you.

Thank you. Applicant?

We request approval of our VDPP amendment, thank you. I thank you.

I'm gonna close this public hearing and request a motion.

Move to continue ordinance 2026-23 to second reading on September 22nd, 2026. Second.

I have a motion made to continue ordinance number 2026-23 to second reading on September 22nd, 2026 by Commissioner Stokes, seconded by Vice Mayor. If there's nothing to that, please vote. That passes five to zero. All right, it's almost 1210. We'll come back from lunch at 1245. We're at recess.

For me, you know, being a Northport resident, there was really not a whole lot in Northport.

You know, and different fixes, different buckets. It all requires, you know, different lengths, widths, trailers the same way. Right.

So it's great. Yeah. Well, you do a great job, and we appreciate it. Thanks for everything. Thank you very much. Yeah, absolutely. Your work does not go unappreciated.

Thank you.

last stop was matt the vehicle we were working on the one used by the city manager's office happened to be due for a service perfect timing every vehicle comes in to the shop doesn't matter if it's a police fire uh office personnel anything we do a full uh inspection on the vehicle no matter what it is we'll we'll start from the back and usually work our way to the front checking all shocks suspensions leaf springs if they have them axles brakes, whatever it is that we may come encounter that we see a normal wear and tear item. It's just because the vehicle's new doesn't mean it's good. A lot of times we see some of the newer vehicles have parts that fail, so we make sure we check everything pretty thoroughly and stuff like that.

Tires are a big part of it, and they tell you more than you think.

Anything below 330 seconds is automatic replacement. And then we check the difference between the front and the rear in case the tires have to be rotated. We got a little tire gauge that we usually pull out and we stick right in the center tread. And we'll check. It's up to 1130 seconds. And we check the outside, too, because a tire will tell you a lot of information on how a vehicle is wearing, possibly any suspension issues, pulling, or any possible any parts replacements that need to be worn out.

These are terms I've heard of when I've had to pay the bill, but not actually knowing exactly, seeing them in real life.

Every vehicle is a little different.

Every tire pressure in the city is always different.

All right, it's 1245 and we're back at it. Mayor, just a quick comment.

Commissioner Petro, thank you very much because I have to tell you, like, there's been always so much conversation about West villages and how, you know, whether or not Northport taxpayers help to fund up there. So I do appreciate you adding some clarity to it because it allow. You know, Mr. to explain that and and, um. You know, that does help because, uh. making plenty of money, but at least it ain't coming out of our North Port taxpayers' pockets, so appreciate it.

All right, moving on to Ordinance 2026-24. I request a motion to direct the City Clerk to read by title only.

Second.

I have a motion made by Commissioner Stokes, seconded by Vice Mayor, to have the City Clerk read by title only. Nothing to that. Please vote. And that passes five to zero. City Clerk.

Ordinance number 2026-24, an ordinance of the City of North Port Florida repealing Chapter 4, Article 10 of the Code of the City of North Port Florida, thereby disbanding the Historic and Cultural Advisory Board, providing for findings, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, providing for codification, and providing an effective date.

Alrighty, and this is your item, Ms. Faust.

Yes, on July 21st, 2026, Commission discussed this board and their lack of membership at that time. They only had one member left remaining on the board and Commission directed me to draft an ordinance disbanding the historic board.

All right, Commission questions, discussion? You got public comment?

I'm so sad that this is on the agenda again, this poor advisory board. For almost a year and a half, I've been sending the board information on really we need to take a look at these advisory boards, why they're remaining empty. How can we get people on them and interested in serving? And that was supposed to be an agenda item last year. I think we're still working on it, but it definitely needs to be a workshop for everybody to look at how we can get more people involved in these advisory boards. Maybe we need to combine some advisory boards. Maybe we need to look at the criteria for some of these advisory boards. I mean, this is an important advisory board, but because of the lack of participation in quorum issues, we have to repeal it. But do we really have to repeal it? Can we not just temporarily suspend it while we maybe schedule a workshop to really go over these advisory boards and see what we can do to influence more participation on these boards? And then also the memos and the recommendations that I had given to the commission last year to take a look at again and see what we can really do. Because these are important. All these advisory boards are important. We need citizen input on these boards. And then their voices need to really be taken seriously. for the recommendations and memos that are given to the commission. So instead of just repealing it and getting rid of this again, can we just temporarily suspend it until we can really figure out all the different aspects of these advisory boards and why we have such low participation and vacancies available all the time? That would be my recommendation to this board. Please reconsider just temporarily suspending it until we have a workshop. Thank you.

Thank you. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal to disband the historic and cultural advisory board. Dismantling this vital entity would undermine our community's ability to protect, conserve, and raise public awareness of the priceless historic and cultural resources that define our identity. The advisory board serves as an indispensable asset to our local government and bridges the gap between official policymakers and the community, ensuring that growth and modern development do not come at the expense of our heritage. Without the dedicated oversight and expert recommendations of this board, we risk permanently losing the unique cultural landscapes, historical structures, and public art installations that make our community a vibrant place to live and visit. Rather than dissolving the board due to temporary hurdles such as membership fluctuations or community engagement dips, our leadership should actively invest in revitalizing it. I urge you to reject any measures to dissolve this advisory group and instead launch targeted efforts to recruit passionate community volunteers and restore the board to full capacity. Thank you for your time, your leadership, and your continued commitment to preserving the historic integrity of our community. I strongly urge you to vote against the disbandment of the Historic and Cultural Advisory Board. And that's all.

I move to direct the City Clerk to temporarily suspend the Historic and Cultural Advisory Board until further notice.

Second for discussion.

I have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Petro, seconded by Vice Mayor.

Refresh my memory, City Clerk. We suspended this board once already. Could you go through that for us again?

We did suspend it for a year because at that time it was down to one member again, and we held a meeting with Good commission, and then members of the community, such as having a blank in my. Stern, Chris Turner, Joe Morgan and those, I think there was like 3 people who came out for it and we decided they said they would be able to find people to join the board. So we brought it back and find people to join the board. But over time, it has slowly dwindled away. I will say the same things that the board discussed when we brought it back for the time from since I think it was 2024 till now. The things that they discussed are the same things that that board was discussing since 2019 when I first got here. And it was just the same three things, the historic designations for the turpentine dock area, some railroad, something or other. And so those were the only things that were recommended to commission. Those times were to keep those in talking with development services. I don't know the details. You'd have to ask them. But there's so many things that that board cannot do that they wanted to do by making these historic designations. I guess state statute or our code, I'm not sure which one of them. Ms. Ray stated that they could not do these certain things that they wanted to do in the manner they wanted to do them. And the board just dwindled down to one member. It was Harry Klinkhammer. And that's an overall summary.

There's nothing else. Let's vote. And that fails three to two. I'll be looking for another motion. Yeah, I'll make it. I move to continue ordinance number 2026-24, the second reading of September 22nd, 2026.

Second.

I have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Stokes to continue ordinance number 2026-24, the second reading on September 22nd, 2026. If there's nothing to that, please vote. And that passes four to one with Commissioner Petro dissenting. Would you like to comment on your dissension?

I just, you know, we can continue to have it suspended until further notice.

Okay, moving on to Ordinance 2026-29. I need a motion to direct the City Clerk to read by title only.

Second.

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

Ordinance number 2026-29, an ordinance of the City of Northport, Florida, amending the non-district budget for fiscal year 2025 through 2026 for increased impact fee revenue and reimbursement in the amount of $200,000, providing for findings, providing for posting, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing an effective date.

Thank you.

City Manager, this is your item. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The Millport Fire Rescue Department is requesting an increase of $200,000 to the Fire Impact Feed Fund revenue expenditure budgets to reflect anticipated additional impact fee revenue and provide sufficient budget for the corresponding developer reimbursement payment required under the West Villages Post Annexation Developer Agreement. Reimbursement payments are based on actual impact fee revenues received. We ask that you choose option one today, which is approval ordinance number 2026-29 as presented and moved to second reading on September 22nd, 2026. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Commission questions?

Discussion? City Clerk, public comment?

No, none on this side.

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

I'll make it. Go ahead. I move to continue ordinance number 2026-29 to second reading on September 22nd, 2026. Second.

I have a motion on the floor to continue ordinance 2026-29 to second reading on September 22nd, 2026 made by Vice Mayor, seconded by Commissioner Duvall. If there's nothing to that, please vote. That passes five to zero. Moving on to resolution, resolution number 2026-R-54. Ms. Faust, can you read by title only, please?

Resolution number 2026-R-54, a resolution of the City of Northport, Florida, amending city commission policy 2020-02, related to the issuance of ceremony items, including key to the city, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing an effective date.

Thank you. Commission questions? Or you introduce the item. Go ahead, ma'am. Yes.

So I brought this item to commission before and this is the resolution to update the policy based on the commission direction. I did speak with during the one-on-ones and or the agenda briefings and Commissioner Stokes did bring something to my attention and that was that I had it to be presented in November, June and November. Which looking at it now, it would be right after the years that we have an election year that commissioners will be leaving. So I did include a motion on your suggested motions to change that inside this policy to have it presented in the months of March and October.

Commission questions? Commissioner Stokes.

Yeah, I just want to thank you, City Clerk, because this will allow, you know, for it not to interfere. So we wouldn't have a situation if we had new commissioners on when we were actually, like, say, you know, issuing a key to the city to someone, and they may not have had anything to do with the actual vote or agreement. It kind of just moves in a couple months or months or so. So thank you very much.

Makes sense. Nobody else? Public comment? All right, I'm going to close this public hearing and request a motion.

I'll make it. I move to adopt resolution number 2026-R-54 as presented.

There should be a second motion down there, Commissioner DeValle, to make those changes that I just spoke to. The as presented one has the dates, the months to present that in November. So I changed it. So there's a second suggested motion on there.

Okay. So I move to adopt resolution number 2026-R. Audio.

Is your mic on? It's flashing over here.

I moved to a resolution 2026 54 as amending section 3. C2 to read the city commission will consider a complete qualifying request for a key to the city twice per year during a scheduled city commission meeting in the months of February and September for presentation in March and October. A key to the city may only be issued upon a majority.

Thank you. I have a motion made on the floor made by Commissioner Stokes.

I'll second that. You would like to second it, sir?

Okay. Yes, sir. And it's been seconded by Commissioner Duvall. If there's nothing to that, please vote. And that passes five to zero. Moving on to general business. Item 26-0975, Discussion and possible action regarding accepting a donation of $8,534.32 from the Kiwanis Club of Northport for the purchase and installation of display exhibits and associated materials for a storybook stroll at Pine Park located at 4556 McKibbin Drive, Northport, Florida 34287. City Manager, this is your item.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Based on your reading, we ask that you choose option one, which is to accept the donation of $8,534.32 from the Kiwanis Club of Northport for the purchase and installation of display exhibits and associated materials to support a storybook stroll at Pine Park located at 4556 McKibbin Drive in Northport 34287. And we're happy to answer any questions you may have. Questions, Commissioners?

Vice Mayor?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a comment. This program has been a long time coming, and I'm delighted that it's happening. And I think McKibben Park is exactly the right place to have the storybook stroll. I've seen them in other places, and they're really pretty wonderful. So thank you to Kiwanis for that donation.

Just for correction, it's Pine Park on McKibben Drive.

What did I say?

McKibben Park.

Oh, okay.

You're in the right area.

We're having a tough time, aren't we, Commissioner?

If there's nobody else, do we have any public comment?

Hi, commissioners. About six years ago, I was at a Kiwanis convention, and that's where they were talking about Storybook Stroll. I had never heard of it before, and all of a sudden, as I was sitting there, I was like, oh my goodness, we could do this in Northport. And while it shouldn't take that long to come up with eight, nine thousand dollars. We had things like hurricanes and other things that have prevented us from getting the money to you guys quicker. But we did apply for some grants and I'd like to tell you that the kids that live in that Pine Park neighborhood go to Glen Allen and Lamarck Elementary School. They're at 50 to 80% free and reduced lunch. That means that they are already getting help with reading and math and science because they're potentially a little bit deficient in that. So we like that Storybook Stroll will offer them a free book and will offer them the ability to read something different. We love the fact that we were able to partner with the City Parks and Recreation and we also would love to in the future when it is actually built have a day for kids and the Kiwanis Club will give out books. And our president, Jacqueline, is here. She actually has the money. So thank you very much for your consideration.

You can turn that over to the commission. We will keep it in good keeping. Anything else? Would you like to say a few words?

Thank you so much for accepting our check. Appreciate it. I look forward to working with Parks and Rec and everyone. Thank you.

And if we can, City Clerk, if we put them on our next proclamation meeting, they have a big check that they would like to present to Parks and Rec on that day when we do our awards and proclamations, if we could schedule that. Thank you. I'll request a motion.

Omega.

Go ahead.

I move to accept a donation of $8,534.32 from the Kiwanis Club of Northport for the purchase and installation of display exhibits and associated materials to support a storybook stroll at Pine Park located at 4556 McKibben Drive.

I have a motion on the floor made by Vice Mayor. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second by Commissioner Stokes. If there's nothing to that, please vote. And that passes five to zero. Thank you very much Kiwanis Club of Northport. Moving on to item B26-1021, discussion and possible action regarding Art Advisory Board Recommendation Memorandum for Halligan Sculpture Project. Ms. Voss, this is your item.

On March 26, 2024, Commission approved this art installation by Mr. Halligan and we paid him two payments, about $13,695 each, So he's been paid twice, and it totaled $27,390, and he has not completed the project. So the art board recommended that commission direct the city attorney to see what action can be taken to get the money back for Mr. Halligan.

Okay. Has he made any types of intent? I mean, is he in the middle of the process? Do we have any communications process?

Yes, we do. I don't know the exact details on it. Sandy, somebody might know.

Mr., Mr. Halligan has said that he is not able to complete the project at all. Okay. So, recouping that money should be our main recourse of action. Absolutely. No, that's fine.

I just didn't know what process we were in, so. Commission questions, discussions? City Clerk, public comment? I'm going to request a motion. I'll make it. Go ahead.

I move to direct City Attorney to send a demand letter to Mr. Halligan for the incomplete project.

I have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Stokes. Do I have a second?

Second.

Seconded by Vice Mayor. If there's nothing to that, please vote. That passes five to zero. Moving on to item 26-1025, discussion and possible action regarding Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommendation memorandum for Canine Club Rainbow Bridge and Circle of Honor Wetland Conservation. And Ms. Foss, this is your item.

Yes, this is also another memorandum from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. I believe that... Sandy Funhiller does have more information on this as well.

Okay, the other one will do it. We know Sandy's the information keeper, that's cool.

Trish Sturgis, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director, as well as liaison to the Park and Rec Advisory Board. So, two items came forward to the Park and Rec Advisory Board from the public. One was a conservation area for the wetlands located behind the Circle of Honor, asking and requesting that that area be set as a conservation zone through our Planning and Zoning Board. basically would be the start of preserving some of that area. We did speak with Public Works, and it is owned by Road and Drainage, and there's no intended use for that parcel, so it would not affect them if we were to do that. Item one. Second item is a rainbow bridge. Another item brought forward by a community member and presented to the Park and Rec Advisory Board. The idea was a very large scale one located in North Carolina, and it had some problems with the initial projection. They were looking at the Myakkahatchee Creek Environmental Park During times of high water, hurricanes, we could have a lot of items that are lost, missing, that type of thing. So we kind of talked through the process and they kind of landed on a small footbridge that would be located into the canine club that's already existing. The plaques could be purchased through the city's tribute existing program where you could memorialize your pet at that bridge. So we're looking at approximately a $1,500 cost and we would be looking to probably locally get some donations towards those materials.

