Parks & Recreation Advisory Board - Regular Meeting

I'll go ahead then and call this meeting to order. Let's start with roll call.

Oh,

okay. So today is Wednesday, 02/11/2026. It is 05:33PM, and we're in Room 244. And I'm calling the Historic and Cultural Advisory Board meeting to order. So I will go ahead now and ask for the role. So, please state your names for the record. Chris Stirner.

Monica Beckett.

William Stearns. Harry Klinkhammer. All right. Let's next do the Pledge of Allegiance. William, would like to lead us?

I pledge allegiance to the flag

All right. Do we have any public comment?

No public comment.

All right. So let's go ahead and move on to item five, the approval of minutes.

I make a motion to approve the minutes for 01/14/2026.

All right. We have a motion.

I second it.

And we have a second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? All right. The ayes do have it. So we will now move on to unfinished business starting with twenty five dash two eight four nine. Discussion and possible action regarding recommending revisions of ULDC code of the city of Northport to the city commission article two section six point two point one to six point two point ten. So

Point of order here. Is that so we have this. I'm sorry. Negate that. Okay.

Alright. So then we've got this here back on the agenda. So I see here that what we've got the attachment was the, again, the full complete ULDC, of which I went ahead and just printed out the specific sections. Now we, I recall, last time went over and reviewed the changes, the recommended changes, I should say, that, mister Stern put together. And I believe we had gone through pretty much everything but had questions.

And so I think that is part of the reason why.

I don't know if need this or not. This is my red line one. Yeah. And I'll just take your other recommendations. Yes. Everything you've read is my recommendation. Is that your draft, the one you created now? This is the original. This wait a minute. That says draft. Yeah, but this one. I think, yes, this is correct. This is correct. Not quite as quick as Would

you like me to copy that now? It would. Okay. So everybody can see the same, what they're all working

on. Yes.

Okay. So I would recommend that in the future, if you're going to have something like that you're going to discuss, you also attach it to the agenda ahead of time. Because then the public has no idea what you're looking at right now if they're listening.

I was actually

And then I'll give the board members time to read I'm just saying.

Okay. But I sent it to you.

Then the agenda comes out. I know you sent it to me, but I thought it was just because of our discussion that we were I know. It

was going back and forth. I understand. Problem.

I have to say, I was wondering why it wasn't on here as an attachment. So that was

kind of When you get your agenda, if you ever see anything that is not missing, just send a quick email so your liaison or the board specialist, and we'll make sure it gets on there just so that

That might be it. Should have told you. Sorry. That's okay.

Oh, I should have given this to him. Oh, no.

Where does he go to make his copies of the brand right in my office? Oh, I was

gonna say, think he's just the first somewhere. Yeah.

I was gonna say, he should go to the

1st Floor. He's usually pretty quick about getting. So

Chris, what does your email start with again? Because I'm gonna forward it to him so he has it

digitally. History

History. Okay.

Nineteen Got it. Got it. I just found out you can scan that PDF and convert that.

More than that in here. Right?

Which I loved. Yeah. That's what I did here. I think that when I sent this second one, this interview, I have this in red. Okay? But I changed it to your format of no red. It's all underlined. And that's what Andy is doing. The same thing with this. I have this red line.

Yeah. All right.

We'll get it. We'll get it. Yes. I'll send it to you either way because I want to make sure you get the

right one. Alright. Thank you for making those copies. Is there any comment or report introduction from staff regarding this? Or do we want to just go ahead and

So we did get a phone call from developmental services. They would like to come in April to review any of the recommendations so that they could make sure that you guys are, like, within the statutory code and if there's anything they think that could help you guys. So they, unfortunately, couldn't make the meeting today or next month, but they would like to come in April.

