whether it's state, local, federal, revenue, all these things come into play and it and it's just amazing all these things that of how how the city is impacted for the variety of things that can occur. >> I feel more confident in the city in the
way it operates. I don't see [music] wasteful spending. I see a lot of uh proactive thinking way outside the box of what I thought a city does. >> Well, I was already in love with Northport. Um, I think everyone knows that I got to meet the people who work
here, their love for the community, how hard it is to run a whole city, um, the intricacies of it, and the why. It answers so many questions about the why things are done their way they're done. So, it does it empowers you to love
where you live more and to get more involved. And I think the important message here is the confidence that I will >> morning. Today is Tuesday, May 5th, 2026 is 10:00 a.m. We're in the city chambers, and I call the city commission
regular meeting to order. Commissioners present are Commissioner Duval, Commissioner Stokes, Mayor Emery, Vice Mayor Langden, and Commissioner Pro. There is a quorum present for this meeting. Also present are city manager Fletcher, city attorney Fuino, city
clerk Fost, board specialist Linder, police chief Garrison, and fire chief Titus. I'd also like to acknowledge former county commissioner John Thaxton is with us this morning. And 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. Thank you. I'm going to call on John Tangston to lead us in the pledge, please, sir. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you, sir. [clears throat] >> Looking for a motion to approve the agenda. So move. >> Second.
>> Have a motion on the floor to approve the agenda made by Commissioner Stokes, seconded by Vice Mayor. If there's nothing to that, please vote. [clears throat] And that passes 5 to zero. Uh, city clerk, public comment.
I have, let's see, anonymous employee. As a city hall employee, I'm tired of the same individuals coming to these meetings and pushing a narrative that there is a toxic work environment. That claim doesn't match reality. What is toxic is the repeated disruption and theatrics
brought forward by former commissioner McDow and the same group of actors who continue to speak on her behalf. If we're going to talk about toxicity, let's please be honest. A sitting commissioner being investigated for making threats to blow up this building is toxic. business associates of a
commissioner pro confronting and arguing with city staff is toxic. These are real examples. Calling this organization a comedy of errors is also hard to take seriously when we've watched coordinated remarks between commissioners and the public that looks more like scripting than leadership. When one commissioner
asks questions and the public having those same exact questions, it raises concerns about independence and judgment. From an employee perspective, the city manager has demonstrated professionalism, stability, and respect for staff. That's what allows us to do our job and serve the community. I appreciate the commissioners who recognize what's actually happening and
continue to support steady professional leadership instead of feeding into distraction and noise. In person, I have John Baxton and Tim Doyle. [clears throat] >> It's here or there? >> Right there, sir.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the commission. For the record, my name is John Taxton and I am here appearing on behalf of the GF Coast Community Foundation and we have a lot of our staff members that live here in the fair city of Northport. And the other day we were talking about the history of
Northport and I could not help but bring up some of my experiences in Northport in the late60s as a child. um especially talking about War Mineral Springs and the amazing history that this place has
relative to [snorts] um archaeology 10 12,000 years ago people came to this spring for nourishment for food for health for spirituality um and I believe that tradition carries
today. So, one of the people that I was speaking to, uh, Kristen Prince who works at GF Coast. Um, her husband is a professional photographer and they had to see what I was talking about. Um, obviously they couldn't get into the
cycllorama because it's been closed for years, but they did go to the springs and they were in awe. U, Michael is a professional um, commercial photographer and he specializes in um, [clears throat] aerial, what do you call those thing? those buzzer things. Drones. >> Drones.
>> Drones. He specializes in commercial drone photography. And he was inspired to take a photograph. He took the photograph. Um I looked at it. I thought it was great. And so I brought it here today. Um and it is a gift from GF Coast Community Foundation to the city of
Northport. Um [clears throat] this is it. >> Oh wow. >> I love the photograph because it it's actionable. It shows the people in the springs. You can actually see them kicking the wave behind them as
they as they swim. And I just thought that it really captured the beauty and the spirit of War Mineral Springs. And so I hope you can find a suitable place for it somewhere on city property. >> Absolutely. Thank you very much. >> My office. I'll just leave it over here.
>> My office. >> It's beautiful. >> It is. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. >> Wonderful. >> Good morning, y'all. I guess I have to apologize for mispronouncing
Moran's [snorts] name. And I said Morgan. So, I apologize to all the Morgans in the world, even Captain Morgans, but it's Moran. All right. I thought my two cents again because I'm going to keep giving you my two cents. You're not stealing it from
me. I'm giving it to you. Right? People are probably sitting at home say, "Why is this bonehead going nuts about the penny?" Some of you are older than me up there. Last time we had a 5-cent Hershey bar was in 1967. Maybe some of you remember
the 5-cent Hershey bar. Today, they took away our penny because they say it's too expensive to make. Tomorrow it will be the nickel. The next day it will be the dime. Where does this end? We [clears throat] have a decibel system for our currency.
No one wants to go to electronic currency. People in the world don't have bank accounts. People in the world can't get bank accounts. And some people Chase Morgan will not give them a credit card. So basically what
Moran did I say that right? Let me check cuz I don't know the man. Moran to me is stealing. There is no law that allows this. There was a law passed or maybe an executive order passed saying to get rid of the
penny. This is the problem with the politics and our politicians. They do something but they don't know the consequences. I have personally called Senator Scott on this matter. I personally called the governor's office on this matter. I
brought it up in this room. Someone's got to do something. This is ludicrous. [laughter] I mean, I hear Senator Scott on public TV on a Sunday morning program and get up there and say he's fighting Iran for [clears throat]
our democracy and safety. Meanwhile, gas prices are what, 10 bucks a gallon in some parts of the country. Do you know in Alaska they're flirting with $20 for a gallon of fuel because of the rural areas and they don't they have a lot of oil but they have no
refineries. So the oil comes out and they have to bring the gas back. This is ludicrous what these people are doing. We can make bombs to go blow up Iran but we can't make a single penny to make our currency work. That's a
problem. I feel you should kick the county out of this building. Let them build their own building. The police department needs a vault for all their evidence. Make those rooms into evidence lockers. Kick the county out and let's find a new county.
>> Thank you. >> That's all there. >> All right, moving on to 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, debt management committee, environmental advisory board, historic and cultural advisory board, joint management advisory board, police officers pension trust fund board of trustees, parks and recreation advisory board, and planning and zoning advisory
board. Sarasota County Advisory Council vacancies include one resident of Northport to serve on the Sarasota Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization [clears throat] Citizen Advisory Committee and one resident of Northport to serve on the Citizens Oversight Committee for School Facility Planning. If anyone would like more information, please see the city clerk's
office. Thank you. >> Thank you. Moving on to the consent agenda. Um, city manager, has any of the items been pulled? >> No, service mayor. >> Okay. Do we have any public comment?
>> And again, I'm giving you my two cents. So, I have to talk about all the topics on here. I know how to do this. So, A26-0339 approval of state of Florida Department of Environment Protection Standard Grant Agreement blah blah blah for the
Northport Blue Ridge blah blah blah phase one in amount of $3 million. So, I think you should go get the money to do this so taxpayers don't have to pay for it. The other thing thinking about this water and sewer since it's on the agenda and there's been so much
compens away with meters for all residential houses. Then there's no meter fee. We can cut down some of the bills we have and it's a generic bill for everybody. Now all the heavy users meaning the industrial
the commercial they should have the water meters. They can afford to pay for the water meters. They can afford to pay for their water. Now if you want to have two sets of uh billing, one who has a sprinkler and one who doesn't. I'm all right with
that. But I think the water department could save a lot of money by getting rid of all the meters. And the people of this town could save a lot of meters. So that's what I have to say on that and you should get the money to help the people.
So the next one is D 26-0534 the amount of 300,000 right to replace the playground. Again this is for the goodness of the kids and the people in the community to use. You should go grab all money. See if you can get more
money. These are the type of things that our city should be doing for the residents. I don't think the water projects that important, but this this keeps kids out of the street. When I was a little kid, I grew up in this of a part of a town that was called the Indian village. It was called the Indian village because
every single street was named after an Indian tribe of this country. It was done in respect. And we had this association and it was called Sunny Acres. And I used to go to the park every summer, play knock hockey, make little um pot holders for my parents and
my mother. You know, my mother probably got sick coming home with all these weaving things and stuff, but I feel that keeps the kids off the street. I feel the parks are a good thing for our community. Next one is F 26-0558. approval, the appointment of Daniel, I
can't pronounce his name, so I'm not going to say it. No disrespect to anybody to serve as a planning and zoning advisory board. The only thing I have to say on that, I hope this gentleman understands that people own their property. I hope this person will understand that I have a right to do
anything on my property and he should not interfere [clears throat] with me on my property, especially since it's homesteaded. Thank you. >> Thank you. That's >> all right. I'll be looking for a motion. >> I'll make it.
>> Go ahead. >> I move to approve the consent agenda as presented. Second. >> Have a motion on the floor made by Vice Mayor to approve the consent agenda as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Duval. There's nothing to that. Please
vote. That passes 5 to zero. Moving on to public hearings. Wow. And this will be for ordinance number 2026-11. I'm going to request a motion to direct the city clerk to read by title only. >> Second.
>> Have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Stoke, seconded by Vice Mayor Langden to direct the city clerk to read by title only. There's nothing to that. Please vote. That passes 5 to zero. City clerk.
>> Ordinance number 2026-11, an ordinance of the city of Northport, Florida, amending the unified land development code to consolidate the revenue account formally known as the tree fund into the environmental protection fund by amending section 6.1.3 providing for findings, providing for
conflicts, providing for severability, providing for codification, and providing an effective date. >> Thank you, city manager. This is your item. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, back on October 6, 2024, the city commission adopted ordinance numbers 2024-13 and
2024-14, which ordinances adopted a new to be effective in October 28th of 2024. Section 6.13 of the ULDC establishes the Environmental Protection Fund, providing those administrative costs, fees, and penalties collected as part of the
enforcement of chapter 6 natural resources to be placed in said fund. This funding be used to support the operations of the natural resource division of the development services department and for the following purposes. For the acquisition and ongoing maintenance of environmentally
sensitive land. The acquisition of land for sustainability projects. Planting trees and public spaces. Maintaining trees to protect health and safety on public lands and tree education planting and conservation programs. With the adoption of the ordinance number
2024-13, the clear legislative intent is to consolidate the remaining tree fund balances into the environmental protection fund was not explicitly established in that section 6.1.3 of the ULDC even though the fund itself was renamed. Adoption of this ordinance will
clarify that intent and allow expenditures of revenues under the former tree fund consistent with the environmental protection fund provision. Uh we ask today that you will approve option um excuse me accept option one which is approve ordinance number 20
26-11 as presented and continue the second reading on May 19th. Myself and my team are here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you Commissioner Stokes. Yeah, I have no problem with this at all, but since this subject came up, I would love
to know uh uh at what point in time will staff uh report back to commission on um we have, I believe, $2.5 million of this fund set aside in our budget for environmentally sensitive land purchase.