I had a question about that because I've seen some of these and pictures of them. And with that little footbridge in there now, would it be allowable for the citizens, because sometimes they'll put their memorandum of their collars from their pets on that to display, would we allow that and be able to do that?

We currently have an ordinance that no personal property is permitted to be left in parks, so that would be prohibitive of that ordinance, which is why we aligned it with the tribute program, where they could actually purchase an installed plaque on the actual bridge.

Well, we may have to look into that a little bit further down the road because I don't want it to be like, okay, yes, you got to get this plaque from Parks and Rec. It may not mean as much to them as leaving the collar there for other participants. So, we'll look into that in the future. The other one that I had too was about the conservation area. I feel that that's a great opportunity to be able to utilize this property and just leave it be and let nature take over and you know, just leave it like that because it does, it is part of the circle of honor. So, I mean, I appreciate that for this coming up. Commissioner Duvall.

Thank you, Mayor. When I had my agenda briefing with staff. I asked about the Rainbow Bridge, about the cost to the city of maintenance. We gotta pay to have it built and it's gotta be, staff has to mow around it, it's gonna need painting. And I was assured by staff that the items bought from the city, in memoriam of people's pets to be placed on the bridge would cover those costs. You know, I was originally against this Rainbow Bridge just because of the maintenance and the cost and whatever, but staff advised me, you know, that that would be covered. The second one, the conservation area, there's basically a drainage pond behind there. And I have talked with citizens. And as part of the circle of honor, it would be a walk around there, just part of a repose and reflection to be added to the honor circle. So I think that's a good thing.

That's all folks. Vice Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would suggest whoever wants to make a motion on this item that we separate the two because they might be a little different, you know, one on the Rainbow Bridge and one on the wetland conservation. I think the wetland conservation, I also have chatted with multiple people on that, and I agree, for me, it's a no-brainer. The Rainbow Bridge, I have mixed feelings, so I like the approach of tying it into our tribute program because it would help fund that. But I also get that people might wanna leave the collar of their pets. So particularly on that item, I'm very interested in what other commissioners have to say. I'm a little on the fence about that. I'm done.

Commissioner Petro.

Thank you, Mayor. I concur with Vice Mayor Langdon on separating the two. And on Canine Club-Rainbow Bridge, I have a question. There was no demand of buying by our citizens, you know, a place or plaque, whatever you call it. to place it there and yet we, the city, have to maintain that and do all this work at the taxpayer's money, at the taxpayer's expense. So what if there was no demand? As Commissioner Duvall said, the staff assured him that there would be a recouping of the cost by this venue, but what if there's no demand? How do we know for sure what happens tomorrow? What if people not gonna be interested in doing that?

I think we have a good market in the people who frequent the Canine Club already. However, if there was not the lumber, that would be our initial ask would be for donations from some of our local building organizations. And that wood could be used in other ways within the park system. There's always boards that have to be replaced on boardwalks or other things. So if there wasn't, it would be an easy removal. It's approximately a six to eight foot dry bridge. It's not a very large composition.

We have quite a few questions. cross walking bridges in the city and to maintain and repair or reconstruct. We've seen that those costs can be very expensive. So I'm just like, I'm on the fence with this one as well. So I'm open to see what other commissioners. have to say but it's no offense to pet lovers and it's just more of a responsibility of our responsible use of our taxpayers money for that project. Thank you, ma'am.

Well, the way that I look at it is just like if we put up a swing set in a park, you know, we've got to maintain that and take care of that. We've got monumental benches out there in memory of so-and-so that You know, I believe that the maintenance on this is maybe painted every five years if needed and weeded around it. So you're talking about a two minute job. So I don't, I don't see the big issue on maintenance on this itself, you know, and if, if it comes down to crunch time, I'm sure a volunteer would come in and paint the thing in probably a half an hour. So that's the way I look at it. I think it's, I think it's a great idea. And we got the pet owners out there that may be a little subsection of our community that really liked us. I understand it's not everybody's cup of tea, but I'm a pet owner. I would appreciate it, you know, to have a memorial for my pet.

And just to be clear, it's not a bridge that's constructed for certain levels of traffic. It's more of a decorative bridge, small, and it's gonna be set not where people would be using it to cross a waterway.

All right, do we have, did we do public comment yet?

There is no public comment, and there are two separate suggested motions for each item.

You're ahead of the game, aren't you? All right, I'm gonna request a motion.

I'll take a shot at one of them. Go ahead. And that is move to direct city manager to evaluate placing the wetland portion of parcel identification number 097 900, 2000 under conservation as part of the circle of honor, including any necessary legal environmental survey, land management, maintenance, and budget considerations, and to bring the proposed implementation back to the city commission for consideration.

Second. I have a motion on the floor made by Vice Mayor, seconded by Commissioner Stokes. If there's nothing to that, please vote. That passes five to zero. I need another motion. I move to direct the City Manager to develop the details necessary to implement the installation of a rainbow bridge at the Canine Club including amending the administrative regulations for the tribute program to include the purchase of plaques for pet owners to purchase in memory of their deceased pets and also including the creation of related procedures, standards, applicable materials, cost recovery fees, and to bring the proposed implementation plan back to the City Commission for consideration.

We have a motion on the floor made by our esteemed... What is your title? Mayor.

Oh, yeah.

I can't believe you made it city manager.

I'm the mayor of Rice. No, no, two months.

So we have a motion on the floor to move the city manager to develop the details necessary to implement the installation of a rainbow bridge at the Canine Club. City Clerk, do you have the rest of that? Made by our city mayor. Do I hear a second? Seconded by Commissioner Duval. If there's no more to that, let's vote. And that motion passes 5-0. Thank you, ma'am.

You did good, by the way.

We're all having a tough day.

I think Commissioner Duvall is rubbing off on us here. Alright, moving on to item D26-1051. Discussion and possible action regarding enacting unified land development code use regulations concerning data centers. This was requested by Commissioner Stokes. Says Ms. Voss is going to introduce this item. I just said that, but thank you very much for introducing. Commissioner Stokes, this is your item.

Well, in our discussions about data centers, we've already kind of discussed the idea of regulation, and I think there's been plenty of Initial discussion about how Bill, 484 180 Albert Harris will interact and who has priority and what we can legally do and what we can't legally do. And none of that is the concern of this particular item for discussion possible action. In my mind, it was to formally give direction to the city attorney. To go out and work diligently in a timely fashion to draft for an action, a set of gold standard regulations, whether it includes well protections. I don't care. I want it to be an incredibly. strong set of regulations that address water, power, air quality, and sound that are within the law for you to bring back to us on a monthly basis update in a workshop so that the public as well as commission can provide some input and thought. This should be a transparent process to put together whatever we can put together As far as regulations, irrespective. Of their legal strength or lack of legal strength. That's not my concern. We need to write regulations and we also perhaps need to bear in mind that. As a city, we have not yet dealt with industrial development here to any extent. And I think part of this process should be to take a look as well at. Regulation that addresses. Industrial development as well, because data centers may be only 1 of a number of types of projects, industrial projects that may come before us. They have impact on the environment on the water on sound on all these same areas and they need to be addressed as a city. We need to. put them together, we need to bring them before the commission and the public for everybody's input, and then figure out what we want to write. Whether we can enact this before 180 runs out or not is separate and apart, a discussion that we could talk about for a century and never solve, because that's going to be adjudicated in the court of law, I have no doubt, at some point. But we need these regulations. So I'm happy to hear what everybody else on this diocese because we need to give clear direction and get this process going in my book. Thank you, Mayor. Vice Mayor?

Thank you, Mayor. City Attorney, it was my understanding that we already gave you this direction in the reading of the ordinance, so I guess I'm asking for your understanding of where the direction to create those regulations are.

Well, you haven't passed the ordinance yet.

Second reading pending. Right.

And then I guess this is a decent discussion to talk about. Do you want the regulations just to be targeted towards data center or do you want it to be towards a larger industrial use? If you do it towards a larger industrial use, it may take longer to write something like that and it may be easier to focus on data centers first and then bring something back later. But that's all for your discussion.

I'm very much inclined to focus on data centers now since it's such an immediate issue. I also have some concerns and some thoughts about how we should proceed in that industrial use category that personally I don't feel equipped to have a conversation on that today. So my Suggestion would be that we focus on data centers. I think we have all acknowledged that when, I'm assuming, when we approve the moratorium, one of the most important pieces of work is getting those regulations and guardrails in place and voted on and into our ULDC and that we do that as quickly as possible. I don't know if monthly is the right timeframe. I'm kind of open to that, but I'd be interested in what my fellow commissioners have to say.

Commissioner Duvall.

Thank you, Mayor. I'll answer Vice Mayor's question first. is appropriate. Additional to Commissioner Stokes comments, you know, he talked about water quality, okay? Quantity has to also be part of this, okay? You know, we all know there's a number of, yeah, a number. There are a lot of properties in this city that are on wells. And if we have any kind of industry that's going to lower the water table, that alone can affect thousands of people in this city. And I'm sure that as a city attorney works on things, he can come up with some other things. One of my thoughts would be to compare regulations from other cities. regarding pick the best practices on the way that we can protect this city from consequences that we really don't wanna have. That's it for me. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Commissioner Petro.

Thank you, Mayor. I was specifically going to focus with the subject of water, and I concur with Vice Mayor Langton and Commissioner Duvall on the monthly updates or monthly schedule, if you will, about talking about this stuff. But if we go back and look at the water... water is such a vital component of our lives. 70% of each one of us consists more or less of water. And if we drink contaminated or bad quality water, the quality of life and everybody's affected. With this large scale data center, I just wonder what motivates the people more than the quality of life and it's obviously in this case in my personal perception is money and if you specifically said that also crypto mining whatever capability of this data center so crypto mining is one of the most profitable mining of modern days you know technology and probably easiest but we cannot sacrifice our quality of life. And I specifically wanna move us in the direction of looking into this subject, and that is water. The Florida Statute 373.262 specifically governs large-scale data centers. It requires their water use to be consistent with local zoning and comprehensive plan. And it says, a water allocation permit may not be issued when the proposed use would be harmful to the area's water resources. And water depletion is one of them, or prohibited by applicable local regulations. So in my view, we should be focused to the welfare of our citizens. And like we, and I was gonna mention the same thing about water wells. A lot of people in our vicinity, in our area are on water wells. It's either going to deplete them or, and it depends on the scale of this large scale data center. We don't even know how big it is. We know the square footage. We know the building footprint, but we don't know if it's 50 megawatts, if it's 40, if it's 30, if it's 70. And with the proposed plans of how it's going to be done, whether it's a substation or whatever, water is still going to be used. So I just wanted to direct our... attention and maybe make a motion to direct the city attorney specifically look into that as legally authorized, evaluate and do water study and of any large-scale data centers. To do crypto mining, you have to have a large-scale data center, hyperscale, not just data center. That brings me to all this notion that I'm against data centers. I'm not. Data center is data center. Large-scale, hyperscale data center is different. type of animal. With the evidence that we have seen from the discussion up to this point, that even the developer does not know all the details and when we had the workshop, we could not really get the answers because it would be project specific or depends on the project. We did not know, you know, the direction of the developer, what it's going to be. So having said all that, I want to direct the city attorney, you know, to the specific area of water to do the, as, as legally as possible to restrict, condition, or deny approval of any proposed large-scale data center within the city. You know, because of water resource protections for us, for humans, as opposed to you know, profit driven goals. And I'm open for, you know, to listen to my fellow commissioners, how to direct the city attorney or is it Commissioner Stokes, does your proposition, does it include that? I just want it to be more detailed oriented when we talk about the water. Thank you, Mayor.

Vice Mayor.

I just have a question for Commissioner Stokes. Is it your intention to enable this work to begin before second reading, to kind of pull these regulations out the moratorium language. I mean, we can leave it in there, but you know what I'm saying, to accelerate the development.

It was my intention to give firm direction to begin right now, because irrespective of this application or any application or any other industrial uses, I agree. Let's start with data centers, but we need to do this and we need to get to work on it. And it is going to be a process because as we can see, none of us know exactly what to ask for yet. And we don't even know what's involved in this particular application yet. But I would say that we need to begin somewhere. And that's what I'm trying to do is give direction to start this process. And then see it evolve. That's why I think the monthly updates are important in a workshop environment, because not only will we have good ideas and questions to ask, but so will the general public. And this process needs to include everybody because this kind of development in our city affects everybody. And it can't be done in the dark. It can't be done by any one group. It needs to be done collectively by everybody to see that the health and welfare of the city is protected. So it's a long way of answering your question. Yeah.

Yes, that's your answer. That's it. Are you?

All right. The one thing that I'm sort of concerned about is, I understand the monthly, I agree with the monthly updates, but depending on how far we go, I got no issues with having it at a workshop, but what if there's just not enough information as we move along to where we could use at least an agenda item to go ahead and discuss it. I just wanted to put that out there to where if he's only got like a five-minute update, we're not really going to hash it out to have a special meeting as a workshop. Public's still invited, public's still invited to be involved, give public comment, but instead of having a full-blown workshop for little information, put it as an agenda item. I just want the the attorney to have that as

I just want to make sure. Just so that on a monthly basis, whether it's part of a meeting agenda, whether it's an agenda item, or whether it's a workshop, that we all are a part of this process. I don't even wait six months to get a pile of regulations that nobody's had any input on. We should be part of this process. That's all.

I just hate to see putting together a workshop if there's a five minute update and then Yeah, if the citizens have their chance to speak, then we got the update and they're like, well, why don't we come here for five minutes? You know, that's all. I just hate to see it get like that. Commissioner Petro.

Yes, I just want to say that monthly would be perfect. I would not go further apart than the monthly time frame just because, you know, if it's a five-minute, we'll do agenda item in a regular meeting. But if it's more, we can, depending on the amount, But I would not want to wait two months and, you know, technology itself is evolving so fast by the minute. I mean, every time there's an invention, by the time we're going to come back in two months, they come up with some other plans that we have not thought about it. So that's just my opinion. But also I have a question for the Mayor and for the rest of the Commission. Do we give a specific direction to our city attorney as of right now? What do we want to be more focused on? I mentioned the statute 373.262, and I'm sure you probably looked into that, and that's the water thing, regulation about large-scale data centers on water. Uh, do we be, how do, how specific do we go right now? Oh, I'm sorry.

Right now, the city attorney is in the queue. I'm going to allow him to answer the question first for you for legality reasons. City attorney.

