TO: Honorable Mayor & Members of the North Port Commission
FROM: A. Jerome Fletcher II, ICMA-CM, MPA, City Manager
TITLE: Discussion and Possible Direction Regarding the City of North Port’s Mission, Vision, Values, Logo and Taglines.
Recommended Action
Provide direction and guidance on Mission, Vision and Values following the suggested rewrite provided, all of which have been based on community feedback, competitor analysis, insights report and brand strategy documentation.
Provide opinions on logo and tagline suggestions, which are based on community feedback, competitor analysis, insights report and brand strategy documentation.
City Commission Options
Mission, Vision and Values:
• Option 1: Agree to current suggested Mission, Vision and Values.
o Pros: Reflects extensive work already completed using community feedback, competitor analysis, the insights report and brand strategy documentation. Allows the project to move forward on schedule, supporting timely internal alignment and next-phase deliverables. Provides clarity and consistency for staff, partners and the community by establishing an agreed foundation. Reduces the risk of prolonged revision cycles that could delay implementation.
o Cons: Limits opportunity for Commissioners to reflect individual perspectives. May require later adjustments if additional priorities or nuances emerge during strategy workshops. Perception that changes were approved with minimal modification may raise questions from some community members.
• Option 2: Make minor amends to suggested Mission, Vision and Values.
o Pros: Enables Commissioners to refine language while preserving alignment with research, community input and strategic direction. Allows clarification of tone, emphasis, or phrasing without reopening the full development process. Maintains project momentum while ensuring the final content reflects Commission guidance. Balances efficiency with governance oversight.
o Cons: Minor revisions may still require additional staff time to reconcile edits and ensure consistency across documents. Risk of incremental changes creating ambiguity if not clearly defined. May not fully satisfy community members seeking more significant changes.
• Option 3: Make major amends to suggested Mission, Vision and Values.
o Pros: Provides Commissioners with maximum flexibility to reshape the Mission, Vision and Values to align closely with their priorities. Creates opportunity to revisit foundational assumptions or strategic emphasis. Ensures strong ownership within commission and confidence in the final adopted content.
o Cons: Increases the risk of misalignment with previously gathered community feedback and insights if not carefully managed, which could create community disenfranchisement as they took time and effort to provide input into strategy. It would likely require additional research, analysis and community validation to maintain alignment with prior inputs. May significantly impact project timelines, downstream deliverables and internal rollout plans. Additional costs and staff resources may be required.
Logo and Taglines
• Option1: Provide opinions on logos and taglines suggested.
o Pros: Allows Commissioners provide early directional feedback informed by community input, competitor analysis, and brand strategy. Help staff understand Commission preferences before further refinement and public testing. Reduces the risk of misalignment later in the process. Demonstrates active Commission engagement in shaping the City’s visual and verbal identity.
o Cons: Visual preferences can be subjective and may require further iteration despite initial guidance. May lengthen the meeting discussion if consensus is difficult to reach.
• Option 2: Do not provide opinions on logos and taglines suggested.
o Pros: Staff have not identified advantages to not providing feedback and direction at this stage of the project.
o Cons: Delays Commission input on a highly visible and public-facing element of the project. Increases the risk that later-presented options may not align with Commission expectations. Will require additional review cycles in future meetings.
Background Information
The City Identity Refresh project was initiated in May 2024 to ensure North Port’s brand accurately reflects who we are today and where we are headed as a growing, evolving community. Over the past phases of the project, staff and partners have conducted extensive research, including broad community engagement, stakeholder feedback, competitor and peer City analysis and review of existing brand assets and messaging. Insights gathered through surveys, focus groups and data analysis were consolidated into an Insights Report, which informed the development of a brand strategy framework. This framework establishes the foundation for updated Mission, Vision and Values, as well as the exploration of logo and tagline concepts. The materials presented to the Commission are the result of this research-driven process and are intended to support discussion, guidance and direction prior to advancing into final design, refinement and implementation phases.
Strategic Plan Pillar
Good Governance
Financial Impact
Not applicable.
Procurement
Not applicable.
Attachments:
1. Presentation
2. Brand Strategy
Prepared by: Katya Sutherland, Marketing and Engagement Manager
Jason Bartolone, Communications Manager, PIO
Department Director: A. Jerome Fletcher II, ICMA-CM, MPA, City Manager