So, I'm kind of anxious to hear since we're well into this fiscal year, uh, what properties we might have identified, where we stand, and are we going to be spending $2.5 million this year for environmentally sensitive land? >> Uh, yes, Commissioner. Lori Barnes,
Deputy Director of Development Services. Natural Resources is actively um corresponding with the property owners [clears throat] who own the properties that were on the list presented to commission when we requested um
direction to move forward with the program. Once we have um an accounting of willing sellers, we'll bring back a report to the commission to advise you on which properties we've identified willing
sellers for and the process to move forward with the property acquisitions. As to the $2.5 million expenditure of the full $2.5 million may not occur in this budget year. Our plan
is to encumber those funds in a project. So any remaining funds that are not expended this budget year would roll into the next budget year for continuation of the program. >> Beautiful. So it'll build on. That's what I want to make sure that because I know realistically it's going to
transcend fiscal years. I just want to make sure it doesn't fall back into the general bucket and we build on it. So we continue cuz there are some lands eventually we got to find our way to get our hands on. So thanks. >> Yes. Yes sir. And um also as an aside,
we actually have some property owners who were not on the list that we presented to commission that have expressed interest. So if if we proceed with any of those properties that were not on the original list that you approved, we'll bring them back one by
one to receive direction to pursue the purchase of those. >> Thank you, ma'am. That's all I got there. Thank you, uh, Commissioner Duval. [clears throat] >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, I have some problems with this.
Uh back in 2021, there was an ordinance passed 2021-46 and that was regarding uh tree regulations
and enforcements repealed and replaced chapter 45. It's 44 pages long. And one of the things on that on page three, it says
under 1.03 delta. Preserve and plant trees that shall result in a 35% canopy coverage citywide, 50% of which are comprised of
native species. in this ordinance you're asking us to pass, that's just not there anymore. That just goes away. When the ULDC was passed, it created the environmental fund, okay?
Which is paid for up to 50% by the tree fund. That tree fund was created for trees. Now it wants to get rid of all of the specifics that were in the tree fund to begin with.
And it's hard for me to support something that has been kind of watered down and now just wants to be changed into something else. And I'm definitely not saying that the environmental
division does not have good things on its plate. It's just that I don't want to see the tree fund [clears throat] just totally depleted and and gotten rid
of. You know, where is that 35% canopy? >> Commissioner Dval, I can speak to that. Um the 35% canopy vision is incorporated in our comprehensive plan that has not gone
away. It is a comprehensive plan policy that the city shall try strive to maintain a 35% tree canopy citywide. Our natural resources division has completed a canopy assessment that has been presented to the city commission and
that tree canopy assessment is um intended to be updated every two years. Oh, every three years. Every three years. So you will be seeing our progress in maintaining and enhancing the tree canopy. Um >> existing canopy is 38%.
>> Yeah. So we're at 38% right now. Okay. So that provision has not gone away. Now as far as the tree fund versus the environmental protection fund in 2024 when the new chapter 6 of the ULDC was adopted by this commission, the intent
was never to create a new environmental protection fund and leave the tree fund behind to be [clears throat] limited to the expenditures allowed under the former code. Right now, our tree fund balance is approximately
5.6 million. About three million of that are revenues that came from the tree fund that were restricted to tree planting only. We do not have enough public property in this city to plant $3 million worth of trees on. Furthermore,
there are comprehensive plan policies and strategic plan policies that speak to natural resources and environmental protection issues beyond planting trees, including your sustainability projects, acquisition of environmentally sensitive
land, sustainability projects like flood attenuation, um and and along with that wildlife protection and preservation. creation of habitat and elimination of exotic
invasive species. So all of these environmental protection initiatives are intended to be funded by the environmental protection fund. Under the tree fund, we were not meeting all of the objectives, goals, and policies of
the comprehensive plan as to our natural resources here in the city. Let me add something. >> I have no objection to having, >> you know, you know, an environmental division and having objectives other than
planting trees. But I just do not want to see this tree section just be deleted, that 35%. Last year, we were told that there were going to be
500. The goal, this is part of the budget process. 500 trees planted this year. Did 500 trees get planted? >> We are pro. Sorry, Elena Ray, director of development services. Um, we're probably close to that. We will have
that done well before the end of this fiscal year. But also, I think I'd like to add a little bit of clarity to this. We are not deleting the tree preservation ordinance. That's not what this does. This simply clarifies
the naming of the fund and rolls the tree fund into the environmental protection fund. The ULDC contains that was adopted in 2024 contains many many pages of tree protection regulations. This does not
change that. This does not delete them. It doesn't change it. The regulations will continue to be um enforced as they exist today in the ULDC. This is only about the naming of the fund. >> I've read some of the
revised uldc. I haven't had the time yet to go through all of it, but I didn't see any mention in there of that 35% tree coverage >> that is in our comprehensive plan. So the comprehensive plan is the law of the land in Northport. So that is what we
are working to maintain as an established provision in our comprehensive plan. We are currently exceeding that. We're at 38% tree canopy coverage and um we will
be evaluate re-evaluating that tree canopy survey um to ensure that we stay on that track. Um the tree we are this ordinance does nothing to change the regulations in the uldc regarding tree
preservation. >> Okay. Thank you for that. I will be withholding my approval on this for another two weeks you know when it's come back if it passes today. >> Thank you. >> Commissioner Petro.
>> Thank you mayor. Uh my question is um how restrictive the environmental protection fund would be as far as the money that we're going to collect from the tree fund ordinance. >> I'm not sure I understand the question.
So, we established this, I do believe it was in 2024, spring of 2024, the tree ordinance, and we established a u a specific tree fund um to collect the money into that fund.
Now by dissolving the tree fund or absorbing it into environmental protection fund, how much restrictive policy we will have collecting those money from the tree
fund ordinance? >> I I hope Commissioner Petro that I'm going to be able to address the question that you're you're you're trying to receive an answer to. So, the tree fund monies were always intended to roll into
the environmental protection fund, but because chapter 6 of the new renamed the fund, but didn't explicitly speak to rolling the tree fund balance
into the renamed environmental protection fund, the finance director requested that we bring this ordinance forward to clarify the intent of the former commission in renaming that fund and using those tree funds bringing
those into the renamed environmental protection fund for the purposes under the new code. Now, I don't have a precise figure of what is in the tree fund that did not originate since October 28th of 2024, but our revenues
in 2025 were 2.7 million. Our fund balance right now is about 5.6 million. So somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 million is likely remaining in what was the tree fund intended to be rolled into
and renamed into the environmental protection fund. And as I said before to Commissioner Duval, the former ULDC called for the city to use those funds to plant trees on
private property. the cityowned property we have and achieving $3 million of tree planting on those properties is not necessarily right tree, right place, right
separation. Um, so this basically moves those funds into the environmental protection fund with the expanded authority for use of those funds which is still governed by this commission under the budget process. you all approves the natural resources
division budget every year and you see where that funding is allocated whether it be for tree planting projects, land acquisition projects, um sustainability projects like rewing and habitat restoration. All of that is wrapped into
the budget that this commission approves. I guess it does make sense to to rename it and combine it especially with this um section 6.1.3. Um my question is so I guess that it was
very restrictive from my understanding. Now we my my question is simple. How much of that environmental protection fund will be spent on future planting of of those trees collected based on what was passed in 2024 because
we're going to collect a lot of money. How much of that money will be spent to replant or plant them? >> We have a number of planting projects in the works right now. We do not have a set percentage of funds to be expended for tree planting versus land
acquisition versus reing versus reforestation versus habitat restoration. We we don't have set percentages [clears throat] because um there needs to be some flexibility in the funding of projects
that the natural resources presents to the city commission for approval. We might miss out on opportunities if we were to set a maximum percentage of funding for each area of environmental sustainability. And that goes to grants,
too. Sometimes we'll have grant opportunities come up and we might need matching funding. Well, if we're told we can only spend um 10% on wildlife habitat and we don't have enough for a matching fund for a grant, we could miss
out on the opportunity. Which is why when we brought the ULDC in 2024, we didn't have set restrictions on percentage of funding to go to each area of um interest as per the comprehensive
plan and the strategic plan. >> Thank you. >> If I can also add uh to you uh this Kohareno, finance director. So yes, the tree fund was more restrictive. the environmental protection fund opened a little bit more for environmental
sensitive land purchases when the tree fund didn't. So we couldn't just roll the balance from a tree fund into the environmental protection fund because tree fund was more restrictive. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, >> city clerk public comment.
I see nothing wrong with changing the name or moving the money out, but what I see in this and what they're saying is there's $5 million there. And according to this, and what I'm reading on your thing is that money can be used to buy
sensitive land. Sensitive land was mentioned in this room yesterday. So I wonder if they will take any of this $5 million and go and look at the land that the county owns or private people own that
are on county property for a road from here to inland an east west road like we're talking about. So according to this, we could buy the land. We could build a road and we can replant
all the trees. We can make animal crossings over the road with this money. We can make animals crossing under the road with this money. So the way I see it, I see nothing wrong with this. I see opportunity for the
town to take care of the citizens of this town and take care of your tree problem. You don't have places to plant all those trees. You're going to make a road right across. You plant all new trees. You make all these wildlife things. They do them up north all the time on the highways, the deer and
everything. So, it sounds like this project could help us with the squat road. And and what you know, I'm going to say something. You know, in today's world, the government thinks that they can take
everybody's cell phone data for a square mile if someone has a gun and know exactly what I'm doing. You follow me? So, we are using money that shouldn't be used for things. This specifically says
acquisition and ongoing maintenance of environmental sensible land. [clears throat] That's exactly what was said in this room. So I feel you should take the two or three million that you can spend on land and try to get that land and then you know we have a new
EPA. The EPA will let you build the road. If they can watch me on a cell phone, watch me in a car then if the 100,000 people are trapped by a flood because we all know 75 is not safe anymore. I live pretty close to to Le
Bay. I saw all the cops uh all the cars coming off the highway when they couldn't go down the highway. They were sitting in our neighborhoods. I would I'm not complaining about that. The people had to have somewhere to go. To me, that's not a problem. The problem was 75 didn't hold up. And the other
question I have on this sensitivity stuff is down here we have pine trees that are foreign. They are not native to Florida. Pine trees are weeds. They crack and break in all the storms. They are not meant to be here. And I don't
know how this fits into this, but I feel that any pine tree in this town that's not native should be shut down. Cut down. >> That's all there. >> 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 2026-11 to second reading on May 19th, 2026. >> Second. >> I have a motion on the floor made by Vice Mayor to continue ordinance number
2026-11 to second reading on May 19th, 2026. That was seconded by Commissioner Stokes. Please vote. And that passes 4 to one with Commissioner Duval dissenting. Anything
to that, Commissioner Dval? >> Thank you, Mayor. No, I'll rely on my previous comments to call. >> Thank you. Moving on to ordinances, second reading, ordinance number 2026-14.