Thank you, manager. Excuse me. Uh, and just so, There's a number of things going on. I don't mind taking the lead. I'm happy to take the lead on drafting it, but it's got to be a collaborative effort within the city with the manager's staff as well because the UDLC is administered by the staff. So I'm going to need that input. If we want to do studies and such like that, that's fine as well. We're going to have to decide who's going to pay for that and when. I've never budgeted. I haven't budgeted money. for a study. So we have to decide where that one is going to come from. And then, like I said, most importantly, so we have to ask, I think there should be some direction from both our staffs. I don't know how the manager feels about it, but it does need to come from both of us, I believe, because it can't just be me, because I'm going to be right in law that they're going to have to administer.

Well, and also, I mean, going that route, that would mean that this could be the first part of your process moving forward. We're going to put all the ducks in order. What do we want to do? This is part of you gathering the information on where we want to go as well. So putting a plan together is probably stage one. But go ahead, Commissioner Stokes.

And good point, Mayor, because that's why this needs to be a collaborative process. The 1st is to come up with a plan on how we're going to attack this and I don't disagree city attorney that there needs to be input. And I should have added that not just input from this commission input from the public input from staff and input most importantly from 3rd party professionals. who have perhaps walked this walk before in other jurisdictions because I truly do believe that level of objectivity and transparency is important here because there have been many allegations made, personally I feel unfairly, but nevertheless made that I think go to the need for objectivity with regard to the process of Preparing drafting and enacting any regulations, so whatever it takes, and that's why this monthly update process allows us to keep. Tweaking this process, adjusting it, adding new ideas, adding new direction as commissioner Petro said, there are a lot of areas to wrap our heads around and. You know, a lot of resources to draw from in order to do it. So, you know, we don't know. Today, that's why it needs to be more of a general direction and then sort of walk this process forward and expand it as we go. I mean, does that make him sense?

Yeah, and as we have these updates too, we could figure out, you know, just like he says it's collaborative, let's say we have another agenda item saying he brings it back, this is our game plan, we want to do study A, B, and C, and then we know which department's going to be, you know, in charge of those studies or overseeing those studies, getting those studies in, taking the reins, and it will be a collaborative answer, you know, initiative between the whole city working together. So yeah, I agree with you. We need to go general, get a game plan and move forward. Anybody else? City Clerk, public comment?

In person, I have Robin San Vicente, followed by Samuel Turpening and Diane Conrad.

Commissioner Stokes, you said kind of what I was going to say. So you beat me to it. Thank you. It has to be real specific. It can't just be grouped under a blanket of a use, industrial, heavy industrial, intensive. It's got to be real specific. It's not just for hyperscale. There's other centers too. So we need to break those down as well. If we really want to be specific and we really want to cover the whole gambit, we can't just focus on just the hyperscales because we have to focus on the other types of centers that are out there as well. and have that written into our code as well. I appreciate you listening to the citizenry because we need to be included in this. Also, of course, staff and also an outside entity as well. Once we've got some kind of a plan involved and we've got maybe a first or second draft, we can then bring a consultant to look at this and see if everything is jiving and the citizenry is protected as well. Not just the city, but the citizenry. So, thank you. You'll hear more later.

Okay, guys, my name is Samuel Turpening. I have given you the ordinance today. Everything that you guys are saying up here is bullshit. The ordinance officially declaring a legislative intent to modify the land development regulations LDRs to establish comprehensive aquifer recharge basin and well-filled utility standards, authorizing the immediate invocation of the judicial pending ordinance doctrine to freeze and defer all new applications for... High mandatory consumption and large load utility users. I gave you the ordinance. Read the ordinance. There is nothing more to figure out. There are so many counties that have already written well-filled and aquifer basin recharge ordinances into their LDRs. right now in fact instead of doing this speech i worked it up collier county operates an extensive program pairing its land development code ldc section 3.06 groundwater protection Ashalusha County enforces wellhead protection through its dedicated Murphy Welfare Code and strictly limits development design standards by adopting the official Floridian aquifer high recharge area. What is there to investigate? What is there to look at? I am giving you the information. Read it. Robin Vincente also gave you the information, and she didn't get any traction. The ordinance is written. Read it. The law is there. Leon County, the first one that stopped the data centers, jointly enforces the Leon County Offer for Welfare Protection Ordinance, Chapter X, Article 10. Does anyone know about the Florida Constitution? that oversees commercial facility inspections and regulates construction over the aquifer recharge basin. Our drinking water for millions of people in the state of Florida, and everyone is watching this today, If you do not protect our water right now, each and every one of you will be voted out of office. If you want to stay in your office, then you are going to look at this ordinance and then tell me that there's more research that you need to do. Miami-Dade County, 32 seconds. An extrinsic zoning restriction surrounding its critical basalt aquifer recharge zones dating back to its foundational design. Northwest Wealthfield Protection audiences. There is nothing left to look at. We, the citizens, the ones that give you a job, know what the truth is. And we are standing here to let each and every one of you know. Until you hear us.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, my name is Diane Conrad. I've been a citizen of Northport for 35 years, and I am here to demand the immediate drafting of the permanent wealth field protection ordinances written directly into our local land development regulations under Florida Senate Bill 484. We are done with your delays, studies, and all this crap. Under the judicial pending ordinance doctrine, you have the legal authority now to draft these water protections, instantly freezing any new data center applications. North Port deserves progress that respects its land, water, wildlife, and its people and our future children. Nobody seems to talk about the children. They're gonna grow up and live with this pollution. So please make the right decision for the people and their children. And as I'm standing, sitting here watching, It's the same thing over and over from you people. You need to stand up and do something for the people. It is not right what you're doing. How did you get yourself into this to begin with? Now we wouldn't be here if it wasn't for you people that signed the agreement for the data center. So it's up to you to fix it. with all these people that have come to these meetings, please wake up.

Well, good afternoon, everybody. It's nice to be in the chamber at a presentable hour. Well, we've heard some great stuff today. I want to thank Samuel Terpeny. I want to thank Robin. I want to thank every speaker I've heard in the last two, three weeks in the city of Northport. We have a real problem with water. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it. And you hear all these laws that are already in place and all of these different things that have been passed and that are there to protect the water, to protect the recharging of the intermediate and the surficial aquifer. We have mosaic phosphate mining. They are sucking the life out of our aquifer. You know what we all heard the other night? Two billion gallons of water per year for this specific AI data center we're all talking about. Guess what, everybody? We don't have two billion gallons of excess water. I told you. Richard Anderson's previous bosses at the Peace River Water Authority, that this wasn't gonna be enough, the expansion they're doing. That they would need two, probably three reservoirs. They didn't have the land. I have to tell every one of you right now, I should be in Charlotte County getting ready to fight buckies. but I have to be here in Northport because I have the city of Northport threatening my county with an AI data center on the property line of Charlotte County. So here's what I want everybody in the city of Northport to hear. If this doesn't become a hard no, I'm gonna get a lot of people to write a letter And we're gonna file a letter of intent to sue the city of Northport. You understand? For threatening the quality of my life, the quality of my fellow man and brother, sister in Charlotte County. Matter of fact, this is what we're gonna be doing to every county. We don't have the water for this. You are here to protect us, just like I would protect every one of you. Walking down the street, see some idiot try to hurt one of you, they'd be in the hospital.

Anyway, thank you for the opportunity to speak because my concern is that we address multiple issues here. Really, we recognize that we need to create an ordinance that better suits permitted uses. We have to look at not only water being the issue, but the toxic carbons that are being released from these data centers. Current construction is using gas-fueled and diesel-fueled generators. The amount of toxic carbons that are being emitted has become a real concern for all communities. All you have to do is Google Lawton County, Virginia, and you'll see multiple videos of what they're dealing with now since 2024 and the toxic emissions that are being produced and the dangerous aspects of lung cancer and other things that is being contributed there. So when we talk about state-of-the-art, I would like to make sure that we propose in our ordinance, you know, going above state-of-the-art to, number one, ban gas-fueled and diesel-fueled generators, and instead, given our state, to demand that these type of systems use solar, and since they do have to have redundancy in energy, that they use either salt or magnetic materials, a generator so they become self-sufficient and not reliant on our grid. I also recommend that we have them use evaporation systems so they generate their own water and are not using our city water to continue the services. Demand that it be in a closed loop system and not an open loop system because other counties have already experienced the mass difference in consumption on those type of systems and to design them in such that we're eliminating noise and we're eliminating toxic emissions that come out of it. So thank you for the time and thank you for these considerations. I think it's really important that we set these type of rules state of the art above what anybody's doing now because we need that in our UDLC because we don't have specific definitions for this type of industry. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Pam Tokars for the record. Besides me, knowing mostly whatever's in the ULDC, there's 356 pages in the ULDC, six chapters. The only resident that has read this entire ULDC is Robin San Vicente. I was there for most of it. I do remember stating that when you do the rezone, I do understand the need for commercial. However, when you rezone and do this ULDC, you needed to do it responsibly. So now here we are. One of my suggestions is you need to bring FPL back. And when you bring FPL back, do not bring the community person that was going to come. They don't know anything. My husband has over 40 years of experience at a large electrical utility company up in Connecticut, so all of his chitter-chatter actually went into my brain. What you need to do is bring in the actual technical experts that do the job at FPL. You need the guy at the generating station to let the citizens know exactly how they expect to generate all this electricity to bring to us. You need the technicians in the transmission station that tells us how they're going to figure out the load because it's going to start Once the customer brings their specs to that engineer that has to write up that work plan, they've got calculations that they need to do to do that load. They are going to figure out exactly how much equipment this customer needs, and they're going to charge that customer for that equipment. And then they'll tell the generating station how much they need to generate. So that is one of the things I suggest, that when FPL comes back, that's what they bring. They bring those technical experts back, because I know you guys all had questions about that. And then also with the... FPL, there's also protocols that they have to follow. And one of the things that you need to ask is regarding that equipment. So if you have it, for example, that transmission station out there in New Yorkshire, they've got, and I'm just going to pull numbers out of the hat, they've got 20 transformers that service the city of Northport from that station. So now if you put a data center in and you bring in 10 transformers, only to support that data center. The data center people have paid for those transformers because that's part of their equipment that they need to pay for. So if per se we have a hurricane and all of those 30 transformers are now destroyed, who pays for those 10? Because the citizens should only pay for the 20 that service us. If the hurricane damages all of them, then that data center should be in the The formula that they figure out when they restore that power and bring that back, they should be responsible for their 10. It shouldn't be the citizens paying for the entire 30 along with the data center because now they've kind of, their cost has been melded in. Thank you.

Angela LeClerc. I urge the Commission to adopt strong enforceable land use regulations for data centers before approving any project. Florida's 2026 CS-CS-SB-484, now Chapter 2026-65, specifically recognizes that large load facilities such as data centers create unique planning, infrastructure, and compatibility concerns. It also preserves local government authority over comprehensive planning and land development regulation. Northport should use that authority to protect its residents. Our regulation should require substantial setbacks from homes, neighborhood schools, parks, and environmentally sensitive areas. Enforceable noise limit measured at neighboring properties, disclosure of monitoring of water consumption, and detailed information on electricity demand, cooling systems, backup generation, and infrastructure impacts. The city must also protect itself if a developer's projections prove inaccurate. What happens if actual noise, water use, power demand, traffic, infrastructure needs, More employment differs substantially from the promises made during approval. There must be enforceable mitigation requirements, ongoing monitoring and consequences, not simply assurances. Cumulative impacts must also be considered. Multiple data centers could place significant demands on North Port's water supply, electrical system, roads and neighborhoods. I urge the Commission to strengthen the ULDC before approving these facilities and to ensure that no project can automatically expand its allowable impacts, intensity, water use, or capacity without public notice and commission approval. Please put residence infrastructure capacity, water resources, environmental protection, and long-term community planning ahead of expedited development. Cynthia Roids. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Cynthia Roids, and I am calling in today with a direct mandate for this dais. We demand the immediate drafting and enactment of permanent well field protection ordinances written directly into our local land development regulations under Florida Senate Bill 484. We are done with the administrative delays, 12-month study task force, or legally risky moratoriums that trigger multimillion-dollar developer lawsuits. Under the judicial pending ordinance doctrine, you have the legal authority right now to officially announce You are drafting these water protections, instantly freezing any new hyperscale data center applications from sneaking into our borders. Protect our well fields. Use SB484 and protect Florida's water right now. David Iannotti, I'll be shocked to see if anything is done on this agenda item that is meaningful. A data center of the size that has been discussed is neither sustainable nor is it compatible with how AC6 was defined. All the water will need to come from the city. How is that compatible with the existing city plans to hook up existing properties to water and sewer? The ULDC also needs to be rewritten as to how it affects the neighborhoods of Northport. It is truly disgusting work by development services who clearly have regard for quality of life and the residents. The two-fold approach of the ULDC rewrite and CM Fletcher's move to eliminate the commission from its due legislative function is already being seen and if not fixed now, will have terrible repercussions on the city as a place to live. David Minchin. Good morning, Commissioners. I am a homeowner in Northport and I am writing today to support a direct mandate. We demand the immediate drafting and enactment of permanent well field protection ordinances written directly into our local land development regulations under Florida Senate Bill 484. We are done with administrative delays, 12-month study task force, or legally risky moratoriums that trigger multimillion-dollar developer lawsuits. Under the judicial pending ordinance doctrine, you have the legal authority right now to officially announce you are drafting these water protections, instantly freezing any new hyperscale data center applications from sneaking into our borders. Your immediate attention is needed to protect our city and its aquifer. DEBORAH ZAPILLA This should have been in place before the City Manager and Mr. Webb entered into talks and who knows what else with data center representatives' owners. If data centers were positive for the City and its residents, why the NDA? We don't want data centers in our City. It's not the answer to the financial shortfalls or whatever reason this was entered into by CM. It makes absolutely zero sense considering water for even the population is in question. We have no idea what tax breaks, concessions, etc. and what we are actually going to gain from this. It's all hidden. This, to me, is an outright betrayal of the citizens of Northport, every animal and the environment. It literally makes no sense. I would much prefer being sued than end up like Flint, Michigan. Please, please do whatever is necessary to ban data centers in our city, including the current one, shrewded by the NDA. Thank you. Deborah Sapilla. Donna Hovey. Dear mayors and city commissioners, I am writing to express my strong opposition to any framework under agenda item 26-1051 that allows exemptions or grandfathering clauses for heavy industrial developments, specifically the pending 896,000 square foot Yorkshire facility to bypass strict zoning freezes. While I support the commission's acknowledgement that our current ULDC completely lacks the necessary guardrails to manage these heavy operations, any regulatory updates must be prepared with a comprehensive halt of all active reviews. Allowing existing applications to progress while we scramble to write the rules defeats the purpose of local zoning protections. Our community cannot absorb the severe long-term impacts of these facilities, infrastructure and utility strain, These facilities place monumental demands on local electrical grids and water resources, threatening utility stability and capacity for residential neighborhoods. Noise and environment. Environmental degradation, moving heavy industrial chillers and backup diesel generators close to residential and ecological fragile zones introduces chronic low frequency noise pollution and thermal strain. Minimum local payoff these facilities operate on massive footprints, but are highly automated producing negligible long term employment opportunities for North port residents. Once construction ends, I urge the commission to enforce a uniform complete moratorium on all such development and ensure that any new land use regulations thoroughly protect North ports, infrastructure, natural resources and neighborhoods from industrial exploitation. Greg Faulkner, Mayor and Commissioners, I support ordinance number 2026-25 in the temporary moratorium on new or expanded data center facilities in Northport. I am not opposed to responsible development technology or economic growth. I'm opposed to making long-term decisions with potentially significant consequences before we fully understand those consequences. Data centers are fundamentally different from the development North Port has traditionally planned for. They can place significant demands on electrical infrastructure, water resources, land, and other infrastructure while potentially creating relatively few permanent jobs. That does not automatically make a data center bad for North Port. It means we should know exactly what we are agreeing to before we agree to it. The moratorium gives the City time to answer critical questions. What are the true water and electrical demands? Who pays for required infrastructure? How will residents be protected from noise generators, environmental impacts, and incompatible land uses? What measurable economic benefits does Northport receive in return? And what happens if the facility expands or its use changes? Those questions should be answered through policy before an application sitting in front of the commission and the city is under pressure to act. Northport has one opportunity to establish the rules before this type of development arrives at scale. A moratorium is not a no, it's a not until we know. I respectfully urge commission to approve ordinance 2026-25 and use this time to establish clear enforceable standards, ensuring any future data center provides a genuine net benefit to Northport and its residents. Josh Smith, I support Commission putting standards in place to prevent things like data centers and other unwanted industries. Imagine if when a past Commissioner begged the three of you to put more time into the ULDC, you actually did. Commissioner Langdon, in a previous meeting, you mentioned not having a crystal ball. Unfortunately, you did and she begged you to take more time with the ULDC and you fought her tooth and nail not to. I think you guys forget that we can go back and watch the old meetings to see who was in the wrong side of these things. Christina Smith, I support enacting stringent regulations within the ULDC regarding data centers and expect said regulations to apply to the applicant for the current large scale data center. Northport is not the appropriate place for a 900,000 square foot large scale data center. Lori Richards, I oppose a data center in Northport. We don't need or want this technology. We don't have water to give it. Not a single resident wants to pay extra for it. We need more trees, not less. We don't want to see or hear it. The government says it will provide peace and safety, and we need to stay ahead of China in technology. We don't want the surveillance like China has. We don't need a social credit score like China, where the government controls where we go and what we can do. and cannot buy. Government control needs to stop in America. Our forefathers fought for our freedom. North Port needs to stop letting power and greed override we the people. Lynette Siordia. I support putting strict regulations in place for data centers. These are massive industrial projects and they should not be allowed near residential areas without strong setbacks, noise limit screening, and public review. North Port is growing too fast to keep approving major projects with first and worrying about the impact on residents later. Protect the people who already live here before approving large-scale development. Roland Phillips. North Port neighbors, a massive data center developer is eyeing our city and we must stop weak regulations from destroying our neighborhoods. Regarding item 26-1051, we need to demand that the city commission enacts the absolute strictest land use protections possible in our unified land development code. With huge AI data centers eyeing our region, Weak regulations will turn Northport into an industrial dumping ground. Our current code isn't built for this. We need to demand strict protections before any development is approved. Massive setbacks. Keep them far away from homes, neighborhoods, and green spaces. Strict noise rules. Stop the 24-7 low-frequency humming from massive cooling systems. Resource protections. Cap water and power use so residents aren't stuck with soaring utility bills. No tax breaks. Make them pay their fair share to support the local infrastructure they exhaust. Let's protect our peace, property values, and environment. Sam DiMartino. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Sam, and I am commenting today with a direct mandate for the dais. We demand the immediate drafting and enactment A permanent wellfield protection ordinance is written directly into our local land development regulations under Florida Senate Bill 484. We are done with administrative delays, 12-month study, task force, or legally risky moratoriums that trigger multimillion-dollar developer lawsuits. Under the judicial pending ordinance doctrine, you have the legal authority right now to officially announce you are drafting these water protections, instantly freezing any new hyperscale data center applications from seeking into our borders. The political line in the sand is drawn today, and the community is tracking exactly where each of you stands. Stacy mentioned, I would like the Northport ULDC to specifically state that the construction of data centers will not be allowed anywhere in Northport. And that is all I have, Mayor.