So that's specifically for the ULDC? ULDC, correct. I may interject here, Okay? I've taken the existing ULDC, all right? That's what this is. Okay. I've taken that. And what I did to it is I added in things from the twenty fourteen ULDC proposed changes. They were never accepted. So essentially, what you've got here is the existing meld with The

twenty fourteen

ULDC. And

I agree that whoever's going to make the changes to back me, that maybe I didn't do the right thing or did the right thing. That's what

I'm hoping. So I have a question. So is this document we just received just a reworking, a reformatting of the document we reviewed last month? Or have there been more changes made?

Oh, no. It's the same one we did last month.

The only thing I did is I took numbers out.

Right.

Because I that

format is not

in there.

But I did not have red line on this one.

Okay. So but basically, it's the same text that we reviewed last Exactly right. So if I recall and someone please jog my memory if I am incorrect, but we did go over this.

We did.

And this board I

only have one change.

Okay.

It's on page 11. And right at the bottom, and I don't know why. It was the only thing I changed and then I stuck the thing on. And it says, in the case of suspected Native American scaleable remains are found in addition to the aforementioned entities, the following parties must be notified as opposed to are to be notified. Notified.

I agree. We

did that in my market. So

you're saying then it should be parties must notified?

It parties must Yeah. Be

That sounds more code esque. Alright. So I guess at this point then, if we have already settled on this and we've got development services coming in April, then I would suggest to this board that we just table this until the April meeting.

I'm sorry. I believe I would. I'm sorry.

Do you

need anything from us?

No. I just got it.

So I don't know if we need a motion to table this until April.

Now the numbering that you've taken off, would be better if they were here and it got all renumbered because

Well, what they will do is they'll look at what we have here. I have the

one that has the numbers on it, which is

the one we went over. And as I said, the first part of this, with some exceptions, because I put in some reference to the Historic and Cultural Advisory Board, which wasn't in the original. So a lot of that, the red that I put in, just alludes to us. Consequently, the numbering should be the same, because we're not really changing the entire Section 6.2. We're just changing certain elements. And of course, adding into it because there's a bunch of stuff in there that we're going to follow what was in the original proposed.

Suggestions that you're bringing to the

Exactly. So this is going to have to go obviously, services is going want to take a look at this. Ultimately, it's going to need to go to the city commission. It's also to

Got to go to legal, then it's got to go to the commission.

Yeah. It's got a long way to go still. But this is a start. Correct. So I

move that we table this until the meeting with Development Services. Development Services. Whenever that is. April.

Yeah. April. It is April. Yeah. I think we have to have a date certain when we table. Okay. That was my motion. Okay. Thank you.

You said that so quietly. I didn't

hear the first part.

Only a couple of us here.

That's right. That's right. Play along here.

So to April it is. So then that brings us to our next item on the agenda, item 20 six-two 43, discussion and possible action regarding recommended city commission policy for designating historic sites within the city of Northport.

Okay.

Man, what? This one, I have one sheet. Okay. I'm sorry. You should've given it to you. Sorry.

Is that the draft policy that we already had or no attached?

Yes.

Okay.

I guess we can discuss this. The draft for change to the Chapter four of City ordinances, Code section 4.192 or section dash 192. What is this one?

That is your roles and responsibilities.

Okay. Part of

the roles and responsibilities also includes this item in here. As I said, there isn't much to do

on this.

It's just there is one line item

what you and I were talking about. So there's three separate things that you have going on here. You're wanting to recommend changes to the ULDC to be more inclusive of the historic board, things that stuff in there. So that's document. Commission approves that via ordinance. And that updates the Unified Land Development Code. Your roles and responsibilities, which is what you have in front of you there, is your that is in city code.

Got

it. And the commission approves that as well by ordinance, hearings by ordinance. And then you have the commission direction to create the policy, which is what they want to be able to recreate those by resolution as well. We create commission policies by resolution. And that is what they were looking for the board to give them guidelines.

So when they received the recommendation from the board to designate those two sites as historic sites, they received it. But they don't know how to determine if it's a historic site. So they were looking for a criteria, the board to come up with a process of criteria of what they should be looking at. When we get this presented to us, how do we know if it is determined as a historic site for the city? So those are the three different things that I believe the board is working on. And those are how commission reviews reviews and receives those. You

were right. There's a lot.