City clerk, can you read by title only, please? Ordinance number 2026-14, an ordinance of the city of Northport, Florida, amending the non-district budget and capital improvement budget for fiscal year 2025-2026 to increase park impact fee funded
project P24 LTC Legacy Trail connection to War Mineral Springs in the amount of $125,000, providing for findings, providing for posting, providing for conflicts, providing for separability, and providing an effective date. >> Thank you, city manager. This is your item.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. During the city commission regular meeting held on April 21st of 2026, ordinance number 2026-14 was continued as presented with no changes to second reading on a 50- vote. Ordinance number 2026-14 was submitted to the clerk's office on
April 23rd, 2026 for signature subject to commission approval. We ask you today to choose option one, which is adopt ordinance number 2026-14 as presented. Thank you, sir. >> Okay. Commissioners, anything to this?
Commissioner Dval. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, this is the second reading and I don't see where anything's changed. We did pass it the first time, so I'm good with passing it again. >> All right,
there's nobody else. Public comment. Again, [clears throat] I don't see any problem with this. You're trying to make a trail for people to use and people to go out and enjoy nature, maybe bring some people to the city to promote commerce.
So, in the long run, something like this could actually help the city with tax revenue or other things like that. So, I look at something like this as an investment. I am worried about fees. There's no doubt about it. Some of the fees, you
know, we got to be careful. We got to look at where we're spending some of the other money so we can keep continue to do things like this to enhance our city for everybody. And again, you know, anybody could use this trail or what
have you going down the road. So again, I'll support it. Um, and again, we just got to watch the fees side on some of this stuff because what happens if the fees get too high, you can build everything you want. The people aren't going to come. Amusement
parks go out of business because they raise their fees, everybody. So, you just have to be careful on the fees. And I don't know what the right number is, but I support it. And that's all I'll say. Thank you. >> That's all. >> All right. If there's nothing else, I'm going to close this public hearing and
request a motion. >> I'll make it. >> Go ahead, sir. >> I move to adopt ordinance number 2026-14 as presented. >> Second. >> Have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Dval to adopt ordinance number 2026-14
as presented. And that was seconded by Vice Mayor. There's nothing to that. Please vote. [clears throat and cough] And that passes 5 to zero. Moving on to resolution number 2026-R10. Uh, city clerk, can you read by title only, please?
>> Resolution number 2026-R10, a resolution of the city commission of the city of Northport, Florida, amending and restating the citywide sponsorship policy, herein known as the sponsorship policy for city events, activities, programs, and designated public spaces. providing for incorporation of recitals,
providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing an effective date. >> Thank you. Uh, city manager, this is your item. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. At the city commission workshop on February 2nd, 2026, there was consensus by the commission to direct the city manager to
update the citywide sponsorship policy considering new or additional ways of enhancing the value of the presenting sponsor and to bring back a resolution for commission review. So staff have prepared resolution number 2026-R10 and amended the citywide sponsorship policy incorporating the discussed
revisions including adjustments to cost alignment, renewal timelines and payment windows. Additionally, presenting sponsorship benefits have been adjusted and enhanced to better reflect the level of investment and to offer increased value and visibility for sponsors. We ask today that you take the recommended
action of approving resolution number 2026-R10 as presented. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. Mission, anything? Not seeing anything. City clerk, public comment. [clears throat]
I can support this. [sighs] We need to have places for the public to get together, different organizations and things like that, programs. And we got to remember a lot of this stuff, again, we're talking money. We're
talking different things. Money is not everything in life. It really isn't. It's cooperative. It's getting together. An ordinance like this can get people together and make our community
stronger, make ties with people, bring them together, less friction. So, I support this and I I think, you know, we should promote events and activities and programs in our
community. You may not like them all. I might not like them all, but that's different tastes. Doesn't mean they're right or wrong. and I want to make sure that we don't discriminate against anybody because of the events because that's the way it should be. So, I
support it and that's all I'll say at this time. Thank you. >> And I close this public hearing and request a motion. >> I'll make it. >> Go ahead. >> I move to adopt resolution number 2026-R10 as presented. >> Second. Have a motion on the floor made
by vice mayor to adopt resolution number 2026-R10 as presented. That was seconded by Commissioner Stokes. Nothing [clears throat] to that. Please vote. That passes 5 to zero. Moving on to resolution number 2026-R11.
City clerk, can you read by title only, please? Resolution number 2026-R11, a resolution of the city commission of the city of Northport, Florida, authorizing the sale of real property located on 2400 Commerce Parkway and described as Lot 8, Northport Industrial
Park, Sarasota County, property appraiser, parcel identification number 0962110080, incorporating recitals, providing for filing of documents, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing an effective date. >> Thank you, city manager. This is your item.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. On October 22nd of 2024, the city commission directed city manager to work with staff to initiate negotiations regarding the sale of city-owned commercial property located at 2400 Commerce Parkway. Following negotiations, staff reached a proposed sale price of $950,000
with Sentinel Fund SPD XI LLC. an appraisal date of March 22nd, 2025, completed by Hatima Saba LLC reflected an appraised value of $920,000. This parcel is zoned IL industrial light
and warehousing and is approximately uh 2.11 acres. We recommend that you choose option one and approve resolution number 2026 SR11 as presented. Thank you, sir. Sir, commissioner questions. >> Commissioner Duval.
>> Thank you, Mayor. Um, based on, you know, the statements just made by city manager, um, was appraised at 920,000 and we've been offered, you know, 950,000. Um, I have to say this is a good deal
for the city. Thank you. >> Thank you. City clerk, public comment. >> I'm not going to oppose you getting money for piece of property. That's not bringing in tax dollars. That will start to bring in tax dollars to help everything. So, this is a good thing.
So, the only thing I don't see on here, who's buying it, not that might all be private right now. I don't know the deal with it. But what I have to say on this property is it sounds like it's going to come back before you again in some [snorts] way.
No one's going to pay a million dollars, almost a million dollars for a piece of property and not want to do something with it. So, [snorts] being at a few of these meetings and seeing how some of this stuff is going, please make sure when it comes back to you that maybe this property creates
jobs for the community as well as tax revenue for the community. As I've seen some of the commercial property get passed where it doesn't really create any jobs for our community. So, we got to make sure again, you guys
shouldn't sit on things. if you can get this type of money and it will enhance the public's but we got to make sure whatever goes on this property fits with the community and that's all I'll say at this time. >> Thank you. >> I close this public hearing and request
a motion. >> I'll make it. >> Go ahead. >> I move to adopt resolution number 2026-R11 as presented. >> Second. I have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Stokes to adopt resolution number 2026-R11
as presented, seconded by Vice Mayor. If there is nothing to that, please vote. And that passes 5 to zero. Moving on to resolution number 2026-R9. City clerk, can you read by title only,
please? Resolution number 2026-R9, a resolution of the city commission of the city of Northport, Florida, accepting ownership of donated real property located on Coastal Street and described at lot as lot 5, block 2087, 45th edition to Port Charlotte subdivision, Sarasota County property
appraiser parcel identification number 1131208705, [cough] [clears throat] incorporating recitals, providing for filing of documents, providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing an effective date. Thank you, city manager. This is your item, sir. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Landowner Loren
and John Damasco are seeking to donate their vacant lot. It's located on Coastal Street in the city of Northport. This parcel is a 10,000 square foot residential lot in zone activity center 6. Acceptance of this donated property by the city will enable its use in
future negotiations and related initiatives. Staff have reviewed the offer and approved the request for donation. There are no tax leans on this property according to the Sarasota County Tax Appraiser. We recommend that you choose option one, which is adopt resolution number 2026-R19 as presented authorizing the donation of
real property located on Coastal Street, Northport, Florida 3428. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you, sir. Commission, anybody. Commissioner Dval. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um,
it's a gift. Uh, I think I'm going to vote for this and I'd like to see a a letter of thank you sent to the people that are donating this to us.
That it >> that's it. >> Thank you. Uh, city clerk, public comment. I concur. Someone's given us something as a gift. So, you should send a letter a thank you. So, I agree with the member on that one. And again, I think you
should accept the property. No problem. That property could be resold to help some of your bills. That property could be turned into a park for the local community even though it's only 10 square 10,000 square ft. So, you could do different things with it. It does, you know, at that point take it off the
tax rolls, but an empty lot, what are you losing? I don't know, 600, 700 bucks a year. So, it's not a big deal to me. But again, I think you should accept it. I think you should send that letter of thank you on behalf of every citizen of
the town. And then after you get it, maybe look at it and see what kind of uses you could use it for. Not just take it and sit it, but let's Does it fit in the community? Cuz I know like the part of town where I live, there isn't one park. There isn't one place for a swing
set. So, you know, I kind of like those things for the kids. So, so accept the lands and thank the people. And that's all I have to say. >> All right. I'm going to close this public hearing and request a motion. >> I'll make it.
>> Go ahead. I move to adopt resolution number 2026-R9 as presented with a letter of thanks going to the current owners of that property from the commission on behalf of the community. >> Second
>> got a motion on the floor to adapt resolution number 2026-R9 as presented. Also adding a letter of thank you to the present owners for from the commission thanking them for their gift to the community. That was seconded
by uh Commissioner Dval. Nothing to that. [clears throat] Please vote. And that passes 5 to Z. Moving on to resolution number 2026-R26. Uh, city clerk, can you read by title only, please?
>> Resolution number 2026-R26, the resolution of the city commission of the city of Northport, Florida, accepting the donation of the ACEK9 temperature alarm deployment system from the retired law enforcement association of Southwest Florida, Inc., Acknowledging that the Northport Police
Department will be responsible for the installation of the equipment, providing for the city's acceptance of the donated equipment, providing for incorporation of the exhibits, providing for incorporation of recital, authorizing the city manager or designate to execute all required documents, providing for conflicts, providing for severability,
and providing an effective date. >> Thank you, city manager. This is your item. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The Northport Police Department utilizes K9 units to support law enforcement operations. Retired Law Enforcement Operation Association of Southwest Florida Incorporated raises funds to support
active law enforcement K9 units by providing safety equipment and training tools to enhance K9 safety during vehicle deployments. The organization has offered to donate one ACE K9 watchdog temperature alarm deployment system to the city of Northport for its
Northport's Police Department K9 unit. We ask that you choose option one today which is to approve resolution number 2026-R26 as presented. Thank you sir. >> Thank you commission questions. >> City clerk public comment.
[clears throat] >> I think you should also accept it. Um, it's for the protection of the animal and the people. The way I read it, the one thing I will say about canines, they're a useful tool,
especially for search and rescue. But I do not support any canine biting any individual. I'll repeat that. A canine has no legal right to bite me.