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

I'll give it a shot and then see what everybody thinks. Make a motion to direct city attorney In the process of drafting strong regulation that addresses the issues of water power, air quality and noise. Regarding data centers in the city of Northport, and to provide monthly updates to the commission in public meetings.

Can you read it 1 more time please?

Motion to direct City Attorney to begin the process of drafting strong regulations that address the issues of water, power, air quality, and noise regarding data centers in the City of Northport and to provide monthly updates to the Commission in a public meeting.

I'll second that motion.

I have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Stokes, seconded by Vice Mayor. Is there any discussion? Please vote. That passes five to zero. Are there motions? I'd like to make a motion to have the City Attorney look into, as the citizens put, I'd like to have the City Attorney look into the well-filled protections under SB 484 and see what the legalities are on that moving forward.

We have a motion on the floor to instruct City Attorney to evaluate The well field protections, could you finish that up?

Under SB 484.

Under SB 484 and bring that back to the Commission at a future meeting. Sure.

I'll second that.

That motion has been seconded by Commissioner Stokes. Do you want to read that back to us, City Clerk, please?

to direct the City Attorney to evaluate wellfield protections under SB 484 and provide an update to Commission in a public meeting.

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

I want to give a shot at another motion if possible.

Okay, go ahead, sir. and she was just giving it back to me, so go ahead.

I direct the city attorney to look into Volusia County ordinance to see how it can be applied to our city and give us a feedback, give a feedback to the commission of how to proceed.

Second that.

All right, we have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Petro. City Clerk, can you read that back, please?

You said Volusia County, correct?

Okay.

To direct the city attorney to evaluate the Volusia County ordinance and see how it can be applicable to Northport and provide an update to commission in a public meeting.

Thank you. And that was made by Commissioner Petro, seconded by Commissioner Stokes. If there's nothing to that, please vote. And that passes five to zero. Anything else, commissioners, on this topic? All right. We've been here for about an hour and a half. We're going to take about a 10-minute break, and then we'll come back and finish up.

Hey, Brandon, what are you listening to? Just listening to my CPR playlist. What's on that? Staying alive. I'm Zach, and this is Travis from Northport Fire Rescue. And I'm Brandon, and this is Brett from the Northport Aquatic Center.

We're back. Moving on to item 26-1023, discussion and possible action regarding process for commission notification of all non-disclosure agreements. And this was requested by Commissioner Stokes. I'm just going to bypass Ms. Faust and go straight to Commissioner Stokes.

As a way of a little bit of background, I mean, non disclosure agreements are used everywhere. They're used. Private sector, they're using the public sector. They are there for the purpose of protecting proprietary information and. They make sense, I mean, even. Mr petrol's brother has 1 on a project and he is entitled to it. And his proprietary interests and plans should be protected that said. I do not believe any elected body of any government anywhere should ever not know what's going on. And for that reason, every commissioner should be read in on every. That comes before this city, the ones that are already in the hopper and any that might come forward in the future. Appreciating the fact that when we're ready on it. That we're bound by them. That said, I'll yield to my fellow commissioners to open up this discussion and see where we go because we do need to fix this problem.

All right, Commissioner Petro, you're first. Vice Mayor, you were in there?

Yeah, thank you, Mayor. City Attorney, could you briefly comment on the legality of NDAs?

There's nothing inherently illegal about a non-disclosure agreement. There is a statute that our NDAs derives itself from. It's section 288.075 Florida statutes. What that is, is an exemption to the general public records requirement of our public records law that talks about records themselves. And it keeps them exempt for a year and then for things other than data centers can be extended for another 12 months. And so that's, I think where your NDA has spent, but I know that's where, that's where it extends itself from. And then the non-disclosure agreement that we have in the city, both in, I think in practice and what was intended when a former commission back in 2021 adopted them meant to extend it beyond just records. into oral statements, for lack of a better term. There's nothing inherently illegal about that. It doesn't violate the Sunshine Law, for instance, just to go into and sign them. It's just a matter of practicing custom if you want to adopt them or not.

Another question. Can the city legally be selective in what kinds of projects or situations in which it will allow an NDA or not allow an NDA? So I guess more simply, if someone requests an NDA, are we required to give it? And if not, under what circumstances?

So going back to the statute again that I talked about that you've modeled your NDA off, but that statute is generally for businesses that are either coming, or businesses that are coming to Florida or looking to expand their village in Florida. That's what the statute was intended for. the NDA itself is a creature of, the NDA that we have here is really a creature of local practice. So I don't think that we would be prohibited from limiting the class of businesses that you would extend an NDA to, although you would still have to comply with the statute in terms of public records exemptions. And and so you could model it after the NDA itself, after however you want it to.

Okay, so let me be more specific in that question. A data center is allowed under our, is an allowable use under our industrial classification. If we wanted to ban NDAs on data centers, Would we have to do it at the industrial classification, or could we pick and choose the type of business or situation within that classification to either agree or disagree to enter into an NDA with that company?

For the NDA itself, I think you could decide what classification you want. If it's heavy industrials, what you're thinking of and you just want to do it, Data centers, you could ban them from the NDA process itself.

All data centers.

For the data center, correct. But that still would not prohibit the business behind the data center from requesting the exemption for public records law that's in the statute. So the documents themselves could still be exempt from public records disclosure under the law. One other part of that that's important for you all to know is whether you have NDAs or not, there's an ethics rule that's in Chapter 112 that prohibits elected officials, city attorneys, city managers, from disclosing information that is not otherwise readily available to the public for personal gain. So in some circumstances, even if you didn't have an NDA, the result may still be the same, where if you came to me, or the manager, or you learned your official duties at a data center, was coming to town i told you that no one else in town knows that because they haven't filed an application yet because it's just not readily available to the public and i tell you that and then you use that private information that you gain through your status as an elected official for private gain political gain whatever the issue may be you could have an ethics problem under chapter 112 and so sometimes that acts as a runaround once as a cut off of whether or not there's an NDA anyway and that's why I say that an NDA itself doesn't violate the sunshine law because the sunshine law doesn't require everything that you gain from in your stance as a commissioner to be told to the public.

Okay, and related, from what I understand, if staff signs an NDA with any company, every member of staff and every single commissioner is bound by that NDA, is that correct?

I think the NDA that you have in place now, I would say yes, for a number of reasons. It's because of how the NDA itself came about, which was by a vote by the Commission in 2021 that essentially authorized the manager to execute these agreements in the form presented going forward. And so yes, it would bound them by, acquiescence into the laws of agency, that you designate your agent, your CEO, your attorney, whomever it is, to go out and do this for you. And that's how you're bound by it in terms of what the question that you presented has been. OK. Now, you don't have to be bound by the future. You can take that power. but based on what the practice that we have in place now that dates back over five years, that's what we have.

Okay. So if this body decides that we be read into every NDA that the city wants to or has engaged in, I would certainly recommend that we sign the NDA only because I have a concern. Well, before I go there, what's the penalty? So let's say one of us gets information with or without an NDA, or let's say with an NDA, and we share that information with a member of the community, what's the penalty for that to both the city and the individual?

It depends on what the violation is. If you violated the statute, the 288.075, if you took otherwise exempt records and gave it to the public, that's a second degree misdemeanor. If you punishable by, I think it's 30 days, up to 30 days in jail, 500 dollar fine, things of that nature. So you could be looking at jail time. If you violated the NDA, which is a contract. then both the city could be looking at potential liability, basically a breach of contract suit. And if you acted outside the scope of your duties as a commissioner when you violated it, it's possible you could be looking at individual civil liability.

So it's a double penalty, both to the city and to the individual who discloses the information?

Possibly, yes.

Possibly. Okay, I'll yield for now, Mayor. Thank you for the time.

Commissioner Stokes. Yeah, City Attorney, I get how under the present agreement, an NDA signed ties to commission by virtue of agency. I would still propose as Vice Mayor said that Any commissioner or all commissioners should be if we decide to go this route that all commissioners be not just bound by it through through. The legal definition of agency, but rather actually sign the so that we are on the hook for them. And here's the other thing I wanted to ask you. So. If we commissioners, let's say are bound and I'll use this data center. Nda as a good example, had we been read in on that and bound by it. And, um, we didn't disclose it. We didn't say anything to anybody about it, but what we did is instruct. You and you and or staff, we instructed city to. Um, and that regulation, um, to take action. Um. With regard to. To the project for which. We had confidential information. Would that be a breach of the. Or would we be allowed to do that? I mean, I didn't say it exactly as clean as I should have, but I understand what you're asking.

You're asking if you learn about something. That's under an, and then you want to. Stop that project. Can you. Was that was that was that your question? Pretty much the question. That's a closer question again. You would be bound by the issue. I think it would be. Is that ethics issue that I just spoke about? Are you doing that for personal gain or are you doing that? Because. there's some greater good that's involved. And if it's probably for a greater good, I don't think you have an ethics problem. And I don't think that there's anything in the NDA itself That could say that doing that would be a breach of contract. You're going to have to. Look about look at it.

So, so let, let me restate this. So, had we, I'll be very blunt. Had we known about this data center. And directed staff to write regulation and that regulation. Institute of moratorium. I'm hearing you saying we're probably not bound or not liable under the NDA, but would that leave us liable as commissioners and or the city to the applicant who requested non-disclosure and an NDA that the city enacted? I mean, you see what I'm asking?

It's a closer question. I think the city would probably not be liable and the individual commissioner would probably not be liable either.

Yeah.

I got a question. Let's say that we took a stand today and we made a motion and we put it back to where it only follows state statute, the public records part of it. You know, we go back to the original drawing board and an NDA comes in because nobody's touched on this part of it because not only did the commission not know about it, neither did the citizens. So, when that NDA would happen to come in, It's holding off on all the public records, but would we be allowed to discuss it up here on the dais being an agenda item saying, hey, guess what? This individual has put in an application for X, Y, and Z. We want to have a discussion on it, but yeah, I know public records aren't available, but can that discussion take place to get the citizens on board as early as possible as well?

I looked into that question a couple months ago and there's no clear answer. What the Attorney General's opinions, at least two of them I believe, 2005 and 2007 that addressed that issue, say that the public records exemption does not shield the body from sunshine law. So with that, if you take that statement to its logical conclusion, then the answer would probably be you're not prohibited under the statute from speaking. about the uh the project that you may get an exemption for um but again there's no definitive authority on that because no court has addressed it and the attorney general opinions that i have kind of nibble around the edges of it well and just to take it just a little bit further and i'm not saying that once the commission got

the information, they're going to go out and blab it all over the place. But let's just say that a commissioner had a talk with a citizen about, hey, guess what? Casual conversation. This is what's coming. Now the citizenry has found out about that out there. And now they're demanding answers. And they're saying, hey, we want to talk about this. Then we could put it on the agenda. too enlightened with whatever information we have regardless, you know, exempting the public records. So I'm just trying to get this to where we have an open playing field to where it gets everybody involved and possibly in the future.

I understand. I just don't have a clear answer for you because I don't think one exists. It would be a good question for the Attorney General perhaps at some future point, but... Well, when do you have dinner with him again, could you ask him?

Commissioner Petro, you're up.