And one does impact the other, but they're all three separate things.

Right. Exactly. Right.

You can change your roles and responsibilities responsibilities without changing anything else. GREGORY But if that role that you want to add impacts something that you can't do because the way the UOVC is currently written, then yes, you're going to have to change that as well. But if it's just adding something to your roles that's not going to impact anything else, then we can bring that forward to get it.

Well, this new one is there is a reference. I'll read it to you. Evaluate, recommend, and process the paperwork for the placement of historical markers approved by city commission as addressed in section

Thank you.

I left that out of the ULDC. That's item four under four one hundred ninety two. So there is a reference to ULDC. That's the issue here. And again, until we get the ULDC resolved, I guess we can just let this Table it

up. April Table as well?

This item is actually not even on

the agenda.

Yeah, I know. Oh, that's true. We don't have the table. Never mind.

Oh, so does that mean future item, though?

Yeah. But this would be well, it would be a future item so that we could table it until the UODC is resolved.

Oh, Okay. I thought it

was part of

all right. Should I select them back?

We'll add it to the agenda item. Okay.

I guess this will go.

So then, yes. Then I guess until we have that April meeting, we really don't know if the additional item that's being proposed as responsibility is something that we can move forward with. I guess here as well, I will be entertaining a motion to table this item.

This one doesn't have an item.

It doesn't have an item. Okay. We can't even table it. It's not on there. No. So I guess I'll take yeah. I'll so we will add this onto. Well, I guess, yeah, do we wanna put it on March? So we table it to April? Or do we, can we just let it sit until April at this point?

We can let it sit

until Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Alright. So

I'm sorry. We're doing what with this one?

So this item, we have to wait until we go over the ULDC changes with development services because this additional item on here impacts that document. So we need to see if that's actually going to happen first before we can

So agenda items for the April meeting would be the ULDC and this item. Okay. Okay.

Alright. So that still brings us back to discussion and possible action regarding a recommended city commission policy for designating historic sites within the city of Northport. So I think maybe a nice simple way to kind of explain these three parts that are revolving around each other is the LDC is legally what we can do or have to do. Board duties and responsibilities spells out what our rules are here. Usually, it will be then based upon those other items.

And this third thing is basically how are we doing it? So this part of the policy is how do we go from, oh, that could be an historic site to, oh, that's an historic site, basically. So that's what we need to do with policy. Now, I know we had attached to this agenda item something that I had draft up over the holiday break. I know there's some language from earlier meetings we had that probably needs to be changed in there because, you know and I went looking through the minutes again before I left work for this meeting.

But somewhere I had it in my head that this board said that they did not want to do local registered designating properties, then it would have to be reviewed for COAs and change that on to be made. Now I've been told that I was assuming, raising the head because that's no one else seems to recall that conversation. So but seeing that it was in my head when I wrote that, I have language in there. So I think what we can do is still look at that draft policy at least as a starting point on how we want to evaluate what criteria is going to be used and what procedures are we going to put in place for recommending historic properties to the city commission.

So this is where we went into the all these same things coupled together. Because a lot of what's in ULDC that I proposed to change has how you do that. As I said, I took that out of twenty fourteen ULDC that was never approved. And I figure if it looked Okay then, it should look Okay now even though it wasn't approved for some reason. There may have been other issues with the ULDC at that time, not necessarily with this.

Because extensively, ULDC addresses archaeological things. Well, that's part of our purview here, that we recognize archaeological sites. So we're stepping on ULDC here. We're stepping on the city code. And we're stepping on our responsibilities all in one fell swoop. Does that make sense to everybody? Because they're all interrelated one way or another. I don't know what to say. We could go through this with the responsibilities. But what could happen well, I don't know what we would do with this.