That is an attack by a wild animal, a wolf. Follow the genetics. So I support the K9 units, but I don't support dogs biting people. So if this is about training, the dogs
should not be trained not to bite me. I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Okay, I'm going to request a motion. I'll make it. Go ahead. >> I move to adopt resolution 2026-R26 as presented.
>> I have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Stokes to adopt resolution 2026-R26 as presented. Uh made by Commissioner Stokes, seconded by Commissioner Pro. Please vote.
That passes 5 to zero. Moving on to general business. Item A 26-0418. Um discussion and possible action regarding the fourth amendment to the city of Northport, Florida and Sable Trace Development Partners LLC water and
wastewater system developers agreement. City manager, this is your item. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Since the approval of the third amendment, the developer has continued pushing this project forward on Lyan. However, due to unforeseen setbacks, including delays in obtaining necessary governmental
approvals and a housing market downturn, they are experiencing additional delays. The developer desires to revise the schedule outlined in section 20.3 so that the developer's next fourth payment for capacity fees shall be on or before January 1st, 2030 with subsequent annual
payments being due on that date each year thereafter through 2037. The extended deadlines for capacity fee payments provide the developer with extra time to meet their obligations, accommodating challenges in the development process and ensuring a smoother project. We recommend that you
choose option one today which is approve the fourth amendment to the city of Northport Florida and Sable Trace Developers Partners LLC water and wastewater systems developers agreement. Thank you sir. >> Thank you Commissioner questions.
Anything commissioner Duval? >> Thank you mayor. Um this is developer asking us for something and you know basically it's a a delay of paying fees. You know I did read in the
background material where um the future dates will be at the fees we're charging at that time. But still, you know, and and you know, and fees may go up in time. Uh, you
know, cost should go up. But even still, um, I wonder if we could consider, you know, possibly adding a little fee or maybe, you know, a little interest charge to this. uh you know if they're delaying paying fees to
us and something an agreement already made you know then maybe the citizens should be compensated for that. >> That's all vice. >> Yeah. Thank you mayor. Um, it certainly
is not in the best interest of the community or the folks living in that development or area to have this developer go belly up. And I know they have faced many, many financial challenges
since this property um began development and the correction of the brownfield situation, the arsenic situation. Um, however, I I tend to be thinking along the same lines as
Commissioner Duval. Um, I'm a little uncomfortable moving the entire payment out. And I think some kind of fee or interest payment or some type of interim payment makes me a lot more comfortable
um than pushing this this out to a later date. So, I would be very interested in what my other fellow commissioners have to say on the matter. >> City manager, what uh [cough and clears throat]
when is their due date at this time? 2028, I believe. >> 2028, according to Mr. Attorney. >> Well, the next one says January 2030. January 1, >> 2030. >> Thought they were moving it to 2030.
They wish to move it to 2030. >> Oh, you know, can you just >> Yeah, sure. Uh, next page, uh, I'm sorry, next payment is January 1st, 2026, and then it'll be January 1st, 27,
and May 28. So what would be what would be the financial impact if per year if we were to push it out to 2030? >> It it all depends on what the U fee would be. I think
>> what do they owe for 2026? Let's just shoot with that one. >> Mr. Mayor, we want to see if someone from our team knows the answer to that. While we're waiting for that, if if I might add, since it's already a staggered payment,
um some kind of partial payment would be more to my liking than simply pushing it out. >> Yes. If I may, mayor, um there's a schedule of the payments, you know, and and
this change will take one payment and make it due January 1st, 2030, but then it continues to another payment 31, 32, 33, all the way down through 2036. >> I understand that. I just want this on
the record moneywise. >> Okay. Uh Mike Bulo, assistant utilities director. So the overall scope of the work and what they're paying for right now is 104 ERC's which they'll continue to pay to guarantee revenue on anything
above that. So it's a reduction in the actual work. So they will pay the current capacity and ERC calculations at that time. So if it's 10 years down the road, whatever those ERC calculations are at that time, anything above the 104
that they currently have and they're currently paying guarantee revenues on, they will have to pay addition to once they use up their [snorts] 104 ERC's >> and that would be pushed out to 2030. >> Correct. They would have to bring that back. We would have to reallocate the EO
E ERC's back to the project at a later date at the current capacity. >> Yeah. And well, the thing about it is is, you know, we're we're looking at, you know, we're the city itself is in a
bind as well. And I don't believe that we should push anything out. You know, it's it's like if they're using it, they're using it and we should be compensated for it going forward. Um I I just don't agree with this. So, anybody
else? Um, for clarification, if I may, um, I I thought I heard you say that anyone that that they will pay for
anyone who is using or is coming online to use our water. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> So, what they want to push out are the payments in anticipation of growth. Is that correct?
>> Yes. It's the overall uh they're they're continuing to pay for 104 ERC's going forward. So that is their guaranteed revenue which is not developed, not constructed. Future phases down the road, they're still paying 104 ERC's as
future. Anything above that 104, they will need to come back for ERC's back to us for recalculation of that cost because they're not guaranteed to build after that. There's not they they have to pay for the capacity at the plant. So, and then
we'll have to re-evaluate our system and our infrastructure to see where we're at at that time. [clears throat] >> Got it from everybody. >> Uh public comment. This is a sign of the times.
I don't think people realize that. Now, if I understand right from what he just said is that they're trying to push off the part of the project they haven't started building yet to pay you, but they are paying you already for everything that's been built or is
permitted, if I heard that right. So, the money you're trying to collect might be something that's never built, if I'm not mistaken, but that was my take on what was just said.
You could push them into bankruptcy to the one point that was made and you'll never get a dime from anything. And again, we're back to the water and so department bankrupting people in this city bankrupting developers.
Now, I do think the developers should pay for this when the development is made. That was a mistake in this city. If you wanted war and sore, water and soar, it should have been put in before you put the streets down. And it wasn't done.
That's a mistake you can't go back on. There are some solutions. I I I don't know how you should vote on this, you know, but the way I see it, I don't know how you can make someone pay for something that doesn't even exist and you could push them in bankruptcy.
Not only that does that stop the development, that will stop anybody working in the area who's working on those sites and that will be a domino effect. I'm I can drive around see half finished houses all over the place and obviously
they are doing this because they know they can't sell those million dollar homes for whatever price they want. So it's a hard decision. I'm not going to take a side on it, but I don't really see how you can make someone pay for something that has been built or might
not ever been built. You should go after the money that's already been built and permitted and they know they're going to build. And to all your points, if they start building three years from now, you could get more money at that point.
So, I I don't know what you know, I didn't read the whole contract with how you guys do these things, but again, you're charging for something that's not built if I heard everything correct. So, that's where I'll leave it. I'll leave it in your hands because you know better than me. Thank you.
>> All right. I'll request a motion. I'll make it. >> Go ahead. I move to approve the fourth amendment to the city of Northport, Florida, and Sable Trace Development Partners LLC, a water and wastewater system development agreement. >> Second. >> I have a motion on the floor to approve
the fourth amendment to city of Northport, Florida, and Sable Trace Development Partners LLC water and wastewater system developers agreement made by Commissioner Stokes, seconded by Vice Mayor. There's nothing to that. Please vote.
That passes 4 to one with Commissioner Dval dissenting. Commissioner Dval, anything to that? >> No, sir. Just, you know, I I made my comments that I think we should be compensated for, you know, helping them out on this, you know, delaying money. You know, this is the city needs
revenue. Citizens have to pay it. Um, you know, I don't think like a, you know, a 1% 2% fee would be [clears throat] too egregious. Thank you. >> Thank you. Moving on to item B 26-0611.
Discussion and possible action. >> Sorry, mayor. Point of order. >> Yeah. >> Is it permissible for Commissioner Duval to make a motion, an additional motion regarding this item >> that we just finished here? Would
it be appropriate? >> Yes, you could. >> Would be appropriate if you wish to make a motion if you're going to discuss it. >> You only have to reopen it if you're going to discuss it and get further information from staff or anybody. But if it's just to make a motion, he can do
that. [clears throat] >> Wow. Making a stab at this. Um, I got to ask my fellow commissioners, you know, what do you think is fair? you know, one 2%
added on to all any of the delayed fees. >> If I may discuss >> and we discuss city voting if you want to discuss more, but if he wants to make a motion and then discuss, you don't have to. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> So, I'll discuss. >> Well, he says need to make a motion. That's more direct. Like let's say you made a motion for two. >> All right. I'd like to make a motion that we reopen this for discussion. >> That motion's required.
>> All right. It's reopened. Item number 26-014. Oh, 0418. Sorry. [clears throat] Floor is yours. >> Yeah. My my my comment would be I was
thinking very much along those lines, Commissioner Duval, but then when I heard that uh the capacity fees could very well go up in the intervening time and the developer could wind up
paying that higher amount if I understood that correctly. Um then that sort of made me more comfortable with it. So, I would be reluctant to assign any additional
fee to that. Um, and I I would be doubly reluctant to put in a specific percentage without having staff come back with some assessment of the impact of that and and what might be appropriate.
>> So, that's my sense of the matter at this point. Commissioner Pro. >> Yes. Thank you, Mayor. I I voted yes on this because uh you know, I don't want the developer go bankrupt. Uh it's a substantial um amount, [clears throat and cough]
but at the same time, a capacity fee or um are they going to be obligated to pay at the time of the contract of the capacity fee or the capacity fees would be adjusted? And that would be my question to utilities
because we going all the way to 2030. That's a >> Mike Lewis, assistant director. >> Yes, they they they still and and we got to remember that they installed all of the infrastructure and conveyed all of this already to us. So, we're we're
we're managing and operating that entire system as part of that. the the cost and they're still holding for future development and they're paying for 104. So, we're not deferring any payments. We're not they're still paying
guaranteed revenues on the 104. Their initial ask of the 650 has been delayed, but that's not they don't pay that till the connection. So there's not a delayed payment mechanism >> and the payment that they pay is the
capacity fee at the time. >> Correct. >> It's at the current time that they they make the payment. Now, now the 104 that they're locked into that is part of this contract that they're paying guaranteed revenues on locks in at this price right
now. So they're paying they've already built 292. They've already used 292 ERC's. They have 104 left over that they're still holding on to, that they're still paying for future development. They're paying
the guarantee revenues on that 104 ERC's to keep the pricing at it is today. Anything past that 104, they're going to have to come back and they're going to pay the current capacity ERC calculation at that time. So if it's 10 years down the road, they have to pay
[clears throat] whatever's outside that 104 ERC's at a later date whenever they come back and they'll have to come back to us for another agreement on that. >> Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Very. >> Yeah. My only other comment is specifically knowing that this developer
paid for the infrastructure and it's not like the [snorts] city has sunk costs >> um in the infrastructure that it's awaiting some reimbursement for. That would very much change my point of view on this. But [clears throat] but I see
this as a reasonable request um given, you know, the market and and the situation for that developer. >> Yeah, I'm also in agreement I wouldn't add anything on to it because if it puts them into dire straits down the road as
well, it's like it's just we're not solving anything at this time. So >> all you sir, back to you. >> All right, I'm good with that. All right, >> draw your motion. >> You never made one. >> Never made one. >> I thought I heard one. I thought I heard
one. >> All right, [clears throat] I'm going to reclose this item. Moving on to 26-0611. uh discussion and possible action regarding parks and recreation advisory board recommendation memorandum for
event cost reduction strategy. Um city clerk, you're supposed to introduce this item. >> Yes. um commission was emailed a memorandum through the parks and recreation advisory board on March 30th,
2026 where they had made motions to recommend that fees for bounce houses and specialized activities at special events be charged to offset costs and they also made a recommendation to the commission to explore sponsorship opportunities. I believe Trish Sturgis
is here and Sandy Fonhiller in case you have any questions. All right. Commission Commissioner Stokes. Um I might suggest that this item be
continued to the Thursday workshop since on Thursday we're going to be talking about a whole lot of things with regard to a couple of departments parks and reccks to be included. And I mean seems like there's going to be some redundancy
here. So that's just my comment. Other than that, I have nothing on this at this time. >> Commissioner Petro, >> I don't believe we should be charging to offset the cost. I mean to offset or break even, would have to charge 20 plus
whatever dollars per per entry. I think it's quality of life and we should be okay with that. Not to upset the cost. That's just my view on this.