Thank you, Mayor. I did not prepare for this agenda item. I just wanted to see what discussion goes because there was no attachment, nothing under the agenda item. But I kind of have formulated a couple questions as we were conversing here. And generally speaking, the public officials are not bound by NDA. Having said that, NDAs are a common practice in the course of business, conducting business with the government entities, and specifically to protect proprietary secrets. And it's a good point, but with this specific point that we are discussing, and it is data center, right? I think there was so much secrecy that we were bound by this NDA, not knowing that we are bound by this NDA. which is kind of ironic and a project of this magnitude, you know, affected all of us and it's almost, I can say almost certainly that it was done by on purpose and by design to shield this commission from this project. And all we had to be We could be just notified, but we were not. And hence, we are here. But I want to ask this question. So let's say we do this, that we have to sign NDA personally as public officials or elected officials. By constitution of the state, of the US Constitution, And I think probably by the Florida Constitution, which I have not looked into it, I can say no. And I'm not going to sign it if it comes to that. Or I can sign it on my own, on my own decision. So there is a way of saying no and yes, in my opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong, city attorney. That's my question now. So if we come to the conclusion that let's vote and we vote and by majority, okay, we're gonna have to sign it personally. Do we have this ability not to sign it constitutionally?

I don't think that's really a constitutional question. I think it's a question for the board. Do you want to sign or not? I don't know what constitutional And that's the term you use, correct? Commissioner, you're asking me under the Constitution, could you not have to sign?

In a way, yeah, that's my, you know, right to freedom of speech, if you will. Not that I will disclose the secrets of whatever project it is, but...

So you're asking, would you put a chill on your own speech? Simply, what I understand with the question is I'm trying to get... It's not an easy answer.

But you don't have to answer now. It's just something to think about.

May I ask a follow-up question to your question?

As long as I come back to the conversation.

Yes, I'll keep quiet after I get an answer to this. But a follow-up to Commissioner Petro's question. Whether or not we individually sign an NDA. My understanding is we're still bound to it by virtue of the intention of having them. Is that correct?

to the last part of your question. I'm sorry.

So let's say a project is coming in. We change our policies. The commissioners get read in or whenever. Every time an NDA is executed, we're notified. And maybe our policy is we should, if we're going to be read in, we should sign. But my understanding is, whether or not we personally sign that NDA, we're still bound by it.

I guess another way of saying what you're saying, Vice Mayor, is that if you're not very into an NDA, how do you know what's not to be disclosed? So if you aren't read in, then you can't disclose something you don't know. So if you elect to not be read in by an NDA, then you can't disclose what you don't know. And I think that's where this whole issue about being bound by things loses its path. If someone from the public asks you about something and you don't know about it, the answer is I don't know. And I don't know because neither discloses anything nor not discloses something. If you decide to set, if you say, well, I'll figure that out for you. And then you come to me, you come to the manager, whomever. And we said, yes, there is this data center out there. Yes, there is an NDA on it. Then you can't disclose it, even though you've been bound by it the whole time. The entire organization has been bound by this NDA. It doesn't mean that every of your 900 employees knows about it, including the commission. It's just you can't say something that you don't know. So whether you sign it or not, whether you... It doesn't really matter. The whole real threshold issue is whether you know about it or not.

That specific issue. Go ahead, then we still got to go back to... Because I know where you're heading, Commissioner. You see, you mentioned something about the legal doctrine of agency. So if... if the city signs an NDA and we don't execute that NDA, theoretically we may be bound. Now let's assume, jumping ahead for a minute, every project that's brought forth before this city is run by commission. and the administrative approval process changes so that every single project comes past this board, we then become aware of projects that may well be covered by an NDA. So the question then is, if we talk about them, if we share information that we're made aware of, then what's our legal jeopardy, or is there legal jeopardy? I'm sort of seeing where Commissioner Petroff's perspective is. Let's just do away with NDAs in the city. Let's just do away with them. And then reverse the administrative approval process in the area that allows administrative approval to be done without a public airing. without transparency and inclusiveness, make every project come before the city in a public setting so the public and the commission knows about it. Then I don't see how anybody has any problems anywhere. And the only thing that binds any information is under the state law that controls public record disclosure. I mean, that would be cleaner and get us all off the hook and Kind of touched on that. Shine a spotlight on all this stuff.

All right, back to Commissioner Petro.

Thank you, Mayor. You kind of touched on what I was going to say. So let's say, for example, and this is just an example, data center NDA. There's nothing preparatory about data center. It's a data center, right? So when the public record request was submitted, I think the legal didn't get it until like two days after the actual meeting on the discussion of data center, which was July 21st, I believe. So if, you know, some of the things, for example, could be, you know, the location maybe, but it's not proprietary. But some proprietary copyrights, for example, you know, could be redacted. And if we had known this about this project, we could still talk about it, but not saying what exactly or how do I say it more concisely. So basically, if the government is transparent, there should be no secrets from the public unless it's a proprietary. So when the application came in on July 20th, I believe, and the public record request was still pending per legal review, all the information was asked, and correct me if I'm wrong, the requester was asking if the application was submitted or not. They were not asking about anything proprietary. So that begs my question. If there's nothing proprietary, we shouldn't be hiding it. And if you read the NDA of this data center, some of it was basic stuff. Most of it was basic stuff. So my question is to concur with Commissioner Stokes kind of, because he expanded, to what extent an NDA, any NDA should be about the entire project, about everything or proprietary stuff. So that's my question. And I guess if we could discuss the actual regulations in the public setting for data center, we will not be disclosing any vendor developer size of the project. Nothing of that would be discussed publicly. Thus, we would not be violating any of an NDA. But specific to this project, it was kept on purpose in secrecy even from the commission and that's not right. And I guess with the next agenda item, if it's reversed, the commission would be well aware of all the projects like this or any projects that have NDAs. I don't know if I made my point very clear, but that's where I stand. But it's up to the board and I'm willing to engage in the further discussion. But what I conclude with this, if there's an NDA, it should be specific to what extent there's NDA. Data centers are not novice to any community. They come to almost all states and virtually where the land is available, especially cheap land. but to hide it from the public purposefully so they can get the application in, I don't think it's right. I don't think it's even ethical to say the least. I think, and I made my post on Facebook and got a lot of responses, but I think we did fail our citizens overall as a city by hiding this. Obviously there were some, proprietary secrets that should have been kept under ADA. But to this extent, what we did, I think it's not ethical to say the least. And I think we did ourselves a disservice and eroded the citizens' trust in the public officials, which I'm part of this board, and as a government overall and in general. And I'm not speaking against NDAs. I'm speaking about the actual you know, implementation of NDAs and how it's being treated. And I read the document that was adopted in February of 2021, which was not part of that board. We can take a look at that and see to what extent we should be bound by the NDA. But if we did not know anything about the project, how can we be bound by the NDA? So those are my two cents. But this is the agenda item that Commissioner Stokes brought it. So I want to hear the, you know, further discussion, possible motion on what he intends to do. Thank you, Mayor.

Commissioner Duvall.

Thank you, Mayor.

Let's suppose the city owns a piece of land and an oil drilling company comes to our development services and says, we want to drill for oil on city property and we want an MDA. Knowing what we've been going through in the last couple of weeks, I would suggest we say, no, We will not sign an NDA. As Commissioner Stoltz has already alluded to, maybe NDAs are not good for this city. If an oil drilling company comes here and says, I want to drill, but I want an NDA, how does development services tell the five commissioners about it and the five commissioners make a decision whether to be bound by the NDA if we can't get into a public meeting and discuss it? So I am inclined to say If you want to do business with this city, you'll do it in the open. Based on recent experience, being told I'm under an NDA that's been in existence and I wasn't told about it. Sorry, can't agree with it. That's all.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Yeah, just a couple of thoughts. Certainly, I understand that if a company, a business entity is sharing proprietary secrets with city staff, I'm hearing that there wouldn't be an objection necessarily to that NDA. But I also know, coming from a world where NDAs are an everyday occurrence, I'm out of high tech. And NDAs aren't just about proprietary information. When software companies would come to us to share their business plans, a lot of times that in and of itself, so not technology secrets, but their business plans because of the competitive exposure of that. So to connect a dot, we're spending, as a city, a lot of effort trying to attract companies from coming here. We want jobs. We want to expand our commercial footprint. We want to help alleviate some of the tax burden from homeowners. All of those are wonderful things. And if we throw out NDAs, what does that do to the likelihood of companies that we all would agree we want to have come here because of the economic benefits, but they refuse because we won't protect their business plans. Let's be really careful what we're trying to do here because we could shoot ourselves in both feet by doing this. I mean, one of the things that has come to my mind in this whole thrashing of the whole data center thing, personally, I believe there is some merit in talking about the heavy industrial sector, because I think it's those types of businesses that are most likely to have a negative impact on environment, blah, blah, blah, blah, all of those things. Maybe those are the kinds of projects that we don't want to shield from the public. So I'm just throwing that out as one opportunity. I just don't think I could support throwing out NDAs in a blanket way because it very well could prevent the kinds of companies we would all agree we want to have come here because we won't protect their business plans. So let's really think carefully about how we might want to manage NDAs. And I have a couple of basic blocking and tackling questions around NDAs, and I see that Mr. Meerman has left, which is unfortunate. But I'm just curious. On average, how many NDAs does the city sign in a year? And Similar to the data center, I think we executed that NDA way in advance of actually filing an application. So my second question is, how often does the NDA and the application kind of happen together or within a short period of time? And how often is it really separated by the length of time we saw in the data center example, and I see Miss Laurie is slowly and reluctantly coming to the podium.

Good afternoon, Lori Barnes, Deputy Director of Development Services. In the last four and a half years, the city has entered into three different non-disclosure agreements. One of those projects did not progress to the point of a formal application. One has, and one is currently under the NDA and pending. We don't have information as to when they are applying. generally projects may submit a formal application before the expiration of their NDA. In my experience, by the time they get to the formal approval stage, those NDAs have generally expired. Imagine trying to conduct a quasi-judicial hearing for a project that is under a nondisclosure agreement. So usually by the time they are ready to get to their final approval stages, they have tied up their end users and finalized their plans so that the need for the NDA is no longer a pressing one.

Right, because they are in progress. Things are sort of locked down. Correct. And the opportunity for a competitor to come in and derail that project is over. Correct. Okay, thank you for that. I'm gonna yield at this point, but I might wanna come back.

Commissioner Stokes. Well, I started off by saying that NDAs are something that we see in the private sector and we see in the public sector and they seem to be out there. But I do have a fundamental concern And that's that I think there's a fundamental difference between government and private sector. Okay. And the difference I see is we are an elected body. We're elected to represent the citizens of this city. And for any elected body not to know what's going on is a big problem for me. And for anybody not to know what's going on. Now, I appreciate that there may be businesses that are reluctant to come do business with the city unless they can protect their proprietary rights. But in many cases, it might be they also want to protect their idea so that someone else doesn't jump in to compete with them. But that said, I think healthy competition is good, especially when we're talking about the citizens' tax dollars that we're prepared to maybe spend or contribute to a project. That's why I intend to make a motion to do away with NDAs in the city and see where everybody sits on that, because I just don't see the need for and I think that they. They run contrary to the concept of transparency and inclusiveness. I think we have a problem with that in this city. And I think it's time to start fixing some of this stuff. And this is something that if we lose a deal here or there, well, so be it. Too bad. If there's a business that doesn't want to come here because they're so worried someone's going to compete with them, too bad. And if yet they have proprietary information that they've submitted, that's protected, in my opinion, under the state law for public records. So they're kind of protected there. But the concept, the idea for us not to be able to share that and for everyone to know it, just runs contrary to the concept of good governance and transparent governance. I mean, the sunshine laws were passed so that we all couldn't do business behind closed doors. And yet, because of NDAs and administrative approvals, there's been a workaround here where now this stuff can get done behind not only the public's, You know, back, but behind the commission's back, I just think that's a problem and I don't accuse anybody of purposely doing anything nefarious. I just think that this is the manipulation of legislation that's taken place over time and we have the ability to fix it. So I say we fix it. Do away with and fix the administrative. Approval process, that's all. Thank you. Commissioner Petro.

I almost want to quit, but I will make a comment because Commissioner Stokes said it so eloquently that I'm not going to even repeat that. But what I want to say is kind of going to more specifics. Trade secrets can be protected easily. I remember one of the economic development updates we had, and Director Elena Reyes said that, you know, there's a store coming to this section of our city, and she said a box store, and we were like, oh, what is it, what is it? And she said, well, I cannot say. It's a trade secret, basically, which is fine, you know. It's like submitting an application with a fast food and they don't have to say barbecuing or whatever. They can say fast food chain or restaurant or box store. They don't have to provide specifics to that. So basically same thing what Commissioner Stokes said, let's get away from them and a lot of people you know have if they want to be protected they can apply under a different LLC and nobody will know who is who. But to hide it from the Commission that would be prevented from making a proper choices or well-informed decision, I don't think it's correct. And again, if you do the business with the government, have this courage to be transparent. Because government and private are two different things. And we as public officials, transparency, that's what comes first. Thank you, Mayor.

All right, Vice Mayor.

Yeah, just a couple more comments. We all want competition. Our economy is built on it. We want to have choice. We're to shop, we're to dine, we're not. But when a company is investing significant resources in engineering, planning, building plans, in order to build I think that is a totally different situation. And to protect their business plans under an NDA is part of the reason, in addition to proprietary information, that NDAs exist. It's to encourage that kind of development and to prevent unfair competition that causes a company to say, OK, I'm done. You blabbed my plans all over creation, and now a direct competitor of mine is competing for that same property, or whatever the objection is. I can't agree to it. Now, a conversation about how we might want to modify our NDA, if we decide as a body we want to be read into NDAs and be bound to them, I'm open to that conversation. But I'm sorry, I can't support throwing out NDAs as a whole block. It's not in the best interest of this city. It is not in the best interest of our economic development. It is not in the best interest of bringing jobs here and helping to soften the tax burden on homeowners. I cannot do it. I yield.

Commissioner Duvall, no.

Okay. Fine.

Thank you, Mayor. If a developer comes to this city and we say to them, if you have proprietary information you do not want exposed, then do not tell us about it. If you do not answer our questions in your application process that gives us the safeguards we need for our community, then we will decline your application. Period.

And briefly- Go ahead and make it very brief because we're moving on to motions.

Thank you, Mayor. I just remember a few minutes ago hearing that for as long as anybody could remember, there's been three NDAs. And I would say if we had at least known about one of them, our situation today might be slightly different. So I have no real problem. I couldn't have said it better than Commissioner Duvall just said it. And so, you know, I stand firmly behind my position.

Anyway, that's it Mayor. City Manager, we currently, I think Lori was up here and she says, currently we have two NDAs in place currently.

One pending. and that one ends on September 30th and we will not be exercising the right to extend it based on today's conversation and we'll give you that information as well.

Okay because the the reason I ask that is because Commissioner Stokes when we started this had said that Commissioner Petro's brother was involved in one and and the reason I'm asking about that was that what I was reading about in your pre-evaluation that's going to come out for your evaluation on the 22nd because there's some very serious stuff in that and I think we're going to have a discussion on that on the 22nd. Yes, sir. It's all one and the same.