But what could happen eventually is parts of this could be eliminated because it's already addressed in the ULDC. Or vice versa, we take what's in the ULDC and add it to this. It's a real mess. I don't know how these things were done in other entities like the county or the city of Sarasota or Venice or any of those other places. I don't know how they've done it.

But I'm sure they went through the same gyrations what we're going through right now. But I'm just throwing that out there. If we want to go through that, that's fine. But we have to be aware of the fact that we're stepping on other documents' toes. Does that make sense?

So yeah, I would say that if it is not clear yet what statutory authority we would have via the ULDC on designation or recognition or whatever terminology you want to use, identification of historic sites, then it may be then difficult. It could be put in the cart before the horse of setting up procedures on how to do something that we may not end up actually doing or needs to be tweaked because of changes that might be coming in the ULDC. So yes, we've got several balls in the air that are all connected. But this is kind of a chicken and egg thing.

There are recommendations in here with that, correct?

In the UOPC proposal, yes. If you go to the bag We meet

the table item for April, that's when we discuss and see yay, nay, and how to, right? So I think at that point, we'll give you the better direction of how to move forward.

Yeah. It sounds like we're really stuck until we have this meeting about the LDC.

Well, what we could do is go through this because I like the write up on this. You did this. This is great. I mean, this is pretty much what I was hoping would happen. We could go through this, pick out the stuff that looks like, yes, we're going be able to do this. These are now I mean, the first part of that fact finding is a fact.

This was Harry's work.

Oh, this is your work. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. I'm sorry. Harry.

Right. No, that's Okay.

I'll just throw it under the bus for

this question.

Okay, I got it. I didn't know who'd

So, yeah. So I mean, drafted this, again, based upon my wrong assumption about what this board wanted to do. And then also just kind of based upon some of the work that I did drafting up the preservation ordinance for the city of Venice. So and I I tried to simplify this as much as possible. I will say that in terms of consideration for historical resources, and I forget how it is in the ELDC right now and with your changes.

But I will tell you that the state of Florida frowns upon local government using the Florida master site file as a criteria for considering something historic. Right. Now that's not to say that, you know, we have in here that we should have an updated list because that tells us what's around here. But they they heavily frown on because I know Sarasota City of does that, and it drives the folks in Tallahassee nuts. So I think we'll just need to make sure that, I you know, made sure in my link together that there was nothing to that effect of using that as criteria.

So we just need to kind of make sure that that's kind of consistent throughout. So having said that, so I don't know if you all want to at least go through this now and make some comments because there may be things in here that already that you feel like should be changed. So if we want to at least do a first run through and tackle that with some proposed changes here, I think, you know, now would be the time to do that. So Mhmm. So you should have all have seen this.

This was an attachment to the agenda. So if you want, I can walk us through it. So, yes, findings of fact, I mean, that's just kind of standard when you're looking at new policies, like, why you need to do it. So and this just kinda gives you then the backbone for, everything else that's coming that's coming through after this. And so, yeah.

So the purpose of this is to establish how we're gonna identify historic and cultural resources and recognizing them. And so I started here too with a little bit of terms because we need to make sure that we are clear on when we're using terms, words, and phrases that we're on the same page on what that means. So that's where you'll see, with a and b, you know, kind of already identifying what these things are so we know what we're talking about. And then, you know, we get into section c here, three c, ways of identifying. And so there can be a historic resource surveys that have already been completed by the city of Northport for different projects.

Our other historic resource survey work completed by other government agencies, for example, the county or the state for other projects that are happening in Northport. I know I'll just give as an example, working in Venice. The state did an historic resources survey in Venice along US 41 when they went to widen it. I didn't know about it. I found it in the Florida master sign file.

So then, again, there so that's where that's helpful. But it also means that there are other places where we should be looking at where other folks have already done some work identifying historic resources. And so work on on 41, you know, other places that could have already been works done. So that's something that we can easily get from Tallahassee in terms of that the Florida master site trial list to look at. And that, yeah, we would wanna be looking at identifying things either as a group because they all kinda go together or individually.