>> Yeah, I'm I'm in agreement. I don't think we should, you know, I I when we had the one-on-one, I discussed about these are our signal events. You know, what are the families and the kids going to do if we did like Commissioner Pro just said, if we have to charge 20 bucks
entry fee is just these are our community events. We're giving back to the community. We're trying to do the best we can. It is for family time and I I wouldn't even look into this even on Thursday about this area. I mean, there's a lot of other areas we
definitely got to discuss, but this area right here, I'm fine with not not going forward with it. So, that's my two cents. Anything else? Public comment. I concur. 20 bucks to less someone is a lot of money even with the wages today.
I did like hearing maybe get some corporate sponsorships, put up some signs, let people do that. Maybe they can donate. Again, I don't know what it all depends on the event. You know what I mean? Um, again, a lot of these corporations in town are stealing two
cents at a time. Maybe they could give that money back to us somehow. So, if there's other ways to bring in money to offset some of the cost and keep the price as low as possible, I would go with that. So, again, I
concur. 20 bucks is way too much for something per family. That's 80 bucks, right? >> All right. I'm going to request a motion. >> I'll make it. >> Go ahead. I move to direct the city manager to work with staff to develop a
sponsorship strategy to offset signal event cost to be brought back to the city commission for review at a later date. >> I have a motion on the floor made by vice mayor. City clerk, can you read
that back, please? to direct the city manager to work with staff to explore event sponsorship opportunities and/or sponsorship program to be brought back to the city commission for review at a later date. >> Thank you. That motion was made by vice
mayor. I'll go ahead and second it. [cough] So, if there's [clears throat] nothing to that, please vote. That passes five to zero. Moving on to 26-0620. Discussion and possible action regarding
formal commission approval of the facility lease policy for the city-owned facilities, including selection of a set discount based on market value. City manager, this is your item. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. On January 20th of this year, staff presented two potential
approaches for incorporating discounts within the proposed facility lease policy. During that meeting, the commission made the following motion to direct the city manager to bring back the facility lease policy for formal commission approval using a set discount
based on market value. There was also discussion and direction for staff to return with additional detailed examples demonstrating how a standardized discount would be applied to marketbased lease rates. In response, uh, we prepared the spreadsheet that was attached to the agenda item illustrating
sample [clears throat] scenarios of how market-based discounts could be applied under the proposed policy. Under this framework, leases for city- owned properties would generally follow a commercial lease structure. Tenants would be responsible for improvements to their lease space subject to city
approval as well as utilities and other costs associated with their use of the space. The city would retain responsibility for for maintaining common areas, major building systems, and the overall structure of each facility. The proposed facility lease policy would not apply to air and
ambulance leases, cell tower agreements, daily or short-term rentals, or similar specialized agreements. staff are prepared to finalize the final facility lease policy upon city commission approval and direction on the standardized discount rate based on
market value. Uh we ask today that you have a discussion of possible action regarding formal commission approval of the policy for the city owned facilities including selection of a set discount based on market value. We're happy to answer any questions you may have as Mr. Mayor.
>> Thank you. questions. Commissioners, vice mayor. >> Thank you, mayor. I have a few questions. Um, a couple of tenants on the list, I'm not familiar with them.
One is Flotilla 92. Who are they and what do they do? And the very last one on the list, SD, [clears throat] >> Chuck, public works director. Uh, the flotilla is the Coastg Guard Auxiliary
and the SCD is Sarasota County Health Department. >> I'm sorry, Sarasota County >> Health Department. >> Okay. um how are utilities currently handled and how are you
thinking of handling utilities going forward or under this new policy? >> So under the new policy the utilities be the responsibility of the uh leasing party the the
lease e messed that up. So, uh, currently it's a mix, but mostly the city pays all the utilities on these buildings. >> Okay. Now, if someone is renting a building, it makes it pretty easy to
figure out their utility use um in a use like our social services building. How would you envision um utilities being handled just as what percent of the space is how you would
see it? >> If if we don't have separate meters for a facility, it would be broken out by square footage. >> Okay. And they would be build. >> Correct. >> So it wouldn't be embedded in the lease. It would be an additional charge to
>> That's correct. Just like a monthly utility bill. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, I did just sort of a quick back of the envelope. What's the impact to certain nonprofits? I guess what I had in my
head was if we did proceed with market rate, and I'm just sort of throwing this out and we looked at a 50% discount across the board. That's sort of not horrible horrible except for
those that are currently leasing, you know, a thousand square feet or more. Um, and I forget if I had this conversation with city manager or if we actually had it up
here, but um, I I think part of this exercise or process needs to be working with some of these nonprofits to determine if some of the space that
they're currently renting isn't being fully utilized by that nonprofit. Could we convert some portion of it to shared use as a way of softening the
impact to that nonprofit? I mean, the increase in rent for several of these would really be egregious and and I don't think we really want to do that. So uh last time we had talked about
this, I had suggested looking at a tiered structure, you know, depending upon the scope and nature of the work that that nonprofit did. I don't see that that recommendation has been picked up. So I'll go with what's in front of
us. >> I can I can touch on that, Vice Mayor, just so we can put that to rest. That's not legally uh defensible. Well, I read the state statute and there was provisions in there so long if if you create tiers that every nonprofit in
that tier be um treated the same in terms of the discount. Now, I would defer to our city attorney um for his take on it, but it's it's >> that's sort of what I read. >> Sure. But it's it's proving that benefit
to the community is the hard part. Uh, if that's already broken out in state statute, that's a different story. At the time of our legal review, that wasn't an option that I'm aware of because that's what we always came back to was proving the the benefit to the community and putting a dollar amount to
that. uh city attorney. >> Well, I don't have a statute that you refer to in front of me, uh [clears throat] commissioner, but vice mayor, excuse me. But I think as the uh director just pointed out, the the
difference the problem is going to be tearing them in practicality. And how are you going to do that? Because if you're not able to do that in practicality, then you're going to be treating like entities differently. And that's going to be your constitutional
problem. Okay, thank you for that. Um, [clears throat] another question. The Loveland Center is is one of those nonprofits currently leasing a large space. I had heard rumblings in the community that
they were moving out that they had found larger dedicated space. Is that accurate? >> Yes, ma'am. And these are just examples of what we had in place. So, >> but there are a lot more >> there. There are there are other examples. There are some here that that are just the Loveland is just an example
of that space that's within that building to give you a square footage. I didn't want to not have a name next to that because I wanted reference if you've been in these places so you would know what that looked like. >> Um I'm going to yield the floor to any of my fellow commissioners who might
have other questions, but I I might come back for more discussion. Anybody else? Commissioner Stokes. Yep. Here we go. Um
[sighs] it I mean if the philosophy here is to provide space at an affordable rate that these using these as an example can afford.
I mean, we're going to need to be in the 80 90% discount rate. I I mean, if even at 50%, it's going to price some of these nonprofits out of the market. Couple it with the fact that we don't
have a funding mechanism in place to either rebuild or replace the awakened [snorts] food pantry space or um all the wrinkles aren't worked out on
what we're going to do about if at all building another building that would house nonprofits. coupled with the fact that we have no earthly idea what the state's going to do to us property tax- wise. I I don't see any value quite
frankly in addressing this policy at this time. It's like to meet the cart before the horse. Let's figure out what it is as a city we have the ability to provide for our nonprofits. then figure out what it is we can or should or might
charge for this because anything we say here is going to be affected by what happens in the not tooistant future. It seems to me, you know, we're putting the court before the horse. So, I I I don't support doing
anything on this item at this time, but that's just my opinion. That's all I got. Mayor, >> thank you, Commissioner Pro. >> Thank you, Mayor. I concur with Commissioner Stokes on this. Uh but I also want to say that, you know, there's a legal defense on
treating one uh nonforprofit over the other. And an example would be Waken Food Pantry and it's fairly easy to defend how much they contribute to the citizens of our community.
That being said, you know, a good portion of uh residents are being fed by that nonforprofit and thus minimizing theft or whatnot and
conserving the the resources of the city. So in my opinion it's it's not as easy but it's fairly doable to treat one over the other especially this um and we can take one I uh one non for profit by
one going one by one and assessing it. We as a city we have that power. Uh but again this is just you know a discussion for now I guess but we do have to keep in mind that if that
nonforprofit contributes to the city we have to be on the on the same you know not charge the market value because you know they do they do support the city they to
contribute to the city. I don't know how much time we have. Maybe we can ask the staff how much I looked at the options we have like nine options all the way to 90% uh discount. Um and then maybe this question would be directed to the city
manager. How urgent or how soon do you want us to make the decision? Do you want us to make the decision today? I know we've extended some leases previously. >> I believe the ones that you've extended uh recently are the ones that were had
having the highest sense of urgency, but I believe this item has been out there for as long as I have been here on trying to figure out where to land. So, if you need more time and information, I believe we're happy to give it unless I'm wrong. Mr. Speaker, >> no that if you take no action, then we
continue business as we have. This policy was was requested by a commission that wanted to ensure fairness. Um, but if you stay with if if you choose no action, then we just continue. We just bring the leases back to commission at
time of renewal and you make those decisions at that point. >> Now, my my following up uh follow-up question to this, we as a commission, at least myself, I have not met with any nonforprofits. So, you have you've touched and you know what they do. you
know how they do and you know the financials and um their contribution. You presented us with the list, right? What would you your recommendation be based on your interaction with the non with those?
