During the meeting, the council delved into the complexities of funding the new police headquarters, estimated at $122 million. A presentation detailed various design options and their respective costs, ranging from $78 million to $122 million, emphasizing the need for a facility that could accommodate future growth due to the city’s rapid population expansion. The council examined the trade-offs between immediate costs and long-term needs, with discussions on features such as enclosed impound lots, fuel stations, and the concept of “shell space” for expansion.

The council members debated at length the potential of reallocating $50 million from the surtax funds designated for Price Boulevard to the police station project, weighing the importance of the police headquarters against other planned city projects. Additionally, the possibility of a public-private partnership was considered, along with the sale of the current police department building to help fund the new facility.

Inquiries were made about using impact fees for the police station project, with the city attorney being asked to provide a legal analysis on the usage of government impact fees in relation to the North Port PD station. The potential for a millage rate increase to fund the construction was also discussed, alongside the idea of a separate assessment for the police building and the implications for taxpayers.

Another topic of discussion was the possibility of North Port assuming responsibility for 911 calls in the future. The council emphasized the need for the dispatch center to be designed to accommodate this transition. The concept of “shell space” was revisited as a flexible solution to futureproof the building without overcommitting resources.

The council members expressed a desire for more information on the amounts that could be raised from various funding sources and the legal feasibility of imposing a sales tax. The impact of different funding mechanisms on the community was a point of concern, as was the extent to which non-residents should contribute to city projects.

The potential use of a permissive bond referendum as a means of funding was another focal point, with the council deliberating on the need for a charter amendment to allow borrowing for projects without a referendum. The language of the proposed charter amendment was scrutinized, especially the inclusion of a permissive referendum option, which would give citizens a say in the decision-making process. The council agreed to consider sending the proposal to the Charter Review Board for further review.

Discussions also covered the city’s financial position and the need for a clear communication strategy to inform citizens about the funding options and implications for property taxes. The potential timeline for the project and whether to hold a special meeting to address funding issues were debated, with differing opinions on whether an August or November referendum would be most appropriate for citizen participation.

Apart from the financing discussions, the council touched upon the city’s water control structures and efforts to mitigate flooding, highlighting an ongoing program to clear sediment and maintain waterway flow capacity. The public comments section included statements of support for the police department from local business representatives and residents, emphasizing the need for a well-equipped force to match the city’s growth.

Furthermore, the council discussed population growth projections, comparing North Port’s figures with other communities to inform future planning, including the strategic acquisition of property to facilitate growth. The importance of being prepared for emergencies was also addressed, with presentations on the city’s Milestone Program, Solid Waste education initiative, and the significance of having a go-kit during emergencies.