And then we get into, well, what are the criteria that a site would need to meet to be under consideration? So this is basically who gets past velvet rope into the nightclub. This is kind of where we're at right here. Yeah, I know. Okay.

So yeah, you can tell what my life was like when I was younger. Okay, so Speak Speak easy. So anyways, and so this is kind of standard language that I tweaked a little to make it Northport specific. But, you know, it's individually if it's individually listed in the National Register, it's something that we can consider to be to designate, recognize locally. Same goes for if it's deemed eligible, and that is something that we can find out from the state of Florida.

They also keep track of that that. If it's a contributing structure to a national historic district in Northport, then there too. That's something that would be worthy of them considering it for local recognition. And then we start getting to more some of the broader categories. It's representative of historic period of time in Northport.

So it's a good representation of a specific era of Northport history that has a lot of integrity. And that's the key right there. Integrity means that it still has a lot of its original features to it. It hasn't been completely redone. A lot of things replaced because that then it starts losing integrity.

If it's the last remaining example of some sort of period in in Northwood history or architectural style or something like that, that's then worth consideration because it's if that one's gone, then there's nothing left. Connected to an historic individual or event in Northport history, this is again to kind of standard language on, like, historic preservation designation language. And then this last one, seven, this typically represents archaeological sites. So this one here too may have, we may have to look to see how this melts in with what's in the ULDC. But that's typically the standard language you find, when you're looking at potential underground resources.

So that it has that potential to yield phrase in there. So then, yeah, how do we measure that? How do we evaluate it? So that's where I get into an e. Our reports are findings from historic resource survey were completed.

So we can look to see what research has already been done on a site through previous research work. And then from there too, like I said, get the Florida master site file list because then that'll let us know what's out there that could be eligible, and if it's been identified. Because on the Florida master site file, even though we're not supposed to use that as a criteria, It does have on the form whoever did the survey and the state as well should have on there if they did it properly. Recommendations on whether or not it's national register eligible would be on that form if it's completed fully. So these are all things that we can be looking at in terms of the criteria.

Question. Yes. E3, have criteria set forth in four d? Four d.

Four d.

Four d. And I don't see a four d either.

That jumped out at me. I'm sorry.

I don't know. That's fine.

I I

I that yeah. I you know, I must have been going back and forth in this document and then somehow that didn't get taken out. Say no more. So I know I know what you mean. Yeah. So we can So I think actually what that's gonna actually probably what that should be is three d. Not four d. Yeah. Yes. Yes.

Okay. And then so kind of how I, you know, have it going forward from here is that, you know, when we are considering site that, you know, if we're looking or just going off of, you know, initial information from a Florida master site file or someone who makes a proposal to, this board that the first thing this board would do is to vote on whether or not they actually wanna pursue this. It doesn't mean we're making that recommendation to the city commission. It means that we want to pursue this further to see if this does meet our criteria. And then what we can then do is assign a member of this advisory board to dig into this a little bit more.

Mhmm. You know, look at the documents that were provided, do a little bit of research perhaps maybe on their own, and report back to this board on whether or not this is something that we should vote on. So, yeah, we talk about I have in there too then that there's a form to fill out. So there would be if we prove this end with the review form we'd have to generate. That would be something that would be then part of the official record for recognizing that historic resources, that site.

And then, yeah. So like I said, so then we would have ordinaries evaluate that significant and come back to us with a recommendation. And so once we've identified something and we've assigned it to a board person and we've gone through the research, then we can go ahead and make a decision on whether or not we want to recommend the site. Or I would suspect too then that we'd also the opposite would be that we would have to recommend not to recognize it to city commission. So it wouldn't be just if we say no, it's done.

If we say no, it's our recommendation is to city commission to say no. So because we don't have that authority one way or the other. We are only an advisory board, and we are making recommendations to them one way or the other. So either recommendation would have to go before them. And then, yeah, once once they approve it, then it goes before then it, you know, it then becomes designated.