>> I I would recommend whatever the commission decides. I'm I'm not >> I'm not that one to make that decision. >> But I I have a different answer. [laughter] Um, what I would remind us all is that
nonprofits are existing in this city to serve the same population in need that we are serving as a city. If they don't do it, those are services normally that we would have to pick up in some shape, form, or fashion. It is very common for the rent or the
expenses of nonprofits to be heavily discounted. So that we recognize that they not only serve that population, but they're also most of them are not in the business of making profit. So taking that into account, I would recommend
something on the very heavier side of discounting, something that allows you to recoup whatever cost you're trying to recoup. and that's the decision of the board, but it allows them not to have a financial hardship on them that may pre prevent them from deliver delivering their service to our city.
>> And it's a good point. Um, but you've interacted with those uh non forprofits. We as a commission, we have limited information, if you will, because you've met with them, you've know how much they contribute, you know their needs, you know how much they they spend. I don't
know how much awaken spends >> for per month. What if they spent more than they it's not justifiable. What if they spend so much that they in debt and we assessing them of fair market value we will put them at a greater danger to
be in debt. So I would like to to ask the staff what would you recommend on each in each item or on each nonforprofit? What would your recommendation be? My recommendation would be that you choose a consistent
discount figure for them all. You don't look at each and say, well, how they run their business and their financial situation is on. That's really not up to us. What we're trying to provide is a space that they can use for the least amount possible that doesn't harm our citizen taxpayers to say that well now
they are now we are supplementing more than we should in order to accomplish the common goal. So to me, you know, even when you look on the the deeper end of the discounts here, you can see some drastic changes and you know, like one nonprofit has a dollar rent, which we
know that that has been done in the past and we've seen that done before. And then you have if you look at like a senior center where their rent is $200 for a space of nearly 5,000 square feet, you know, that stands out as well. But if you as a commission say, you know
what, we're going to say 75% of market rate and that's how we're going to apply it or it's going to be 80 or 90 or 50 or 30, whatever you want to apply is where you land. But the reason that I land on the deeper end of the options are for
what I stated and I I believe that you should embrace nonprofits in your community as a as a city government. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Commissioner Dval. >> Thank you, Mayor. There's so many
different facets to this. Uh there are so many different nonprofits. There are so many different benefits to the city from those nonprofits. Um but I'm tending to agree with what the
city manager just said. You know, we've got to try to be fair to all, but we got to try to be fair to the citizens. I would kind of recommend that we do go on the heavy heavier side of
the discount pro policy, 60 or 70% and try it for a year and see what the results are. As Commissioner Stokes said, we all know that there's chaos coming as a result of things beyond our
control financially. Uh so I would recommend setting it at 60 or 70% now and then reooking at it again in a year when we see what the effects of
uh things coming down the line are from up above us. Thank you. >> Um, quick question. Does the market rate take into consideration
the age of the building? Because what was brought up that we discussed, let's say we're at social services building that's 10 plus years old, is it x [clears throat] amount? And then you brand new buildings if they were to be constructed,
>> is that a different market rate? It is >> per square footage. >> It is. We take that into account. The condition and age of the facility and we use like comparisons, market comparisons for that type of age and condition building. >> Yeah. Because the older building could
be a little bit less than a brand new building. >> Correct. And it's reflected in these costs. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Yes. >> Uh Vice Mayor. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. Um I I did actually review the policy and I have
some questions specific to it. One is um item B under general terms allocation cost. The staff is recommending a double net lease
could and and there's quite a list of the tenant being responsible for payment of their share of all operating costs. So this isn't utilities. This is taxes, maintenance,
garbage, etc., etc. How would that work? Can you I'm I'm not a real estate expert. Could you describe a double net lease to me and then what would be the impact of that on? So let's say we set a
70% of market rate. How does item B impact that? >> Okay. And which section were you under? I'm sorry. >> Allocation of costs. >> Allocation of costs. >> So double net lease. double net lease
>> the tenant responsible for payment of their share of >> correct. So the the double net lease basically is just that that the lease pays the the rent and then any property taxes which we don't have the insurance premiums for their space. So they'll
help cover that. Um and the city then we take care of the common spaces that they don't pay for within a building like the community service center. >> Right. >> Right. um that is not reflected in these costs that we've presented. So they would
whatever number you come up with whether it be 60 70 80 will be their base rent and then those other costs will come in after that and they will be they will be responsible for inside their suite as far as cleaning of the suite. Uh, and
now if we have a janitorial company, again, it'll be broken out by square footage, right? The cost of that. Um, they'll be in charge of any kind of the minor repairs. We do the major things. Um, it it's really hard for me to
determine a percentage when I have no idea of what the impact of some of these other changes. So, double net lease and then utilities. I'
I'd really need to see some type of range of impact on what that would look like. So, [clears throat] um, again, I was very much prepared today to give a percentage. We need to do our jobs, gentlemen, and staff need
some direction moving forward, but I really do need to see the impact on our nonprofits. I agree with city manager. I I am a huge supporter um of our nonprofits. They do invaluable
work in our community. So I really need to understand what the impact of all of these changes would be before I would feel comfortable setting a percentage um today. So that's just sort of a question
and a comment. I I have three others if I may. mayor. Um I didn't see in the policy the penalty for breaking the lease agreement. Um and in the past we've had
some pretty egregious uh situations um with folks uh getting significant breaks on our space. So I would like to see you know what is the course of action.
Um, and in my mind, someone not understanding their lease or understanding the limitations placed on them, for example, subleting some of their space or charging sub rental fees is an in my mind an
egregious violation of their lease given the the breaks we're giving them. I would want to see a penalty in here and make it really clear. Is it eviction? It is it do they get a time frame? Is it
one warning and then an eviction? So I I think that is um something we need to spell out. And so I guess city attorney that would be part of what you would need to weigh in on. Um, another question,
would we be maintaining a waiting list of pe of nonprofits? So, for for any nonprofits that are precluded because we're full up, would we maintain a waiting list and how would that be handled? I'd sort of like to see some
language with that. And then also, what's our service level agreement to the tenants? So, I I really liked the application process and the kind of information that we would be asking of
the nonprofit. Um, I was in I liked all of that, but then if if a nonprofit submits their application to the city by June 1, what's our obligation to get back to
them with a yay or a nay? So, I'd sort of like to see a service level agreement in here. um on what our commitment is to the applicant. >> So you're looking for a time frame for approval or denial of a application >> of the application. >> Okay.
>> Yeah, I think that's fair. >> So some of that will involve uh commission approval. So those timelines are going to be >> fairly stretched out. So you might be coming back again with
some specifics on this or >> Yes. Thank you, sir. >> Yes. City manager said is the answer. [laughter] >> Okay. So, um, yeah, I mean, my feeling I really wanted to move on this today and give staff
some clarity and and a path forward, but just to sort of summarize my comments until I really understand the impact of um the double net lease and the utilities, those are all additional charges to the basic lease. I really
need to see that before I can set a percentage. And I I have no objection to our nonprofits paying a little more than they're paying. I mean, part of the reason we're in the jam we're in with
our public buildings is that we haven't had sufficient [clears throat] allocation of maintenance revenue. We've deferred maintenance and deferred maintenance and now we're paying the price. We've been paying the price, tearing down buildings, etc., etc. So,
philosophically, I have no objection to everyone maybe paying into that fund somewhat, but I really need to see what that would look like before I can set a percentage. This >> just so I can be sure, vice mayor, what
we bring back to you. Uh >> for me it would be what what are the cost implications >> of uh section 7 item B the allocation of costs >> right which is mainly going to be built out in utilities. Now do you want that because
>> and well I see utilities as separate because there's a whole different list of items here that would impact the cost. >> Correct. Some of those won't apply right. Those are generic terms for a double net lease. So utilities is going to I'm telling you utilities is going to
be the main factor of that. Um do you want that in a I'm trying to think of a format that will work rather than going through every building because every user can have a different level of utility use. Um so would you like an average based on square footage and then
we can extrapolate that into the square footage of these? >> Yeah that very helpful >> for utilities and that will include any utilities they have. It'll be water, sewer, electric, uh anything, any services provided. >> Right. Right. But I also see in this
list, in addition [clears throat] to utilities, having tenants pay into a maintenance fund, for example, what would that look like? Picking up their garbage and recycling services. What's that going to look? >> Right. And that's again, that's that we
can build that into square footage. >> Square footage. Okay. >> Based on the the building. >> Okay. Yes. I think that would be a a good way to approach it. >> Okay. >> Thank you, ma'am. >> That's all I have. Mayor, >> Commissioner Stokes. Yeah. Um,
so just try to wrap my head around all this. [clears throat] Basically, we're talking about three spaces. Basically, we got we got an awakened food pantry
space that is disheveled, falling apart. We know we have to do something about it. We're going to have to spend significant investment to maybe $2 million if we're going to rebuild that. Then we've got the social services building which is
adjacent to that. And that is a building that sits as is. I assume it's in relatively decent shape and it's yielding what rents we're getting. And then we have a contemplation of building another building where the art center was, which would be a cultural center or
whatever it'll be, which is basically a facility again for nonprofits. If we're coming up with a formula, a discount off of market rate, and you look at [clears throat] the market value of those three
different types of products that are going to be made available, the numbers are going to be dramatically different for whatever potential nonprofits want to or need to move into any one of
these three or stay where they are. So my question is how in the world [clears throat] are we able to come up with a discounted amount when we don't know and we also don't know if
the senior center is moving to an existing facility that we've already got. Are we going to establish a market value for that building? Because they're the one that sticks out like a sore
thumb. If you use the 50 60% discount, everybody else pays a scoch more just a little bit more than they're paying or a little bit less. It's not too bad. What is blown out of proportion here is the Northport Senior Center.
They're paying 200 now. Even at a 80% discount rate, they're paying $976. So what are we to do? Throw the old people out on the street? I don't think so. So, how is it you can create a
consistency of discounted rate off of market when we don't even know what twothirds of the product that's going to be available is? We don't know what the market value of that's going to be. We can project the cost of building it maybe. So, I just don't see how anything
we do here has any application when 6 months, a year, year and a half down the road, some commission is going to be sitting here having the same conversation all over again talking about how to change these rates. I I just don't see
why we should be addressing this issue now, despite the fact that it's been sitting here for as long as I and city manager and many of us have ever been here. I agree and I'm not one for kicking the can, but this I just think we're just going to go back over this
all over again because this isn't going to work for these people. These these groups bring value to our city. We're going to be affecting them one way or the other. We're going to be affecting them. And if we're trying, if the whole idea here is
we're making investments into buildings for our city that we're going to make available to nonprofits, if we're trying to create a justification for fees in order to help recoup the cost of those investments or the ongoing deferred
maintenance, I think we're kidding ourselves here. We're talking about communities subsidizing nonprofits. We may not be paying for their operations, but we are subsidizing them.
