Residents urge Northport to address gopher tortoise relocation costs affecting land development

Two speakers at the June 24 City Commission meeting urged Northport to pursue solutions to high relocation costs for gopher tortoises that, they said, are slowing development and reducing property values.

"For an unknowing buyer, one tortoise can double the true cost of many Northport lots," said John Krepsbach, who identified himself during public comment and described the animal’s state protection status and relocation costs. Krepsbach said a single tortoise can increase lot development costs by more than $8,000, and that about $5,000 per tortoise is paid to move an animal to an off‑site recipient location. He suggested residents and commissioners contact state representatives to pursue legislative or administrative changes such as identifying nearby receiving sites, reducing minimum recipient site size, or other measures to lower relocation costs. Krepsbach cited Myakka River State Park as an example of nearby acreage that could host relocation sites.

Al Pikush, who identified himself as a 20‑year resident, realtor and landowner representing the Commercial Landowners Association, said developers face steep costs and sometimes choose not to build: "I would never buy a vacant lot in that area knowing it would cost me $8 to $12,000 to really relocate tortoises that are on my lot," he said. Pikush said a friend recently paid $24,000 to relocate three gopher tortoises. Pikush said the city’s natural resources staff told him their work is constrained by state rules and urged the commission to direct the natural resources department to identify suitable local parcels or coordinate with state representatives.

Neither speaker called for changing state wildlife protections; both described regulatory constraints imposed by the state and urged local and state coordination to identify cost‑effective receiving sites. Pikush said the Commercial Landowners Association is arranging a meeting with the city's natural resources department and the local state representative to explore relocation options.

Context and limits: Both speakers referenced costs and state rules during public comment; no formal action or directive from the commission was recorded in the meeting minutes on this item. The commissioners did not take immediate action during the meeting, but the remarks flagged an issue for natural resources staff and the commission to consider.

What participants requested: Residents asked municipal staff to (1) work with state representatives on locating receiving sites, (2) review whether the state minimum recipient site size can be reduced for local relocations, and (3) brief the commission on possible city‑led or partnership options to reduce relocation costs.