However, we're gonna have that handled. And then this last section is just that, you know, the city of North Shore shall keep an inventory. So once we start designating local historic sites, someone's gonna have to keep that list. And then how do we then want to recognize it? Is it placement of a marker or any other way that the city would want to physically recognize it if they wanted to.

And that's, again, this is where I think this would be a recommendation. And then we would see what would come back from city commission if that is something that they would be interested in doing. And then it comes down to then then I would say the next step is going to be, do we want to then see if there's interest in trying to offer up any benefits to the owners of any properties that get designated?

Well, I wouldn't put the horse as following the cart. I would wait to see what we get out of the ULDC. Oh, I'll tell you, in the ULDC, there is a section in there on how you do it. And what I did is I took Sarasota County's historic commission write up for markers, okay, and inserted that in there. So if people looking at the ULDC say, yes, this all looks great. Some of what you put in here is already taken care of.

Yeah. Yeah.

So we'd have to go back.

And so that's where too I mean, you'll see with the language in here. I've got a lot of may do this, may do that because it leaves it open ended on whether or not we will be able actually be able to do that. Right. So and then here and then this last one, which is I think probably also key for this board that any undertaking that the city of Northport does that could have impact locally recognized historic resource. That that would go before this board for review to see what can maybe be done to possibly mitigate any impact to that resource.

Yep. So whether it's making it all all altering the scope of work of a project or maybe it's just we have it all photo documented and drawings done before it's destroyed.

In truth, what I'll tell you is I haven't gone through the ULDC thingy. You've got a synopsis of ULDC right here. That's exactly what you've got. Because I've gone through all of this and everything you've written here, I remember reading it as I'm going through the ULDC and typing in all this stuff. And again, I was using the old ULDC assuming that it would be adequate. So yeah, and some of the things you have in here aren't in the ULDC may be valid after we find out what they do with that.

Well, and I think this and go. Well, and I think, again, probably this conversation in April will help sort a lot of this out. Correct. But having said that, what this proposes in terms of what we do and how we do it is still something that this board needs to decide, is this the direction we want to go in? You know, because we still need to make this recommendation or at least have this discussion with development services in April.

They need to know what we are looking to do or what we have in mind. So I think as a board, we need to decide on is this what we want to present from this board to development services when we meet with them.

You had a copy of the one I presented last meeting, right, with ULDC, I think? Because what I would suggest is that we And

that was this one, right?

Think. Is that the ULDC?

Could I add so you might just a little input on some things. You might see a lot of differences in the ULDC code before and things being removed from those and being put in policies. So a lot of policy and administrative stuff was in our codes. And the city over the last five years has started pulling all that stuff out of code and instead making policies. So that's why you'll see on our city web page the policies start twenty twenty-six and have started going from that because we pulled that stuff out of the code and put it in policies because it's more administrative than it is law, which is what your code and your ULDC are.

So that's why commission's asking for the policy is because it's not

law. It's how

we the steps the law. Period. Yeah. So that's the difference. So that's why you see some things that may have been in that draft before that aren't in there now because it's more policy than law.

And we can take that, if that's what they say they look at you, proposed UMDC change. We could look at that and they say, no, this stuff we don't need. That's what we look at that and say,

Okay, let's Yeah. They may look at that draft and say, take a lot of that stuff

just put it into policy? The administrative stuff out Yeah. Of the I think, again, table this until the April meeting.

I would entertain that motion.

I propose that we table this until after the April meeting.

Oh, April meeting. I second that motion.

All right, all those in favor? Excellent. All right. So that brings us up to item C26-two 26, discussion and possible action regarding the draft 2025 annual report to the city commission. So is there any initial discussion or comment from staff?

Otherwise, I mean, this is just what was proposed. We didn't have time last month to go over this. So this got moved, for that sole purpose that we just ran out of time. So, I hope you all had a chance to take a look at what was in that proposed annual report. And Okay. Are there any comments, questions, suggestions for changes? Is it peachy keen and ready to go?