Philosophically, I don't have a problem with that. I just want to do it in a legal way, in a fair way, and in a way that doesn't just become a redundant issue year after year, commission after commission. And that's what I think this will do. Until we know what we're doing and what it's going to cost to put
people in places, I mean, I I I see this as a futile exercise. That's all. Thank you, mayor. City manager. >> Uh, yes, Mr. Mayor. Uh, one thing that we did bring in that prior meeting in January was to not use the market rate
value and establish a uniform cost per square foot for all these spaces. So, I've I've seen other uh locations where if you were a nonprofit, you were not charged for the rental space of that area because you in theory are not
paying that rent to someone else. Although you someone can make a valid point of trying to re recoup costs that were needed to build said space, but not having a space fee and charging them only for what you are paying out of your pocket, utilities, you know,
maintenance, garbage pickup, you know, etc., [clears throat] uh, is a way that would alleviate the problem that you just um, articulated. Thank you. >> Yeah. The one thing I'm going to agree with Commissioner Stokes on is
the way we're doing it now is the way I would like to see us continue to do it because the reasoning is like we've talked about older buildings, newer buildings. If we were we were to vote and assess on the situation, if we had a nonprofit that wanted to go into one of
the older buildings and they came and applied and let's say market rate would be X, then we go, you know, that building is a little older this that and the other, we're willing to give you that 80% off. But you go with what the nonprofit is, what they supply to the
community. Awaken Church, you know, might even give them 100% off. Who knows? as long as they paid their bills. And that would be a discussion at the time, not I don't want to set up 50% across the board and then all of a sudden we've got empty buildings because
the nonprofits can't afford it. So So that's if Mayor, if that's the case, then I think what city manager just was talking about is is the better option than having the percentage off that's actually in this policy. >> Right. >> Right. And we had we had both of those
directions and and you guys were leaning us towards the percentage to bring these back to see what they looked like. So if we have to kind of roll that back and go back to the other one where you [clears throat] would still have to determine a square footage price for these buildings and we could
break it out by building based on condition. But the the key to this whole policy was there was going to be a set number. So there's not a constitutional issue between nonprofits. And to to touch on the vice mayor's
questions about a lease there, so this is this is the policy. So some of the questions that you had about enforcement, those are in the actual lease document that would be prepared and brought to commission at time of uh approval. >> Vice Mayor,
>> um yeah, one final comment. I I do like the sound of having a uniform price per square foot. I think that alleviates a lot of issues. So, I would very much
like to see that. Um, and maybe there there are and I'm just throwing this out. there are maybe like three steps and with and without certain costs. I mean, you guys can can sort of
figure that out, but I would really like to see that. Um, this is always such a a a tough issue, but I also think we need to bring it back in a workshop. I for one am not
workshop happy. Um, but this issue has a lot of moving parts and I I just really need to better understand what is the real impact
of all of these changes. It's not just about the lease amount in terms of how the policy is set. So, I would really like to see this come back with different alternatives
in a workshop situation. >> Yes, ma'am. Commissioner Pro, >> on a final note, um if we're going to do anything today, uh and doesn't seem like we're going to do anything, but I would like to
propose um a following scenario, and that would be a trial period. If we do anything, it should be more for like six months or a year to try it out to see what our nonforprofits would give us feedback. Um, and also I
I concur with Commissioner Stokes second round what he said. We only have this much and we only dealing with this many non forp profofits now. We don't even know what's going to happen on the community center building
uh with court validation. We don't know what's what what the price of square foot would be for the new building. And it's just too too premature taking into account the economic
things that are coming very soon. So that would be my final >> frustrating question. >> But if you're willing to do workshop, I I don't know if it if it's but we the commission we decide now I guess. So if
you want to make other suggestions but if we do make uh any decisions today I would love I would like to propose to have some finite period that would be for let's say 12
months and see how the the demand is for the new nonforprofits for current existing nonforprofits and the feedback from from them. Thank you. Vice Mayor, >> final final. I promise.
>> Sure. Sure. >> I do have regular and ongoing conversations with our nonprofit community and um I have many many takeaways from those conversations, but
one is I believe in general our nonprofits are open to the concept of flex space and and I'll pick on the senior center for a minute. Um, I ju I I don't
think that they need all of that space all of the time. And so if we go to a standard price per square foot, it certainly would motivate
um some of our nonprofits to reconsider um what they ask for in terms of a space allocation. Um, and we might be able to get creative with a concept of flex space, like a large open space that they
would sign up for for when they need it. So, that that's my last thought. I promise. Mayor, I am done. >> Okay. City clerk, public comment. >> Tim Doyle and Ela.
I support the nonprofits. Maybe not [clears throat] all of them, but you have to support them all. Somewhere along my career, I forget when, what year, what day, there was a saying that was put on the
walls. Freedom, right? Freedom is having options. You don't know your options. So, I don't think you're free to make a decision on this yet. I think you should leave everything as is until some of the
points were made that you know what your options really are financially and for the community. Don't hurt anybody. Just I hear what you're saying. You don't want to put things off. I'm not the type of guy who likes to put things off like that. But there is so much up in the air
right now that any decision you make today will not be a quality decision. It might be the right decision for today, but it won't be the right decision for tomorrow. So something like this, I think you really need to wait. And again, what are
you talking? You're talking September or October or November, you're going to know what's going on. If they don't get this special session done, right? Then it might not even hit the ballot. And you'll know that, too. looking at this list because they said
the the name of the organization and I don't know what this organization is, but it was called Sarasota County Health Department. Now, I don't know if that's a nonprofit
or a county department. If it's named like that, that almost sounds like me. The county's paying for that. And if the county wants any of our space, you charge them top dollar
is we get nothing here from the county. On the other hand, it says wick. I know what wick is. I don't know if that's the wick I think it is or that's an an abbreviation for something else.
Wick to me is one of the most important programs we have in this country. Wick takes care of babies and feeds babies. So I don't want to hurt babies. So I don't want people to hate me for saying if this is the
county they should pay top dollar and then someone doesn't get wick. That is not what I'm saying here because I could be totally wrong is I could be reading into something here that I don't know what I'm saying. But to me, if it's a
county thing that's not a nonprofit, I would charge him top dollar. Thank you. [clears throat] >> I get to say good afternoon. Elaine Allen Emerich. I am a 34y year member of Kowanas Club of
Northport. uh, president of Holly's Hope and um, Friends of the Library Secretary. None of those nonprofits that I serve do I get a dime for. It's all volunteer work. It's very different from
the Boys and Girls Club, the U Big Brothers Big Sisters where they have a team of paid employees, a grant writer and a and a person who goes out and gets sponsorships for um things like their
rent. So, when you talk about nonprofits, it's immediately different. I applied for a grant for for the Selby Foundation when the Children's Closet was in the old social services building.
So when I was applying for the $16,000, I said to the Selby Foundation, you have me in a category with Big Brothers Big Sisters. I I don't have depreciation of vehicles. I use my vehicle. I don't get
anything for it. They have a van, they get depreciation costs. So the point for Selby was, "Holy cow, we need to do a small but mighty grant and put these nonprofits that don't get paid, don't
get a dime that are constantly fundraising to help give back to the community in a totally different pot than a big brother's big sisters. Totally different." So the word nonprofit in and of itself is very
different depending upon what whom you're talking about. That's why the senior center they are seniors who are raising money. They're not um you know from bingo. They're not so they would have to raise all of this money to be
able to just pay the rent let alone trying to serve the community. So basically what I'm saying is there really is a distinction between nonprofits and absolutely you can constitutionally
um find a public purpose. I all day long counties all over Florida do it e with ease. Chris Street has created a nonprofit coalition and we're pretty much begging um to work with the city. So, if you
guys have a workshop at night, the nonprofits will all be here. We can give you our public purpose and we can maybe sort of help guide and so that you would understand because we have some money set aside for building. So, we'd like to
help contribute with the city. Thank you very much. Thank you. >> All right. I'll entertain a motion. Uh don't know if we need it, but I'll give it a shot, sir. Um,
I move that city manager work with staff um and schedule a workshop. Time frame to be determined that addresses [clears throat] the questions
raised today. presents options based on a fixed amount per square foot and includes an assessment
of the legality of offering nonprofit profits that are 100% volunteer. The ability for an additional discount
off the flat rate it vice mayor. Is that it? >> That's it. >> Okay. Usually when I sit back and and go like this, I'm >> Well, I thought you might have been thinking for more stuff to say. That's all I'm saying. [laughter] >> I do try to keep it short and sweet,
[clears throat] sir. So, >> I have a motion on the floor made by vice mayor, city clerk. You want to >> give it back to us? to direct the city manager to work with staff and schedule a workshop at a later date to address the questions raised during this meeting and to present options based on a fixed
amount per square foot and include an assessment on the legality of offering nonprofits that are 100% volunteer the ability for an additional discount off the flat rate. >> Thank you. I have that motion. Do I have a second? >> A second. >> I have a second from Commissioner Dval.
There's nothing to that. Please vote. And that passes five to zero. Moving on to item D 26-0649. Discussion and possible action regarding approving the appointments of Robin J.
San Vicente, Daniel or Danielle Kowalsik or Jacqueline Torres as regular members to serve on the Charter Review Advisory Board from May 5th, 2026 through May 5th, 2029. Miss Spouse, this is your
item. >> Yes, we have received the three applications from those um citizens that you you stated we have two openings for regular board members and one could be an alternate The order that the applications were received was um Robin Samicente was
first, then Daniel [clears throat] Kowalsik was second and then Jacqueline Torres was the third to submit their application. Robin is currently serving on one other board and the other two individuals are not serving on any board.
>> Okay. [clears throat] Commissioners, uh, Vice Mayor. >> Uh, thank you, mayor. I typically look at these things, assuming everyone is equally qualified for the position they're going for to look at them in time order, who
applied first, second, etc. Um, in this particular situation though, I've looked at it a little differently. Um, Miss Sanvente already has an advisory group seat. Mr. Kowaltski, I'm sorry on
the pronunciation of that. We approved as an alternate today on consent. So, he has an alternate seat already. Um, and Ms. Taus has no
seat. So, I'm inclined uh to put Ms. Taus in um in the seat that's available for charter review. So, based on my
assessment, I would put Ms. Taus and Mr. Kowalsski as regular members of that board. Um, and correct me if I'm wrong, city clerk, we also have an alternate position there. I'm trying to speed read here.
And then put Ms. Sanvente um as an alternate on this advisory committee. I'm done. >> Seeing nothing else. Public comment. Say clear.
I don't know any of these people, so I really have nothing to say on who should be voted in or out or what position they have. What I have to say to anybody taking these positions, please come into your job with a clean slate, clear head, with no pre dispositions.