One same NEA revolving around one project. And based on what you hear today, the board's ability or inability to respect what they are and what they do. So it all kind of goes hand in hand. I don't think today is the time to discuss that part of it.

So open it up for motions. Public comment. Oh, public comment. I'm sorry.

Robin Sambasente, followed by Sam Samuel Turpening, Lisa Rodriguez, and Pam Tokars.

Okay, good discussion. I crossed it out by mistake.

City Attorney, thank you, because you had a lot of the stuff, a lot of questions asked to you, I was gonna state as well. So, you got rid of half of my comment, which is great. You know, you guys have the discretion whether you want to do an NDA or you don't want to do an NDA. You have the discretion to just make an ordinance that is within the Commission's purview to make that decision. You can take it away administratively and put it in your purview. NDAs are all over the place. So yeah, maybe sometimes an NDA is okay, depending upon what type of NDA and what they're asking for. And that again is in with your discretion. So, you know, the only way to handle it that I'm seeing is take it away administratively and put it in the purview of the commission. And it has to come before you, whether you want to, you know, do an NDA with this particular business or you don't. So one of two choices, take it away permanently or use your discretion. That's all. Put it in your purview.

Thank you, ma'am.

Okay, guys. Under state transparency laws like Florida Chapter 119 Public Records Act and Sunshine Law, the rule is absolute. A city manager or staff member cannot sign a private contract that overrules state law. The legal realities impacts the city manager and city staff, and it includes if a private developer, utility provider, or data center corporation asks a city manager or economic development director to sign an NDA before Presenting a project, that agreement cannot bypass public records request. The custodian of records. By law, the city manager and staff are custodians of the public's information. Under Chapter 119, any document, text, message, or email received or generated by the city manager or staff regarding city business automatically becomes public record. Commissioner Landon, you should study the law before you speak. You wasted our time. Keep on writing and don't look at me because you were so wrong and it is so embarrassing that it is now getting close to 4 o'clock in the afternoon for more trite. When you can look it up yourself, everybody can look it up. It tells you that Mr. Stokes, Commissioner Stokes, forgive me, you are correct, sir. Mr. Duvall, Commissioner Duvall, forgive me, I'm sorry. You're correct as well. No NDAs. You don't have to have them. It tells you right here that you, the city manager, cannot have that used as a shield in order to keep information from the dais. Are we really that stupid that we can't understand that we have our elected officials up here with their hands tied? Their hands are tied. They have no idea what's going on. So they're trying to sit there and vote and then they can't even look it up themselves. Technology allows you to look these things up. There's no reason to be ignorant. Ignorant. Keep writing and not look at me, because you're very disrespectful. That's how come I haven't mentioned you at all, because I don't understand where your brain is. This is government, not private enterprise. We do not, the private enterprise doesn't hire you people. We the people hire you. Your responsibility is to us, the citizens of Florida, not to private business. Don't like it? That's just a fact. That's what the law is. If you would have told the truth in the beginning, everybody's right. We wouldn't be here and listening to an hour of tripe when you can literally look it up and find out what the law is. I yield my time. Thank you.

Lisa? Thank you.

Well, I firmly believe that NDAs are extremely bad business practices. make people feel that there's something bad about it, that you're hiding something. It is just poor business practice. And instead, I really do believe that all applications, we should have the ability to review the application to make sure it's compliant, that it's safe for our community, that it's something we want within our community. I don't think there's anything technology-wise or otherwise that is anything surprising nowadays. But I would like to recommend that instead, that while you reject the ability to use NDAs, that you allow the applicant, under Florida Statute 119, the ability to request the redaction of their name, their address, and other information. So just give them that ability. If they want to propose an application, just give them the ability to reject their information, names, or bank accounts, anything under Section 119. This way, it allows the community to still know about the project, investigate. We've lost a year's worth of time in developing environmental controls to protect us. And this whole NDA thing has really tainted this commission. It really has for the community. It's very, very sad. So it's poor business practice, and I think it needs to be abolished and eliminated now. Thank you.

Hi, Pam Tokars, and of course, I'm going to offer the workaround. This is procedure, it's not with the ordinance. What if the city manager just had during his one-on-one conversations with you, hey, I think it might be a good idea if the commissioner decides the commission decides to maybe discuss data centers. Because at the time, back in February or March, it was starting to be a hot topic with the Arcadia. This way, the city manager does not violate his NDA that he had signed. You guys don't know anything's coming, but you could have the conversation because it was already out in the public regarding data centers and what they wanted to do if they came to Northport. I will give also another example about why NDAs are good. City managers also stated, and I'm sorry to pick on you, Mr. Fletcher, but this is a good one, that he would like to see something like maybe a minor league hockey team come. Then I'll pick on the Philadelphia Flyers because I'm a big Flyers fan. So what if there was no NDA and everyone got excited because, hey, guess what? Fires are coming, their farm teams coming and whatnot. Something fell through. Then, now we have all bunch of upset residents because there was something that fell through and they knew what it was. So that's just an off key example, but it's also something is what would happen. And then also Debbie McDowell has also submitted a comment that she wanted to let the commission know that the commission can direct the city attorney to reach out to the attorney general for a specific ruling on this matter regarding the commission being bound by an NDA and how the NDA applies to the commission. The attorney general will answer if the board gives direction, and I apologize if that's something that Commissioner Enbridge should also, because I don't know when this came during the conversation. But that's it.

Angela clerk, I oppose allowing the city of Northport to use non disclosure agreements in a way that limits transparency or prevents residents and elected officials from knowing what is being discussed on matters affecting our community. I would support disallowing them at all. Enforce the language to accomplish this. I understand that Florida law protects certain confidential information. However, an NDA should never be used to circumvent Florida's public records and open government requirements or to keep information from the public simply because a private party wants confidentiality. The recent data center situation demonstrates why this is important. Residents struggled to obtain information about major potential development while an NDA was in place. That should concern... that should concern every taxpayer. Projects that could affect our water supply, electricity demand, infrastructure, environment, neighborhoods, traffic, Property values and taxes deserve transparency from the beginning. I urge the commission not to create a process that normalizes or encourages NDAs for city business. At a minimum, no NDA should restrict information that is legally required to be public, prevent commissioners from receiving information necessary to perform their duties, or prevent timely disclosure to residents. Government works for the public, not private developers, consultants, and other parties seeking confidentiality. North Port residents deserve open government, accountability, and the ability to participate in decisions based on complete information. Please vote no to allowing NDAs to be used to limit public transparency or accountability. Cynthia Roids, the commissioner should be made aware of all NDAs and able to decide whether the information should be kept secret or disclosed. The elected officials of the city should make these determinations. David Iannotti, non-disclosure agreements should be banned outright. This is dealings in the dark and has no place in a legitimate representative city government. Debbie McDowell, let's review how we got here and how the NDA was born. In a nutshell, Florida Statute 166.021 declared it a public interest to allow growth in our state, a very pro-development state, I may add. Florida Statute 288.075 gives permission for confidentiality for proprietary information related to growth to a business. In February 4, 2021, the commission approved on consent the use of a template for NDA and the city manager to sign the agreement. City Charter Section 9.05L give the city manager the authority to sign all contracts, agreements, and applications for the city after such has been approved by the city commission at a regular or special city commission meeting. Hindsight is an amazing teacher. I have to wonder, does that blanket authority violate the charter? Something to ponder. An easy fix to the NDA versus charter issue. is to remove the city manager's ability to sign future NDAs. This way, there is no doubt it follows the charter. However, the next thing to ponder, what's the point of an NDA? The commission is required to make decisions in a public meeting. I'm not too sure a commission will approve an agreement with all those redactions, but it still allows the business the ability to have an NDA. If the commission approved it, this issue deserves further discussion and input from the city attorney. Tonight, the commission may want to direct the city attorney to conduct a legal review of whether the city manager may approve future NDAs under the city's charter. Once the written legal review is complete, the Commission should discuss the findings. Following the Charter takes priority. Transparency is paramount, along with Commission and citizen involvement. Deborah Cepillo. Why even have Commissioners if the CM does not have to notify them? We the people, the residents of Northport, we are the city. The Commissioners are elected by us to represent us. How could any commissioner vote for this? This is the very definition of taxation without representation. Not acceptable, just like the data centers. If allowed, we'll destroy everything that is real in Florida. We don't want our city paved over and toxic. Our health is at risk. Our water supply, energy, grid, clean air achieve anything. Greg Faulkner. Mayor and commissioners, I want to raise a concern regarding city staff entering into non-disclosure agreements without the prior knowledge or consent of the city commission. My concern is not whether an NDA may occasionally serve a legitimate city purpose. My concern is who has the authority to make that decision under what circumstances and where the accountability lies. City staff were entrusted with conducting the day-to-day business of the city, but there is a significant difference between routine administrative work and entering into an agreement that may restrict what information can be shared with the public or even with their elected representatives. The City Commission is accountable to the voters. Unelected staff should not have on checked authority to enter into confidentiality agreements on behalf of the City without clear policies, limitations, and oversight established by the Commission. At a minimum, I believe the Commission should establish a formal policy requiring, one, clearly defined circumstances under which staff may execute an NDA on behalf of the City, two, review approval by the City Attorney before execution. 3. Prompt notification of the City Commission whenever an NDA is executed, including its general purpose and the parties involved to the fullest extent legally permissible. 4. Commission approval before executing NDAs involving major economic development projects, significant infrastructure demands, public incentives, or matters likely to come before the Commission for future action. Transparency should be the default in Local government, confidentiality should be narrowly defined exception and there should always be accountability for who authorized it and why. I am asking the commission to establish these guardrails rather than leaving this authority solely to the discretion of an unelected staff. Josh Smith, I do not believe any commissioner should be allowed to sign an NDA that keeps information away from citizens. You work for us. Could you imagine an employee of yours signing an NDA so you couldn't know what they were up to? It is insane to me that this would even be allowed to happen. Lori Richards, I oppose non-disclosure agreements. When the agreement affects Northport residents, the agreement shouldn't be done secretly. Be transparent, upfront, and honest. No one likes deception. Lynette Sioria, I support this. Commissioners and residents deserve more transparency, especially when major development projects are involved. The city should not be making agreements that keep important information from the public without the commission at least knowing they exist. If an NDA involves a project that could significantly impact our community, residents deserve as much transparency as legally possible. Mary McLin, NDAs need to be shared with the commissioners. Roland Phillips, while increasing notification sounds like a step toward transparency, simply notifying the commission is a dangerously weak approach that still legitimatizes backroom corporate deals in our city. When massive tech developers try to sneak into our neighborhoods to build high impact industrial data centers, they use aggressive NDAs to keep the public completely in the dark until it's too late. Merely establishing a process to notify city leadership that a secret agreement exists does absolutely nothing to stop the secrecy itself. We must push back against any self-compromise. We do not just want our commissioners to be notified when a corporation forces silence. We want a total ban on non-disclosure agreements between public officials and private developers. Our local government should operate with absolute transparency, letting predatory developers bind our city staff or elected leaders to any level of corporate secrecy destroys public trust and leaves residents vulnerable to hidden environmental and infrastructure costs. Demand absolute transparency, not just notification. Stacy mentioned, all commissioners should be informed of any existing NDAs. NDAs should not be tolerated in Northport. The residents deserve the right to be informed at all times. And that's all, Mayor.

Thank you. I'll request a motion.

I'd like to make one, Mayor.

Go ahead, Commissioner Stokes.

All right, thank you. I heard him first. I would... Make a motion to direct staff to draft an ordinance to bring back to commission for first reading to do away with NDAs in the City of Northport.

I'll second for discussion.

I have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Stokes, seconded by Vice Mayor. Vice Mayor, you want a discussion?

Yes. I'd like to propose that We instruct city attorney to prepare an ordinance eliminating administrative approval of NDAs and require that city commission decide whether or not to permit the city to engage in an NDA with appropriate information redacted, including company name, prospective city location, industry-industry segment, applications and products, and other appropriate business and technical details.

Discussion there? Yeah, it's open for discussion. That's what we're doing is discussing.

If that were to occur, then Commission would have to, under the sunshine, discuss everything about the proposed project for which an NDA is being requested, which would undermine the entire concept of the NDA in the first place. So I don't see how that is even a practical possibility. May I? Yes, absolutely.

We're in discussion mode, yes.

So I've laid out the kind of information that would be redacted in the conversation which would balance protecting the business and technology plans of the company with the ability of this commission to say whether or not it should move forward. May I ask a question of city attorney? Sure. Would it be possible Is there any conflict with existing legislation for the city commissioners to have that information, but to redact that information in a public meeting?

I don't think so.

Again, the problem I'm trying to solve is if this body has an opportunity to see the details of an NDA, and just as an example, it's a heavy industrial project that, based on that, the location of it, we would have all of those details, we would have the information to decide, well, no, we really don't think it's appropriate for the city to enter into an NDA with this particular project because of the possible quality of life implications. So we would need that information to make an informed decision about whether or not to move forward with an NDA But if we have no concerns, so let's say it's simply business information, a company doesn't want it to be public information that they're planning to purchase and locate at a certain parcel in the city, that, in my mind, is certainly appropriate protection. And we might all decide in a public setting to approve that NDA with any potentially damaging information redacted. That's what I'm trying to get to.

How can we have that conversation without sharing that information publicly?

Well, maybe in one-on-ones. We could do it in one-on-ones. We can figure that out.

But then we'd have to come here as a body to discuss whether or not to enact an NDA on that project. And the subject of that conversation would inadvertently or overtly disclose information that would be subject to the NDA. It's just not a practical, workable situation. The existing legislation that exists to protect proprietary information that the state has mandated already exists. It's there. It protects them and their information. We don't need an NDA because if they have proprietary information, it can't be disclosed to public records. We can discuss it, but it can't be disclosed. So it protects them. Besides, again, I go back to the original premise of this whole thing, which is we are not private business. We are the government. We spend taxpayers' money. You know, I like to say we don't work for the public. We represent the public. We don't know everything that's going on, and if the public can't know pretty much everything that's going on, then the system's not working the way it was intended to. It is not private business, and if it loses a deal here and there, I'm okay with that. There's only been three in all the time Lori could come up with, so I don't see how it's even a real problem. And the one time an NDA came into play, look at where we are right now because of it. So again, I don't blame anybody except that Staff followed the law. They followed the process. They did what it was they were supposed to do and what they were allowed to do and look at where it got us. I say get rid of these things because they don't serve any purpose the way I see it. But anyway, that's my take. Thank you, Mayor, for talking to me. Motion's out there. So I guess we got a what?

If anyone... No, we got a motion on the floor.

We got an amendment. We got an amendment. We got a vote on first, right?

Yep.

How did we get an amendment?

I proposed it.

You didn't propose it as an amendment. We were in discussion.

Okay. There was never an amendment.

There was never a vote on it. There was no second on it.

Would you like me to articulate an amendment?

You would have to do it if you want to vote it on.

Slowly. Instruct city attorney... to prepare an ordinance eliminating administrative approval of NDAs and require that city commissioners decide whether or not to permit the city to engage in an NDA. Let me know when you're there. with appropriate information redacted in any public conversation. Some of that information could include company name, prospective city location, industry segment, application or products, or other appropriate business or technical details. Thank you.