I think it covers exactly what we did. Okay. I I don't know what else to to it. Yeah.

Short to the point. It's all down there. Yep. That's good.

Okay. And and then I think we had in there two of the goals for this year, and we are fine with those.

Cleaning the task to identify processes. But we're also going to modify some of our responsibilities.

Okay.

So we have to look at I'm thinking that we have to look at proposals to the city commission on revising our

So the ULDC procedures are policy and roles and responsibilities. Okay. Trying to see why I have that file. Okay. Alright.

So I can go ahead and what I'll do is I'll clarify that, And I'll resend that out to you with that addition so that we'll have that. Well, actually, me ask this question to this board. So we all so everything is fine except we want to add making changes to our rules and responsibilities section. So if that's what everyone is fine with, I would entertain a motion to approve the annual report with that change.

Oh, yes.

Because then we can go forward with this.

Okay.

I hope that we move forward with acceptance of what do we call it? The annual report. The annual report with the addition of adding our research into our changing our roles and

responsibilities. And

I second that.

Thank you. All right. All right. So I'll go ahead. I'll make that tweak. And I'll send that back out so that then I guess at this point then, it can just because it's gonna it's gonna go to city commission as a medal. So I'll make that change, and then we can send it on its merry way. Excellent. Alright.

Why does it feel we accomplished something today?

God, we did. Yes. Did. Alright. So we are on to item seven, future agenda items. So I'm gonna say this, not about a future agenda item, but everything we have on here from today is either being pushed to April or it's

done. Mhmm.

So do we have anything for our March meeting?

I think we can discuss some things.

If you'd like to propose an agenda item.

I have been following the activities of the Parks and Recreation. Not to say they're stepping in anybody's toes, but they're stepping on our toes in And some I think we need a discussion on how we can define our roles relative to what parks and rec's doing in the city. Because they are going into areas like the environmental park, which is also an archaeological site, and doing things up there. And I have no problem with that. It's just that we need to know things that are going on.

Unfortunately, the young woman that was on this board with me the first time around was an archaeologist. She had just graduated from new college with an archaeological degree. And she was deeply into archaeology. She's now the president of the More Mineral Springs, Little Salt Springs Archaeological Group. So she would be an invaluable resource if I could talk her to getting back on the board.

But I just think a discussion needs to be had on, say, maybe an interface between Parks and Rec and us so that we don't step on their toes.

Are you talking about the Parks and Rec department staff? Or what do you

This is just discussed. I'm proposing a discussion. Okay? I'm not proposing that we get together with them in any way, shape, or form yet.

Maintenance or projects? What's that? Maintenance or projects, since you're saying Well,

When they're building new parks, I don't unless they hit an archaeological site, then I get excited. No, that doesn't It's when they're having events at some historicarcheological site that I think we need to be involved because we're supposed to be the knowledgeable people about the archaeology and history of North Park. So ultimately, we can work together with

I don't

know how we would do it.

But we could work together with them and say, if you're going to have this, this is what's historically significant about it and go from there. I don't know how it would work. I'm just saying we should have the discussion. That's all. Make sense?

What power and duty would that fall under on your powers and duties? I always say if you want to put something on an agenda, it should fall under one of your power and duties. So if it doesn't, then it's outside of

the board. Let me find my powers.

Oh, there's always that catch all number eight.

I have that.

That's what commissions gives you to do.

Yeah. Okay.

As assigned.

Protecting, conserving, and enhancing, and raising awareness. They go to an archaeological historical site and they're doing something, we could be there to enhance the public awareness and help them. Not necessarily be against them. What we're trying to say is we can help them. If they do something that looks like it might mess up, the environmental policy, we can advise them and say, hey, you don't want to do that because prime example sorry The city is doing something along the bike trail along Mahakatchee Creek, correct?