People shouldn't be taking these jobs to just get what they want. They should be taking these jobs for the good of the community. and look at all the facts and what you see and make your determinations on what that is. And that's all I have to say. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, I'll take a motion. >> I'll make it. >> Go ahead. I move to approve the appointment of Robin San Vicente and
Jacqueline Torres to serve as regular members and Daniel Kowalsik to serve as an alternate member. I have a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Pro to approve Robin
Sambente and Daniel Torres as regular members and Daniel Kowalsik as a alternate member to serve on the charter reboot board from May 5th, 2026 through May 5th, 2029. Anybody else?
Any second? >> I'll second. Commissioner Dval seconded. There's nothing to that. Please vote. [sighs] And that passes 3 to two with myself and
vice mayor dissenting. I did like vice mayor's um analogy on this. This way we would have had everybody [clears throat] would still have a seat on a board and and that would greatly do you know more participation from the citizens. So I
mean it is what it is. It's good. Congratulations members. Okay. Moving on to 26-0682. discussion and possible action regarding sending sending a letter of support to the House Committee on Natural Resources
for HR642, Maka Wild and Scenic River Act of 2025. City manager, this is your item. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh on April 13, 2026, the city of Northport received a
request from Ronnie Karabia, who is a legislative assistant to Congressman Greg Stwie, seeking the city's consideration of a letter of support for HR 642, [clears throat] which is House of Representatives, [snorts] the Maka, Wild and Scenic River Act of 2025. The request is part of a broader effort to
obtain letters of support from local governments and community partners for submission to the House Committee on Natural Resources. The proposed legislation has received support from Sarasota County and several regional and [snorts] environmental organizations. We recommend that you choose option one, which is to move which is to move to
approve the letter of support for HR 642 as presented and authorize the city clerk to transmit the letter. Thank you, sir. >> There commission questions, discussion. Vice Mayor, >> thank you, mayor. Um, I I do have a
concern about this. Um, the act clearly prohibits new dams and other water diversions, uh, diversion projects along the Maka
River. Um, and that really concerns me because not allowing the city of Northport to make those kinds of changes
uh to the Maka River would in the future um really curtail our ability to ensure an adequate supply of quality water to
the residents of this city which will number more than 200,000 at buildup. Um in fact um I would refer you to the memorandum uh sent some time ago by Trish Wisner,
our utilities director, identifying water supply alternatives for the city. And one of those alternatives um is diverting which one is it?
Um SW-6. It's diverting water from the river to a water treatment plant in the city for use by the residents. Now I'm not an environmentalist and I'm I'm not a
utility a water expert but even though that particular project was not among the two projects that the consultant and the utilities department have recommended that we move to
feasibility. It is one of the alternatives identified and looking at the yield and cost [clears throat] is when you look at it cost per thousand gallons is one of the
I won't say less expense um inexpensive alternatives. It's a little less expensive than many of the others. So, I could easily see at some point in the future this city
wanting to take water from the Maka um or divert water from the Maka or have the need to dam the Maka to control flooding in this city. I'm I'm
very uncomfortable. So So back to the letter. I mean, I certainly support the spirit of the letter and we should restrict commercial and residential development in the area of the Maka, but to potentially jeopardize
the ability of this city to control flooding and probably more importantly to ensure an adequate supply of potable water for the residents of this
city. I'm very very uncomfortable with that. >> Commissioner Stokes. Yeah. Um I mean on the surface the Maka Wild and and Scenic River Act is is is a is a good bill. I mean it
[clears throat] it you know it its purpose is altruistic. it is it is the right thing to do to help protect this body of water and it's not unreasonable for this request to be made in in my
opinion. the pro the only issue I have is I don't know what the impact is on the city if you know existing or future I mean it is there an is there an economic impact is there a development impact I
don't really know the answer to that question uh so it's hard for me to want to make a decision again it's just a letter of support but nevertheless it's a letter of support we don't even know what this bill this amendment to the bill might look like when it weasles its
way through, you know, the state legislature. Um, I would like to understand one, are there any financial obligations that come along with this? If if it in fact gets passed, is the city going to be burdened? We
have development that's going to take place in and around everything from environmental issues to to to land development issues to you name it. Like it's like I guess I'm trying here's here's you
know Stewie's office asking for a letter of support for something that we don't really have any real clear understanding as to the impact on our city other than a vote of support for one of our electeds who is promoting this amendment
to the bill. So, on the surface, the bill's great, but but I don't know I don't I I don't know anything about how this affects us. I can't possibly make a decision on this without knowing what impacts there are, what areas that
are in Northport are affected by this, adding this stretch of the Maka in. I mean, there's no information for which [snorts] I I can rely on to make a decision. So, you know, I don't support anything here on this. I
certainly don't support a letter until I understand what it is we're supporting. Vice Mayor, >> yeah, just one final comment that I neglected to make. Um once a
conservation easement is placed on a property or an area, the county has demonstrated and and our various conservation groups have demonstrated their complete unwillingness
to entertain a change based on the need of one of their municipalities. And I only have to point once again to the total disregard of the MO to even
vote for a feasibility study to extend Toledo Blade to Highway 72. I'll I'll tell you, I don't think I will ever get over that. that I could could not make them understand that a city that will be over
200,000 people has no way out except 41 which is stressed and 75 which is a disaster. That's it for me. No more soap box. >> Thank you.
City clerk public comment. I'm going to read one paragraph from the letter because you guys kind of brought it up. Importantly, this designation does not impose federal land use or affect private property
rights. Instead, it enhances the support of strong framework already in place. So, everything that she said contradicts this letter and I agree with her. If you get the feds involved, forget about it.
If we need to do any flood control and let's face it, you saw what happened to 75. And my dealings with Greg Stwie offices, they're liars. I can say that publicly cuz he lied to
the police. So I know that for a fact. So to me, he's a shyer, even though I voted for him. You forget, I vote for these people who I disagree with.
But I I I don't think you should do anything on this until you know the facts. And since this is bill, you can put an attachment on it. Well, if you send him a letter, why don't you ask them to put an attachment on it for $100 million to build the police station? Cuz
they do that all the time. or to your point is I already did call Scott's office about extending Toledo Blade and asked him to do something about it. So don't think I don't do things to try to help you guys. But I I'm I'm totally in disagreement.
You give these guys any access to your point. Some people are very unreasonable. They will never give in. They will never change their tune. You can't cut down this tree. You can't do that. You can't you can't allow something like
that to go through. And you know the water, you know, everybody always talks about global warming and the oceans rising. I rather see you if you're going to take water from some place and give it to 200,000 people come out of a river than
the ground. See, at my house, I have a well. I don't drink my water at home. I'm going be totally honest with you. My water is recycled. It comes in, goes down my drain, right back into the ground. I do
not water my lawn. So every all my water is recycled. It goes right [clears throat] back into the ground. You guys pumping all this water out of the ground, that water sinks the land and that raises the level of the oceans. [snorts]
As you're taking all this water out of the ground that took hundreds of thousands of years and you're replacing it back in the oceans. So, I rather see the water come out of the river than the ground. But I'm not giving up my well or drinking your water. Thank you.
[cough] [clears throat] >> Look for a motion. >> Uh, I'll make a motion. Go ahead. Make a motion to direct city manager to have staff look into the impact that this
amendment to bill HR 641 would have on the city from a financial and a development standpoint. >> Second. >> Have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Stokes. City clerk, you want to read that back, please?
direct the city manager to work with staff to review the impact the bill HR 642 will have on the city from a financial and development standpoint. Thank you. And that was seconded by vice mayor. There's nothing to that. Please vote.
That passes 5 to zero. City clerk final public comment. Tim I got my two cents again. I don't know how I can get pennies, but no one else can. [snorts] You guys talked about a lot of different
things today. It fits into what I'm saying about the penny. You guys talk about, you know, trying to make decisions where you don't know what to make the decisions because you don't what know what's coming in a few months. These legislators and our president are
making decisions and they don't see the repercussions of what they're doing and they don't even take it into account. I'm not anti-government. I'm anti- bad government. If you're going to take away a penny,
you better figure out how you're going to deal with society. So, I'm glad to see some of you are starting to see think ahead and not uh just going to do things to do things and
putting a few things off. Before they got rid of the penny, they should have made a determination how it was affect the public and not turn corporation into thieves and the Sarasota tax collector. And I don't know if they changed their policy yet because I called everybody
and the brother and gave them my two cents as you know I often do. And hopefully some of these people made some phone calls and they reversed policy. But I really don't feel like driving down the Clark road and seeing if it's still up there on the signs or not. I
walked over here but I didn't see anything. And I'm dead serious about this county stuff. If the county is going to take my money, do they pay for any of the parks in the town? Do they pay for anything in this town? I
don't know. I can go other counties in the area and the county government provides funding for the parks and the wreck and stuff like that. Does Sarasota County give our parks and wreck any money or do they pay for all
the beaches down in Sarasota? Do you follow what I'm saying here? We need to do business with somebody who's going to take our interest in. And I don't think Sarasota takes our interest in. We have more population and
more area. Now, they have the high-rise buildings and they might pay a little more in taxes, but if we go up to 200,000 people, you're going to see the high-rise buildings here and this town will generate more revenue than the city of Sarasota.
eventually and then what do we get? All our money go to the beaches in Sarasota and nothing for us. So, I hope all of you are getting on the phone and calling the county and asking them what they're doing and what they can do for the
people in this town because I've said it for years. They don't do a darn thing. Thank you. >> Commission Communications Commissioner Pro. >> Uh, yes, Mayor. Thank you. I was um in attendance of Alamanda Garden Club of a
60th anniversary celebration where I saw our mayor to become emotional when he gave a speech. It was uh really interesting to see how people are devoting their lives for gardening.
>> That would be all for me. >> Thank you, Vice Mayor. Uh yeah, I'll be filing my activity report as an attachment um to the final meeting of this month. Thank you. >> Thank you. Yeah, I attended the Alamanda Garden Club. Uh
it it was a great celebration. I had worked on a lot of them over the years and and it brought back a a lot of memories. So, you know, right place, right time. I was u available to be able to present that with them after many years of service with them. It was a
great day. So, it was very, very good. >> You old softy. >> Uh, Commissioner Stokes, >> nothing for me. >> And Commissioner Dval, >> um, I recently attended a rescue garage uh, event.
>> Uh, they raised $17,000 and as a result of that, my household now has a new queen who weighs about 13 pounds. That's it. >> All right. City manager, anything? >> No, Mr. Mayor. Thank you.
>> City attorney, >> mayor. >> And city clerk. >> Okay. 12:27, we're adjourned. people running each each of these departments. You know, they are running
multi-million dollar businesses all separately, but coming together with tax dollars that that come through. And that is by far not an easy task. departments that we've [music] been to seem to have improved with the growth in the