We have an amendment on the floor made by Vice Mayor Langdon. Do I have a second? I do not have a second. That amendment fails due to lack of a second. Now on to the original motion. If there's nothing to it, please vote. And that passes four to one with Vice Mayor Langdon dissenting.

I would like to comment.

Okay.

I think that this This decision severely negatively impacts the city from attracting potential businesses that we would want to have here. And folks, it's not like they're beating down our door to come here. So to do something that artificially makes it more difficult or impossible for them to come here. Let's face it. These companies have options. If they're considering a place to locate their business, they're considering two or three locations. So if this city says de facto no, we won't protect, your business or technical information, they will go somewhere else. And we won't get the jobs and we won't get the tax relief. And I'm sure there are a lot of people in this city that would like every bit of building to stop today. Sorry, we can't legally do that. All we can do and what we are responsible for is to make sure that five, 10, 15 years from now, we have a city that is financially viable. And this does not aid us in that responsibility. I yield.

Okay, moving on to item F26-1022, discussion and possible action regarding reversal of administrative approval process within the unified land development code requested by Commissioner Stokes. Commissioner Stokes, this is your item. Thank you, Mayor.

Well, first I would say that Administrative approval, okay, the concept of administrative approval goes to the law, which is that if something is compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and the ULDC, then it can be approved. There's no legal justification for denying, okay? And I get that, and I'm not looking to change that. But what this prior board did, of which I sat on, we voted to allow administrative approval, which created a process whereby something could be okayed, because it met with the comp plan and the unified land development code, through staff. What it did was it took away transparency and it took away inclusiveness. Even though it's, it's a legally, it's right from a legal standpoint. So, what I'm proposing here, and the reason I asked for this item on the agenda is that I think. All projects well, not all projects any project. Well, we have to define which projects, but to me, apartments, commercial projects, pretty much anything except single family home kind of development should come through the commission that allows. Not just the commission, but the public. To know about it and to provide their input, their ideas, their opinions. Staff still has. the administrative approval process that they have to follow. That's the law. The law says if it's compliant with the comp plan, the ULDC, it can get approved. But just like we shouldn't make decisions as an elected body without the input of staff, public experts, community input, we should make our decisions based on the collective input. And I think the administrative approval, even though they have to follow the law like we do up here, should be done with the collective input. And I think it's important that, again, for the same reason as with NDAs, Anytime an elected body of government does not know what's going on, that's a problem. And it is a problem. I get people who say, hey, they're clearing land on the corner of such and such and such and such. And I go, I have no clue. I have no clue. I don't know anything about the project. Well, I'll go find out for you. And I guess there's nothing really wrong in saying that, except that it doesn't bode well. I should know. I should already know. And there's no reason why I shouldn't know. And I'm not trying to take away the city's ability to do what's legal and right. Now, the reason this happened, so you get some perspective in history, is I was witness prior to getting elected to a project that was brought forth before the commission at that time in 2021. The citizenry made a compelling presentation. Close to 50 people did a beautiful job on a zoning, either variance or special exception. And five commissioners voted in favor of the citizen's perspective. In 100%, opposition to the law shouldn't have happened. Then I got on the board and the Pocatello apartments came up and that required a request for change. And the mayor, who wasn't the mayor at the time, and myself voted to allow it, the applicant to allow that change, much to the chagrin of the neighbors in the neighborhood. But we followed the law because we didn't succumb to public will. That was the concept behind this administrative approval thing. Protect the city from making mistakes that were politically motivated and driven. So I get that. I get that. We all have to follow the law. That's the first rule of government. Follow the law. But transparency and inclusiveness Runs right alongside and for that reason, I think we really need to amend our administrative. Approval process to make sure that all projects. Save the single family housing developments have to come before commission. They can do so in workshop environments. They, we're not going to be able to vote on. But they come forth where citizens can provide public input. Commissioners can ask questions and staff benefits from. what they hear from us, and then they go back and follow the law. But they may well be able to do whatever they do with the benefit of our input. And I just think that's important. So. I yield to the rest of the Commission and hear what you all have to say on this one.

Commissioner Duvall. seeing it.

It might have been from the last time.

Vice Mayor, you're next.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor. My perception of this is that it is our job as a body to make the rules. It's staff's job to carry them out and I don't see our role as approving projects. I really don't think I want to spend a lot of time discussing projects that we can't impact. I understand and I agree the public has a right to know We do have information on our website. I've gone to it a number of times when I've seen a lot cleared and I don't know what's going on there. I go to the map and I find out it's not the easiest to use because there's so many projects going on in the city, you can't always find the one you're looking for. But I think there's a better way than having five city commissioners and staff discussing projects that meet the rules in order to inform the public. I think there are other ways, if we get creative, of informing the public of what's happening and where. Maybe adding some, I'm not gonna try to craft a solution here, but I think there are more efficient and effective ways to inform the public of what's happening where than to chew up a lot of time. These meetings are expensive. Think about all the staff that sits here listening to us opine on all of these matters. I'd love to do an estimate of what every hour of commission meeting time costs the city. And I'm all for it when we're doing it to execute our jobs and ensuring that people get the information they need, that we get the information we need to do our jobs. I don't think that's discussing every project minus single family homes. that comes before this body. I just don't think it's an efficient way. It's our job to come up with the rules. If the rules aren't right, then let's change them. And then it's staff's job to execute according to those rules. I yield.

Commissioner Stokes.

Yeah. First, I'm not looking to take away or to approve projects, okay? The law dictates whether the project is compliant with the comp plan in the ULDC. But first of all, to address the issue of staff's time, with all due respect, we represent the citizens and the city and, you know, I just, for the life of me, you know, one of the biggest problems we seem to have in this city is the fact that people are, you know, some people anyway, are a bit concerned over the fact that there isn't a big enough spotlight shined on what all is going on, especially in light of the fact that there's so much going on in our city presently. And I don't think we're wasting anybody's time by being able to talk about projects that are moving through the city and to go chase information down on a website or wait for a quarterly meeting by the economic development department to give us a slide presentation on. a high level of what's going on is what I'm looking for, the citizens are looking for. We want to talk about an apartment building going on the corner of X and Y and riots going in and what we're going to do about landscaping and setbacks and what are we going to do to make sure there's no noise and parking issues and traffic issues and these are the kinds of conversations everybody, I think, want to have. We haven't been having them because the administrative process just allows them to grease on through because they're legally allowable. We have to follow the law. I keep saying that, but that doesn't mean we can't have good, healthy discussions as a city and as a commission about them. And as far as taking up too much time, frankly, I consider myself a full-time person. I have a freaking workshop every single week. I don't care. I'll be here seven days a week if need be to do it. I just think we got to get better at this stuff and we got to be more transparent, inclusive. Let's really... Do what it is we say when we always say, oh, you were trying to be transparent and inclusive, but then we don't, I mean. Really, like, we got to fix the things that are wrong. Okay, and I'm not looking to break laws. I'm not looking to usurp staff's authority to approve processes that are legally allowable, but. I want the right to know what's going on and talk about it before it gets approved, and I want the citizens to have that same right. I don't see anything wrong with that at all. I really just don't. Thank you, I yield.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

I also view my job as a full-time job, but I can see a lot better ways of spending my time I love you all, and I love the time we spend together, but frankly, I'd rather be engaging with the community than sitting up here talking about something that we cannot impact. If we think that there's something wrong with the ULDC, if we commissioners believe, based on community input, that we're putting apartment buildings and higher density housing in the wrong place, then let's bring back that map, talk about it, talk about the landscaping and buffer and other requirements that go along with that type of development. That's a healthy discussion to have, and that certainly shares with the community the thought process behind zoning. I think a lot of times we look at, it was Chapter 3, I don't know if it's changed. Chapter 3 was the zoning. What we often neglect to look at as a community is Chapter 4, which are all the building and setback and all of those other requirements that Commissioner Stokes was talking about. Again, I say, if we... And you said yourself, Commissioner, if we've got something wrong, we need to address it. We don't have to discuss projects at a workshop where we can't change anything. If we suspect something is wrong with our rules, then let's talk about the rules. It's educational for the community. Let's look at it from a totality perspective. not just the zoning, not just where we're putting what, but what are the design requirements for that type of building? What thought process went into protecting neighborhoods that are in the area of that kind of development? That is a productive, healthy conversation for this body to have in a situation where we can affect change. Other than that, I'd rather have coffee with a resident of this community where we can talk about stuff or go to an event. or whatever, where I can engage with people who live here about their concerns and hopes and dreams for this city. I yield.

Commissioner Petro.

Thank you, Mayor. I think what Commissioner Stokes is trying to say, we need the approval, administrative approval back so we wouldn't be in the situation we're in right now, basically, which doesn't require us to do all the administrative stuff, what the staff does. Thank you.

Thank you. City Clerk, public comment.

I think with the administrative approval, you're still operating under Senate Bill 784 for plats and replats, but In my research, I found that there is an exception to that Senate bill that says if it's within a charter county, that there is an exception that the county charter would then prevail over the Senate bill. So I don't know, I haven't had a chance yet to look at the county's charter, but the question is also, I don't see anything in our charter, but if we were to put something within our charter To address that particular exception, that would be a question for the city attorney to look into for the commission. But in any event. We can narrowly defined administrative boundaries. because we can define minor versus major actions, structure our land development regulations so that only explicit minor or objective tasks are handled administratively, forcing any gray areas or subjective interpretations back to a public vote before the commission. Establish strict oversight protocols that require mandatory staff briefings to the commission. appeals, we can ensure our local land development codes provide a clear pathway for aggrieved parties or the commission itself to appeal administrative staff decisions. So it depends how deep you want to get involved. I mean, at one time before the rewrite, you know, commission had a lot more authority and approvals on a lot of what's going on with these developments. And then Senate Bill 784 came into play, and then that kind of shifted things. So it depends on what this commission is willing to do and how much time you're willing to put into it. But again, if you can put these restrictions within there, then it still gives staff the authority, but they have to basically, it's limited. Their authority basically is limited between a major or a minor development. They have to let you notify on a monthly basis. So however, you know, so you know what's going on. Then you can determine. what your procedures are going to be and your protocols are going to be. So, you know, that's my recommendation. Thank you, guys. Thank you.

Robin Vincente makes a lot of sense, and that's 20 years of experience right there, and to be able to do it off the top of her head is amazing. Commissioner Langdon, there's community members right here that you can engage with, and we've also been here now for how many hours, and so for you to say you'd rather be somewhere else is very off-putting, once again, to say the least. I really appreciate you keep revealing yourself and how you feel about the people that actually do show up Reversing the administrative approval process to bring these massive projects back in front of a public vote sounds like a victory for representation. But under Florida's strict growth management laws and SB 180, shifting a project from an administrative track to a political track after an application is already in play is a high risk gamble that invites multimillion dollar property rights lawsuits. We do not need to alter the city's standard processing tracks to win this fight. We need to enforce the law the strict, unyielding environmental metrics that apply to any processing track. The most bulletproof legal mechanics we have is the immediate enactment of well-filled protection ordinances and the aquifer replenishment basin. We have the ability to do that still today. Hours later, I'm still telling you that we have the ability to do that today. I'm not hearing anyone. If we establish clear tournament infrastructure and aquifer protections, it doesn't matter if an application is reviewed by city staff or voted on by this dais, the project cannot legally proceed unless the developer proves their massive water consumption will do zero harm to our shared water resources. Furthermore, utilizing the pending ordinance doctrine today allows the city to freeze any new corporate tag-teamers from sneaking in while we write these rules. Stop changing the procedural rules of the game and start protecting the court itself. Pass the model well-filled protection ordinance and the awkward fur recharge basin and then... Once you're hopefully this permit that's sitting on your desk is going to expire in 180 days. Once it's expired, then that's when SB 484 can be used. And all of these rules that we're asking you to write now preemptively. will then automatically fall under 484. But as long as you have a contract from a permit from anyone that wants to build a hyperscale data center, SB 484 does not apply to this dais or any dais in Florida. 484, again, was written to be preemptively used, and you guys chose not to preemptively use it. So use the ordinance that I've given you in order to protect us in our water.

I'm going to give you three examples of Chapter 4 and why you need this administrative approval process. One property was included in the rezone. Two properties were already zoned for this before the rezone. First one is that apartment complex that's going in the middle of a residential area that's been rezoned to R3 right off the Snowville. You all know Sandy Kapowski. She's got this project right behind her. Everything in chapter four that she wanted to use for protection, she's listening to loud jackhammers. They've got the land cleared right up to her property. So something like that and how it affects the neighbors, there should have been different buffers and things considered for that. The next project is the big RV park going off of Chamberlain, right north of 75. There's Kelly Verada has got concerns about the dumping of the sewage that's going to be there and where the gas is it going to affect her water. Chapter 4, I don't know if there's anything in there for her, but at least it should have been considered how that's going to affect the neighborhood. And the third one is, I forgot. Shoot, I forgot what it was. But there's another third one somewhere that is, oh, no, the one on Sumter, the high-rise apartments, Randy Hess. He's got, now he's got apartments going right behind him, parking lights that are going to affect this area. So those are my examples. Thanks.

Thank you.