There is an archaeological site by my study along the Muckahatchee Creek. Shouldn't they check with us before they do something like that? Actually, the city should check and say, wait a minute. Well, we tell the city, you can't do that or you shouldn't do that because you have an archaeological site there. Now, does it need a survey? Yes. Could I do the survey? Yes. Am I going to because I belong to this group, I can't do the survey? Okay? So that's my point. They're doing things that may impact historic and cultural sites within the city. That's my only thing.

So a couple of thoughts I have on that. One, if there is a site there, then it needs to be identified. And in a more official process so that it can get flagged if if so that ends up being the case where these things would get flagged. And as you Because this goes back to,

you

know, the policy draft that I did. And you look at the last very last thing, 5D, that undertakings by the city would be reviewed by us. Perhaps that needs to get moved into roles and responsibilities. But then it's got to be something then that is on our list of recognized historic sites.

Okay. I agree with you. There's a problem there. It's not been nothing in Norwich Port has been historically designated other than Warm Middle Springs, Little Salt Springs. So throw all that other stuff out the window because we're here to do that. And you know in the first couple of meetings we had, I presented all of these things that I thought were historically or archaeologically significant.

That site, if I remember correctly, that site was one of the ones that got recommended to commission, which their response was, we need this policy. We don't know Right. How to right. So like Harry was saying, if it hasn't been identified yet, then the city probably won't put limitations on if it's not identified, which goes back to the policy and the ULDC. So it's kind of like you were talking about the Right. Everything gets it's all together.

But it's like, well, they're going to build a bridge. Well, we found this archaeological site and it's got human remains in it. Well, it happened to be Native American remains. They're not going to build that bridge for a while, Okay? And that's the same kind of thing here. Somebody has as I said, I've recognized it. I've recognized it before I was on this board. But it's recognized. It needs to study. And there was a city commissioner who said, in order to I'll call it make money, but that's not really making money.

It's identifying the site. You've got to spend money. It's the city's responsibility to go out there and say, somebody has identified this. Let's check it out. Make sure it's historically or archaeologically significant. Nobody's

done that.

But with the agenda item that you're interested in, would it be beneficial to talk about before you get with development services? Because it's all seeming like it's all connecting together. Know, so and either way, we obviously have a meeting scheduled, but you know, just don't want to put too much into something before you hear, before development services, whatever they have But to

you don't want something destroyed before somebody can look at it. This is several with new cities. And I consider Northport a new city, 1956 or 1959. It's a new city. So none of this stuff has been looked at. Here we are trying to look at it as a new board, a relatively new board. And we need some support to do that. And that support is, wait a minute, there's something that's been identified by somebody that has some credential, that there's something here. I don't know the answer to that.

In the draft that you created, is there any wording of what you're suggesting?

Relationship between us and no?

To be able to identify who was able to identify. So therefore, it should be tabled till April to get this.

Because

keep bringing it up before we get answers doesn't make

I some

future agenda item for next month. Maybe we don't need to have it until we get

this resolved. And see, I have to recuse myself from this because I do qualify under 36 CFR part 61 as an evaluator of a historic archaeological site. It's there. But I can't do it because I'm on the board.

Then nobody would have

to hire you if you're

a sub consultant to hire you in order to come in to identify Yeah,

but as long as I'm on the board, I can't do that.

But for do we want, I guess, we're trying to figure out is do we want to meet in March? Or do we want to wait until April to discuss everything as a bundle type of

deal? GREG

to do I what you're going think that perhaps we not meet in March, that we plan for being very productive in April. And then just one other maybe suggestion. Just I'm going to bring up because I talked about this that I put in with the policies about us viewing undertakings. Perhaps that is something that we should look at moving to forward responsibilities as opposed to policy. But I guess we can move all those parts around when we meet in April.

All right. So

do we

have any

We'll need a motion to cancel your meeting for March. If that's

All what we're going to right. Well, I will entertain a motion to cancel March.

I second the motion.

Okay. I'll second it.

All

those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. No meeting in March. All right. Do we have any new public comments since we started the meeting?

No public comments. All

right. Seeing that there are none, I will go ahead and adjourn this meeting, and we will see you in April.