Angela LeClerc. I strongly support agenda item 26-1022 and reversing the administrative approval process within the Unified Land Development Code. Development decisions can have lasting consequences for surrounding homeowners, neighbors, traffic, drainage, utilities, water resources, environmental quality, and the overall character of Northport. Those decisions should not become effectively automatic simply because administrative deadline passes. Administrative efficiency is important, but efficiency should never come at the expense of accountability or the public's opportunity to be heard. The city's own ULDC states its purpose is to promote public health, safety, and welfare, implement the comprehensive plan, and facilitate orderly growth and development. Residents deserve confidence that significant development applications receive meaningful review and that decision makers remain accountable for the consequences of those decisions. Automatic approval can undermine that confidence and potentially allow projects to proceed without adequate consideration of impacts that may not be apparent from a checklist or technical review alone. I urge the Commission to reverse the administrative approval process and require affirmative action when appropriate, particularly for applications with potentially significant impacts. Staff should have the ability to thoroughly evaluate applications and the public should have meaningful notice and an opportunity to participate when decisions could materially affect their community. Northport is experiencing tremendous growth. We should not weaken oversight in the name of speed. Please support 26-1022 and restore accountability, transparency, and responsible review to our development approval process. Cynthia Roids, I fully support the return of administrative approval to be returned to the elected representatives of the city commission. The people and the commissioners must take our city back. David Iannotti, restoration of commission oversight and input on proposals must be restored or what we are left with is a commission of puppets. Debbie McDowell, thank you for having a discussion on administrative approval processes. In case anyone is wondering, administrative approval is granting authority to the ULDC administrator to approve specific parts of the ULDC. The ULDC has designated the director of development services or their designee to grant those approvals. No input from commission or citizens, no public hearing, no checks and balances. As a reminder, staff does not answer to the citizens or to the commission. There are various sections riddled throughout the ULDC that allow administrative approval. It involves far more than approving projects. The development master concept plan is a good place to start with amending the ULDC. Another area is the section granting the hearing officer to approve major variances and minor variances are approved administratively. There are some components to the ULDC that allow administrative approval to various waivers. Then there's neighborhood meetings. Yes, they are required, but nothing happens after that. No commission involvement. The citizens have no place to turn to have their voice heard. Did you know when a project is administratively approved, there is no mechanism to notify commission? Commission is kept in the dark, which means the citizens are kept in the dark. This should be amended too. I know this subject like the back of my hand, and I won't bore you with the citing various sections of the code that permit administrative approval. However, I'm extending an invitation to share my knowledge with you and have a conversation. I truly look forward to hearing from you or anyone who wants to learn more on this subject. Commissioners, please restore Commission oversight. Please restore those checks and balances. Please restore transparency and the ability for Commission and citizens to participate in the development processes before projects are formally approved. Donna Hobey. Dear Mayor and Commissioners, I am writing as a Northport resident to express my strong support for agenda item 26-1022. High-impact commercial developments carry multi-decade consequences for Northport, particularly regarding our water sources and traffic infrastructure. Administrative staff sign-offs are designated for... Routine technical approvals. They are not equipped to evaluate macro level community impacts, allowing high impact projects to bypass public hearings, prevents residents from raising critical questions about water conservation, the cumulative strain that large industrial utility demands place on our local water supply and aquifer, traffic infrastructure, increased congestion, road wear, and safety concerns along major corridors like I-75, Veterans Highway, Hillsborough Boulevard, project just completed, Toledo Blade Boulevard, and US 41. Decisions that impact our local water security and daily traffic flow belong in the open. Reversing the administrative approval process guarantees public notice and ensures final authority remains with the elected leaders accountable to our community. Please vote yes on this agenda item. Sincerely, Donna Hoving. Elizabeth Lansall. My name is Libby Lansall and I thank you for your time. Regarding item 26-1022, I strongly object to unelected staff or city manager approving items without the full disclosure and information presented to our commissioners. We voted the commissioners in, not the staff or the city manager. The administrative staff can source facts, but it needs to be unbiased. I'm hopeful that the commissioners whom we have elected will think long and hard about where the opinion and possible facts are coming from and what they... and that they are unbiased, not like the dog and pony show we were presented from the experts on data centers. The first question should always be, is it really in the best interest of our residents in our city? Everyone has a background and a life history before being employed. Could it be that we've hired some pro data people in our city management to screw the thoughts and ideas in favor of building a data center? I understand that we want more commercial and that we need more revenue. Maybe a nice designated area for a park-like mini downtown development area where families can gather with restaurants, shopping, bakery, post office, etc. The area of Legacy Trail by Price seems to have a lot of open land beside the trail. I believe the trail would be used more if it had some amenities, especially restrooms. I was talking to three moms pushing strollers that had to cut their walk short because there are no restrooms to use. We ride our bikes out there and the closest port-a-potty is 2.5 miles from the trailhead. Women aren't comfortable squatting in the woods to pay. This area seems perfect to build on since the trail and the land is already there. Maybe Google the Loveland Bike Trail in Loveland, Ohio. It's 70 miles long and connects many small towns with restaurants and amenities along the way. It is extremely popular and well attended. The Legacy Trail is already there. Let's add some amenities. Greg Faulkner. Mayor and Commissioners, I support Commissioner Stokes' request to reconsider and reverse portions of the administrative approval process within the ULDC. The ULDC rewrite has been, in my opinion, a debacle. More importantly, it has shifted too much consequential decision making away from public bodies and elected officials and into an administrative process with insufficient oversight and accountability. Administrative approval makes sense for routine ministerial matters where an applicant either meets clearly established requirements or does not, but when a decision requires interpretation or discretion, affects surrounding neighborhoods, impacts infrastructure, or influences the future character of our city, it deserves public scrutiny. Efficiency is important, but efficiency cannot become an excuse for eliminating transparency. Residents elect commissioners to make difficult decisions about the direction of Northport. We do not elect staff. That is not a criticism of staff. It is how representative government is supposed to work. When consequential development decisions can be approved administratively, residents may not know what is happening until a decision has already been made. At that point, public participation becomes reaction rather than representation. Northport needs predictable development rules and developers deserve certainty. but predictability and accountability are not mutually exclusive. The Commission should draw a clear line. Routine decision based on objective standards can remain administrative. Decisions involving significant discretion, interpretation, or community impact should receive transparent public review and appropriate oversight. The ULDC should help Northport grow responsibly. It should not become a mechanism for insulating consequential land use decisions from the residents who must live with them. I support action today to restore that accountability. Josh Smith, I support City Commission reversing staff approval on items. The sliding of responsibility has already shown its ugly head. U.S. Commissioners have lost all ability to know what's going on because staff can backdoor their way around you. It was sad to hear Commissioner Langdon's stance in a previous meeting on this subject. Hopefully she will remember that citizens elected her to have some oversight ability and not just to be a lapdog to city staff. Christina Smith, I support the reversal of the administrative approval process within the ULDC. With the current topic of hyperscale data centers, there have been instances across the nation where they have gotten approved via this administrative approval process without oversight by the commission, which is incredibly alarming. This is a prime example of what a certain previous commissioner warned why it was a terrible idea to begin with and had voted against it. I appreciate Commissioner Stokes for adding this to an agenda item after realizing this better late than never, despite initially voting in favor of it previously. Perhaps administrative approval could still be utilized, but there must be clearly defined thresholds that limit what can be routed via this alternate process. Lori Richards. I'm just an average citizen. I'm not familiar with the law. However, when I learned that our Northport commissioners secretly rezoned Northport and Fletcher signed a non-disclosure agreement to keep residents in the dark about future plans for Northport residents, I realized that three of our five commissioners have not voted on behalf of us residents. This mess we're in with a potential data center is a direct result of your administrative approval process and it needs to be reversed. Lynette Sioria. I support reversing the administrative approval process. Major development decisions should not be happening behind the scenes without residents having a chance to know what is being proposed and speak up about it. If a project can significantly impact our neighborhoods, traffic, infrastructure, or quality of life, it should go through a public process. Northport is growing too quickly to be removing public oversight from development decisions. Residents deserve transparency and a voice before these projects are approved. Mary McLin, this needs to be reversed. A staff member should not be allowed to approve applications. Roland Phillips, we must stay highly critical of item F26-1022 regarding the discussion to reverse the administrative approval process within our ULDC. While a reversal sounds like it could bring back public hearing, simply having a discussion on this item exposes a deeply flawed system. The fact that the city ever allowed administrative approval in the first place is a direct insult to the community. Administrative approval acts as a massive loophole, shifting the power to green light, high impact developments out of the public eye and handling it directly to On elected city staff, it allows massive neighborhood altering industrial and commercial projects like predatory tech developments to bypass public scrutiny commission votes and a neighborhood notification. We cannot settle for an open ended discussion or a water down compromise that leaves a partial reversal or a temporary fix isn't enough to protect our city's future. Our community demands absolute accountability. Every single land use choice. that alters our neighborhoods, threatens our natural resources, or creates 24-7 noise and utility burdens must face a mandatory public hearing. Elected leaders must have to look residents in the eye and vote on the record rather than hiding behind city staff approvals. Let the City Commission know that we see through administrative rubber stamping. We demand a full permanent reversal of all administrative approvals and major developments ensuring complete public transparency. Mayor DeMartino. Good morning again, commissioners. My name is Sam. I am in support of this reversal of administrative approval rights that has been given to the city manager. These types of decisions should be made as a group. Thank you. Stacey mentioning, we need a reversal of administrative approval process within the Unified Land Development Code. It is unacceptable to have random administrative employees making major approval decisions that can seriously affect the lives of Northport residents. The citizens elect the commissioners to represent them, and the commissioners should approve or reject ULDC requests accordingly. And that's all I have, Mayor.

I'd like to make a motion to direct staff to draft an ordinance to bring back, or to bring all commercial, retail, and multifamily projects before the City Commission on a monthly basis prior to any administrative approval.

I have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Stokes. Clerk, would you like to read it back, please?

Direct the City Manager to draft an ordinance to bring all commercial, retail, and multi-family projects to commission on a monthly base list prior to any administrative approval.

And that motion was made by Commissioner Stokes, seconded by Commissioner Duvall. Any discussion? If not, then let's vote. And that passes 4-1 with Vice Mayor dissenting. Vice Mayor?

Reason stated.

Thank you. Moving on to final public comment. City Clerk?

I hand to the first, followed by Samuel Cervantes.

Again, I have to read my handwriting. I just wanted to state these last couple of weeks had a lot of public commenters come up and make very educated and informative comments. And I just wanted to speak on that because public commenters, why we do it, we don't do it because we have nothing else better to do. Some of us have health issues that we're dealing with, but we make it here because we care about the city. We've been called haters. We've been called the vocal minority for trying to speak up because that's the other side of the coin. There's one side, there's another side. So, We're just not speaking to hear ourselves speak. We've spoken on projects that affect our health, safety, welfare, and our way of life. You know, we've been here on the Toledo 320 project. There were a group of residents that got together and spoke about the Pocatello. The residents that were on the Kenville for the apartments coming there, Woodhaven, and of course, Warm Mineral Springs. a lot of residents came out for that. So I've already given you the crack flows downstream speech. I've already given you the compromise speech and I've already given you the work together speech. So now it's time to listen to the residents and I'll work together. Excuse me, thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Samuel Terpening and this is dedicated to every single resident in the state of Florida, everyone. When I write or stand at the podium, people look at me and ask, who is this guy? Where has he been? And what is his angle? They assume I represent a paid organization or hidden political agenda. They are wrong. I am just one guy. I am a sick guy who is standing here today because I lived the absolute nightmare of Florida's water crisis. And I am still living it right now. In the summer of 2018, the water in the state poisoned my home. I fell so violently ill that my body deteriorated to a skeletal 90 pounds. I was paralyzed on my right side, my arm and leg completely useless, shaking like I had Parkinson's. While I was trapped in my own failing body, a wave of destruction hit my family. My mother-in-law, since past, suffered a massive stroke, losing the lining of her intestines before being consumed by Alzheimer's and dementia. I watched my spouse up in ICU three separate times, once because they thought it was brain cancer and another time because the fluid retention was so severe the body blew up like a balloon cutting off the circulation. In the middle of all of that agony, my dogs started dying consecutively week after week. One would die and two weeks later, the next one would collapse. When I begged for help, my then county commissioner in Charlotte County, Chris Constance, completely stonewalled me. He refused to look at me, talk to me, or even acknowledge my suffering. My family existed. It was a brutal slap in the face, but the circle always turns. This year, the voters finally threw him out of office and replaced him with John Fleming, and I want every commissioner in this state to hear that name and learn the lesson. When a citizen comes to you crying out for their life, you look them in the eye and you listen, because the public record is permanent and the voters will eventually clear the room. To this very day, I carry the permanent damage that poisoning caused me. Every single day, the moment I eat a meal, I face severe sickness unless I take specialized medication. So I haven't eaten in six hours, just so I could get through it. I spend most of my days confined to a chair. My body is broken, but thank divinity, my brain still works. And when you were forced to sit in a chair all day, you used your brain to read, to research, and to track what's happening to our state. I watched them dump raw sewage from aging infrastructure, spread copious amounts of toxic herbicides, and completely failed to test our water for heavy metals and PFAS. And right now they want us to sit quietly while unproven nuclear micro-reactors and resource-devouring hyperscale data centers threaten to drain millions of gallons from our aquifer every single day. I don't speak from ego, I speak from a chair.

God bless you all. You have my condolences, sir.

I'm still alive, but thank you.

Michelle Little. Good morning, Commissioners. We, the citizens of Northport, demand the immediate drafting and enactment of permanent well field protection ordinances written directly into our local land development regulations under Florida Senate Bill 484. We are done with administrative delays, 12 month study task force or legally risky moratoriums that trigger multi-million dollar developer lawsuits under the judicial pending ordinance doctrine, you have the legal authority right now to officially announce you are drafting these water protections, instantly freezing any new hyperscale data center applications from sneaking into our borders. Roland Phillips. I am writing to demand absolute accountability, transparency, and community protection regarding items 26.10.51, 26.10.23, and 26.10.22. Together, these items represent a critical crossroads for future of Northport. We cannot allow corporate interests and backroom mechanisms to dictate our city's land use policies. Regarding item 261051, we must enact the strictest possible land use regulations concerning data centers. Our current ULDC completely lacks baseline protections against these high impact industrial facilities. We cannot pass weak, lenient regulations that turn Northport into a regulatory path of least resistance for predatory tech developments. Any updates to the ULDC must legally mandate massive setbacks from residential zones, strict low-frequency noise caps, resource usage limits to protect our grid, and total tax accountability. However, protective zoning rules means nothing if developments are negotiated in the shadows. This brings me to item 26.10.23. Simply establishing a process to notify the Commission of non-disclosure agreements is a dangerously weak compromise. Merely notifying leadership that a secret deal exists does nothing to stop the secrecy itself. We demand a total ban on NDAs between public officials and private developers. Local government must operate in the light. Finally, regarding Item 261022, the city must permanently reverse the administrative approval process for major projects. Administrative approval is a loophole that lets unelected city staff rubber stamp neighborhood altering developments without public hearings or recorded. Commission votes. We see how these pieces fit together. Corporations use NDAs to hide their plans, rely on weak ULDC regulations to protect their profits, and use administrative approvals to bypass public scrutiny. I urge the Commission to reject corporate secrecy, fully eliminate administrative rubber stamping, and codify ironclad protections. Stacey Menching. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Stacey Menching, and I am writing today with the direct mandate we demand the immediate drafting and enactment of permanent welfare protection ordinances written directly into our local land development regulations under Florida Senate Bill 484. We are done with administrative delays, 12-month study task force, or legally risky moratoriums that trigger multimillion-dollar developer lawsuits. Under the judicial pending ordinance doctrine, you have the legal authority right now to officially announce you are drafting these water protections, instantly freezing any new hyperscale data center applications from sneaking into our borders. The political line in the sand is drawn today, and the community is tracking exactly where each of you stands. Commissioner Stokes, if you want to earn your re-election, you will step up today, do what is best for Northport residents, and make the official motion to review and implement these well-filled protections. Mayor Emmerich, sign on to this ordinance immediately and stop using committee delays to protect family interests. Protecting our aquifer is in the best interest of Northport, which will be the best interest for Ms. Emrich's campaign as well. Commissioner Petro, I have faith in you to keep the outstanding following and community trust you have built. Continue to lead the charge and fully support this ironclad legal framework on the floor. Commissioner DeValle, if you want to fall on the correct side of history, you must sign on to these wellfield protections to protect our drinking... Water. Our aquifer is facing an industrial extinction event. Stop playing defense. Protect our well fields. Use SB 484 and protect Florida's water right now. And that's all, Mayor.

Thank you. I'm going to move on to Commissioner Communications. Commissioner Duvall. Commissioner Stokes. Me too. Vice Mayor.

I'm all set. Thank you.

Commissioner Petro. For me. City Manager. Nothing, Mr. Mayor. City Attorney? Nothing, Mayor. Thank you. City Clerk? I have nothing to say. All righty, then. It's that special time of day. It's 420, and I adjourn this meeting.